Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 110 (Wednesday, July 24, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 24, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8330-H8372]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

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

{time} 1854

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 3816) making appropriations for energy and water development
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Oxley in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, all
time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of earlier today, the bill is
considered read.
The text of H.R. 3816 is as follows:

H.R. 3816

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1997, for energy and water development,
and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers--Civil

The following appropriations shall be expended under the
direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of
the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the
Department of the Army pertaining to rivers and harbors,
flood control, beach erosion, and related purposes.

General Investigations

For expenses necessary for the collection and study of
basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood
control, shore protection, and related projects, restudy of
authorized projects, miscellaneous investigations, and, when
authorized by laws, surveys and detailed studies and plans
and specifications of projects prior to construction,
$153,628,000, to remain available until expended, of which
funds are provided for the following projects in the amounts
specified:
Norco Bluffs, California, $180,000;
San Joaquin River Basin, Caliente Creek, California,
$150,000;
Tampa Harbor, Alafia Channel, Florida, $200,000;
Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, $100,000;
Little Calumet River Basin, Cady Marsh Ditch, Indiana,
$200,000;
Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey,
$558,000;
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey,
$600,000;
Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey,
$400,000;
Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, $400,000;
Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey, $375,000;
South Shore of Staten Island, New York, $300,000;
Mussers Dam, Middle Creek, Snyder County, Pennsylvania,
$450,000;
Monongahela River, West Virginia, $500,000;
Monongahela River, Fairmont, West Virginia, $250,000; and
Tygart River Basin, Philippi, West Virginia, $250,000.

Construction, General

For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control,
shore protection, and related projects authorized by laws;
and detailed studies, and plans and specifications, of
projects (including those for development with participation
or under consideration for participation by States, local
governments, or private groups) authorized or made eligible
for selection by law (but such studies shall not constitute a
commitment of the Government to construction),
$1,035,394,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such sums as are necessary pursuant to Public Law 99-662
shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, for
one-half of the costs of construction and rehabilitation of
inland waterways projects, including rehabilitation costs for
the Lock and Dam 25, Mississippi River, Illinois and
Missouri, Lock and Dam 14, Mississippi River, Iowa, and Lock
and Dam 24, Mississippi River, Illinois and Missouri,
projects, and of which funds are provided for the following
projects in the amounts specified:
San Timoteo Creek (Santa Ana River Mainstem), California,
$7,000,000;
Ohio River Flood Protection, Indiana, $1,800,000;
Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana, $8,000,000;
Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana, $2,200,000;
Harlan (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and
Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $18,500,000;
Martin County (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River
and Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $350,000;
Middlesboro (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River
and Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $2,000,000;
Pike County (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River
and Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $2,000,000;
Town of Martin (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River
and Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $300,000;
Williamsburg (Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River
and Upper Cumberland River), Kentucky, $4,050,000;
Salyersville, Kentucky, $3,500,000;
Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, Louisiana, $18,525,000;
Red River below Denison Dam Levee and Bank Stabilization,
Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas, $100,000;
Glen Foerd, Pennsylvania, $800,000;
South Central Pennsylvania Environmental Restoration
Infrastructure and Resource Protection Development Pilot
Program, Pennsylvania, $10,000,000;
Wallisville Lake, Texas, $10,000,000;
Richmond Filtration Plant, Virginia, $3,500,000; and
Virginia Beach, Virginia, $8,000,000:
Provided, That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, is directed to use $1,000,000 of the
funds appropriated in Public Law 104-46 for construction of
the Ohio River Flood Protection, Indiana, project: Provided
further, That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, is directed, in cooperation with State,
county, and city officials and in consultation with the Des
Moines River Greenbelt Advisory Committee, to provide highway
and other signs appropriate to direct the public to the bike
trail which runs from downtown Des Moines, Iowa, to the Big
Creek Recreation area at the Corps of Engineers Saylorville
Lake project and the wildlife refuge in Jasper and Marion
Counties in Iowa authorized in Public Law 101-302: Provided
further, That using $500,000 of the funds appropriated for
the Passaic River Mainstem, New Jersey, project under the
heading ``General Investigations'' in Public Law 103-126, the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
is directed to begin implementation of the Passaic River
Preservation of Natural Storage Areas separable element of
the Passaic River Flood Reduction Project, New Jersey.

Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, Arkansas,
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee

For expenses necessary for prosecuting work of flood
control, and rescue work, repair, restoration, or maintenance
of flood

[[Page H8331]]

control projects threatened or destroyed by flood, as
authorized by law (33 U.S.C. 702a, 702g-1), $302,990,000, to
remain available until expended.

Operation and Maintenance, General

For expenses necessary for the preservation, operation,
maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood
control, and related works, including such sums as may be
necessary for the maintenance of harbor channels provided by
a State, municipality or other public agency, outside of
harbor lines, and serving essential needs of general commerce
and navigation; surveys and charting of northern and
northwestern lakes and connecting waters; clearing and
straightening channels; and removal of obstructions to
navigation, $1,701,180,000, to remain available until
expended, of which such sums as become available in the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662,
may be derived from that fund, and of which such sums as
become available from the special account established by the
Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16
U.S.C. 460l), may be derived from that fund for construction,
operation, and maintenance of outdoor recreation facilities,
and of which funds are provided for the following projects in
the amounts specified:
Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, $4,190,000; and
Cooper Lake and Channels, Texas, $2,601,000:
Provided, That using $1,000,000 of the funds appropriated
herein, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief
of Engineers, is directed to design and construct a landing
at Guntersville, Alabama, as described in the Master Plan
Report of the Nashville District titled ``Guntersville
Landing'' dated June, 1996.

Regulatory Program

For expenses necessary for administration of laws
pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands,
$101,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies

For expenses necessary for emergency flood control,
hurricane, and shore protection activities, as authorized by
section 5 of the Flood Control Act approved August 18, 1941,
as amended, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, is directed to use up to $8,000,000 of
the funds appropriated herein and under this heading in
Public Law 104-134 to rehabilitate non-Federal flood control
levees along the Puyallup and Carbon Rivers in Pierce County,
Washington.

General Expenses

For expenses necessary for general administration and
related functions in the Office of the Chief of Engineers and
offices of the Division Engineers; activities of the Coastal
Engineering Research Board, the Humphreys Engineer Center
Support Activity, the Engineering Strategic Studies Center,
and the Water Resources Support Center, and for costs of
implementing the Secretary of the Army's plan to reduce the
number of division offices as directed in title I, Public Law
104-46, $145,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That no part of any other appropriation provided in
title I of this Act shall be available to fund the activities
of the Office of the Chief of Engineers or the executive
direction and management activities of the Division Offices.

Administrative Provisions

Appropriations in this title shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses (not to exceed
$5,000); and during the current fiscal year the revolving
fund, Corps of Engineers, shall be available for purchase
(not to exceed 100 for replacement only) and hire of
passenger motor vehicles.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Corps of Engineers--Civil

Sec. 101. (a) In fiscal year 1997, the Secretary of the
Army shall advertise for competitive bid at least 10,000,000
cubic yards of the hopper dredge volume accomplished with
government owned dredges in fiscal year 1992.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the
Secretary is authorized to use the dredge fleet of the Corps
of Engineers to undertake projects when industry does not
perform as required by the contract specifications or when
the bids are more than 25 percent in excess of what the
Secretary determines to be a fair and reasonable estimated
cost of a well equipped contractor doing the work or to
respond to emergency requirements.
Sec. 102. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to study, design, or undertake improvements of the
Federal vessel, McFARLAND.

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Central Utah Project

central utah project completion account

For the purpose of carrying out provisions of the Central
Utah Project Completion Act, Public Law 102-575 (106 Stat.
4605), and for feasibility studies of alternatives to the
Uintah and Upalco Units, $42,527,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $16,700,000 shall be deposited into
the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account:
Provided, That of the amounts deposited into the Account,
$5,000,000 shall be considered the Federal contribution
authorized by paragraph 402(b)(2) of the Act and $11,700,000
shall be available to the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission to carry out activities authorized
under the Act.
In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying
out responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior under
the Act, $1,100,000, to remain available until expended.

Bureau of Reclamation

For carrying out the functions of the Bureau of Reclamation
as provided in the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17,
1902, 32 Stat. 388, and Acts amendatory thereof or
supplementary thereto) and other Acts applicable to that
Bureau as follows:

general investigations

For engineering and economic investigations of proposed
Federal reclamation projects and studies of water
conservation and development plans and activities preliminary
to the reconstruction, rehabilitation and betterment,
financial adjustment, or extension of existing projects,
$14,548,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That of the total appropriated, the amount for program
activities which can be financed by the reclamation fund
shall be derived from that fund: Provided further, That funds
contributed by non-Federal entities for purposes similar to
this appropriation shall be available for expenditure for the
purposes for which contributed as though specifically
appropriated for said purposes, and such amounts shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That of the total
appropriated, $500,000 shall be available to complete the
appraisal study and initiate preconstruction engineering and
design for the Del Norte County and Crescent City,
California, Wastewater Reclamation Project, and $500,000
shall be available to complete the appraisal study and
initiate preconstruction engineering and design for the Fort
Bragg, California, Water Supply Project.

construction program

(including transfer of funds)

For construction and rehabilitation of projects and parts
thereof (including power transmission facilities for Bureau
of Reclamation use) and for other related activities as
authorized by law, $398,069,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $23,410,000 shall be available for
transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund authorized by
section 5 of the Act of April 11, 1956 (43 U.S.C. 620d), and
$71,728,000 shall be available for transfer to the Lower
Colorado River Basin Development Fund authorized by section
403 of the Act of September 30, 1968 (43 U.S.C. 1543), and
such amounts as may be necessary shall be considered as
though advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund for the
Boulder Canyon Project as authorized by the Act of December
21, 1928, as amended: Provided, That of the total
appropriated, the amount for program activities which can be
financed by the reclamation fund shall be derived from that
fund: Provided further, That transfers to the Upper Colorado
River Basin Fund and Lower Colorado River Basin Development
Fund may be increased or decreased by transfers within the
overall appropriation under this heading: Provided further,
That funds contributed by non-Federal entities for purposes
similar to this appropriation shall be available for
expenditure for the purposes for which contributed as though
specifically appropriated for said purposes, and such funds
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
all costs of the safety of dams modification work at Coolidge
Dam, San Carlos Irrigation Project, Arizona, performed under
the authority of the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978
(43 U.S.C. 506), as amended, are in addition to the amount
authorized in section 5 of said Act: Provided further, That
utilizing funds appropriated for the Tucson Aqueduct System
Reliability Investigation, the Bureau of Reclamation is
directed to complete, by the end of fiscal year 1997, the
environmental impact statement being conducted on the
proposed surface reservoir. The Bureau of Reclamation is
further directed to work with the City of Tucson on any
outstanding issues related to the preferred alternative.

operation and maintenance

For operation and maintenance of reclamation projects or
parts thereof and other facilities, as authorized by law; and
for a soil and moisture conservation program on lands under
the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation, pursuant to
law, $286,232,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That of the total appropriated, the amount for
program activities which can be financed by the reclamation
fund shall be derived from that fund, and the amount for
program activities which can be derived from the special fee
account established pursuant to the Act of December 22, 1987
(16 U.S.C. 460l-6a, as amended), may be derived from that
fund: Provided further, That funds advanced by water users
for operation and maintenance of reclamation projects or
parts thereof shall be deposited to the credit of this
appropriation and may be expended for the same purpose and in
the same manner as sums appropriated herein may be expended,
and such advances shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That revenues in the Upper Colorado River
Basin Fund shall be available for performing examination of
existing structures on participating projects of the Colorado
River Storage Project.

[[Page H8332]]

bureau of reclamation loan program account

For the cost of direct loans and/or grants, $12,290,000, to
remain available until expended, as authorized by the Small
Reclamation Projects Act of August 6, 1956, as amended (43
U.S.C. 422a-422l): Provided, That such costs, including the
cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize gross
obligations for the principal amount of direct loans not to
exceed $37,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the program for direct loans and/or grants, $425,000:
Provided, That of the total sums appropriated, the amount of
program activities which can be financed by the reclamation
fund shall be derived from the fund.

central valley project restoration fund

For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, and habitat
restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, such sums as may be
collected in the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund
pursuant to sections 3407(d), 3404(c)(3), 3405(f) and
3406(c)(1) of Public Law 102-575, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the Bureau of Reclamation is
directed to levy additional mitigation and restoration
payments totaling $30,000,000 (October 1992 price levels) on
a three-year rolling average basis, as authorized by section
3407(d) of Public Law 102-575.

general administrative expenses

For necessary expenses of general administration and
related functions in the office of the Commissioner, the
Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau
of Reclamation, to remain available until expended,
$45,150,000, to be derived from the reclamation fund and to
be nonreimbursable pursuant to the Act of April 19, 1945 (43
U.S.C. 377): Provided, That no part of any other
appropriation in this Act shall be available for activities
or functions budgeted for the current fiscal year as general
administrative expenses.

special funds

(transfer of funds)

Sums herein referred to as being derived from the
reclamation fund or special fee account are appropriated from
the special funds in the Treasury created by the Act of June
17, 1902 (43 U.S.C. 391) or the Act of December 22, 1987 (16
U.S.C. 460l-6a, as amended), respectively. Such sums shall be
transferred, upon request of the Secretary, to be merged with
and expended under the heads herein specified.

administrative provision

Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be
available for purchase of not to exceed 6 passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only.

TITLE III

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy Programs

Energy Supply, Research and Development Activities

For expenses of the Department of Energy activities
including the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant
and capital equipment and other expenses necessary for energy
supply, research and development activities in carrying out
the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including the acquisition or
condemnation of any real property or any facility or for
plant or facility acquisition, construction, or expansion;
purchase of passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 24 for
replacement only), $2,648,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That of the $13,102,000 made available to
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for
program direction, $1,440,000 is available only for
termination expenses related to reducing FTEs of the
headquarters staff of that Office.

Uranium Supply and Enrichment Activities

For expenses of the Department of Energy in connection with
operating expenses; the purchase, construction, and
acquisition of plant and capital equipment and other expenses
necessary for uranium supply and enrichment activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.) and the Energy
Policy Act (Public Law 102-486, section 901), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion; purchase of electricity as necessary; and the
purchase of passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 3 for
replacement only); $53,972,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That revenues received by the Department
for uranium programs and estimated to total $42,200,000 in
fiscal year 1997 shall be retained and used for the specific
purpose of offsetting costs incurred by the Department for
such activities notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C.
3302(b) and 42 U.S.C. 2296(b)(2): Provided further, That the
sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as revenues are
received during fiscal year 1997 so as to result in a final
fiscal year 1997 appropriation from the General Fund
estimated at not more than $11,772,000.

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment
facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial
actions and other activities of title II of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 and title X, subtitle A of the Energy Policy Act
of 1992, $200,200,000, to be derived from the Fund, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That $34,000,000 of
amounts derived from the Fund for such expenses shall be
available in accordance with title X, subtitle A, of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992.

General Science and Research Activities

For expenses of the Department of Energy activities
including the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant
and capital equipment and other expenses necessary for
general science and research activities in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including the acquisition or
condemnation of any real property or facility or for plant or
facility acquisition, construction, or expansion,
$996,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund

For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the
purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the
acquisition of real property or facility construction or
expansion, $182,000,000, to remain available until expended,
to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund, subject to
authorization: Provided, That none of the funds provided
herein shall be distributed to the State of Nevada or
affected units of local government (as defined by Public Law
97-425) by direct payment, grant, or other means, for
financial assistance under section 116 of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, as amended: Provided further, That the
foregoing proviso shall not apply to payments in lieu of
taxes under section 116(c)(3)(A) of the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982, as amended.

Departmental Administration

For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy
necessary for Departmental Administration in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and official reception and representation expenses
(not to exceed $35,000), $195,000,000, to remain available
until expended, plus such additional amounts as necessary to
cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for
others notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency
Act (31 U.S.C. 1511, et seq.): Provided, That such increases
in cost of work are offset by revenue increases of the same
or greater amount, to remain available until expended:
Provided further, That moneys received by the Department for
miscellaneous revenues estimated to total $125,388,000 in
fiscal year 1997 may be retained and used for operating
expenses within this account, and may remain available until
expended, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238,
notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by
the amount of miscellaneous revenues received during fiscal
year 1997 so as to result in a final fiscal year 1997
appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more
than $69,612,000: Provided further, That end of year employee
levels for fiscal year 1997 may not exceed the following by
organization: Board of Contract Appeals, 6; Chief Financial
Officer, 192; Congressional, Public, and Intergovernmental
Affairs, 35; Economic Impact and Diversity, 30; Field
Management, 20; General Counsel, 153; Human Resources and
Administration, 550; Office of the Secretary, 23; and Policy,
20.

Office of the Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $24,000,000, to remain
available until expended.

Atomic Energy Defense Activities

weapons activities

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense
weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion; and the purchase of
passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 94 for replacement
only), $3,684,378,000, to remain available until expended.

defense environmental restoration and waste management

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense
environmental restoration and waste management activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion; and the purchase of passenger motor vehicles
(not to exceed 20, of which 19 are for replacement only),
$5,409,310,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That an additional amount of $134,500,000 is available for
privatization initiatives.

other defense activities

[[Page H8333]]

out the purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including the acquisition or
condemnation of any real property or any facility or for
plant or facility acquisition, construction, or expansion,
and the purchase of passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 2
for replacement only), $1,459,533,000, to remain available
until expended.

defense nuclear waste disposal

Power Marketing Administrations

Operation and Maintenance, Alaska Power Administration

For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
projects in Alaska and of marketing electric power and
energy, $4,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Bonneville Power Administration Fund

Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund,
established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $3,000.
During fiscal year 1997, no new direct loan obligations may
be made.

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the
Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the
southeastern power area, $18,859,000, to remain available
until expended.

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy, and for construction and acquisition of
transmission lines, substations and appurtenant facilities,
and for administrative expenses, including official reception
and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500
in carrying out the provisions of section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the
southwestern power area, $25,210,000, to remain available
until expended; in addition, notwithstanding the provisions
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, not to exceed $3,787,000 in
reimbursements, to remain available until expended.

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration

(including transfer of funds)

For carrying out the functions authorized by title III,
section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7101, et seq.), and other related activities including
conservation and renewable resources programs as authorized,
including official reception and representation expenses in
an amount not to exceed $1,500, $211,582,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $203,687,000 shall be
derived from the Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund:
Provided, That of the amount herein appropriated, $5,432,000
is for deposit into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Account pursuant to title IV of the Reclamation
Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992: Provided
further, That the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to
transfer from the Colorado River Dam Fund to the Western Area
Power Administration $3,774,000 to carry out the power
marketing and transmission activities of the Boulder Canyon
project as provided in section 104(a)(4) of the Hoover Power
Plant Act of 1984, to remain available until expended.

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the
hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams,
$970,000, to remain available until expended, and to be
derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance
Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in
section 423 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
fiscal years 1994 and 1995.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and
representation expenses (not to exceed $3,000), $141,290,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed
$141,290,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and
other services and collections in fiscal year 1997 shall be
retained and used for necessary expenses in this account, and
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as revenues are
received during fiscal year 1997 so as to result in a final
fiscal year 1997 appropriation from the General Fund
estimated at not more than $0.

General Provision

SEC. 301. PRIORITY PLACEMENT, JOB PLACEMENT, RETRAINING, AND
COUNSELING PROGRAMS FOR UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY EMPLOYEES AFFECTED BY A
REDUCTION IN FORCE.

(a) Definitions.--
(1) for the purposes of this section, the term ``agency''
means the United States Department of Energy.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term ``eligible
employee'' means any employee of the agency who--
(A) is scheduled to be separated from service due to a
reduction in force under--
(i) regulations prescribed under section 3502 of title 5,
United States Code; or
(ii) procedures established under section 3595 of title 5,
United States Code; or
(B) is separated from service due to such a reduction in
force, but does not include--
(i) an employee separated from service for cause on charges
of misconduct or delinquency; or
(ii) an employee who, at the time of separation, meets the
age and service requirements for an immediate annuity under
subchapter III of chapter 83 or chapter 84 of title 5, United
States Code.
(b) Priority Placement and Retraining Program.--Not later
than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
United States Department of Energy shall establish an agency-
wide priority placement and retraining program for eligible
employees.
(c) The priority placement program established under
subsection (b) shall include provisions under which a vacant
position shall not be filled by the appointment or transfer
of any individual from outside of the agency if--
(1) there is then available any eligible employee who
applies for the position within 30 days of the agency issuing
a job announcement and is qualified (or can be trained or
retrained to become qualified within 90 days of assuming the
position) for the position; and
(2) the position is within the same commuting area as the
eligible employee's last-held position or residence.
(d) Job Placement and Counseling Services.--The head of the
agency may establish a program to provide job placement and
counseling services to eligible employees.
(1) Types of services.--A program established under
subsection (d) may include, but is not limited to, such
services as--
(A) career and personal counseling;
(B) training and job search skills; and
(C) job placement assistance, including assistance provided
through cooperative arrangements with State and local
employment services offices.

TITLE IV

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized
by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as
amended, notwithstanding section 405 of said Act, and for
necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman and the
alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission and for
payment of the Federal share of the administrative expenses
of the Commission, including services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, and hire of passenger motor vehicles,
$155,331,000, to remain available until expended.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456,
section 1441, $12,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Salaries and Expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out
the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as
amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
including the employment of aliens; services authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109; publication and dissemination of atomic
information; purchase, repair, and cleaning of uniforms;
official representation expenses (not to exceed $20,000);
reimbursements to the General Services Administration for
security guard services; hire of passenger motor vehicles and
aircraft, $471,800,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That of the amount appropriated herein, $11,000,000
shall be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund, subject to the
authorization required in this bill under the heading,
``Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund'': Provided further, That from
this appropriation, transfer of sums may be made to other
agencies of the Government for the performance of the work
for which this appropriation is made, and in such cases the
sums so transferred may be merged with the appropriation to
which transferred: Provided further, That moneys received by
the Commission for the cooperative nuclear safety research
program, services rendered to foreign governments and
international organizations, and the material and information
access authorization programs, including criminal history
checks under section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act may be
retained and used for salaries and expenses associated with
those activities, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall
remain available until expended: Provided further, That
revenues from licensing fees, inspection services, and other
services and collections estimated at $457,300,000 in fiscal
year 1997 shall be retained and used for necessary salaries
and

[[Page H8334]]

expenses in this account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
the funds herein appropriated for regulatory reviews and
other activities pertaining to waste stored at the Hanford
site, Washington, shall be excluded from license fee
revenues, notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 2214: Provided further,
That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by the
amount of revenues received during fiscal year 1997 from
licensing fees, inspection services and other services and
collections, excluding those moneys received for the
cooperative nuclear safety research program, services
rendered to foreign governments and international
organizations, and the material and information access
authorization programs, so as to result in a final fiscal
year 1997 appropriation estimated at not more than
$14,500,000.

Office of Inspector General

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, including services authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, $5,000,000, to remain available until expended;
and in addition, an amount not to exceed 5 percent of this
sum may be transferred from Salaries and Expenses, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission: Provided, That notice of such
transfers shall be given to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House and Senate: Provided further, That from this
appropriation, transfers of sums may be made to other
agencies of the Government for the performance of the work
for which this appropriation is made, and in such cases the
sums so transferred may be merged with the appropriation to
which transferred: Provided further, That revenues from
licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and
collections shall be retained and used for necessary salaries
and expenses in this account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302,
and shall remain available until expended: Provided further,
That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by the
amount of revenues received during fiscal year 1997 from
licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and
collections, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1997
appropriation estimated at not more than $0.

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section
5051, $2,531,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund,
subject to the authorization required in this bill under the
heading, ``Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund'', and to remain
available until expended.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the
Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as amended (16 U.S.C.
ch. 12A), including hire, maintenance, and operation of
aircraft, and purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles,
$97,169,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That none of the funds provided herein shall be available for
activities of the Environmental Research Center in Muscle
Shoals, Alabama, except for necessary termination expenses:
Provided further, That of the funds provided herein, not more
than $5,000,000 shall be made available for operation,
maintenance, improvement, and surveillance of Land Between
the Lakes: Provided further, That of the amount provided
herein, not more than $16,000,000 shall be available for
Economic Development activities.

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal
agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
Sec. 502. Section 508(f) of Public Law 104-46, the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1996, is repealed.
Sec. 503. 42 U.S.C. 7262 is repealed.
Sec. 504. Public Law 101-514, the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1991, is amended by striking
``: Provided'' and all that follows through
``nonreimbursable'' under the heading, ``Construction,
Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power
Administration''.
Sec. 505. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to determine the final
point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis
Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and
the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the
water quality standards of the State of California as
approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis
drainage waters.
(b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program
and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program
shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as
reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully
repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program--Alternative
Repayment plan'' and the ``SJVDP--Alternative Repayment
Plan'' described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report,
Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley
Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future
obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or
providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the
San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit
beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal
Reclamation law.
This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 1997''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to that order, no amendment shall be in order
except the following amendments, which shall be considered read, shall
not be subject to amendment or to a demand for division of the
question, and shall be debatable for the time specified, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and a Member opposed:
Amendment No. 1 by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for 10
minutes;
Amendment No. 2 by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta]
for 10 minutes;
Amendment No. 3 or 4 by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for
40 minutes;
Amendment No. 5 by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] for
20 minutes;
Amendment No. 6 by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] for 20
minutes;
Amendment No. 7 by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] for 20
minutes;
Amendment No. 8 by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] for 10
minutes;
Amendment No. 9 by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] for 10
minutes;
Amendment No. 10 by the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]
for 10 minutes;
Amendment No. 11 by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] for 5
minutes;
Amendment No. 12 by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] for 10
minutes;
Amendment No. 13 by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] for 10
minutes;
Amendment No. 14 by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] for
10 minutes;
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 en bloc by the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Markey] for 20 minutes.
Amendment No. 17 by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] for 20
minutes;
Amendment No. 20 by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] for 10
minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. Rogers] regarding
the New Madrid Floodway, for 5 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] regarding
the Tijuana River basin, for 10 minutes;
An amendment by either the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], or
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], or the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio], regarding solar energy, for 30 minutes;
An amendment by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] regarding the
Central Arizona project for 10 minutes; and
An amendment by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Pickett] regarding
the Sandbridge Beach project, for 10 minutes.
Pursuant to House Resolution 483, the Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment
and may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for voting by
electronic device on any postponed question that immediately follows
another vote by electronic device without intervening business,
provided that the time for voting by electronic device on the first in
any series of questions shall not be less than 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike
the last word to explain the procedure for the remainder of the
evening.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.

[[Page H8335]]

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the committee hopes and expects
to finish this bill tonight. That is our expectation, and the procedure
we are going to use for the next hour and a half, until about 8:30 or
quarter of 9, is that we are going to roll all ordered votes until that
time.
At this time, down at the Ellipse, the Army has a tattoo to honor
those Members of Congress who are retiring, Mr. Bevill, Mr. Chapman
among them, two members of this subcommittee who are retiring; Mr.
Bevill, et al., retired Army types. We would love to have been down
there, but work comes first, so there will be no votes ordered, no
votes taken during the next hour and a half, no earlier than 8:30, and
probably closer to 8:45 or 9 o'clock.
So we now understand what the procedure is, and hopefully, we will
hold discussion to a minimum here. We have 20 amendments, some having
as much as 40 minutes. To finish those by 11 o'clock is ambitious, but
with the cooperation of everyone, we will get out early.
We do not want to cut anyone off. We will try to make sure that
everyone that wishes to speak has that opportunity, but let us expedite
it if we possibly can.

{time} 1900

But let us expedite it as quickly as we can. Everyone knows the
issues we are going to be discussing tonight. Let us stick with it, and
we will try to expedite it as rapidly as possible.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, we will soon be bidding a
fond farewell to our good and old friends, the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill]. Both will be
very sorely missed in this Chamber. Both have brought professionalism,
knowledge, and collegiality to this body, qualities that we need in
order to make our system work, and do not always find in our Members.
Despite a great deal more partisanship and contention in this
Chamber, those who understand our system realize that cooperation and
comity are necessary to find the common ground we need to govern. Tom
and John represent to me the personal qualities envisioned in our
constitutional system, and I commend them for their work, for their
making a difference in their service in the Congress, and wish both of
them all good things in their retirements and in the years ahead.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee if I may
engage him in a colloquy.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to engage in a
colloquy with the gentleman.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned with the funding level for
the section 205 continuing authorities program. I want to be certain
that projects under this section specifically mentioned in the report,
including the North Libertyville Estates project, will receive priority
funding by the Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 1997.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. If the gentleman will continue to yield, it
certainly is the intention of this committee that projects such as
Libertyville Estates in Libertyville, IL, will receive the top
priorities from the Corps of Engineers.
The gentleman has our support, yes.
Mr. PORTER. I would also like to clarify that when the Army Corps of
Engineers commits the requested funding for the North Libertyville
Estates project, the project cooperation agreement between the local
sponsor and the Army Corps of Engineers Chicago District Office can be
signed. This commitment indicates to the local sponsor the Federal
Government's financial obligation to the project. When the PCA is
signed, the local sponsor can begin working on the sewer system.
Following the completion of that work, which may take up to 8 months,
the Army Corps will begin construction on the levee. The Corps hopes to
complete its work in less than 1 year.
It is also my understanding that when funding is committed by the
Department of the Army Office of Civil Works, the PCA can be signed and
the local sponsor can be assured that the funding for the Federal share
is set aside for that project.
I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee, is that correct?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that
is correct. When the local sponsor is willing to put money up, it shows
two things. First, the people of that area who are going to be affected
are concerned and, second, are willing to put their money up; so, yes,
that is the intention of the subcommittee.
Mr. PORTER. I very much thank the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3816 includes $8 million for the Army Corps of
Engineers to continue work on the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam, in
Arkansas, on the White River, without cost sharing from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund.
I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee, is it his intent to
direct the Corps to use these funds in fiscal year 1997 to continue
construction on the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. If he
will read the report language, we very specifically said this is to be
provided completely with Federal funds from the taxpayers.
Mr. DICKEY. Would that provision in this bill direct the Corps to use
the funds provided in fiscal year 1997 to begin construction of a
diversion channel, or at least to begin moving dirt?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the chairman of the
subcommittee, is it his intent that the Corps maintain its published
schedule for the completion of the Montgomery Point Lock and Dam?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr.
Chairman, this is not a new project. It has been before us for a good
long time. We understand the level of the two rivers is a problem, that
something must be done, and we completely support it. The Corps should
understand, and I think they do, they have told us they do, that they
have to proceed.
Mr. DICKEY. I want to thank the gentleman. I know he is going to be
glad after he retires that he will not hear any more about the
Montgomery Point Lock and Dam.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Promise?
Mr. DICKEY. I cannot promise. Best wishes to you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I would like first of all to echo really
the understated praise that has been offered by many Members for both
the chairman and ranking member who are completing their service this
year. I was privileged to serve with them on this subcommittee for a
couple of years, and enjoyed that very much, and respect their good
work for the country enormously.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman of the subcommittee
in a brief colloquy, if I may, concerning one of the projects funded in
this bill, namely, the Animas-La Plata project in New Mexico.
As the chairman knows, the bill includes money for this project.
There is an extensive discussion of it in the committee report. As we
discussed when the bill was before the committee for markup, I think it
is important that there be no misunderstanding about this part of the
report and the intent that it reflects.
Report language starts by saying, ``In the event that the funding
provided the

[[Page H8336]]

Bureau of Reclamation is inadequate for the task to be accomplished
this year, the committee expects the Bureau to reprogram available
funds for construction of the project.''
Mr. Chairman, am I correct in understanding that any such
reprogramming would be subject to the normal procedures, including
consultation with the committee?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely
correct. This has been an ongoing program for the many years the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and I have been on this
subcommittee, and we have tried to make sure that all the concerns, be
they environmental, State, whatever it might be, all these are met.
There is no intention here to short-circuit anything. All the normal
requirements for reprogramming must be met.
Mr. SKAGGS. If I may follow on further, Mr. Chairman, the project as
the gentleman knows has been the subject of some litigation concerning
the applicability of various environmental laws, NEPA, endangered
species, and so forth. The report also refers to the need for
environmental compliance and the possibility that implementation of the
Endangered Species Act could limit water development in the San Juan
River Basin, which includes the Animas and La Plata Rivers.
Is it nonetheless correct that nothing in the report should be read
as suggesting that there is any intent to waive NEPA or the Endangered
Species Act or any other environmental law, or to limit the extent to
which any such law applies to the Animas-La Plata project?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. If the gentleman will continue to yield, there
is absolutely no intent by this subcommittee to circumvent or to bypass
any present environmental laws or rules. The language is written to
make sure we do not apply some new rules someplace down the road 2 or 3
years from now.
Mr. SKAGGS. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the report further says that
``Construction of the first stage of the project may proceed without
adversely affecting any other water users on the San Juan system.''
Again, I would ask if I am correct in understanding that this simply
states an opinion based upon information available to the committee and
is not intended to foreclose the ability of any holders of water rights
on the San Juan River or its tributaries to raise any issues about the
project's effects on their rights?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. There is no intent by this subcommittee, Mr.
Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, to ever change
riparian rights. They are as old and constitutional as our country.
Downstream holders of rights must not be denied. We have no change in
the riparian rights.
Mr. SKAGGS. I greatly appreciate the gentleman's clarification on
these points, Mr. Chairman.

amendment offered by mr. solomon

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 36, after line 10,
insert the following new sections:
Sec. 506. (a) Denial of Funds for Preventing ROTC Access to
Campus.--None of the funds made available in this Act may be
provided by contract or by grant (including a grant of funds
to be available for student aid) to an institution of higher
education when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that the
institution (or any subelement thereof) has a policy or
practice (regardless of when implemented) that prohibits, or
in effect prevents--
(1) the maintaining, establishing, or operation of a unit
of the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps (in accordance
with section 654 of title 10, United States Code, and other
applicable Federal laws) at the institution (or subelement);
or
(2) a student at the institution (or subelement) from
enrolling in a unit of the Senior Reserve Officer Training
Corps at another institution of higher education.
(b) Exception.--The limitation established in subsection
(a) shall not apply to an institution of higher education
when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that--
(1) the institution (or subelement) has ceased the policy
or practice described in such subsection; or
(2) the institution has a longstanding policy of pacifism
based on historical religious affiliation.
Sec. 507. (a) Denial of Funds for Preventing Federal
Military Recruiting on Campus.--None of the funds made
available in this Act may be provided by contract or grant
(including a grant of funds to be available for student aid)
to any institution of higher education when it is made known
to the Federal official having authority to obligate or
expend such funds that the institution (or any subelement
thereof) has a policy or practice (regardless of when
implemented) that prohibits, or in effect prevents--
(1) entry to campuses, or access to students (who are 17
years of age or older) on campuses, for purposes of Federal
military recruiting; or
(2) access to the following information pertaining to
student (who are 17 years of age or older) for purposes of
Federal military recruiting: student names, addresses,
telephone listings, dates and places of birth, levels of
education, degrees received, prior military experience, and
the most recent previous educational institutions enrolled in
by the students.
(b) Exceptions.--The limitation established in subsection
(a) shall not apply to an institution of higher education
when it is made known to the Federal official having
authority to obligate or expend such funds that--
(1) the institution (or subelement) has ceased the policy
or practice described in such subsection; or
(2) the institution has a longstanding policy of pacifism
based on historical religious affiliation.
Sec. 508. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract
with an entity when it is made known to the Federal official
having authority to obligate or expend such funds that--
(1) such entity is otherwise a contractor with the United
States and is subject to the requirement in section 4212(d)
of title 38, United States Code, regarding submission of an
annual report to the Secretary of Labor concerning employment
of certain veterans; and
(2) such entity has not submitted a report as required by
that section for the most recent year for which such
requirement was applicable to such entity.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and a Member opposed will each
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there will be anyone rising in
opposition to this very good amendment. It has been accepted by all of
the chairmen of all of the preceding subcommittees of the Committee on
Appropriations, as well as the ranking member.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering with the gentleman
from California [Mr. Pombo] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer]
has passed this House a number of times, most recently on the VA-HUD
and Labor-HHS appropriation bills, so I will be brief.
Mr. Chairman, as we know, in many places across the country military
recruiters are being denied access to educational facilities,
preventing recruiters from explaining the benefits of an honorable
career in our Armed Forces of the United States of America, explaining
it to our young people. Likewise ROTC units have been kicked off of
several campuses around this country.
This amendment today would simply prevent any funds appropriated in
this act from going to any institution of higher learning which
prevents military recruiting on their campuses or has an anti-ROTC
policy. Mr. Chairman, institutions that are receiving Federal taxpayer
money just cannot be able to then turn their backs on young people who
are defending their country.
Mr. Chairman, it is really a matter of simple fairness. That is why
this amendment has always received such strong bipartisan support and
become law for Defense Department funds.
A third part of the amendment would also deny contracts or grants to
institutions that are not in compliance with the existing law that they
submit an annual report on veterans' hiring practices to the Department
of Labor. In the same vein, this is simple commonsense and fairness to
the people who defend our country. Mr. Chairman, all we are doing here
is asking for compliance with existing law. I would urge support of the
Solomon-Pombo-Buyer amendment.

[[Page H8337]]

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman discussed this
amendment with the committee. Coming from a congressional district that
has six universities, and having gone through the Vietnam war and the
Korean war and some of the problems we had, I completely agree with the
gentleman. There is no reason whatsoever for that. These universities
are here because some people have fought for the right for them to be
there, so we completely agree with the gentleman. We accept the
amendment.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentleman.
Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member who seeks time in opposition to the
amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?

amendment offered by mr. rogers

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: On page 7, line 11, strike
``$302,990,000'' and insert in lieu thereof:
``$303,240,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] and a Member opposed each will
control 2\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with a project in
Missouri's Eighth Congressional District, which has been represented,
as we all know, by the late and great Bill Emerson. The St. John's-New
Madrid project was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of
1986, but was delayed due to disagreements between the Corps and the
local sponsor over cost-sharing issues. Those issues I am told have now
been resolved.
This amendment would provide money for the project, allowing the
Corps to complete its planning work and to sign formal agreements with
the sponsor and begin construction. This project is a priority in this
district because of the flooding that it would prevent. It provides
levee protection for 400 acres of prime farmland in a three-county area
and it will protect three townships, two of which have suffered
flooding this year.
It will also prevent flooding on two major U.S. interstate highways.
This amendment provides a relatively small amount, $250,000 for the
project, so that the Corps can move it along.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say as vice chairman of the subcommittee what
a pleasure it has been working with the gentleman from Indiana, John
Myers, and the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bevill, two stalwart giants
of this body whom we will all miss very much. It has been a great
pleasure working with them, seeing them work from the inside. It is as
pleasurable as seeing them work from the outside.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank our colleague, first for
his nice words, and his contribution to the subcommittee.
The committee is very much aware of the situation in the New Madrid
area of Missouri. Our good friend, Bill Emerson, talked to the
committee a number of times. I have been in his district twice on this
particular issue. We discussed it with Bill before his passing, that it
was a new start. The committee has tried to hold the line on new starts
because of concern about future funds. We are completely understanding.
We loved Bill. We want to honor his memory. But we did put the language
in our report on page 37 that the Corps of Engineers is to complete its
preconstruction engineering activities on the St. Johns-New Madrid
floodway, and they are to report back to the committee within 6 months.
So while I cannot obligate the next Congress or the conference
committee, it is fully understood that this is a high priority. We
respect that we want to remember Bill this way, and we hope that future
Congresses will do this job.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition to the
amendment?
Does any Member seek unanimous consent to control the time in
opposition?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
control the time in opposition, while I am not opposed to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, is this something the
chairman and the Members could consider as we proceed along in the
future?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, we are going to go to conference
hopefully next week, even, with the other body. If the opportunity
presents itself, and we do not know what funds they will have, it will
be, I assure the gentleman, under consideration when we do go to
conference. The gentleman will be a member of that conference, so I
assure him we will give it every consideration. We loved Bill Emerson
and we want to remember him properly.

{time} 1915

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that willingness
to consider the project in conference as we proceed.
Mr. Chairman, with that assurance, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.

amendment offered by mr. traficant

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant:
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If its has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and a Member opposed each will
control 2\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to start out by associating
myself with all of the remarks relative to the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill]. I want to
thank both of the gentlemen, on behalf of all of the people in the 17th
District of Ohio, for over the years having worked with us, being
honest with us, and attempting to give us a hand, and certainly on
behalf of all of the people in the country.
Let me also say that my amendment is straightforward. Any person who
affixes a fraudulent Made-in-America label on an import shall be
ineligible to receive any contract or subcontract under this bill. It
is good, straightforward legislation.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], as always, has
discussed his amendment with the committee. We have added the basic
language to our bill for a number of years under the leadership of the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], and we are pleased to accept your
new additional language which we understand and completely agree with.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to

[[Page H8338]]

the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise
in support of his amendment and also in support of his legislation.
I rise in support of H.R. 3816, making appropriations for energy and
water development for fiscal year 1997.
This bill provides funds for critical flood control and navigation
projects in Contra Costa and Solano counties in the San Francisco Bay
Area of California. I appreciate the committee's continued support for
these projects.
I am particularly pleased that the committee's bill seeks to resolve
two important matters affecting California's Central Valley Project and
the protection of water quality in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Specifically, the committee has included language to compel San Joaquin
Valley irrigators to repay over $30 million in costs related to
cleaning up the contamination at Kesterson Reservoir and for studies on
how to resolve the mounting drainage crisis in the Central Valley.
Committee members also voted to reimpose a ban on selection of any
terminus for the San Luis Drain. The drain was proposed years ago to
benefit irrigators who want to convey their agricultural wastes from
the Valley into the Delta and San Francisco Bay.
Agricultural wastewater in California's Central Valley poisoned
Kesterson Reservoir in the 1980's and demonstrated the severe pollution
generated by irrigated agriculture in the West. Years later, there is
widespread opposition to any drain that would dump those wastes into
the Delta and San Francisco Bay. For years, the farmers whose
irrigation practices caused the severe pollution problems in the Valley
have evaded paying for the cleanup costs. With the language included in
H.R. 3816, the delays will end, and the payment will begin. The
restriction on selection of any terminus re-emphasizes the Congress'
often-stated concerns about the proposed drain to the Delta.
As a result of these provisions, taxpayers will finally receive long-
overdue payment for the costs of cleaning up Kesterson Reservoir; the
Delta and San Francisco bay will be protected from toxic discharges of
agricultural wastes; and Central Valley irrigators can close the books
on Kesterson and pursue innovative solutions to their drainage problems
within their own area instead of seeking to export their pollution
problems elsewhere.
My own opposition to such a drain is longstanding and reflected in
years of testimony before the Appropriations Committee in support of
the restrictive amendment that once again is included for fiscal year
1997. The Bay-Delta system is the ecological and economic core of
northern California. We have spent years, and billions of tax dollars--
and private dollars--cleaning it up and restoring its water quality,
its fisheries, and its aesthetic appeal. Through a series of laws I
have authored, including the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of
1992, we have rededicated our efforts toward those goals through major
reforms in the management of our water resources. We are never going to
go backward and again allow others to treat our Bay-Delta system as a
cesspool for their own contamination.

As important as these provisions concerning repayment and the drain
terminus are, they alone will not resolve the drainage problems in the
San Joaquin Valley. The Bureau of Reclamation, acting pursuant to a
court order, is now negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the
California State Water Resources Control Board and the Westlands Water
District regarding the terms and conditions under which an
environmental impact statement addressing drainage issues will be
prepared. I have had an opportunity to review a draft of this MOU, and
I note that it quite properly assigns full responsibility for payment
of all costs of preparing the EIS to the Westlands Water District. Any
agreement that allows Westlands to evade paying 100 percent of the
expenses of preparing this EIS will not be acceptable. In addition, the
MOU must strictly limit Westlands' role in the actual preparation of
the EIS and in approving all or portions of the EIS. Under no
circumstances should Westlands or other Central Valley Project water
users be in a position of authority with respect to NEPA compliance. I
have alerted the Bureau of Reclamation of my concerns regarding the
pending execution of this MOU, and I will continue to insist that the
strictest standards of public involvement be followed as solutions to
drainage issues in the San Joaquin Valley continue to be pursued.
H.R. 3816 and the accompanying committee report also raise an
additional issue which I will address in my capacity as senior
Democratic member of the Committee on Resources.
I wish to register at this time my strong objections to language
contained in the committee report accompanying H.R. 3816 (House Report
104-679), which directs that no funds be made available for the San
Joaquin River Basin Resource initiative in fiscal year 1997. As my
colleague from California, Ms. Pelosi, noted in her additional views on
this bill, the San Joaquin study is required by law; it is not
optional. The study was authorized to determine how to restore fish to
the San Joaquin River, where diversions of water for irrigation have
wiped out several stocks of commercially valuable anadromous fish.

The Appropriations Committee is obviously determined to kill this
study and prevent people from learning the truth about the destruction
of fishery resources in the San Joaquin River. The effort to kill this
study is important only to a small group of CVP beneficiaries who
continue to profit from their subsidized water supplies at the expense
of California's commercial and sport fish businesses. The San Joaquin
study has been authorized by Congress and the Secretary is obligated to
complete this study. The San Joaquin study should be fully funded and
allowed to proceed without interference from special interests.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, before I close I want to thank the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] for his position and leadership on
the Committee on Commerce. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek the time in opposition?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Traficant].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Washington is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a
colloquy with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and also associate
myself with the remarks that were made earlier in his behalf on his
retirement. We have worked closely together over the last 2 years and I
greatly appreciate his hard work on this legislation.
What I would like to do, however, Mr. Chairman, is inquire about
report language that has been included in the Senate bill. This
encourages the Bonneville Power Administration to enter into an energy
exchange with non-Federal hydro projects on the Columbia River that are
affected by Federal fish protection measures.
The Douglas County PUD district estimates that it loses almost one-
fifth of its energy-carrying capability as a result of the Federal fish
protection programs. The cost of these losses, which do not take into
account the PUD's own fish protection costs, have nearly tripled in
this past decade.
The Senate language is intended to urge BPA to provide winter energy
to non-Federal projects in return for delivery of an equal amount of
energy generated in those projects from the increased Federal fish
flows in the spring and the summer. Such an exchange is similar to the
kinds of federally authorized seasonal exchanges BPA already makes with
utilities in California. This is also specifically provided under by
the Northwest Power Planning Act.
I believe that this issue is best resolved between BPA and those
interested non-Federal utilities. However, I am willing to explore a
solution to this problem as a member of the House Committee on
Resources, should I be convinced that BPA is not negotiating in good
faith.
Will the chairman be willing to work with us to arrive at an
acceptable resolution to this problem?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, of course, the committee will be
very pleased to work with the gentleman, as we always have. The
committee shares that concern about which we are all interested in
saving the salmon and other fish, but at what cost? We have to offset
that some way, so we are very much willing to work with the gentleman.
I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue up.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
that. I would also like the chairman to know, because we have been
discussing other issues mainly with the Department of Energy on
environmental

[[Page H8339]]

cleanup efforts, I want him to know, however, that the House and Senate
have accepted legislation dealing with this from a structural
standpoint. Those issues are in committee right now and should be
resolved in the authorization bill. So I wanted to let the gentleman
know that that is proceeding on even though it is out of his
jurisdiction.
I also appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with us to
ensure that the savings reached in the new Hanford contracts which are
in my district can be used to compensate for the Department's plan to
transfer $185 million in cleanup into an insurance fund. I appreciate
his work on this because this is critical to my district, and, Mr.
Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his consideration.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
strike the last word in order to engage in a colloquy.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleague,
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] that this is what I would like
to do. I am going to give a brief description of the situation of the
Salton Sea for which we have in this bill $400,000, and then I am going
to conclude by asking the gentleman if he would be willing to consider
adding report language directing the Bureau of Reclamation to develop a
mitigation plan for the Salton Sea. The gentleman can think about that
while I describe the situation.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, these two charts show the Salton Sea, in
case you think it does not exist. The Salton Sea is this body of water
right here in the southeast corner of California. It is about 500
square miles. It is probably one of the largest bodies of inland water
outside of the Great Lakes in the United States. It is an artificial
lake that was created 90 years ago by the flooding of the Colorado
River, and a good lawyer would easily find that the Federal Government
was responsible for that flood and for cleaning up the mess that now
exists there, which I am going to describe very briefly.
The Salton Sea was created, as I said, by the overflow of the
Colorado River 90 years ago. It was a fresh water lake to begin with
and it had fresh water fish, trout and so on. Over the last 90 days it
has become a salt water lake. It is now 50 percent saltier than the
ocean.

The 1992 Water Act, which we passed in this House, authorized $10
million for the analysis of this situation, the problem of the Salton
Sea. The Bureau of Reclamation in its wisdom has only requested
$300,000 of that $10 million to engage in research, and they requested
nothing for the next fiscal year.
I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and his
committee in their wisdom for adding $400,000, unrequested by the
Bureau.
Now, the Bureau's description of the Salton Sea project, which I have
here, and I would like to quote from it briefly. It says that ``Over
the last several decades there has been concern over the increasing
salinity of the Salton Sea.'' It is, as I said, now 50 percent saltier
than the ocean. It goes on to say that ``There are indications that
increasing salinity is adversely impacting biological values.''
Would pictures of acres of dead fish constitute an indication that
biological values were being impacted? Because that is what we have,
acres of dead fish, and it is now clear that all fish in that lake will
be dead within a very short time.
I quote further: ``There are also adverse impacts on recreational
uses.'' The actual value of those adverse impacts is $50 million a year
today and going up.
Another concern is that the surface elevation of the sea has been on
the rise. That elevation can fluctuate by a foot or more with a very
small change in the amount of water coming in, and that inflow is not
being controlled. The one lawsuit that I know of which was brought on
that matter resulted in a liability judgement by the court of $10
million against the irrigation district for not controlling it.
Now, this situation will become drastically worse within 5 years
because of the plans to conserve and sell water in the Imperial Valley.
They are going to probably conserve 20 percent of the irrigation water
coming from here into the Salton Sea and reduce the size of the Salton
Sea by probably about 20 percent, leaving a huge vacant area around the
edge of the Salton Sea, and those properties which are now lakeside
properties will be a mile from the edge of the lake. Every one of those
property owners is going to sue. The potential damages run into the
hundreds of millions of dollars.
Now, why did the Bureau of Reclamation not ask for any money this
year to continue research on solutions to this problem? I do not know.
they are all nice people. I have talked to them. They say, ``Well, it
is pretty controversial. We are not sure that we ought to get into
something at this time.'' Another year from now may be too late. We
have to have an action plan.
I want to see the Bureau, which has the best qualified people in the
world, begin to do something. Would the chairman, the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Myers] be willing to give them some modest direction in
the language of committee report saying that we would like to see them
use this $400,000, which must be matched by local sources, meaning
$800,000, to prepare an action plan?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the Salton Sea is, I guess,
California's Dead Sea. We are very much aware of it. We have had it
under consideration for quite some time.
The gentleman said it was not requested. The gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown] requested it from the committee, so it may not
have been requested by the Bureau of Reclamation. We are very much
aware of it.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Indiana is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I will yield to my colleague for
a response here, but first, we are fully aware of this. The New River
is becoming more and more polluted. We understand there is a threat
from Mexico. I think it meets the requirements to clean it up. They are
going to shut some of our water off, and that will present a worse
problem.
We are very much aware of that. That is where the gentleman put
$400,000. We are asking the Bureau of Reclamation to get its work done
and do what the gentleman is speaking of here. We are very much aware
of it, and we are going to be pushing and making sure that BOR does its
job.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Brown].
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my
profound thanks to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] for his
knowledge about this situation. As he has already indicated, the
Mexicans now have EPA money and United States-Mexico Border Commission
cleanup money to build a sewage system. They are going to clean up that
water and then they are going to keep it in Mexico. That reduces,
again, the amount of flow coming from across the border here into the
Salton Sea and it means the problem becomes worse.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, we have the Kesterson situation
in California, similar to this because it was neglected in years past.
Now, we are still living with that problem. We want to avoid this at
this point. We have recurring responsibilities in this country. We
think they should also adhere to the recurring responsibility and have
an obligation downstream to help keep that lake alive.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield
further, I am not going to take any more of his time, but he has been a
true gentleman, and I appreciate it.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Cunningham].

[[Page H8340]]

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from California [Mr.
Brown] would remain, I just have a couple of questions for him.
Not being on the committee, I can tell you where Worchester is and
Pintail Duck Club, and so can my father-in-law because we use it all
the time, and I am aware of some of the pollution problems. I am not
aware of some of the areas which the gentleman is trying to help.
I support what the gentleman is trying to do. If the gentleman could
make me more knowledgeable on the issues as far as what those plans
are, maybe I could even be more supportive for him.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Brown].
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond briefly to
the gentleman, the duck hunters from my district, which is one reason I
have a concern, are very unhappy with the situation down there. This is
a flyway, a migratory bird flyway where they come from the north down
to the Gulf of California here. There are large nesting areas down
here.
The duck hunters are now seeing examples of bird kill from eating the
dead fish which may have selenium in them, and further increases in
salinity will compound the problem. We will have environmentalists
suing all over the place to force Salton Sea to be cleaned up, which
can be done probably in the same way they did at Kesterson, which is to
shut down part of the agriculture, and that is a $1 billion a year
agriculture industry there. A 10 percent shutdown is $100 million a
year.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the committee understands the
concern and shares that concern and we will do all we can.

{time} 1930

Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
last word in order to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the
subcommittee.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about the language
in the bill which prohibits funding for the hopper dredge, the U.S.S.
McFarland. The McFarland is a seagoing hopper dredge owned by the
Philadelphia District Army Corps of Engineers. This vessel is vital to
the commerce in the Delaware River as well as to the environment in the
area. I understand that there are some ideas on dredging in the future,
but I am concerned with a provision of this bill forbidding the
expenditure of funds to maintain the capabilities of this vessel. It is
my understanding that we have the gentleman's commitment, according to
our prior conversation, to work together with myself and my colleague,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], to arrive at a result in
conference that would enable the McFarland to be maintained and
improved so that it can continue to do its job in the Delaware River.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOGLIETTA. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MEYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the McFarland, as we all know,
is an old, old hopper dredge. The necessity of keeping it in inventory
to do the type of work the gentleman is referring to, local work there,
the committee has recognized for several years. The concern was to
spend good money after bad. It is an old, old hopper dredge. We have
rejected major overhaul improvements and this is what the intent of
this language was, to make sure that it is maintained so it can do the
job when needed but not to be put back into inventory to do a job it
was never intended to, and it has outlived its lifetime.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. But we certainly do not anticipate a complete overhaul
of this ship or this vessel. All we want to do is maintain it in its
full capability it now has to continue doing its work as it is now
doing until the Army Corps of Engineers issues its report, which is due
in the near future.
Mr. MEYERS of Indiana. The intent was to keep it like it is today,
repairs when necessary but no major overhaul.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. We are not looking for a major overhaul.
Mr. MEYERS of Indiana. We are reading on the same page.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. I thank the chairman.

amendment offered by mr. barton of texas

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Barton of Texas: Page 20,
line 18, insert ``(reduced by $1,000,000)'' after
``$195,000,000''.
Page 21, line 21, insert ``(increased by $1,000,000)''
after ``$24,000,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] and a Member opposed will each
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, before I talk abut my amendment, I want to compliment
the gentleman from Indiana, Chairman Myers, and the gentleman from
Alabama, Ranking Member Bevill, for their work, not just this year but
in prior Congresses. They have always been a pleasure to work with and
been very professional and have helped me not just on this amendment
but many other issues in the past, including the late lamented
superconducting super collider that they both worked very hard for.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment before the body is a straightforward
amendment. It would reduce the general administration account in the
departmental administration, Department of Energy, by $1 million, from
$195 million to $194 million, and transfer that $1 million to the
Inspector General account in that same department. The Inspector
General office last year actually spent $28 million. The Senate mark
this year was at $23 million. The current House mark is at $24 million.
So this transfer of $1 million would increase the Inspector General
account to $25 million. The Inspector General's office in the
department has been very helpful to me in my duties as chairman of the
Committee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Commerce,
especially with regard to the travel practices of the current
Secretary, Mrs. O'Leary. They have uncovered numerous instances of
waste of funds. In fact, the Secretary herself in her appearances
before my subcommittee has admitted that mistakes have been made and is
trying to work to rectify those mistakes.
So I would hope that we would accept this amendment, and it is my
understanding that both the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] are prepared to accept it.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me explain how we got here.
We put $25 million, as the gentleman has expressed, last year to the
IG. The IG is a very important function of government, of every agency.
We need inspections. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman has
shared that they have helped him very much in his examination of the
way the funds of the department have been spent. Last year the IG was
appropriated $25 million but later, not too long ago we learned that
not only did they spend the $25 million that we had appropriated, but
they had also had some funds someplace of more than $3 million that
they also spent. We were not aware of that at the time we marked the
bill up. We have had to cut back, reduce the size of government, so we
cut back $1 million here as badly as the IG is needed. So with the
understanding now that they used these extra funds, where it came from
I am not sure yet.
In any event, we accept the amendment because they do a very
necessary and fine job. I thank the gentleman for offering the
amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the
minority also accepts the amendment.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, but I
do have a query to the Chair: Is the bruise above the Chairman's left
eye going to

[[Page H8341]]

preclude him from participating in the sporting contest tomorrow
evening that he has been preparing for for the last several months?
The CHAIRMAN. Nothing could keep me from that game.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would hope for a unanimous vote
in support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Roemer

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Roemer: Page 17, line 21,
strike ``$2,648,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$2,638,400,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in the spirit of bipartisanship
with the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], my chairman who
serves with me on the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on
Science. We have offered this amendment for two reasons: Primarily for
deficit reduction. If we are going to move toward a balanced budget by
2002, if we are going to achieve that in a fair manner, we need to come
up with some spending reductions in a host of different accounts. When
we looked very carefully at this budget, we found that the field
offices under the Energy Department jurisdiction had actually said that
they were going to decrease their staff by 6 percent. Instead they got
a 7-percent increase. We offer this amendment to cut $9.6 million out
of those field offices and take them down to the level that they said
they would go down to.
The second reason is the U.S. Senate has agreed to this cut. They
have already made the cut of $9.6 million in this account. So if this
body agrees to this bipartisan amendment, this will bring it to the
same level as the U.S. Senate.
Oftentimes around this body to spending reductions, we take the
approach called NIMBY, not in my backyard, Mr. Chairman. Don't cut it
if it affects us out in the field in our congressional offices.
We have cut the headquarters in Washington, DC, under this budget by
about 25 percent. Yet, as I said previously, we have not cut the field
offices. This would apply those same fair cuts to some of the field
offices. Not devastating cuts, fair cuts to help us reach a balanced
budget in the next few years.
The justification for this, and I do not think this is an onerous
amendment at all, Mr. Chairman, reading through the budget request,
here is something typical of one of the field offices:
The budget request of an Idaho field office states that it needs
$893,000 to pay seven new employees but later on, Mr. Chairman, five
pages later in the budget to be precise, the office says that it will
cut its staff by 15 employees next year. So it needs money to add
employees and then it is going to cut employees, anyway.
I think this is in line with some of the fair cuts that we are trying
to work together on in a bipartisan spirit, Mr. Chairman, and I would
encourage this body to vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, my good friend and colleague from
Indiana has discussed this amendment, and we have agreed. We have cut
headquarters; we have cut the administrative staff quite a little bit.
We did not cut the field offices, but we agree with the gentleman. I
think there can be a reduction there. I think everyone agrees. We
accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to use any more of any time
on this amendment. I know a good thing when I see it. This will save
the taxpayers almost $10 million. I urge the body to agree with the
chairman and the ranking member's recommendations and move my
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. roemer

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Roemer: Page 17, line 21,
strike ``$2,648,000,000'' and insert in lieu thereof
``$2,638,000,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very brief with this amendment. I am
delighted to have passed the last amendment. This amendment would save
the taxpayer approximately $10 million.
In testimony that I sat through based on the February 1995 Galvin
report, Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National
Laboratories, Dr. Robert Galvin, the former CEO of Motorola, estimated
that the labs could reduce their cost by 50 percent through
streamlining and other efficiencies. Since the publication of this
report, DOE has implemented some of its recommendations.
As a result, DOE claims to have saved $264 million in fiscal year
1996 and expects to save $366 million in fiscal year 1997. In total,
DOE has promised to save over $1.7 billion in the next 5 years. Overall
the DOE budget request remained level from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal
year 1997. Thus, despite savings from the Galvin initiative, DOE has
made up for the administrative cost reductions by advancing other new
initiatives. These new initiatives included the National Ignition
Facility and countless smaller activities.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment says if we are going to save the money
through the Galvin report, it should not be respent, then, from
administrative savings on other new initiatives. Let us say to the
Department of Energy, if we are going to run it better, cheaper, more
efficiently for the taxpayer, then the taxpayer needs to see some of
the benefits from that.
My amendment would make sure that the taxpayer received some of those
benefits by making sure that the $10 million in this amendment goes to
deficit reduction.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROEMER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we share the concern that the gentleman has, and he is
right. We have many, many, too many national labs today. We have to do
something about it. It is a concern of this committee. We have had
concern for several years. We have to consolidate some of them. We just
cannot continue to fund all of these. However, we have already reduced
this account. We were aware of Mr. Galvin. In fact, we invited him last
year to appear before our committee. While we have made significant
reductions here, we feel that might be too much at this time. But in
the future I think that we are going to have to do something along this
line and reduce.
I urge the gentleman to withdraw at this time this amendment. I think
the gentleman is on the right track, but maybe we have cut it enough
already in the bill.
Mr. ROEMER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that
for those kinds of comments and the kind of bipartisanship that the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] has shown our side in the past, we
will sincerely miss him next year when I will hopefully continue to
work on this.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. We wish the gentleman well.
Mr. ROEMER. It will be a fight, as the gentleman from Indiana knows.
We

[[Page H8342]]

will continue to try to restructure, not just cut the national
laboratories. They are an invaluable resource for this country. We do
need to restructure them, we do need to make sure they are not
duplicating efforts from our colleges and universities in the private
sector, and we do need to make sure when we cut costs that we actually
save money for the taxpayer.
With that, Mr. Chairman, and with the kind words from the
distinguished Member from my State of Indiana, I ask unanimous consent
to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.

amendment offered by mr. kolbe

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Kolbe: On page 12, line 23 strike
``$398,069,000'' and insert ``$377,496,000'', and on page 13,
line 1 strike ``$71,728,000'' and insert ``$51,155,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering on behalf of the entire
Arizona congressional delegation reduces the FY 1997 funding level of
the Central Arizona Project [CAP] by $20,573,000. If adopted, my
amendment would bring the FY97 appropriation for the CAP from the $76.6
million recommended in the bill to $56,073,000. That's about a 27% cut
in this project alone, and a nearly 5% cut in the total Bureau of
Reclamation construction budget.
Mr. Chairman, most members would agree this is a tad unusual: to cut
your own construction project! So they may wonder why I'm proposing
this reduction, particularly as Federal commitments to Energy and Water
programs are dwindling and funding for worthwhile and important
projects is difficult to obtain.
But the truth is simple--we don't need all of this money! Of course,
I'm extremely grateful to Chairman John Myers and Ranking Minority
Member Tim Bevill for being such stalwart supporters of this project
over the years. But, the fact is we are nearing the completion of this
monumental project, and we just don't need the money that the Bureau is
trying to spend on this project.
This amendment does not imply that the CAP has diminished in
importance. This simply is not the case. Bringing a stable water supply
from the mainstream of the Colorado River into central and southern
Arizona is, very simply, the sustenance that has allowed Arizona to
thrive. The Ancient Ones--the Hohokams--knew that the area could not
survive without a dependable source of water. Their disappearance 800
years ago is associated with their inability to have an assured water
supply during a long-term sustained drought. However, with the help of
Congress and the vision of some great leaders from my own State of
Arizona, we have accomplished what past civilizations could not. The
Central Arizona Project provides the water that has become our
lifeblood. Its value is being proved, even as I speak, as it delivers
water to thirsty Arizona during the worst drought in 100 years.
That doesn't mean, however, that we have to gild the lily. We don't
have to add things to the project that have nothing to do with
delivering water to central Arizona. But that is exactly what the
Bureau has proposed doing in their budget request this year. As I
stated earlier, the CAP is nearing completion; in fact, it has been
declared ``complete'' and operation turned over to its ongoing manager,
the Central Arizona Water Conservation District [CAWCD]. It has thus
become possible to scale back the Federal Government's financial
commitment to minor parts of the CAP's budget without having any
negative impact on the overall project. Working with the management and
board of CAWCD, I have identified several programs within the CAP whose
funding can be reduced for fiscal year 1997.
The following list identifies the specific projects/activities,
provides a brief description of the work to be performed, lists the
projects location in the Bureau of Reclamation's Budget Justifications
for fiscal year 1997, and the total amount of the reduction that I'm
proposing. Again, the total amount of the reductions that I am
proposing to the CAP's fiscal year 1997 budget is $20,573,000.
(1) Hayden-Rhodes Aqueduct: Siphon Repairs, PF-2B, page 5, line 5,
$1,616,000.
(2) Hayden-Rhodes Aqueduct: other repairs, PF-2B, page 5, line 12,
$1,509,000.
(3) Modified Roosevelt Dam: noncontract costs, PF-2B, page 14, line
15, $4,465,000.
(4) Other project costs: Water allocations non-contract costs, PF-2B,
page 33, line 9, $500,000.
OPC O&M during construction, PF-2B, page 33, line 15, $350,000.
Curation Facilities, PF-2B, page 34, line 3, $750,000.
Native Fish Protection, PF-2B, page 34, line 13, $2,775,000.
Native Fish--noncontract costs, PF-2B, page 34, line 14, $332,000.
(5) Environmental Enhancement: Major contracts, PF-2B, page 35, line
6, $2,200,000.
Noncontract costs, PF-2B, page 35, line 7, $801,000.
(6) New Waddell Dam: Roadrunner Campground, PF-2B, page 10, line 2,
$1,470,000.
New Recreation Enhancement Contracts, PF-2B, page 10, lines 3, 4, 5,
& 6, $1,550,000.
Non-contact costs, PF-2B, page 10, line 1, $2,255,000.
Total reduction in fiscal year 1997 cap budget--$20,573,000.
Mr. Chairman, in some cases these programs do not need to be funded
at all, and others require no funding in fiscal year 1997. For
instance, $1.6 million was requested for siphon work, but the Bureau of
Reclamation (the Bureau) completed siphon work on September 30, 1993.
Furthermore, the Bureau has declined to perform any siphon repairs that
may be needed. If this issue is ever resolved and the Bureau agrees to
initiate and do the work on the siphons in need of repair, then we can
provide them with money in fiscal year 1998. But the Bureau has not
made any indications that they are willing to undertake this work.
Another example of unneeded federal funding is the $1.5 million
earmarked for Reach 11 dike repairs. The Bureau has already completed
Reach 11 dike repairs and has no need of any more money for work
related to those repairs. Staff costs earmarked for modified Roosevelt
Dam are in a similar situation; $4.5 million was included for staff
costs. Modified Roosevelt Dam, however, is now complete and a notice of
``substantial completion'' will be issued by the Bureau this fall. And
that is an exorbitant cost to finish up this project.
The same can be said for over the $5 million recommended for
recreational related activities at New Waddell Dam. Although
recreational activities enhance one's overall outdoor experience, they
aren't integral to the delivery of Colorado River water to central and
southern Arizona, and they certainly shouldn't be paid by taxpayers
elsewhere in our nation. If a case can be made that these appealing,
yet ancillary activities, should be funded, then we can review this
information and consider funding them in fiscal year 1998. The list I
have prepared is replete with similar situations. That is why these
programs have been targeted for funding reductions.
The Bureau in responding to my amendment allege that cuts of the
order that I have proposed would jeopardize other CAP features and
delay work on several projects. The Bureau also states that the
proposed reductions would cause a delay in funding ``*** work on the
Pascua Yaqui and San Carlos Indian Distribution Systems ***'' and delay
the ``Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) Self Governance contract''. To
further illustrate their concern the Bureau claims that they would have
to ``reassign'' $5.3 million that has been earmarked for the GRIC
contract to other activities. This not so veiled threat is
gamesmanship, at best, and I categorically and completely refute the
Bureau's contentions.
First of all, my amendment does not have any impact on work related
to the Indian Distribution System account. Funding for work related to
this vital project is contained in a separate line item within the CAP
budget and one which my amendment leaves untouched. I firmly believe
that Federal commitments made to tribal leaders should be fulfilled.
Secondly, the Bureau's threat to reprogram monies set-aside for the
GRIC contract are hollow. Final reprogramming authority is vested with
Congress and more specifically

[[Page H8343]]

the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water
Development. I don't think this Congress will be a willing partner in
any effort to renege on a long-standing commitment to the Gila River
Indian Community. Lastly, I am amazed that in an era of downsizing the
Bureau of Reclamation is fighting tooth and nail to keep from trimming
their bureaucracy.
I am convinced that my amendment will not negatively impact ongoing
projects which are vital to the CAP. In fact, I have a letter from the
general manager of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, the
governing body of the CAP, endorsing my amendment.
In the letter the general manager reiterates that the reduction
proposed by my amendment will not impact CAWCD's ability to manage the
Central Arizona Project, and that CAWCD agrees with the level of
reductions that are being proposed.
Mr. Chairman, this is a win-win-win for all of us. American taxpayers
don't have to put up the front money for unnecessary work on this
project; CAP water users don't have to pay higher property taxes to
repay parts of a project that are unneeded; and Bureau personnel and
resources can be released for other important projects.
Mr. Chairman, this Nation is facing a $5.2 trillion debt, and this
Congress is working diligently to reduce our annual deficit. The
Central Arizona Water Conservation District and the residents of
Arizona are prepared to do our part to assist in this endeavor. My
amendment trims over $20 million from the Central Arizona Project's
budget in fiscal year 1997. I ask that my colleagues support this cost
saving amendment.

{time} 1945

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this cost-saving
amendment.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona has expired.
Does any Member seek time in opposition:
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, in the absence of any Member in opposition,
I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] be
allowed to take the 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Myers] for 5 minutes.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman, who is a member of
the full committee and a very strong advocate of the CAP, has discussed
this amendment with us. In examining his recommendations, on a number
of these we completely agree. How we missed them, I do not know.
As an example, the siphons. The siphons are in litigation, have been
for quite some time. And some of the repairs, I understand, have been
made. But there are still some that have not been made subject to
whatever the decision will be by the court. But a number of others are
legitimate and ways to save money.
Anytime this committee can find a way to save money, and it is
unanimous from the gentleman's delegation from Arizona, we have no
objections. We welcome it, and I thank the gentleman.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's support. The
Senators concur with that, and they will be offering the same reduction
over on the Senate side.
Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I have no objections.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. petri

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Petri: Page 12, line 23, after the
dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
Page 12, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $9,500,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] will be recognized for 10 minutes,
and a Member in opposition will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts the $10 million in the bill that
would be used to begin construction of the Animas-La Plata [A-LP]
Bureau of Reclamation water project in southern Colorado and northern
New Mexico.
Just on the face of it, pumping water over 1,000 feet uphill into
another watershed, largely for irrigation, does not appear to be a
sensible thing to do. I know of no other irrigation system with such an
inherently uneconomic basic design.
Proponents attempt to justify A-LP by saying it is needed to satisfy
Indian water rights claims, but this project can't possibly be built in
time to avoid litigation.
The 1988 Settlement Agreement says that if the Indian water rights
have not been fulfilled by the year 2000, the tribes may unilaterally
abandon the A-LP project and seek an alternative settlement. It is
physically impossible for the Bureau of Reclamation to meet this
construction deadline.
Although the Indian water rights provide an excuse for this project,
they are not its driving force. The driving force is huge Federal water
subsidies for local, non-Indian water users.
Now, let me be clear: I don't have a problem with supplying water to
non-Indian users--as long as they are willing to pay for it.
There is no national interest whatever in forcing my constitutents--
and everyone else's too--to pay for the massive water subsidies in A-
LP.
For example, let's look at irrigation, the use to which most of the
project's water would be devoted.
The capital cost of irrigating each acre of land works out to $7,467.
The land that would be irrigated is currently worth about $300 to
$500 per acre.
With irrigation, the value of these high elevation and rather
marginal lands might double.
The farmers who own this land are supposed to pay about $300 per acre
to build the A-LP project, but everybody else would pay the rest.
Does it make any sense at all to force nonirrigators to pay over
$7,000 per acre to raise irrigators' land values by a few hundred
dollars per acre?
For $7,000 per acre, maybe we could grow corn in Antarctica. But that
wouldn't make sense, and neither does this.
Federal taxpayers would get almost as bad a deal on the project's
municipal and industrial water. Under Federal law, municipal and
industrial users are supposed to cover the entire cost of that water--
signing a contract with the Federal Government before construction
starts.
In the case of the A-LP project, some repayment contracts have been
signed, but records show that those contracts wouldn't repay the full
cost of the water to the Treasury.
Even worse, only a couple of the municipal and industrial users have
signed such contracts, while other have not.
How can we possibly start building this project when we don't have
the appropriate contracts in place?
At the very least, we shouldn't appropriate money to start
construction on a boondoggle like this until applicable laws have been
complied with.
Perhaps the best argument against Animas-La Plata is contained in
this ad in favor of it, that appeared in the Durango Herald in 1987. It
says: ``Why we should support the Animas-La Plata project. Reason No.
7: Because someone else is paying most of the tab. We get the water. We
get the reservoir. They pay the bill.''
My friends, we should not pay this bill.
The days of massive Federal subsidies--subsidies from your
constituents and mine--for mammoth water

[[Page H8344]]

projects aimed at opening and developing the West should be over.
The West is open and developed. Any further development should be
paid for by the people who benefit from it.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on our amendment to
delete funding for this ``Jurassic'' porker.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member seeking time in opposition?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], my colleague of long standing, the
ranking member.
Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment to
kill the Animas-La Plata. I say that this is a project that actually
had 100 years of negotiation between the two large Indian tribes in
Colorado and the Indians. Those tribes gave up many of their very
valuable water rights.
They have unemployment at the rate of 65 percent, and every phase of
government entered into this agreement, the local government, the
State, the Federal Government. We had a ground breaking there some 3 or
4 or 5 years ago and over 2,000 people turned out for that dedication
because of the interest in this water project and because it means so
much to these people who have been suffering as a result of not having
a water supply.
With that agreement, the Federal Government as well as the others are
obligated. Everybody has lived up to their part of the agreement,
except the Federal Government, and is ready and willing to go ahead and
proceed with it. All the court cases by everybody that has opposed it
have been acted on unsuccessfully by those who opposed it. It seems we
still have some who feel like they are in opposition to the program.
But I urge we go ahead in all fairness and in commitments by this
Federal Government to those two Indian tribes and the people of
southwest Colorado that the gentleman from Indiana, Chairman Myers, and
I have visited during a time when everybody was getting together on it
and we participated in it. Many years of work have gone into it and the
integrity of the U.S. Government is really at stake with these people.
It would be very unfair and I just urge my colleagues to support the
Animas-La Plata project. It is one of great need and one that they
deserve and they are entitled to.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Let us try to explain the issue before us. Animas-La Plata. Sounds
good. Satisfy Indian claims, Well, actually, it is a project that
cannot be built without violating the environmental laws of our Nation,
voiding the laws that require local cost for sharing for new Federal
water projects.
It is a project that has been sold as an Indian water rights
settlement, except that it will not deliver affordable or usable water
to the Indian tribes in question. It is a project that will deliver a
$5,000 an acre irrigation subsidy to non-Indian farmers in the high
desert of southwestern Colorado so they can grow low-value crops. Two-
thirds of the water will go to them if this project is ever completed,
if we void the environmental laws, if we go ahead with a project that
will produce 36 cents of benefits for every Federal dollar invested.
Thirty-six cents of benefits for every Federal dollar invested. How
can that be in a time when we are striving to balance the Federal
budget? We will hear a lot from the opposition. They think they have a
strategy to get this through, 36 cents of benefits for every dollar
that every American taxpayer will invest. And they are going to say
that it is because it is satisfying Indian water claims. It is not.
What is before us today is called phase I stage A of the Animas-La
Plata project. It barely passes muster under the Endangered Species
Act. It fails the cost-benefit test. And it does not even come close to
satisfying the Indian water rights.

{time} 2000

That is phase one.
Now, if the proponents are successful in pushing through this nearly
$500 million project, despite the environmental problems, despite the
negative cost/benefit ratio, it still will not satisfy the Indian water
claims because it does not deliver the water to those tribes.
There is some thought that maybe they can sell the water or they can
do something else with it. Colorado law will not allow them to sell it
out of State. The water is going to be extraordinarily expensive. It is
not going to be delivered in time to satisfy the Indian water claims.
In fact, they can back out. The Bureau of Reclamation says we can
finish the project by 2003. The tribe has the right, after the year
2000, to back out of this agreement.
I believe when they see that they are going to be delivered water at
an extraordinary price that they cannot sell to anybody, that they are
going to opt out. They are going to pursue their claims in court and a
future Congress is going to be where we are today, except they will
have spent nearly $500 million, if they void the environmental laws of
the land, if they waive all cost share and if they build a project that
delivers 36 cents on the dollar, if we pony up all that money. And they
will then have to come up with some other proposal to meet the Indian
water claims.
There is a better way to do it. The Inspector General of the Interior
Department says, cut $170 million out of this particular project and
you can just direct it to the Indian claims and you could better meet
their claims. Local citizens are looking at other non-dam alternatives.
The amendment before us would cut $10 million that is going to
irrevocably commit us to this poorly thought out project. It is also
about the ultimate $481 million to be spent by the taxpayers to bring a
return of 36 cents on the dollar to Federal taxpayers. The proponents
cannot say it is economically justified. It is not, by the numbers of
the Bureau of Reclamation, who always try to cook the numbers in favor
of these projects, they cannot say it is environmentally justified. We
will have to waive a whole host of laws to complete the project. So
they are staking their hopes on convincing us that this will satisfy
the Indian water rights settlement. As I explained earlier, it will
not.
It is quite simple, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman. This half a billion
dollar boondoggle should be stopped now before we waste any more of
Federal taxpayers' dollars on this project.
Mr. MEYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis].
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend appreciation from
the native American tribes and from the people of the State of Colorado
to both the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Myers]. They realize the importance of this project. And
what is beautiful about the work that they have given us, they
understand the history. They know the history. They have seen the
history. Year after year they have been with us on this project,
because they understand the significance of what this government did in
1988 when we made an agreement with the native Americans.
Years ago, when I was a young man, I liked to trade baseball cards. I
remember very distinctly one time when I made a trade on a baseball
card. I did not give the card to the party with whom I traded. But I
had this baseball card. After I made the agreement to trade the card,
guess what? I found out that I could have got a lot more than I did. So
I went to my father and my mother. They were both business people. I
asked them, I said, I think I can get a lot better deal. I was kind of
hoping they were going to reinforce my thought at the time and that
was, go with the better deal. But my father and my mother said
one thing to me. This is exactly what they had. Son, keep your word.

You can talk about all the statistics that you want and the preceding
speakers have done that. The fact is, in 1988, the native Americans who
had a lawsuit against us, the United States of America, were about to
prevail on that lawsuit. I was in the State legislature. Our very best
attorneys told us we were going to lose that lawsuit. You

[[Page H8345]]

need to settle with the native Americans. You need to make an agreement
with them.
On behalf of the United States of America, on behalf of the State of
Colorado, President Reagan in this country, the U.S. Congress, the
State legislature in Colorado, all of the elected officials dealing
with this, we made an agreement with the native Americans. We said,
drop your lawsuit, because we know you are going to win; drop your
lawsuit and we will build this project.
Now look what happens. Is history coming back to haunt us again? Are
we once again going to walk away from the native Americans from the
promises we made? Do not let these statistics lead you astray. Those
are opinions. This is fact. This is fact. We have an agreement. We made
an agreement with the native Americans. We have every obligation to
fulfill that agreement.
You are going to hear some statistics, you have heard some earlier
that the costs were 36 times or the cost/benefit ratio. The study that
the gentleman from California uses, in fact, has in very clear language
that they do not consider the cost if we do not do what we said we were
going to do. And what is going to happen if we do not do what we said
we were going to do, for the gentleman from California, we are going to
have to build the project. They are going to sue us in Federal court.
We will lose. They will get specific performance. We will have to do
what we said we said we were going to do. We cannot build it for
several years because of the litigation. That will add hundreds of
millions of dollars in costs.
Then the court is going to assess the cost of the water, the value of
the water to storage between when we built the project and when we said
we were going to build it and when we finally did build it. On top of
that, they are going to assess attorney fees. If you worry about the
taxpayers today, you are going to vote no on this amendment, because
the taxpayers today are much further ahead by going ahead with this
project and just doing it.

In conclusion, let me just remind all of us, we made an agreement.
The gentleman from California had Congressmen out of California who are
signatories to this agreement. The Congress, this Congress made it. Our
President signed it. Our State legislature did it. I was in the room
when we sat down with the Indian chiefs and the native Americans
councils. One of their questions to us was, are you going to keep the
agreement? Fortunately, they did not trust us. They said, you are good
people and everything, but we want it in writing.
We put it in writing. We have a written contract. They call it a
treaty; we call it a contract. We have a written contract and it is
about time the people of this country and I think the people of this
country want to stand up and honor the obligations that we made to the
native Americans.
What more do you have if you do not have your word? We need to keep
our word.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Petri
amendment. This amendment is just common sense. It applies the
principles of fiscal responsibility and cost-benefit analysis that the
project's supporters always claim to support. And it protects an
environmentally precious area from needless degradation--another goal
to which we all claim allegiance.
Let's look at the economic issues first. The project would return
only 36 cents for every dollar invested. Who reached that conclusion?
Not an opponent of the project, but its sponsor--the Bureau of
Reclamation.
And not only does the project have a laughable cost-benefit ratio, it
has already exceeded its indexed cost ceiling--and that's without
factoring in the usual cost overruns. How can we balance the budget if
we fail to pull the plug on projects that cannot justify their costs or
live within a budget?
But this project would not only provide inadequate benefits, it would
cause actual and irreparable harm. It would divert almost half the flow
in one of the last free-flowing rivers in the West. It would destroy
numerous wetlands. It would jeopardize the existence of endangered
species. It would cause water quality violations in New Mexico.
It is no wonder that a broad coalition of taxpayer and environmental
groups are calling for passage of this amendment. The arguments are
compelling. Vote for the Petri amendment and pull the plug on wasteful
and environmentally damaging Federal spending.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] who has been on this project for
a good many years like the rest of us here.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to
this amendment because I really think it kills the Animas-La Plata
project. This project is a peacefully negotiated settlement between
parties that are normally at odds. By this action tonight, if we were
to concur in the amendment, I think we would strike a real death blow
at something that admittedly has not been perfected, has not been
worked out as much as we hope it can be, but prematurely put the Ute
and Mountain Ute tribes in a position of having in effect entrusted
themselves to a process that totally let them down. There is not any
question that their leadership has made a judgment and for 8 years that
judgment has been to work with the environmental community to find
compliance in this project. In patient, good faith efforts they have
extended this project and, therefore, it will cost more. But those 8
years of delay for the sake of the environment should not now be used
as a means of destroying their agreement, an agreement that we all have
made with the tribes that have, I think, cooperatively worked with
their Government to bring about the real acquisition of their water
rights.
We have heard a lot about the cost of this project. But Members do
not tell us that the second phase of the project is a non-Federal
commitment. They do not tell us that the agreement with the Fish and
Wildlife Service is going to limit the project's size. They do not tell
us that municipal and industrial users are fully reimbursable under
this and that power revenues from the Colorado River will pay for a
large segment of this project's cost. They do not talk about the fact
that water users must sign contracts to repay the Government. In fact
for 2 years now, sitting at the Department of Interior, are the
repayment contracts that would make sure that the taxpayers are not
taking a hit in this program. There is no way that we should turn our
back on these tribes or on the people of this part of Colorado.
I urge Members to join together with this committee and let this
project continue to be negotiated, with a supportive Secretary of
Interior, following Governor Romer and former Governor Lamm and Senator
Hart and Congressman Wirth in supporting this proposal. We can remove
many of the problems with further negotiation. Let us not once again
renege on a deal we've made.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I would conclude by saying that in fact very few municipal contracts
have been entered into for only a fraction of that part of the cost.
The cost of the project for the land involved will be $7,467 per acre,
several hundred dollars paid for by the landowners, the rest paid for
by the taxpayers. So that is the rest of the story. I urge adoption of
the amendment.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Chairman, the arguments used against this project have been used
many times. They were used in litigation in at least two court cases
that I am aware of. Mr. Bevill and I and Mr. Fazio have been on this
committee for a good many years. The same arguments were used in court
and it was settled several times, we thought, both legally and in
litigation with the environmentalists, only to have the
environmentalists find some new way to approach this.
Congress heard this same argument back in 1988, when Congress passed
the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988, agreeing
that we would start on this phase. This is phase 1 that we are speaking
about here.
It is absolutely true, the benefit-cost ratio only looked at one
phase of it.

[[Page H8346]]

The next phase the Indians will provide. The State of Colorado has
already appropriated $42,600,000 to complete this, realizing their
legal responsibility.
It is not a matter of fact tonight whether we should consider this
again. We have a number of times met the legal responsibility through
court action, litigation, as well as through congressional action, the
action of 1988, and agreement with the two Indian tribes, the Ute
Indian Tribes.
We have a legal responsibility. You might try to renegotiate and back
out on it, but it will not hold in court because we have agreed, both
through congressional action as well as through court action and
through litigation with the environmentalists, that we make this
agreement helping the Indian tribes and agreeing to the water rights
that they have.
They have given up a lot. We have a legal obligation. If you want to
address all these other things, OK. But legally, this Congress, even
though you may not have been here in 1988, or even prior to that, we
have a responsibility, you are part of us today who made that
responsibility. You have to go along or you destroy the whole system of
government.
Support the Indian tribes with whom we have a legal responsibility.
Reject this amendment.

{time} 2015

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 483, further proceeding on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] will
be postponed.

amendment offered by mr. pickett

Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Pickett: Page 6, line 5, strike
``and''.
Page 6, after line 5, insert the following:
Sandbridge Beach, Virginia Beach, Virginia, Beach Erosion
Control and Hurricane Protection, $283,000; and

Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before beginning my remarks on the amendment, I would like to join in
with the others who made laudatory remarks about the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] for the
outstanding job that they have done here in their capacity on this
committee. I think all Members recognize that stellar work they have
accomplished.
The amendment that I have offered is one that would transfer funds in
the bill for a project at Sandbridge Beach in the City of Virginia
Beach, that I represent, from planning to construction. This is for an
Erosion Control and Hurricane Protection act.
This project was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of
1992, and pursuant to the authorization, the people in Virginia Beach
in the area where the project is located entered upon a special tax
district that they assessed themselves, the moneys required to meet the
local match for this project.
In the justification for this project, the Army Corps of Engineers
took into account only the property protection aspects of the project.
Nothing else was considered. The project was fully justified based on
the property that it would protect, and if this project is not built,
there is going to be a substantial loss of property as a result of
water action from the Atlantic Ocean.
I would like to tell the body that the U.S. Navy occupies the
property immediately north of this project. The Navy has seen fit to
commence and is now completing a $6 million project to protect Navy
property in this area. If this project is not built, then the Navy
project could very well be put at risk because of wave action that
would take place in the project area.
The Army Corps of Engineers, in April 1996, completed its limited
reevaluation report and reaffirmed the economic justification used in
the project authorization.
The amount of money that is being set aside in the bill for planning
is $283,000. This amendment would allocate those funds for construction
purposes of the project. I am hopeful that by the time this bill is
presented to the President for his signature that some additional
moneys will be available for this project so that construction can go
ahead.
If this project is not built, as I have said, there is going to be
substantial property destruction. This property is largely insured
under a flood control program, which means that, one way or the other,
the company is going to end up paying the cost of this project.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PICKETT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's concern.
He has touched on a point that this committee suffered this year, and I
say ``suffered,'' and I mean just exactly that.
There are a great many projects such as the gentleman's very
meritorious. If we had all the money in the world, we would have a lot
more in here. But we have to prioritize, limit to only so many, and we
tried to go about what we thought was most important. Maybe we made
some mistakes; we hope not.
The gentleman has a very worthy project, but there are a number of
them.
The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky], the gentleman's State, had
a very important project that we just could not fund. The gentleman
from New York [Mr. Boehlert] was speaking about some in this district,
and he is a member of the authorizing committee. We spoke earlier about
Mr. Emerson of Missouri. These are all very fine projects, but we told
over a hundred in the same category as our colleague from Virginia that
we just could not deal with everything in the world.
The gentleman from Virginia is a gentleman; he has been very kind to
us. Very succinctly and very appropriately, he asked for those funds
when he appeared before our committee. We did put one of the programs
in for the gentleman's beach that we thought was maybe higher priority
than this, in our judgment--not the gentleman's, but our judgment--but
we felt that we just could not do everything that we would have liked
to do.
So we fully understand. I do not know what will happen when we go to
conference, whether there will be more money over there. We cannot
promise anybody anything, but these are some of the projects we will
have in mind as we go to conference.
So all we can tell the gentleman is, we hope he will withdraw it,
because we would love to have done it, but we just do not have the
money in the House.
Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PICKETT. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's position, and
like our chairman, if the door is closed, there is not much we can do.
But I just want to say it is a good project, and if during the
appropriations process, there is an opportunity, I will be supporting
the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. PICKETT. Mr. Chairman, with those remarks, I ask unanimous
consent to withdraw the amendment at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Virginia?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for the
purpose of engaging the chairman in a brief colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by recognizing the efforts to produce a
water and energy appropriations bill that continues the Federal
commitment to improving our Nation's water infrastructure. As the
chairman of the House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, I
share the gentleman's strong interest the quality of America's harbors,
reservoirs, rivers, canals, locks, and dams. Water infrastructure, as
we all know, is a critical component of this Nation's economic and
environmental future and the bill before us today reflects this
reality.

[[Page H8347]]

As my colleagues know, the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee reported the 1996 Water Resources Development Act this week,
and is likely to consider this legislation on the House floor next
week. Included in WRDA 1996 is a measure that is critical to the public
health of 9 million Americans. That is section 554, the New York City
Watershed Program. WRDA 1996 authorizes $25 million for the Corps of
Engineers to carry out critical water-related environmental
infrastructure projects in the 2,000 square mile New York City
Watershed. Through this and other targeted programs in the watershed we
will be able to protect the drinking water supply for 9 million
Americans while saving $8 billion in unnecessary filtration
expenditures. This point bears repeating--we will be able to protect
the drinking water supply for 9 million Americans and save taxpayers
over $8 billion through the New York City Watershed Program.
It is my understanding that the chairman understands the critical
nature of the New York City Watershed Program authorized in WRDA 1996
and that funding this program will be a priority in conference. Is my
understanding correct?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. We have
worked very closely with the gentleman who is chairman of the
subcommittee. This is a high priority, but as I expressed earlier to
our colleague from Virginia, it is one of those things that we just
simply run out of money. But it is very high priority and would be a
model for other programs.
So it is a very high priority. If money can be found someplace
between now and conference, it will be a very high priority. We cannot
do everything for everyone. The chairman and I have both visited the
tunnels in New York City; we understand the tremendous problem New York
City is going to have in the future that supply municipal and
industrial water for the population of New York City. So we fully
understand and we will do our best. I assure the gentleman from New
York, we will work with him.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Indiana for his support, and I want to thank the ranking minority
member for the interest he has evidenced in this. Before I sit down, I
want to say on behalf of all of my colleagues how much we appreciate
the work of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and all the great
work the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] did over the years. It has
been a pleasure for all of us to work with them, and I say, both of
these gentlemen are going to be deeply missed.

amendment offered by mr. klug

Mr. Klug. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Klug: Page 34, line 2, after the
dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$16,000,000)''.
Page 34, line 9, strike the colon and all that follows
through ``activities'' on line 12.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House to today, the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, much of the debate in this House
and this Chamber over the last 2 years has really focused on what level
of Government best organizes and administers program. In fact, we just
had a vote in the Chamber last week on welfare reform, and we decided
that States were capable of essentially running their own operations
and administering their own programs.
Well, I think the second part of that dialogue that needs to go on
and frankly needs to be amplified over the next several years is, are
there programs involved that maybe we should not run or the States
should not run, that we should just get out of, out of altogether. That
is where we find ourselves, I think, today in this discussion about the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Now, my colleagues are going to hear in a couple of minutes about
what an important economic tool the TVA has been for the southeastern
region of the United States, and you get no arguments from me, but the
TVA was first established in the 1930's, and here we are, 60 years
later, making the same argument that the region served by the Tennessee
Valley Authority needs additional help from the Federal Government to
kind of kick-start its economy.
The money we have targeted in this amendment is merely $16 million in
economic development money targeted to the TVA region.
Now, let me make it clear that the region served by the Tennessee
Valley Authority already gets money under the Economic Development
Administration, as does every other region of this country; and in
addition, the TVA gets an additional pot of money because it is part of
the region served by the Appalachian Regional Commission, which pours
additional economic development money into the 13 States that stretch
along the Appalachian River.
So the TVA gets money for 60 years, it gets additional money from the
Appalachian Regional Commission, and it gets economic development money
already poured into economic development projects across the rest of
the country.
This is a very simple amendment. And let me make it clear that the
TVA itself admits that economic development is not an essential part of
its appropriated activity; it is not required in statute under Federal
law, and in fact, the TVA itself proposes phasing out this function
over the next 3 years. In this town, it is always the next 3 years; it
is never today and it is never this year.
Let us make it very simple and begin to separate ourselves from the
Tennessee Valley Authority and say, no more economic development money,
strike this $16 million.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana will control the 10 minutes
in opposition.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this unnecessary
agreement and want to say to my colleagues here that the economic
development activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority were created
so that this section of the country could have the opportunity to have
the kind of economic development that other sections of the country
would have.
TVA has in fact taken steps, I say to my colleague, to phase this
out. This would not be the time to pull the rug out from under them.
They have shifted from a grant activity program to business services
and investments. They have in fact cut staff by 45 percent. They have
terminated 25 programs. So they are on line to do what we want them to
do. It is just that they cannot have this rug pulled out from under
them.
Currently, there are over $40 million in existing programs being
managed by TVA. TVA must phase out those programs, but they have got to
do that in an orderly way. We are holding their feet to the fire, but
we are doing it in a responsible way.
Let us oppose this irresponsible amendment.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Foley].

{time} 2030

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the
amendment to strike economic development funding from the Tennessee
Valley Authority. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Klug], the chairman of the Privatization Task Force, for bringing this
amendment to the attention of this body.
This taxpayer-friendly amendment would save $16 million in an
unnecessary appropriation from this legislation. The gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] mentioned, and I read from page 130 of the bill,
the economic development, ``In testimony before the Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development this year, TVA conceded that

[[Page H8348]]

economic development is not an essential appropriated activity of the
Authority.'' They agree. They admit it. But they still want $16
million.
What my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Klug], is getting
at today is not merely the unnecessary $16 million appropriation for
economic development, but the larger problem of the TVA, an authority
that the former TVA Executive, Mr. William Malec, said should be sold,
and called a ``New Deal Dinosaur'' in the Wall Street Journal this time
last year.
I think the elimination of the economic development funding for the
TVA is a prudent and fiscally responsible step, especially given the
fact that the TVA itself admitted that the economic development is not
an essential activity.
Let us look at a newspaper article. First of all, ``Power Agency to
Form Joint Venture in India. The Tennessee Valley Authority intends to
lend its agency and expertise to a profit-producing joint venture in
India.''
OK, ``Limo Expenses Among TVA Expenditures.'' Knoxville News Journal:
``$86,000 spent on trips,'' $86,000 of ratepayers' money. Then,
thousands on alcoholic beverages; nearly $40,000 for limousine
services; and $48,000 for air travel to and from China. Mr. Chairman,
when it is their own money, they go by cab or Metro. When it is the
Government's money, let us call up a limousine, a Lincoln Town Car.
Now, they were asked: ``Please tell us why you use expensive
chauffeur-driven Lincoln Town Cars rather than using rental cars,
taxis, or the Washington's electric air-conditioned subway system?''
``I am writing down your question and I will get back to you.'' Mr.
Francis from the Authority says, ``I am writing the question down, I
will have to get back to you.'' He could not answer it. Now we are
going to China, we are going to India. And this is supposed to be
promoting economic development in the Southeast. Southeast Asia? I must
have missed where we are doing business.
Mr. Chairman, this is taxpayers' dollars. Sixteen million dollars I
know does not amount to a hill of beans around this place. Unless you
talk billions and trillions, you do not get anybody's attention. Today
Mr. Klug's amendment will save $16 million. Mr. and Mrs. Average
America could thank you for that kind of sacrifice.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the ranking member of the
committee.
Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I do not know
of any public works project in the history of this Congress that has
been more successful than the Tennessee Valley Authority, which was
created by the Roosevelt administration for the purpose of leading this
Nation out of a Great Depression. It has been very successful. It is
the only project that I know that sends the government a check every
month, or every year, it is an annual payment, paying it back for all
that the Federal Government deposited into it.
This particular part of the program, which has nothing to do with the
power program, which is self-sustaining, is an economic development
program. It has proven very successful, It has returned $16.00 for
every federal dollar that has been invested. But the committee, the
subcommittee, has approved and recommends to the Members that this
program over the next 3 years, be phased out, so that there will be no
rough edges. We cannot just use the chop block method that is being
used now and just cut it all off. They have contracts. It will cost the
government more money. As we say, it will be penny-wise and pound
foolish just to try to cut the funds off of this project.
The subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations has approved it,
the full committee unanimously approved this plan, and for goodness
sakes, do not take out after it with a hatchet here and try to pretend
you are saving money, because you are not. You will be wasting money.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Clement].
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from
Wisconsin, he would not get a Gold Medal in the South or the Tennessee
Valley area for his misrepresentation of the facts, being a former
member of the TVA and former chairman of the TVA Congressional Caucus.
We do have a lot to be proud of, just as the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. Bevill] said.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague who is offering the amendment is not from
the seven-State region which TVA services. Perhaps he does not realize
the important role TVA plays as a regional development agency. TVA
provides electricity to over 7 million citizens in seven States. This
service is fully funded by TVA customers, charged by Congress to help
develop the Tennessee Valley region, not by the taxpayers.
Let me repeat this, Mr. Chairman, because I think it goes to the
heart of the debate today: TVA is a resource development agency,
charged by Congress to help develop the Tennessee Valley region.
Wisconsin and other States do it in different ways. They receive
Federal funds, but it goes through different departments and agencies.
We decided in the South that we would designate TVA as that agency that
appropriates those funds and provides those services.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a final point regarding some of
the misconceptions and outright inaccuracies made by TVA's critics.
They leave the impression that the Federal taxpayer is subsidizing
TVA's power program. I repeat it again, nothing could be further from
the truth. The truth is that TVA must charge sufficient electric rates
to cover the cost of the power program. Not one single Federal cent
goes into TVA's power programs, so when TVA critics state that TVA
provides government-subsidized power, obviously they have been
misinformed or ill-advised.
The Klug amendment is wrong in its assumptions and it is wrong for
our people. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Klug amendment.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one brief point, which is to say
that my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama, points out that every
year the TVA writes a check to Washington. Of course they do, because
they borrowed money from us. In fact, the Tennessee Valley Authority is
$28 billion in debt. That is why they sent us checks, not because they
are making money. If they were making money on the operation they would
not have to get $16 million in appropriated funds.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Franks].
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker on the
other side indicated that the TVA is an enormously valuable program. It
may well be. But the problem is that it promotes an egregious regional
inequity. The program is great, but only for that handful of States
that benefit from its activities. The fact of the matter is the
taxpayers from all around the country are paying for this subsidy for
only one region. That regional inequity should not longer be able to
prevail in a climate where we are struggling to balance the Federal
budget.
We have also noted that TVA derives significant economic development
activity funds from a variety of agencies, including the Appalachian
Regional Commission and the Economic Development Administration. When
the very leadership of the TVA says in testimony before the
subcommittee that this is not a core mission and it ought to be phased
out, that should give us the open opportunity to exploit that
opportunity by ridding ourselves of this unnecessary program. It will
help to eliminate this regional inequity and help us balance the
Federal budget.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I want to leave the time to close to the
distinguished TVA Caucus chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Quillen].
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the Academy Awards could
be given out here tonight. TVA's budget is about $5.5 billion. One
fifty-first of that budget comes from the Federal Government. The rest
of it is ratepayer income. It is one of the biggest power companies in
the country. We cannot

[[Page H8349]]

take the budget from the power side and compare it to the nonpower
side. They are phasing out the economic development budget; not phasing
it out, they are moving it over 3 years from the nonpower program,
which we subsidize, over to the power program.
If we add up the ARC money, the EDA money, and the TVA money our
region gets, we are still way behind the rest of the country. That is
what we have to point out. The entire Appalachian region, gentlemen,
has been impoverished since the Great Depression, and we are still
behind the rest of the country. There is a legitimate reason for some
of this funding. You cannot just wipe it all out at one time. We are
downsizing TVA efficiently, effectively. We took a cut last year. We
are taking another cut this year. But you cannot just wipe it all out.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to make several key points to close.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the gentleman from Florida,
pointed out that if the TVA has the financial resources to do deals in
India and China, and that is where their investments are, then what in
God's name are we doing sending the taxpayers' money to Tennessee?
As the region already gets $170 million in economic development aid
from the Economic Development Administration and from the Appalachian
Regional Commission, so we are going to send them a third pot of money
to go to the Tennessee Valley Authority region?
Finally, let me make the point from where we were last week in this
Chamber. We have been talking about ending welfare as we know it in
this country. We want to set time limits for individuals, to say no
more aid for 2 years. We want to make welfare a ladder, not an
escalator.
We are talking about 60 years of Federal aid. It did a valuable
service back in the 1930s. I do not begrudge that. It has done a
wonderful job servicing the Southeast corner of the United States, but
the fundamental question is, when is enough enough? I know it is going
to get done in 3 years. Everything around here always gets done in 3
years. My simple answer is, get it done this year: Sixteen million
dollars zeroed out.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, with pleasure, I yield the
balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], the
Republican dean of the House of Representatives in the majority party,
the chairman of the TVA Caucus, and a good friend for many years.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, here we go again: the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Klug], trying to destroy other parts of the country, when he does not
try to destroy any part of his State. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to
the Corps of Engineers, he supports it. He does everything except
wanting to do violence to TVA and the ARC in other parts of the
country.
TVA is a fine organization. It has tightened its belt and is doing a
great job economically, in economic development, and has created over
300 new business, several hundred thousand jobs. It does a tremendously
helping hand for all of the area.
Mr. Chairman, TVA covers seven States, 60 percent rural, when the
dams were created to stop the flooding so farmers could exist. If all
of the funds for TVA appropriated by the Government are cut out, then
the Corps of Engineers would have to take over and do the things that
TVA is doing now.
Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, he is off
target, he is off base. Leave us alone. Sixteen million dollars for
economic development brings up an area that is in poverty. We must not
listen to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Vote to defeat his amendment,
and let us look at something that he offers in the future for
Wisconsin, and maybe we would give that more attention than he has
given to the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the amendment be defeated. I urge that the
people come to the cause of supporting TVA and the $16 million economic
development funds. Over the 2-year period or longer, those funds have
been reduced more than half, so let us do this tonight. Let us do it
for the poor people of the Tennessee Valley area. Let us do it for
America. I urge the defeat of the amendment.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Representative
Klug's amendment which would eliminate funding for the Tennessee Valley
Authority's [TVA] economic development activities.
The mission of TVA's Economic Development program is to increase the
number of businesses and quality jobs in the Tennessee Valley with
emphasis on rural communities. The Tennessee Valley is almost 60
percent rural. Rural per capita income in this area is 27 percent below
the national average with over 18 percent living below the poverty
level.
As part of its economic development program, TVA's business
incubators are effective national models. Partnerships in nine Valley
business incubators resulted in the creation of over 300 new businesses
and over 2200 new jobs. In my own district, a TVA-Huntsville-Madison
County alliance for Technology Transfer has proved invaluable. Local
technical, academic, and business experts are aligned to help small and
new high-tech firms solve problems in many areas including materials
and manufacturing processes. A successful Shoals Entrepreneurial Center
has required two expansions with over 150 jobs created--three
businesses have graduated from incubators. A Managers Assistance and
Training for Minority Business Entrepreneurs program aided five
business startups and supported eight existing minority small business.
TVA also manages an additional $12 million in projects for the
Appalachian Regional Council [ARC] for a total of $52 million in
existing programs.
Nevertheless, in order to be sensitive to Federal budget pressures
and still allow for an orderly and business-like phaseout of existing
programs and services, the TVA Board of Directors recommended the
following fiscally responsible phaseout plan for economic development.
In the past 3 years, TVA has shifted economic development programs from
grants to business services and investments. In fiscal year 1995 and
1996, new investments returned $16 for each dollar TVA invested. Staff
has been reduced by 45 percent in the past 3 years and 25 major
programs have been terminated
Over 50 percent of economic development funds go direct into the
communities for programs and services. There are currently over $40
million in existing programs being managed by TVA that must be phased
out in a logical and orderly, business-like manner. Ignoring TVA's
proposed phaseout plan would unnecessarily devastate these programs in
hundreds of communities in 7 States. This action would be wrong and
unjustified given the strength TVA has clearly demonstrated in economic
development.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this mean-spirited, unnecessary
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug.].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 483, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug]
will be postponed.

amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 10.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher: Page 17, line
21, after the dollar amount, insert the following. ``(reduced
by $1,000)''.
Page 17, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $5,200,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] and a Member opposed will
each be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses the concerns of many Members,
including some on my subcommittee, that we should continue to fund
renewable energy research.
Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has confused the issue by
constantly directing funds away from research and into the
commericalization and marketing process.

[[Page H8350]]

{time} 2045

I believe the result has been harmful to the future success of the
renewable energies technologies that our country will depend upon in
the future
My amendment would move the program in the right direction by
restoring the photovoltaic research program to fiscal year 1996 levels.
It would do so without taking money from other science research
programs. Instead, it would add $9.2 million to the photovoltaic
program as follows: $5.2 million from program direction, $2 million
from the renewable energy production incentive, $2 million from the
solar appliance R&D account. In the budget this is still listed by its
old name, solar building technology research.
So first let us talk about bureaucracy. The Department of Energy's
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is funded for two
appropriations bills, both energy and water and interior. All together,
program direction has $48 million of the total appropriations to run a
$700 million program. By comparison, energy research operates a $1.4
billion program with only $30 million in program direction. This
amendment would still leave the office with $43 million for this
purpose.
Why is this number inflated, one might ask? Well, one reason is that
this office has become the repository for the Clinton reelection team.
Since 1994, the political appointees have nearly doubled from 8 to 15.
By comparison, energy research, fossil energy and nuclear energy have 4
apiece, 4 political appointees apiece. Let us put these people back on
the campaign payroll and use taxpayer funds for solar energy research.
The renewable energy production incentive is nothing more than a
handout to utilities and, basically, we are trying to basically
convince them to use alternative energy sources. But when it comes
right down to it, what we are talking about is a handout to utilities.
The solar building technologies program includes many small programs,
but its primary purpose is to promote the use of solar hot water
heaters.
This is a pet project of the solar industry lobbying group, and no
wonder it is. The Department of Energy basically extends $1.7 million
this year. Basically of that, $265,000 of it goes to the Solar Energy
Industries Association.
Well, Mr. Chairman, every dime that is not spent on these promotion
programs goes to research programs, and every dime that goes to
promotion programs comes out of the hide of research. So when we are
talking about the photovoltaic program, it is a success story. Since
1976 the cost per kilowatt hour has dropped from $5 to 16 cents. If
solar energy is to become a real alternative, the cost must continue to
go down. Spending scarce funds which should be going to research on
promotional programs may be great for the lobbyists, but it does
nothing to help renewable energy.
It is also wrong to use other science programs as a cash cow for
basically renewable energy, as the Schaefer amendment does. My
amendment is the only one that would not cut one research program to
fund another. If my colleagues want to support true solar energy
research without cutting other science programs, one should vote yes on
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. FAZIO of California. I am, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill].
Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I just rise in opposition to the amendment and urge
everyone to vote against it and support the subcommittee and the full
Committee on Appropriations and support the House position.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume. I would be at this time inclined to use the remainder so
that we can move on with this debate.
I rise in opposition to the Rohrabacher amendment and in support of
the amendment adopted by the full Committee on Appropriations which was
offered by myself and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs],
another member of the subcommittee.
I regret that I must say I begin by agreeing with the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher]. There is a need for photovoltaic
research, and the way to accomplish that is to support what may be the
next amendment offered, an amendment offered by the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], that will add $7 million to the photovoltaic
research program.
That is, I think, the best way to address the concern that Mr.
Rohrabacher indicated he hopes to relate to with his amendment. But I
must oppose the source of the funds that he has outlined for that
purpose.
First of all, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power and the full
committee chose to add $10 million to three of the six programs that
were zeroed out in the markup for fiscal year 1997. They are wind
energy, solar buildings, and the renewable energy production incentive
program. REPI, as it is called, is the equivalent for public utilities
of a program that operates through the Tax Code for those in the
stockholder-owned utility category.
There is no question that the program has worked. It permits the
Department of Energy to pay consumer-owned utilities up to 1.5 cents
per kilowatt for electricity generated by projects that use solar,
winnd, geothermal or biomass technologies. These REPI funds have
provided the margin of difference required to make a new project
feasible. Across the country we have found that this is the key to
bringing a number of renewal projects on line.
There are many, many, many kilowatt hours of fossil fuels saved as a
result of this renewable investment. We ought not to eliminate, as the
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] would, this very important
program.
The solar buildings appliances R&D program is designed to conduct the
research and development necessary to develop energy-producing
technologies that are an integral part of advancing the science
and technology base for solar renewable programs. This is not some sort
of benefit to developers, as Mr. Rohrabacher unfortunately indicates.
It really has made a tremendous difference since the mid-1970's in
bringing on many new solar technologies; yes, including solar water
heating systems that have been installed nationwide generating some
25,000 job years of employment and creating tremendous savings to our
utilities across the country.

So once again, this is not an appropriate place for the Congress or
Mr. Rohrabacher to zero out funding. These are modest sums. We are only
asking for $2 million to be spent in this category. So I would hope
that Members here on the floor will not only support the Schaefer
amendment that is coming up soon that will address all of the needs in
the renewable area that have been left, regrettably, in this very tight
budget year, but certainly not undo any of the progress that we
attempted to make in full committee. We understand that all of these
programs need a modest amount of funding, and they cannot be traded off
one for another.
That is why I hope that Mr. Rohrabacher will not ask for a recorded
vote and will allow the debate on the Schaefer amendment to really
suffice as we deal with the need to move forward on our solar renewable
account with very limited funds in this bill.
I am hopeful that all of us will appreciate the fact that we have
made tremendous market penetration and that our collaborative approach
here using some 100 utilities around the country will continue in a way
that will allow us to have even further market penetration of up to
perhaps 300 percent more during the next 3 to 5 years, both through the
REPI Program and as a result of some of the research investments that
we have made.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say I will be asking for a recorded vote on
this. This goes right to the core of what we are spending our money on.
The fact is photovoltaic cells have shown a great deal of progress.
We are

[[Page H8351]]

taking money right out of research and development to put into
promotional programs to get people to put hot water heaters on their
roofs, things that are outdated, programs that are just heavy with
bureaucracy.
Let us keep money in research and development; let us make sure that
we develop solar energy and do what we are supposed to do with our
money rather than feed the bureaucracy. That is what this choice is all
about. I would ask my colleagues to back up what the real purpose of
our spending is supposed to be for, science and development, and that
is spending it to improve better technology.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude simply by
saying that I think we are talking about research and development.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] to make that point. This is not a bail-out
for developers, it is research and development in other areas of solar
energy.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It has been mistaken many, many times that renewables are corporate
welfare, and this is not the case. The Energy Policy Act that was
passed in 1992 was with overwhelming support by 362 House Members, and
signed by President Bush. I think this is an excellent piece of
legislation as is. We should continue to support it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 483, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Rohrabacher] will be postponed.

amendment offered by Mr. bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. 506. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control
Manual when it is made known to the Federal entity or
official to which the funds are made available that such
revision provides for an increase in the springtime water
release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow
melt period in States that have rivers draining into the
Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment which would simply
prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from revising the Missouri River
master water control manual in such a way that it would increase the
likelihood of springtime flooding. This is the same amendment which was
accepted on the House floor last year, exactly the same language,
during consideration of the energy and water appropriation bill.
This common-sense amendment is needed to ensure that the Corps does
not repeat its previous mistake, a proposal which would have devastated
farms, businesses, landowners in countless communities along the
Missouri River. In 1994 the Corps issued its proposed changes to the
master manual and made a colossal blunder by proposing to drastically
increase the flow and water level of the Missouri River during the
months of April, May, and June. These obviously are the very months
when States such as Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri are already
most vulnerable to flooding due to snow melt and heavy rainfall. And
again we saw that this year.
It is bad enough that farmers and other landowners along the river
have to contend with natural disasters. They should not be forced to
deal with the kind of manmade disasters which would have been caused by
the Corps' proposal. The floods and heavy spring rains of recent years,
again this year, offer clear and convincing proof that the proposal was
seriously flawed.
Mr. Chairman, at a series of two dozen hearings throughout the
Missouri River Basin region, hundreds and hundreds of citizens
expressed their very strong, even vociferous and nearly unanimous
opposition to a number of provisions in the Corps' preferred
alternative. One of the most detested provisions was the increased
spring rise. Following this massive opposition to the proposed changes,
the Corps acknowledged the flaws in its original proposal and expressed
a willingness to reevaluate the issue.
However, this Member believes this common-sense amendment is needed
to make absolutely certain that the Corps does not move away from their
commitment and repeat the mistake of the manual.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. The committee has examined the gentleman's
amendment. It is, I think, exactly the same language that was offered
last year?
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, it is.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. There was some question last year about the
concern of downstream or other Members, but I understand that has been
resolved, at least. Contingent upon that, we accept the amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member in opposition to the Bereuter
amendment?
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson] is
recognized for 5 minutes.

{time} 2100

Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes, and I will not ask for a
recorded vote. I simply want to, however, express concern about
legislative changes to the master manual, a process which already has
been delayed some time here. There is great concern among Northern
States, upstream States of the Missouri River about a long overdue
change in the master manual, a concern about changes of priorities
which have occurred since the Pick-Sloan plan was first established
decades ago. While the gentleman from Nebraska's amendment, I do not
believe, is by itself something to cause great concern in the State of
South Dakota--it may in fact be neutral in many ways--I do want to
express some concern about legislative efforts other places and here to
address the master manual to head off the deliberation that is going on
in the course of making long overdue modifications of that manual.
Again while I do not have great resistance and I understand where the
gentleman from Nebraska is coming from, I do want to express concern
about short-circuits of that manual deliberation.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank my colleague, my neighbor, my friend for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman quite candidly and with
full commitment, I am not interested in delaying the revision of the
master manual. All I want to assure is what the citizens downstream
from the gentleman have said. That is, that the spring rise only
accentuates the normal kind of flooding we too often have from snow
melt and from excessively heavy rains during that period of time. I
want to see the revision myself. I believe it is true that my amendment
should not have any impact upon the upstate Missouri--Montana, North
Dakota, and South Dakota--States. I am committed to seeing the manual
revised and something hopefully that can please all the States.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
He has long played a constructive role relative to the Missouri River
and development of the northern plains in

[[Page H8352]]

general. Again I have some concern about legislative strategy at this
point, but I do recognize the concern that the gentleman from Nebraska
has. We share a concern about downstream flooding, erosion on the river
banks and so on. I certainly do recognize that as a legitimate concern
that he has.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I
think it does no damage to my upstream friends from the Dakotas. I urge
the adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Illinois is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Myers], the chairman, in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss with the
gentleman the importance of a provision in this particular bill.
First, I want to thank the chairman for his hard work in bringing
this vital piece of legislation to the floor. This bill includes
funding for many important energy and water initiatives throughout the
country, and there is one particular project of particular concern to
the people of the Chicago metropolitan area, particularly in the south
suburbs which I represent. That is a project which I know the gentleman
is personally familiar with because of his personal visit to the south
suburbs earlier this June. That is particularly the tunnel and
reservoir project, which many know as the deep tunnel, TARP, in the
Chicago metropolitan area.
As you know, the Thornton Reservoir, in the south suburbs, is an
important project which is designed to protect south suburban
communities in the south suburbs and will provide about 5 billion
gallons of floodwater storage when completed. The reservoir has a
service area of 91 square miles and provides flood relief to 131,000
dwellings in 14 communities with a current population of over a half
million.
Mr. Chairman, I flew back to Illinois just this past weekend, on
Friday, because of excessive flooding that occurred in my district and
throughout the Chicago area. Like my colleagues in the Chicago area, I
saw firsthand the devastation to hundreds of homes and small businesses
caused by these high waters. In fact, four counties in my district were
declared a state of emergency by the Governor. The Governor has since
requested Federal disaster relief. If the TARP were fully operational,
most of this flooding would not have occurred.
It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to clarify
this with the gentleman, that there is carryover construction funding
for the Army Corps of Engineers which has been included in this
particular bill. The energy and water report language directs the Corps
of Engineers to use $6,650,000 of this funding to continue construction
of the McCook and Thornton Reservoir projects.
Mr. Chairman, is that the intended use of this funding?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELLER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his
question. I am quite familiar with the problems on the Sout' Side, my
wife coming from the Sout' Side. I taught her to speak English. She
says ``South Side'' now. But, yes, I am very familiar with the project.
For years I have watched the Thornton quarry being dug out, another
useful use for this quarry.
I am very familiar with the floods the gentleman is having on the
West Side and the south side. In fact, for a number of years we have
been providing for some type of water plan that you have now for
restoring this surface water, and we now have the McCook and the
Thornton program. Last year we put in $6,655,000 for the design, of
which $604,000 is still available for the Thornton Reservoir.
Of course, there are some problems about real estate as we visited
the gentleman's area. As soon as that real estate gets worked out, we
are directing the Corps to continue the project, the design and
engineering. There is no reason why that would not be on schedule. I
think maybe as early as early fall, this year, is our understanding
with the Corps. But the Corps is understanding, and they are ready to
start moving as soon as they get that real estate problem worked out, a
trading of land as we have discussed.
The gentleman is right, it is on schedule. It has to be done. It is
tragic that they had to have this flood. I am glad they had it after I
was there. I hope I did not cause it.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I of course want to thank the gentleman for
the support he has given the people of the south suburbs and the fact
that we have allocated $6,650,000 to help continue construction of the
Thornton and McCook Reservoirs will be a big help for flood relief. Of
course I want to thank the gentleman for his personal time and
investment in this project and also for his support, the fact that it
was included in this important piece of legislation.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. We clearly recognize the need and will continue
to support your wishes.

sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 483, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed
in the following order: Amendment No. 17 offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri]; amendment No. 7 offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug]; and amendment No. 10 offered by the gentleman
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

amendment offered by Mr. petri

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221,
noes 200, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 354]

AYES--221

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TX)
Bunning
Buyer
Camp
Campbell
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fields (LA)
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frisa
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Heineman
Hinchey
Hobson
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal

[[Page H8353]]

Neumann
Ney
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Porter
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Zimmer

NOES--200

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
de la Garza
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Ehrlich
Ensign
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flanagan
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Gonzalez
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kim
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meek
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Sabo
Schaefer
Schiff
Shadegg
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
White
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Young (AK)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--12

Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Ford
Gibbons
Hayes
Jefferson
Lincoln
McDade
Rose
Yates
Young (FL)

{time} 2132

Miss COLLINS of Michigan, Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD, Messrs. BURTON of
Indiana, TIAHRT, LEWIS of Kentucky, McCOLLUM, SOLOMON, FAWELL, McKEON,
McCREARY, GREENWOOD, BACHUS, BROWDER, BECERRA, BONO, WARD, COX of
California, and Mrs. CUBIN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. MATSUI, BLUMENAUER, COYNE, HASTERT, HALL of Texas, Mrs.
ROUKEMA, Messrs. EWING, TANNER, EDWARDS, JOHNSON of South Dakota,
MINGE, HEFNER, McHUGH, TORKILDSEN, LAZIO of New York, and ORTIZ changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

amendment offered by Mr. klug

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184,
noes 236, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 355]

AYES--184

Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blute
Boehner
Bono
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Burr
Burton
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Doggett
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Ensign
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goss
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hamilton
Hancock
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
King
Kleczka
Klug
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
LoBiondo
Longley
Luther
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
McCarthy
McCollum
McHale
McInnis
McKeon
Meehan
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moorhead
Moran
Nethercutt
Neumann
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Upton
Walker
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wolf
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--236

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Bachus
Baesler
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Cardin
Chambliss
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
Dellums
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Franks (CT)
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Heineman
Hilleary
Hilliard
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
LaFalce
Lantos
Latham
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McIntosh
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Roberts
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Shuster
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Wamp

[[Page H8354]]

Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Kaptur

NOT VOTING--12

Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Ford
Gibbons
Hayes
Jefferson
Lincoln
McDade
Rose
Yates
Young (FL)

{time} 2140

Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. HARMAN, and Mr. FAWELL changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Rohrabacher] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

recorded vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 90,
noes 331, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 356]

AYES--90

Archer
Armey
Bartlett
Barton
Bilbray
Bono
Burton
Calvert
Campbell
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Diaz-Balart
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English
Ensign
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fox
Funderburk
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Goodling
Goss
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hancock
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hoke
Horn
Inglis
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kildee
Kim
Klug
Largent
Linder
McCollum
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Metcalf
Mica
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neumann
Ney
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sanford
Scarborough
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Souder
Stearns
Stockman
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Tiahrt
Walker
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller

NOES--331

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Chambliss
Chapman
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCrery
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Neal
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Harman

NOT VOTING--11

Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Ford
Gibbons
Hayes
Lincoln
McDade
Rose
Yates
Young (FL)

{time} 2148

Mr. SHADEGG and Mr. CREMEANS changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike
the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, we have just had our last vote
for the evening. What we plan to do at this point forward, after
working with the leadership on the Democrat as well as on the
Republican side, as well as the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill],
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], we have agreed that what we will do now, we
will consider those amendments that were made in order under the
unanimous consent agreement earlier, we will have no more recorded
votes.
Any votes ordered will be put over until tomorrow morning sometime
after 10 o'clock, so if my colleagues have an amendment that they are
going to offer tonight under the rule, or if they have some comment
they would like to make about the amendment, they had better stick
around tonight because we will not honor any amendments tomorrow. We
are going to finish all amendments tonight except the final passage on
any amendments on any vote that is ordered.
If there is any question about that, my colleagues had better bring
it up now, but that is the way it is going to be done.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Indiana needs to
clarify that we are going to finish all debate on all amendments.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. We will finish all debate. We will have a vote
if any votes are ordered. We will roll those over until tomorrow. All
debate will be finished tonight on the bill, except final passage and
any votes on amendments ordered tonight. But there will be no debate or
amendments tomorrow.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Texas?
There was no objection.

[[Page H8355]]

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me acknowledge the
kindness of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], and the ranking
member, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], and the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for allowing me this time.
Certainly I know a lot of work has gone into the energy and water
development appropriations subcommittee work, and I would like to
inquire of the gentleman from Indiana if he would be willing to enter
into a colloquy on the Army Corps of Engineers oversight role of
existing local flood control projects.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Myers].
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. We would be pleased to enter into a colloquy
with the gentlewoman, yes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
leadership.
He might not be aware, but we in Houston have a particularly unique
set of circumstances in that we are 50 feet below sea level and very
often have a tendency to flood. Having gone home and spoken to my
constituents, I have been concerned about the quality of the Army Corps
of Engineers' oversight role of the Sims Bayou flood control project in
my congressional district in Houston.
We have already suffered several flooding situations in that area, in
particular in 1993. The Crestmont Park neighborhood surrounding the
Sims Bayou flood control project and other neighborhoods experienced
severe flooding, as I said, in 1993 and 1994, and the response of the
Corps has not been as quick and responsive as I believe it should have
been. As constituents have noted, since the Corps gives a significant
amount of funds for these projects, should they not be the senior
partner in the partnerships with the local and county governments and
be closely worked with to monitor the progress of these projects?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Well, certainly this committee and the Corps of
Engineers are concerned about the cooperation of local communities.
Local communities have to pay part of the expense of these projects,
cost sharing, but the important part is the work must be worked by the
Corps, with local communities. We encourage that cooperation, and I am
disappointed to hear tonight we are not getting that kind of support.
We will urge the Corps to work with the local community. While the
Corps has the responsibility of doing the job, we all recognize that,
they should be working with the cooperation of those who are paying
part of the expenses locally and who are vitally concerned about the
job that is being done.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I appreciate that. I wanted to go on record
to express my support for a strong Corps role, because the Corps needs
to show a greater commitment to many low-income and urban areas that
sometimes seem unlikely sites for flooding and seem to be left behind,
and work more closely with the local governments.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. That is exactly right. That is the attempt, and
that is what we have encouraged the Corps to do. In most cases, the
Corps does this, so we will urge the Corps to continue their
cooperation. Regardless of income bracket, everyone is entitled to the
efforts that the Corps can make to help prevent flooding and help
relieve the pressure.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from Indiana, and I
want to acknowledge the ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Bevill] who has been very helpful and very forceful, if my colleagues
will, in ensuring that the Army Corps of Engineers works with
communities around this country.
Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with this project and support
it completely.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] very much. I thank the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], and I would say, with this, that I
would expect that the Sims Bayou project would move along quickly with
the involvement of Army Corps of Engineers.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the
last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support H.R. 3816, the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997.
This bill includes an appropriation that is vitally important for
several hundred members of my district. The bill provides $250,000 for
the Ramapo River at Oakland flood control project. This is a down
payment toward the $11.3 million that has been authorized for the
project. It will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to coordinate with
the State of New Jersey to prepare for the beginning of construction.
Flooding along the Ramapo River has occurred 15 times in the past 24
years. The people who live along its banks cannot continue to endure
the repeated economic hardship and personal tragedy this flooding
brings.
The 1984 flood alone caused more than $9 million in damage and the
Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that another major flood could
cause $11 million in damage. Clearly, the funds we are seeking to
protect homes and businesses would be well spent.
This flood control project would protect residents and businesses
along the Ramapo River from Pompton Lake Dam in Wayne, NJ, to Pompton
Lakes upstream through Oakland, NJ. This is about a 3-mile stretch of
river that is home to more than 300 families.
I have worked closely with the Energy and Water Subcommittee and the
Appropriations Committee for funding for this project, along with many
State and local officials. I want to thank Chairman Myers and Chairman
Livingston for their support.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted first to thank the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] for
their extraordinary courtesy to me as a brand-new Member of the House
and for helping to show me the way and being so courteous and helpful.

{time} 2200

I know many of us have had the experience of advocating for flood
control projects and other things that we know about. However, today I
wanted to mention and engage the chairman in a brief colloquy about
something that is not in my district, but it is something we all care
about. That is the fusion research program in this country.
I know that the chairman, as well as the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Bevill], are supporters of fusion, that we have very tight fiscal
constraints. However, last year we had a 33 percent reduction below the
requested amount. This year, once again, funding is a little bit on the
slim side for what will be needed for the restructured program
envisioned last year.
Mr. Chairman, I know that every effort has been made to support the
program. I guess my question to the chairman is not an amendment or a
suggestion to change the language or anything of that nature, but to
ask whether he would be willing, if additional funds should become
available within this bill in the conference committee, to do his best
to see that especially university-based fusion research and basic
research might be the beneficiary of any good news in conference.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LOFGREN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Of course, the committee is always willing to
look at additional funds if we can find them, Mr. Chairman.
Unfortunately, we were not able to find them before we came to the
floor today. But when we do go to conference with the other body we
will have to wait and see what they may have. We appreciate the
interest the gentlewoman has. This committee has always supported
fusion.

[[Page H8356]]

Ms. LOFGREN. I know the gentleman has, Mr. Chairman, and I know he
will do his very best in conference should something occur that is
happier than we now know.
I would note also that the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]
joins in this good wish, and thanks the chairman of the subcommittee
also for his efforts.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, the Fusion Energy Program is
one of the most exciting and important programs at the Department of
Energy. It is also very important to my State.
California is host to the U.S. home team of the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor [ITER].
Several campuses of the University of California have fusion research
programs.
Lawrence Livermore and Lawrence Berkeley Labs have programs and
several California companies are heavily involved in fusion research
and development.
Unfortunately, for both the Nation and my State, at the same time the
fusion program is making tremendous progress, it has suffered heavy
cuts at the hands of this Congress. Last year, as many of my colleagues
are aware, the fusion program was cut $130 million--33 percent--and the
bill before us now cuts another $19 million from the program.
Accompanying the cuts in last year's Energy and Water bill were
instructions for the Department of Energy and the Fusion Energy
Advisory Committee to restructure the fusion program.
This Congressional guidance set off an extensive, time consuming,
and, frankly, a painful redesign of the fusion program. It also put
into place a thorough peer review process. Both the redesigned program
and the ongoing peer review process have been widely praised.
It is regrettable that the lack of adequate funding in this bill pits
one aspect of the fusion program against another. I will work in
conference to see that all of the needs of the fusion program are met.
I think it is important.
However, if that does not happen, I am concerned that the language
currently in the bill which tries to set priorities for the program
within the limited funding constraints may conflict with the direction
the program is intended to take. It could also result in substantial
damage to a number of California programs, facilities and high tech
jobs and divide the fusion community.
If funding constraints force us to make difficult choices in how to
fund the fusion program, we should leave that decision up to the
Department of Energy with the guidance of the fusion Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee.
I look forward to working in conference to fully fund the fusion
program and to work toward language that is less prescriptive and more
consistent with the peer review process for this important program.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. I have a brief colloquy
that has already been approved by the chairman.
Earlier in this Congress, I introduced legislation, H.R. 28, the
Freedom From Government Competition Act. It has been brought to my
attention by some of my constituents that at least one Federal agency
under this bill is considering some competition with private industry.
As the chairman knows, when the last White House conference on small
business met here in Washington, the problem of unfair government
competition and the failure of government to adequately utilize the
private sector was ranked as one of the very top issues for small
business.
Additionally, since the Eisenhower administration, it has been
official U.S. government policy that ``the Federal Government will not
start or carry on any commercial activity to provide a service or a
product for its own use if such product or service can be procured from
private enterprise through ordinary business channels.''
I would like to ask the chairman of the subcommittee if, as a general
proposition, the subcommittee intended that money appropriated in this
legislation be used by Federal agencies or quasi-governmental agencies
for the purpose of competing with private business.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DUNCAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, no,
not at all. Small businesses have difficult time enough staying in
business in competition with the rest of the world. Being in
competition with their own government is just unreasonable.
Mr. DUNCAN. That was the very point of this colloquy. I thank the
gentleman form Indiana. I believe he and his colleagues on the
subcommittee have done an excellent job on this legislation.

amendment offered by mr. obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 4.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Obey: On page 17, line 21,
after the dollar amount insert the following: ``(reduced by
$17,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and a Member opposed will each
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It eliminates the $17
million in this bill for the advanced light water reactor. The
arguments against this funding are many. They have been articulated on
this floor in the past. Many Members have voted against it in the past.
Last year we voted on this amendment. If failed by a 191 to 227 vote.
This year we have a number of additional cosponsors, including the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Minge], the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Rohrabacher]. Obviously, with a crowd like that, there ought to be some
additional attention paid to the amendment above that which was paid to
it last year.
In 1992, the Energy Policy Act authorized the funding of efforts to
design, engineer, and obtain regulatory approval for new evolutionary
nuclear reactors. Since then, through fiscal 1996, DOE has given away
$295 million to companies such as General Electric, Westinghouse, and a
number of others.
The 1992 act specifically states that ``No entity shall receive
assistance under this subsection for a period greater than 4 years.''
Mr. Chairman, both Westinghouse and General Electric will have already
completed 4 years of funding in the fiscal 1996 budget. They should not
get any further funding in this bill.
Let me make it clear, I have absolutely nothing against those
companies. They are fine companies. That is the point. They are very
healthy companies, with billions in annual revenues. They do not need
the corporate welfare provided for them in this bill. They have already
enjoyed 4 years of funding, as authorized. It is time to terminate the
program. The authorization has expired. This is the 5 year of funding
for what was supposed to be a 4-year program.
Mr. Chairman, we might wonder why there is no new authorization. I
suspect it might be because no American utility has successfully
ordered a nuclear power plant since 1973. Second, I suspect it might be
because an overwhelming majority, 89 percent, in a recent poll of
utility executives, said that their company would never consider
ordering a nuclear power plant.
It also might be that the current reactors that are being funded
through the program, the 600 megawatt size, are not commercially viable
in this country. In fact, in February of this year GE, who received $50
million from DOE, announced they were abandoning further design work on
the SBWR reactor because it was not commercially viable.
Why does DOE continue to fund the program? I suppose on reason is
that the agency seems to be generically incapable of terminating any
program.

[[Page H8357]]

The official reason seems to be that the designs could provide the
basis for future commercial orders. The official reason seems to be
that the agency thinks that there might some day, in the far distant
future, be somebody who would change their mind and order one of these
turkeys. Frankly, the likelihood is quite dim. The Secretary of Energy,
in recent testimony, has said, ``For the foreseeable future, we do not
expect new nuclear power plants to be ordered or built in the United
States.''
I would point out that the Energy Policy Act stipulates that the
recipient of these funds must certify that the reactors are designed
for sale in the United States. The fact is, the most likely markets for
these reactors are abroad; most likely Indonesia or China. There is a
ban on the export of nuclear technology to China at the moment, and I
do not see any circumstances under which that is going to change in the
foreseeable future.
So I would simply make the point, this program was authorized under
the premise of licensing nuclear power plants in the United States.
That is no longer happening. No serious person expects it to happen. I
would simply say that a Congress that is big enough to get tough on
kids is a Congress that ought to be tough enough to say no to more
corporate welfare to the nuclear power industry.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] is recognized
for 20 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] the chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend and the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment to strike
the remaining funding from the light water reactor program. The fact is
that the budget request from the President was $40 million for this
program. This committee has only provided about $17 million. So we are
achieving cost savings right there.
The only way the industry is going to get back into the nuclear
energy business in this country is, in fact, if the Government
participates in some way. In the case of this particular program, this
is the last year of funding. Any funding that we provide this year
completes the program. But in the case of the advanced light water
reactor, total industry cost-sharing in this program is over 60
percent, which comes from the industry itself.
The industry has contributed some $444 million of their own money to
this program. The government expenditures to date total, the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has used the sum $295 million, my own figure
is $269 million; obviously considerable sums. But what are we going to
do? Just cut, run, and stop the program? Because industry itself has
relied on the commitment of Government and spent, of its own money,
$444 million. The industry is committed to pay back most or all of the
Federal costs if future sales are made.

This program is important because it represents a joint commitment by
Government and industry to develop a new generation of standardized,
advanced reactors, coupled with a one-step Nuclear Regulatory
Commission licensing process.
Whether we like it or not, new nuclear energy sources will one day be
needed in the United States. Nuclear energy is still safe. It does not
produce greenhouse gas emissions that we hear so much about with fossil
fuel usage. Nuclear energy as generated represents 20 percent of the
power generation in this country, and substantially more than that,
anywhere up to 50 to 70 percent, in other industrialized countries like
Japan or France. We must finalize the development of a standard turn
key safe design for marketing to plants overseas and for this country,
if we decide to build them here.
Again, Mr. Chairman, this is the last year of funding. This project
is authorized under the general authorization of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954. No Federal funds have been or will be used to subsidize any
construction. That is left up to the industry. So I urge my colleagues
to vote against this ill-considered amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana said they have already cut
the program because they have only provided $17 million out of the $40
million. The fact is the Senate has already funded the other two
portions of the program. The game plan in conference is to fund all
three pieces, and, smackaroo, you have $40 million bucks right back in
the bill again. Do not kid yourself, this program is not going to be
cut one dime without this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Foley].
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of this amendment to
strike the $17 million. The supporters of corporate welfare for the
advanced light water reactor program are playing fast and loose with
the facts. We hope Members will take the opportunity to separate real
fact from the fiction they have been spreading.
Our amendment to strike the advanced light water reactor funding is
not part of some anti-nuclear agenda. Moving past its authorized
limits, this program has become a subsidy to a wealthy industry capable
of supporting its own projects. Congress should abandon wasteful
funding for this giveaway. Again, clearly, first-of-a-kind engineering,
the Energy Policy Act strictly states, item B, ``No entity shall
receive assistance under this subsection for a period greater than 4
years.''
Mr. Chairman, we talk about this nuclear reactor and suggest that
some day, somehow, somewhere, we will recapture some of the dollars our
great taxpayers have invested in this project. Why has Westinghouse
canceled construction of its own reactors? They are not using the
technology. The only places we are able to find any utilization of this
technology is in China, is in areas that we are critically concerned
about nuclear proliferation, and these reactors could in some way
benefit a program of expanding those nuclear reactors.
Mr. Chairman, sure, $17 million is small if you are a corporation in
an industry with annual revenues in excess of $100 billion. However,
the last time we checked, it was an enormous amount to American
taxpayers. The nuclear industry has dominated energy research and
development over the last 50 years, receiving more than $47 million.

{time} 2215

Now they are clamoring for another 17 million for this reactor
without a future. Just how many taxpayers does the Department of Energy
want to work their entire lives to pay for this corporate giveaway?
They will tell you the termination costs are going to cost the
government millions of dollars. Folks, clearly in the contract: Item
number C, reimbursement for costs specified in termination above shall
be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
Much like every government contract that is written, the government
protects itself and has a hold-harmless clause that, if you do not
appropriate the moneys, it in fact will not be tendered as cancellation
fees. I have heard it before when we cancelled gas turbine last year,
we would have to pay all of these millions of dollars in termination
fees. Clearly not the case.
What are broad groups like Citizens Against Government Waste, CATO
Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Friends of the Earth,
Heritage Foundation, Progressive Policy Institute, Public Citizen, Safe
Energy Communication Council, Taxpayers for Common Sense and U.S.
Public Interest Research Group in one group together advancing against
this project. It does not make any sense to spend the hard-earned tax
dollars of the American public to support projects that do not work.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to read some editorials from newspapers
around the country later in the debate.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle].

[[Page H8358]]

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by my colleagues from Wisconsin and Florida. In the Energy
Policy Act of 1992, Congress reaffirmed its commitment to the nuclear
option by authorizing a program for research and development of
standardized inherently safe reactor designs.
At that time, Congress recognized the artificially high cost of
developing and certifying new reactor designs to meet the government's
extremely stringent requirements. EPACT proceeded with this program
precisely to ensure that new passively safe reactor designs would be
readily available when U.S. utilities were prepared to order new
baseload generating plants.
The authors of this amendment would like to say that this is funding
for the sixth year of a 5-year program. They know this is not true.
EPACT was authorizing legislation and was passed in 1992, but this
program did not have funds appropriated for it until fiscal year 1993,
which means that this will be the fifth year of a 5-year program. Thus,
DOE is fully authorized to fund the advanced light water reactor
program in fiscal year 1997
No taxpayers' dollars have been used to pay NRC fees. NRC's increased
review and testing requirements forced the program to perform
additional technical work. While most of the extra work was funded by
industry, part of the added cost was supported by the DOE advanced
light water reactor program. The additional technical work expanded the
work scope for the program but was clearly authorized by EPACT.
Mr. Chairman, this would be a very entertaining debate if it were not
for the fact that we are talking about a major component of U.S. energy
security, as well as the certification of a technology that holds the
potential for the creation of thousands of high-paying jobs here in the
United States. The construction of one AP-600 employs 5,000 people for
5 years. Now let us look at how much money we are going to save if we
terminate this program.
I have a letter here from the Department of Energy which I will
submit for the Record that shows that terminating this program would
cost the taxpayer more than it would to complete this program.
Mr. Chairman, this is an ill-advised amendment, and I urge that we
defeat it.
Mr. Chairman, I submit the letter referred to earlier for the Record:

Department of Energy,

Washington, DC, July 24, 1996.
Hon. Michael Doyle,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Doyle: The Department of Energy opposes
the amendment to eliminate funding for the Department's
Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR) program from the FY 1997
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. We strongly
urge the House of Representatives to reject this amendment
and support FY 1997 funding for the ALWR program.
This program is nearing a successful conclusion. The First-
of-a-Kind Engineering program, for example, was authorized by
Congress in FY 1993 to be conducted for five years. FY 1997
is the last year that the Department plans to request funds
for this effort, and one of the two plant designs in the
program--the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR)--is
scheduled to be completed by the end of the year. In
addition, we expect that Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
design certification of the ABWR and the System 80+ will be
granted in FY 1997. Design Certification for the AP600--an
advanced, modular plant with passive safety features--is
scheduled for completion in the following fiscal year.
Taxpayers have invested about $300 million in ALWR research
and development since 1986 and U.S. industry, led by electric
utilities from across the country, has contributed an
additional $500 million. Much of this investment could be
wasted if the goals of the program--Nuclear Regulatory
Commission design certification and completion of First-of-a-
Kind-Engineering were not met because of a decision to
terminate funding in FY 1997 when the program is so close to
conclusion.

lwr program termination costs

The Department has requested $40 million to conduct its
Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR) program in FY 1997. These
funds would allow the Department to complete its First-of-a-
Kind Engineering (FOAKE) program for the AP-600 and Advanced
Boiling Water Reactor and accomplish Nuclear Regulatory
Commission design certification of two of three ALWRs.
Since 1986, U.S. industry has contributed approximately
$500 million to the federal ALWR program, with taxpayers
contributing another $300 million. This program is nearly
completed and must of the benefit of this $800 million
public/private investment could be lost if it is terminated
in its final stages. The Department believes that this effort
should be allowed to conclude successfully, providing the
United States with a viable, safe, and economic nuclear
energy option that will be available before the end of the
decade.
If these programs are terminated at the end of FY 1996, the
federal government will have to plan for the following
impacts:
Tens of millions of dollars in other termination costs
would be sought from the Department by program contractors
and other participants. Westinghouse, for example, estimates
that the termination of their portion of the design
certification program would cost about $28 million.
Westinghouse also estimates that its FOAKE termination costs
would be approximately $10 million. Other contractors would
be expected to seek lesser amounts, as their participation in
the program is nearly complete. The Advanced Reactor
Corporation, which manages the FOAKE program, has indicated
that its termination costs could be as much as $24 million if
the program is terminated at this stage.
The Department would seek to negotiate these costs, but
legal action on the part of program participants to recover
termination costs can be expected.
A maximum of $125 million in lost potential cost-recovery
from industry. Termination of the program at this late stage
would mean that the federal government would lose the right
to collect funds from industry based on future plant sales.
Westinghouse, for example, has agreed to pay $25 million to
the government with the sale of its first AP-600 to repay
design certification funding and an additional $4 million for
each reactor sold to repay federal FOAKE contributions.
General Electric recently sold two reactors to Taiwan; the
federal government expects to collect $3 million from this
transaction. All of these cost recoupments would be forfeited
if the ALWR program is terminated now.
Unless new work assignments are found for federal and
national lab staffs working on the program, DOE will require
about $1.5 million to terminate personnel at DOE headquarters
in Germantown, MD; at the field offices in Oakland, CA and
Chicago, IL; and at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
and the Sandia National Laboratories.
The ALWR program is essential in order to maintain the
nuclear energy option in the United States. Without FY 1997
funding, we will not achieve the design certifications that
we have worked toward for years, and a huge public/private
investment will have been largely wasted. We will also be
forced to terminate our contracts with the program's industry
participants, and risk a potentially expensive legal
response.
Further, termination of the program at this late stage
would mean that the federal government would lose the right
to collect funds from industry based on future plant sales.
Westinghouse, for example, has agreed to pay $25 million to
the government with the sale of its first AP600 to repay
design certification funding, and an additional $4 million
for each reactor sold to repay the Department's
contributions. Taiwan recently awarded General Electric a
contract to build two new reactors, and the U.S. government
expects to collect $3 million from this transaction. All of
these cost recoupments would be forfeited if the ALWR program
is terminated now.
For a modest sum in FY 1997, the program can be brought to
a logical and successful conclusion, and the taxpayer and
industry investments in these technologies will result in the
form of detailed, certified designs of next-generation
nuclear power plants.
Sincerely,
Ray A. Hunter
(For Terry R. Lash, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology).

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The gentleman is leaving a wrong impression with the House. First of
a kind funding is limited to 4 years. The gentleman is talking about
other pieces of the Energy Act. The first of a kind funding, which is
the subject of this amendment, is limited to 4 years. If we do not pass
this amendment, we are providing it for a fifth year without
authorization.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, as to the statement just made, I have in my possession
here a letter today from the Department of Energy saying the first of a
kind engineering program, for example, is authorized by Congress in
fiscal year 1993 to be conducted for 5 years. This 1997 fiscal year is
the fifth year in 5 years, according to the Department of Energy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Brown], a very distinguished member of the Committee on Science and the
former Chairman who is now ranking member.
Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding
me this time.

[[Page H8359]]

Mr. Chairman, I am not at all sure that I have anything new to
contribute. I used to believe that I knew as much about the nuclear
energy program as anyone in Congress, but I see from the remarks of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Doyle] and the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] that they have been doing a lot of boning up
on the subject. I think probably they know more than I do at this
particular time.
I do want to just recite for historical purposes the fact that I have
lived through and been actively involved in the development of the
civilian power reactor program ever since it began 20-odd years ago. I
have seen it grow with unrealistic hopes that it represented the
solution to all of the world's energy problems and seen those hopes
dashed as we found that there were problems with nuclear industry and
with the development of nuclear power plants.
As a result of our failures to anticipate these problems, we placed a
very large burden on the U.S. nuclear industry, and no new plants have
been built in recent years and no new plants are on order.
What was the reason for that? The reason basically was that we
overinvested in plants that had the diverse designs that were subject
to different and changing safety regulations, and many energy companies
went broke as a result of this. It became clear that we needed to
remedy that situation. This Advanced Light Water Program was an effort
to remedy that situation. It was to focus on a single design that could
be precertified as to safety, that you could build repetitively and cut
the costs as a result of that, and then you could become competitive
again in terms of world markets, if that is what you were interested
in, or in terms of competing with other forms of energy here in the
United States.
That was our goal. It was a very realistic goal. This program was
aimed at achieving it. It is about to complete it; it is very near to
completion. If it is successfully completed, it will again put us in a
position, if we are forced to do so, and I think we will be, to build
more nuclear plants as a way of avoiding some of the environmental
problems of fossil, for example, or as merely a way of competing in the
world market where other countries which do not have the energy
resources that we do, have to rely upon nuclear energy. We should be
competing for that market.
Mr. Chairman, if we refuse to do this, I think we are putting our
heads in the sand. I think that this is a program which, as has been
pointed out already, is heavily cost-shared by industry. I fully
believe that we are authorized to continue it. As has been argued here,
even if it is not authorized, we have a waiver of points of order
against authorization, so it really does not make that much difference.
So I would urge that this amendment be defeated and we spend the $17
million which will once again make us competitive in world markets.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to again correct a
statement made by the gentleman from Indiana.
It is true that there is a $100 million cap on this program for a 5-
year period, but under the authorization no corporation is supposed to
receive funding for a period longer than 4 years and under this bill
without this amendment would have a 5-year provision to Westinghouse,
which is in opposition to the authorization statute.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, Adam Smith is
spinning in his grave as he listens to this debate tonight. This is the
wealthiest industry in the United States. How in the world can we
subsidize General Electric and Westinghouse to develop an incremental
advancement on a 50-year-old technology? Either it works in the
marketplace or it does not work in the marketplace. If we cannot cut
this subsidy out of the budget, we cannot cut any subsidy out of the
budget.
This is like conducting a French revolution and not attacking the
Bastille. If there is going to be a revolution out here, we got to cut
out unneeded programs. And if we cannot cut out a subsidy to an
industry which has received $50 billion worth of subsidies over the
last 40 years in this country, we are not cutting out subsidies for
anyone.
By the way, the technology is not being built commercially because it
does not work in the marketplace. It is 6 cents a kilowatt hour. Coal
is cheaper, natural gas is cheaper, wind is cheaper. It is losing in
the marketplace.
I say to my colleagues, we cannot stand out here on the floor of
Congress and interject Federal taxpayers' dollars into industries that
they are already paying too high rates in their electricity bills
already because the electric utility executives in the areas invested
in the wrong technologies.
If they in fact want these next generation of technologies, and by
the way, not one new nuclear power plant has been ordered in the United
States since 1973, and I will predict right now and guarantee you that
there will not be a new nuclear power plant ordered as long as any
person in this room is alive, how in the world can we justify this kind
of investment?
As we move to wholesale and retail wheeling of electricity, the
marketplace is going to ruthlessly demand the lowest priced energy.
Nuclear power is not that energy. We must demand the Obey amendment be
adopted here this evening.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I think the gentleman from Massachusetts is in good health, and I
thought I would live a little while.
But I might add that it is true that the United States is not
building. What other major developing country in the world is not
moving fast toward more nuclear power? Japan had the worst experience
with nuclear of any country in the world, yet they are buying boiling
water reactors, looking at advanced light water reactors. This
committee was over there last August. They are looking.
We wonder where the jobs went; we have run them out. Every other
country in the world subsidizes and helps their industry to be
competitive in the world. And we talk about corporate welfare? Wait
until we hear tomorrow or later tonight about solar. How many people
are buying solar reactors today? Would we want more money spent on
solar?
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is willing to cut this
subsidy out, I will vote to cut out all subsidies for solar. It is
everyone gets a subsidy or no one gets a subsidy. But let us give the
same subsidies to both technologies, not 10 times more.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, percentage-wise it is a bigger
cut than we have on solar.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Walker], chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, shouting about this amendment does not make
it any smarter. It is too dumb to start with.
Just as we are going to get the payoff from this program, some are
prepared to kiss off the program. Now, that makes no sense whatsoever.
First of all, it makes no sense because what we are going to actually
do is end up increasing spending here. I realize people cavalierly toss
off the idea that there might have to be termination costs in all of
this. Sure, it takes appropriations, but if the court orders us to make
the payments, we are going to have to make the payments. It is about
$40 million compared to what would otherwise be a $17 million
expenditure.
Mr. Chairman, this is not about corporate subsidy as much as it is
about nuclear safety. This is an advanced light water reactor program
that is a government-mandated program to design a new passively safe
reactor to replace existing ones. It is a safety program. If we are
going to abandon the government's involvement in safety, it seems to me
that what we are pursuing is rather ludicrous.
Now, the fact also remains that we have a legal commitment in the
authorization, in Public Law 102-486 to pursue this program. We ought
to meet that commitment.
It also does not make any business sense. The gentleman stood up here
and talked to us about Adam Smith. General Electric just sold two
nuclear reactors to Taiwan. The Federal Government plans to get about
$3 million

[[Page H8360]]

from that transaction. One of the reasons why we are recovering money
from these programs is because we have a provision of recoupment that
is in the program.
If in fact tonight we decide to abandon this program, we do not get
any recoupment. We lose the money. We lose the $3 million in the AP-
600. We could lose $4 million for every reactor they sell. It makes no
sense.

{time} 2230

This is empty symbolism. It is dumb to do. It would be an act of
extreme stupidity for the House to do this amendment tonight for the
sake of some empty symbolism.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this is further proof of the existence
of God. Obey and Rohrabacher on the same side talking in disagreement
with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Walker. Let me say that I
want to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley] for the great leadership they have
taken on this issue.
They call this program the light water reactor, but it is mighty
heavy on the taxpayers, basically to the tune so far of $200 million;
$50 million of that went down the drain this year when General Electric
decided to pull out of the program. Although this company makes $4
billion a year in after-tax profits, the Department of Energy could not
tell us at our authorization hearing of how they expect to get back
that $50 million that we gave to this giant company already.
Now Westinghouse, which makes $1 billion a year in after-tax profits,
says this program will just disappear unless they get another $40
million. If Government subsidies serve any purpose, it should be to
help small companies develop technology. It strains anyone's belief
that Westinghouse, which has just purchased a TV network for $4 billion
and makes millions of dollars off existing contracts with the
Department of Energy, would not pay for its own certification if they
believed that this was going to make them a profit, that this was a
profitable operation and they could actually sell this product and make
a profit from it.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that nuclear power is clean, safe, and is a
positive alternative source of energy for the people of the United
States of America. But supporting nuclear power does not mean that we
should be supporting wasteful corporate welfare. If these products are
as good as advertised, these big corporations will not need all of this
money. They will not need a taxpayer subsidy to be successful.
Basically we are being told that we must give more money to a huge
corporation that can afford to do it on their own or the project will
disappear. That shows how much confidence this corporation has. We
should not be putting more taxpayers' money down a rathole.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to my colleagues to vote yes for
fiscal responsibility, yes on the Obey-Foley amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend the
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for their
many years of dedicated work and bipartisan cooperation. I wish them
both the very best in their future endeavors. They are a distinguished
pair and a credit to this institution.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the common sense amendment
to terminate the funding of the advanced light water reactor. I join
with my colleagues in cosponsoring this important effort to cut
wasteful spending and to save the taxpayers $17 million.
There are many reasons why this egregious corporate handout should be
stopped, but as co-chair of the Porkbusters Coalition, I am most
interested in the fact that this $17 million appropriation for nuclear
engineering is no longer authorized. As the Chair may know, there was
funding authorized for the commercialization of advanced light water
technology under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, but that authorization
has expired and clearly does not apply to this appropriation.
To be sure, I brought with me the authorizing statute for the
advanced light water reactor program so we can see why this
appropriation is not authorized. First, note in the highlighted
language here that it must be technology that would be used in the
United States, commercialized and used in the United States. This is
not the case with this particular program.
The intent of the advanced light water reactor program was to provide
the taxpayers with new domestic sources of energy in return for their
investment, not provide corporate giants with pork subsidies to finance
profitable overseas business ventures.
Finally and most importantly, this statute established strict funding
limitations for corporate participants. It clearly states that there is
a life of 4 years, and here is the statutory language, a life of 4
years.
Mr. Chairman, in summary, this program ought to be stopped. This
amendment ought to be adopted.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
Mr. KLINK. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, we have got a problem in this country with not making
the kind of investment in industry that creates jobs. While Great
Britain and France and Japan and Germany go with their industrial
leaders around the world and see that they have an opportunity to
create job markets, the United States just sits here, not doing
anything.
Mr. Chairman, Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary has made some mistakes.
They have been well documented. But it was because she was trying to do
something that was right. Industry has understood this. They have come
before our Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and have said,
``We are getting business because of this.'' The Advanced Light Water
Reactor Program is indeed an example of something right that this
country is doing.
In the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Congress determined that in order
to ensure that nuclear power was maintained as a viable energy option
for our Nation as we approached the 21st century that there needed to
be a partnership between private industry and the Federal Government.
Because we had uncertainties and complexities that dealt with the risks
of nuclear licensing processes, the importance of the program's future
demanded, in fact, that the Government would play a role.
Congress authorized a two-phase program: Design certification to
cover the NRC regulatory process, and first-of-a kind engineering. The
Advanced Light Water Reactor Program is an effective program. It is
recognized as a world-class development. Both General Electric and ABB
Combustion Engineering presented reactor designs in the program that
are going to be completed by the end of fiscal year 1996. The AP 600
design is 88 percent complete and there is a payback to the Federal
Government. Westinghouse is competing with France, by the way, for
every unit they sell, for every AP 600 they sell. Over in the Far East
these developing countries where there is $1 trillion worth of energy
development, these developing countries are going to be building their
energy production while we have about built our limit. For every AP 600
that is built, there will be 5 years worth of work for 5,000 people. If
those jobs are not created here, they will be created in France or
somewhere else. The very first unit that is sold, $25 million goes
right back to the Federal Government. With each additional unit, there
will be $4 million more, for each unit, going back to the Federal
Government.
I believe if the Obey amendment passes that we give up all chance for
recoupment. We have gone this far. There is going to be a payoff.
Someone is going to manufacture this. I want it to be American workers.
I want those jobs to be created in this country. I think the Obey
amendment will see that that work goes overseas and not here in this
country.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Royce].
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for this
amendment. Authorization for Federal subsidies to develop the advanced
light water reactor was established by the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
which was enacted into law on October 24 of that year, and I am just
going to quote from

[[Page H8361]]

that law. It states that ``The Secretary'' of Energy ``shall conduct a
5-year program of technical and financial assistance to encourage the
development of advanced light water reactor designs which'' shall be
``no later than the end of fiscal year 1996.'' That is the law that was
passed.
Last year we went through this. On July 12, the distinguished
chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water
defended continued Federal funding of this program, and he said at that
time, ``* * * this is the fifth year of a 5-year program for the
advanced light water reactor.'' That was a year ago. Now we have the
Department of Energy concurring with the assessment in a March 28, 1996
memo.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Salmon].
Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, last year during floor consideration of an
amendment to eliminate the advanced light water reactor program, I
supported continued funding for the program. I did it because I was
assured that fiscal 1996 would be the final year of the program. To my
surprise, tonight is deja vu all over again.
I thought it was important to support the program throughout its
completion in order to recoup some of the $340 million of taxpayer
money we have invested in the program to date. But it is becoming
increasingly apparent that this technology, once certified, may not
even have a market.
General Electric canceled development of a similar reactor because
they believe that the market for smaller advanced light water reactors
is nonexistent. If this reactor is really worth the investment, can a
corporate giant like Westinghouse not come up with the $17 million to
complete the program? We can save $17 million for the taxpayers tonight
if we vote for discontinuing this program, or we can be back here next
year, same program, same debate, deja vu again.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Foley].
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me sum it up.
We have got $378 million invested. I just heard a minute ago we are
going to get $3 million back on the sale of a reactor somewhere. With
that kind of math we have almost 120 or 140 reactors yet to sell to
break even. What a great investment.
San Francisco Chronicle:

If there's a lucrative export market, let them finance
their own development programs.

The Oregonian:
Let's face it, nuclear power in the United States, no
matter how you feel about it, is a dead issue.

The Charleston Gazette:

Why on earth is Congress giving taxpayers' money to
billion-dollar companies?

The Courier-Journal of Kentucky:

Given the new competitive pressures in the utility
industry, no manager with any concern for his company's
financial stability would even think of going nuclear.

Kennebec Journal in Maine:

The project is a classic government boondoggle, all the
more egregious since it squanders taxpayers' money.

The Morning Sentinel in Maine:

Funding continues despite the fact that no utility has
built a nuclear plant in 23 years and that 89 percent of
utility executives claim they will never order another
nuclear plant.

Mr. Chairman, clearly the editorial boards from around the Nation are
against this. Clearly CATO and all the other groups that have weighed
in are against this. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has led
the fight for years. I give him credit. This year we are going to win
it and win it for the taxpayers.

{time} 2245

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have just one comment for my friends on the majority
side of the aisle: Two years ago, when you took over this House, you
indicated that you wanted to see an end to business as usual. You
indicated that you wanted to eliminate the Department of Energy.
I would point out that if you cannot tonight or tomorrow, when this
vote takes place, at least vote to eliminate this tiny program, then
indeed your revolutionary trumpet has turned into a piccolo. I urge
Members to vote for the amendment. This is one of the wealthiest
industries in the country. It does not need this subsidy.
This program was supposed to be helping develop nuclear reactors in
this country, not in Taiwan. I urge Members to vote for the amendment
in the interest of saving the taxpayer a dime. This investment is
something that has outlived its usefulness a long time ago.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think all of us understand the issue here. The
taxpayers of our country have invested about $300 million in the
technology of the light water advanced reactor.
It is true that we are not building reactors for our own consumption
in this country. I think that is a sad commentary on our industry. I do
not think it is because our American industry would not like to, but we
have built too many impediments, through the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and others, discouraging now a CEO from buying a nuclear
reactor. But the rest of the world is willing to buy. They are buying
and they are building.
They are advancing their light water reactors. They have a boiling
water reactor in Japan. They are advancing. They are moving forward. We
can be part of the sales or we can sit back and let everyone else in
the world.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Klink] made a very, I think,
compelling reason why if we have got $300 million already invested, the
utilities and the heavy companies that are producing, like
General Electric and Westinghouse, have more than $500 million
invested, for another $17 million this year, to show not only that
maybe the money is not near as significant but to indicate that America
is standing behind its own industry.

We have a product that will do the job, that we are in the market to
sell reactors to the rest of the world who are willing to buy and are
expanding.
In closing, we do have a letter from the Department of Energy. All of
us are not wanting to see the demise of the Department of Energy. Some
of us would like to see it improved somewhat, be more realistic for
today's needs, but some of us are not in favor of doing away with the
Department of Energy.
I am quoting now. They say the program is nearing a successful
conclusion; much of the investment could be wasted if the goals of the
program, Nuclear Regulatory Commission design certification and
completion of first-of-a-kind engineering, which is to complete the
first-of-a-kind engineering, if that is not completed we will have lost
the money we have invested.
I respect my colleagues from Wisconsin. He is very sincere and
others, but it is the argument we have heard before. Stick with your
committee. Vote to reject this amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, the Advanced Light Water Reactor is the
last nuclear option left in the federal budget. I rise today to give my
support to this project and to oppose the Obey amendment to kill this
project.
We must cut spending, but we must also invest. The ALWR program is an
investment that will be repaid: it leverages public dollars to allow
U.S. industry to move into a newer, more efficient and safer nuclear
age. Pursuit of common interests is a valid use for federal investment
in energy research and development. Eliminating the last commercial
nuclear energy program is not in our best interest. Without this
investment, we might well find ourselves again overly dependent on
foreign energy sources and technology. We could lose, for many years,
the ability to build affordable nuclear technology for our nation's
energy needs.
This is the fifth year of a five-year program. It was born of
competitive bidding, and is a partnership with our nation's utilities.
We must not sit idly by, watching other nations develop advanced
technologies which they will almost certainly use as an unfair
competitive advantage against our nation in the world market.
Like fusion, this is a technology that most advanced nations are
pursuing. And also like fusion, should our nation fail to invest in our
own share of this important research, our ability to produce affordable
energy and compete in an increasingly competitive global market could
be seriously weakened.
I urge my colleagues to support the ALWR and oppose this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

[[Page H8362]]

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, I
make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 483, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SCHAEFER

Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Schaefer: Page 17, line 21, strike
``, to'' and insert in lieu thereof ``(reduced by
$11,930,200) (increased by $42,103,200), to''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] and a Member opposed each will
control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
(Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am introducing an amendment which I feel is very,
very important, not just for the current generations that we have in
this country but for the future generations that we have in this
country.
The aim of the amendment is really very simple: to ensure the future
generations that they can enjoy energy security. This means that our
children and our grandchildren and their children should be able to
have stable, dependable and relatively inexpensive sources of power for
their homes, cars, businesses and factories.
As chairman of the Committee on Commerce's Subcommittee on Energy and
Power, I have seen first hand how vital it is to have a vibrant and
diverse energy production base. Solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels,
hydrogen, hydro power and other renewable sources are increasingly
viable for energy production in this country. We must ensure continued
research and development.
This is why I, along with Representatives Klug and Thurman and Minge
and Salmon and Fazio would like to help keep funding at the renewable
source and not reduce it. Over a period of time the funding has been
cut in the last 3 years. Over a period of time, still renewables are
getting cheaper, less expensive. And if we look to the future
generations, we know darn well that this is going to happen and we are
going to run out of fossil fuels one day. We are going to run out of
coal one day, and it is very important to continue this funding for
renewables.

What we have done is went across the board and now are cutting only
0.4 percent of the total budget of 26 billion, which is about $11
million out of that and taking money that now has been given back to us
from the Central Arizona Project and the DOE field labs.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member seeking time in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. MYERS] is recognized
for 15 minutes.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] a very valuable member of our
committee.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I recognize the
time and the effort and extraordinary commitment that the gentleman
from Colorado has, but I would just say to him that there is a lot of
talk in this body about cuts for solar and renewable energy programs. I
know that there are a lot of Members that are fascinated with the whole
idea of renewables. I happen to be to some extent, too, in fact, to a
great extent. But we also know during the next few years, next few
decades that we expect the depletion of our supplies of fossil fuels.
But that time has not come. And at some point we will have to be
prepared for that, but it is not here yet.
I think it is critically important that my colleagues understand that
all Federal programs designed to further the cause of solar and
renewable energy are not created equal. We have basic research programs
that are designed to remove the technological barriers to cheap
plentiful sources of renewable energy.
It seems to me that the widespread use of solar and renewable
technologies will not make economic sense, some say, for another 40 to
60 years. If that is the case, we should devote most of our research
developing new technologies rather than pumping up current technologies
that have not proven economically competitive.

This amendment moves in the opposite direction. In fact, I would say
also that this amendment does nothing, absolutely nothing to change the
law on its face. The amendment is dependent upon the legislative intent
we expressed here in this debate.
I believe we should take the 9.6 million that was saved in the Roemer
amendment to reduce the DOE's field management account and the 20.6
million that was saved with the Kolbe amendment to reduce the Central
Arizona Project, I believe this money, both of these moneys should go
to deficit reduction.
We can still do that. However, if we are so inclined to take this
savings that the American taxpayers have enjoyed for less than an hour
and a half, maybe, how long has it been, and just turn around, I think
we ought to take the savings and put it somewhere into research and
development and energy supply.
I will just tell Members that the solar and renewable accounts are
already overflowing with cash. Listen to this, these are unspent
balances and the proponents of the Schaefer amendment want to increase
funding for programs that have huge unspent balances: solar building
technology research, 3.3 million; that is 163 percent of last year's
appropriation. Electric energy systems, 42.8 million; that is 141
percent of last year's appropriation. Here is one, wind energy systems,
55.6 million; that is 171 percent of last year's appropriation, and
solar technology transfer, 24.3 million; that is 566 percent of last
year's appropriation.
What does this all mean? It means that some of these accounts could
go on for five years at the current level of funding and longer without
needing another dime.
I think it is time that we look at precisely the situation that we
are doing here. We are trying to subsidize a program that frankly has
not reached viability commercially. It truly has not. I have got a
project in my home state of Michigan where they have subsidized, the
individual subsidies make it work, but that comes out of their pocket.
It does not cost DOE a penny.
I am suggesting that in this time of limited fiscal resources, basic
research, not corporate welfare, is what we need now. I urge Members to
vote ``no'' on the Schaefer amendment.
Mr. SCHAEFER. I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
leadership on this issue.
I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment to keep the
solar renewable industry viable. We are talking about a renewable
energy technology account which amounts to our only domestic
contribution to an industry which is growing by leaps and bounds,
projected to grow by 70 percent in 5 years. Renewable energy
technologies, when you look back, have made up 10 percent of our
domestic energy production, more than doubling their contribution since
1973.
Wind energy is now a $4 billion industry in the United States.
Biomass has increased fivefold over the past two decades. The solar
industry boasts over a half billion dollars in annual sales.
What has merely been a downpayment on what is needed has begun to be
eroded in drastic terms. The renewable account took a 29-percent cut
last year. Another 20 percent was going to be cut this year with a
number of program terminations.
The enactment of this amendment, I think, will reverse what is an
ominous

[[Page H8363]]

trend. It is shortsighted to perpetuate our dependence on foreign oil,
when we have the potential here at home to promote technologies we can
depend on. Whether you cite the bombing in Saudi Arabia or simply the
price at the pump that we experience early this year, Americans
continue to understand just how vulnerable we are to the reality of an
increasing amount of imported energy.
We need to acknowledge that this is not the time to be scaling back
our commitment to renewable energy. We are moving beyond research to
achieve numerous technological breakthroughs from which commercial
applications are currently being realized.
What are we facing around the world as we look at our competition?
Denmark is spending more for wind research and development than the
United States. Japan is spending twice what the United States is on
photovoltaic research and development and an additional 150 million on
PV procurement. Germany is spending 50 percent more than the United
States on photovoltaic R&D and a tremendous amount of money at the
local level, $100 million, for their program through local governments.
Spain is investing in an equal amount on solar thermal power as the
United States of America.
They see this market growing. If we turn our back on it, we will
regret it in the loss of jobs and a cleaner environment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this effort to keep the solar and
renewable industry viable.
I have long been an advocate for this industry for many reasons.
Renewable energy technologies account for about 10 percent of the
Nation's domestic energy production and have more than doubled their
contribution since 1973.
Combined, they now provide almost seven quadrillion BTU (quads) of
energy annually. Biomass and hydropower account for over 45 percent
each, with the balance of the mix of geothermal, wind and solar
resources.
Wind energy is now a $4 billion industry in the United States.
Geothermal is America's second largest renewable energy source creating
energy through electric transmission.
Biomass has increased fivefold over the past two decades. An
innovative example is a plant in my district which will turn rice straw
into ethanol.
The solar industry boasts over a half billion dollars in annual
sales.
The Renewable Energy Production Incentive Program, which I helped
initiate under the Energy Policy Act, has helped public power agencies
develop a wide array of renewable energy technology and move toward
greater competition.
The validity of these programs is why I offered an amendment in
committee to provide $10 million for 3 programs which were zeroed out--
wind, solar buildings, and REPI.
That was merely a downpayment on what is needed. This account took a
29 percent cut last year. Another 20 percent was going to be cut this
year with a number of program terminations.
It is shortsighted to perpetuate our dependence on foreign oil when
we have the potential here at home to promote technologies that we can
depend on.
This amendment increases the solar and renewable account close to
1996 levels.
It calls for offsets across-the-board in the Energy Supply, Research
and Development account, including solar and renewables.
I regret that an offset is required at all because this increase
should not take away from other programs within the Department of
Energy of equal importance.
The difficulty stems from the insufficient amount allocated to energy
and water in this appropriations cycle. I hope that the House will
recede to the higher Senate numbers thereby giving us the needed
flexibility to restore energy supply, R&D to their original levels.
This should be a priority in conference.
For now, we need to acknowledge that this is not the time to be
scaling back our commitment to renewable energy.
We are moving beyond research to achieve numerous technological
breakthroughs from which commercial applications are currently being
realized.
There is great industry interest and financial support for taking
these applications into the marketplace.
Budget tightening forces us to make choices. Investing in solar and
renewables is an investment in the future--this should be our priority
if we intend to become less oil dependent and more self-reliant on our
energy resources.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], chairman of the
Committee on Science.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
First of all, I would just like to figure out on the amendment, Mr.
Chairman, as I understand it, this amendment which purports to be one
that is for wind energy, photovoltaic energy, solar thermal energy,
solar international, so on, he way the amendment is drafted, you could
actually spend it on hydrogen, on light water reactors, on
superconductivity, on basic energy sciences, and a number of those
kinds of things; is that not true?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, that is right. Biomass, which is
probably a better way to spend it.
Mr. WALKER. In other words, the way in which the amendment is
drafted, the other thing we ought to know about the amendment is that
the way in which the amendment is drafted also increases spending now
by $30 million. Because the House earlier this evening cut money back,
and so now we are going to respend the money. This is actually, in the
way in which this amendment is drafted at the present time, an
amendment that can spend money in all kinds of areas other than what is
being purported out here. But it also increases spending by about $30
million.
I think it is important to understand where this money has gone
before, because you might say that, well, wind energy and all these
things are good things to do.
We ought to examine where we have been spending this money. Has it
really gone for solar energy and wind energy? Let me give Members a
couple of examples of where this money goes.
Back in 1993, the money from these accounts went to pay the Solar
Energy Industries Association of Washington, DC, for the Soltech
Conference and Earth Day. Lobbyists loved it. The lobbyists got good
money out of this and so on. That is what it went to pay for.

We have got a couple of dandies here. In fiscal 1995 just passed, in
a noncompetitive award to the American Wind Energy Association of
Washington, DC, what did we get out of this, we got a grant to study
avian activities associated with wind power. In case my colleagues do
not know, what that means is what they studied and found was that if
birds fly into windmills, it kills them.

{time} 2300

Now, as my colleagues know, I am not so certain that we are getting a
lot of wind energy out of that kind of thing. Then, in 1995, we also
gave $864,000 in a noncompetitive award to Castles and Associates,
Incorporated, noncompetitive, of Arlington, VA, for a communications
plan for the Olympics. In addition, in fiscal year 1995, we awarded a
$234,000 noncompetitive award to Wal-Mart. To do what? To implement PVs
in environmental demo stores to power electric powered shopping carts.
Now, I am suggesting to my colleagues that this is not doing what the
people here are telling us it is doing. This is not money being spent
to get us the kind of basic research that this country needs in order
to fund the future energy of this country. In fact what is happening in
this amendment, whatever money is being taken out is being taken out of
basic research in favor of giving money to people to study whether or
not birds that fly into windmills get killed. They do, and we do not
need to study it anymore.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 40 seconds to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, when I, years ago now unfortunately, it
seems, went through my MBA program in school, one of the first
principles I learned in investment is the idea of diversifying one's
portfolio. If someone puts all their eggs in one basket, they have the
high potential to lose them.
I suggest to my colleagues tonight that that is what this amendment
in many ways is all about.
Today, several years after the end of the gulf war, we import more
than 50 percent of our energy needs in the form of oil from the Middle
East. In fact, crude oil and petroleum imports are responsible for $51
billion or nearly one-

[[Page H8364]]

third of the Nation's trade deficit in 1994.
What this amendment really reflects is to look at this Nation's
energy portfolio and to make an intelligent decision about where we
think those scarce dollars should go.
Now, let us make it very clear that under the appropriations bill the
last several years the renewable accounts have taken a hit. That is
fine with me. I mean, I think every program that this Congress
evaluates and spends money on should be capable of taking a hit. But we
have got to be awfully careful in terms of limiting our ability to
balance that energy portfolio if we do this much too aggressively and
not particularly intelligently.
Under the amendment tonight sponsored by the gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. Schaefer] on a bipartisan coalition, renewables will still sustain
a 2-percent cut, and we are asking other energy programs to take a cut
by only 1\1/2\ percent. So even under our plan to restore funding to
renewables, to slow down this decline in the trend line we still take a
2-percent decrease. So let us make that very clear.
Now, the one major reason that I think we need to continue this
funding is because it is just finally beginning to pay off. In the next
several years, nations across this world will spend $1 trillion to meet
their new energy needs. In fact, at this point, the global market for
energy efficiency technologies and services, including renewables, is
$84 billion a year. And look at what the investment by the Federal
Government is beginning to do, which is to show the cost of solar, the
cost of wind, the cost of biomass, and the cost of geothermal are
beginning to decline precipitously, so we have a competitive advantage
in this country to take advantage of a market that is approaching $100
billion a year.
And what is the bottom line that we get for all of this? Not only do
we begin to decline, reduce America's dependence on foreign oil
imports, we begin to keep many of those resources right here at home.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to continue our
investment in renewables to diversify this Nation's energy portfolio.
That is what this amendment is all about.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement, but I would
like to depart from that prepared statement to join in the debate that
we have had this evening here on the floor about this very important
amendment, and there are three points that I would like to make.
First, it is interesting to note that this amendment is juxtaposed
with an amendment that was previously considered regarding nuclear
energy. Now, many of us are interested, if not fascinated, with nuclear
energy. In fact we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in
this country in this technology. But it is also very clear to us that
this country is no longer interested in developing nuclear plants. We
cannot dispose of the fuel that has been generated, and as a
consequence, we have an industry that is almost a white elephant
domestically. Yet we continue to invest in this industry.
By comparison, we have tremendous interest in renewable energy,
biomass production. It is an emerging industry, and we ought to invest
in this new technology.
Second, there has been some discussion about unallocated balances and
whether or not the Department of Energy is sitting on funds that it has
not been able to use, and is it not foolhardy to allocate yet more
money in an appropriations bill?
I think it is important to recognize, and the Members of this body
ought to realize that the Department of Energy has, in fact, used and
allocated over 90 percent of the balances. They have been obligated to
multiyear contracts so that these funds indeed have been used; they are
not languishing in the Department of Energy.
Third, there has been some reference to silly expenditures, and I
will take at face value the comments by the distinguished gentleman
from Pennsylvania that indeed the Department of Energy has made some
foolish expenditures. But I would like to remind this body that we have
an oversight obligation, and I trust that the Committee on Science will
faithfully fulfill that obligation and that we will prevent this type
of silly expenditure in the future.
We have an obligation not to let the anecdotal evidence of a handful
of expenditures deter us from doing our job, forthrightly moving ahead
and supporting this important emerging industry.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the SAFE, or Securing
America's Future Energy amendment that I have introduced with
Representatives Schaefer, Klug, Thurman, Salmon, and Fazio. Our
amendment will increase Department of Energy renewable energy research
and development funding by $42 million. This amount will partially
restore funding for wind, biomass, solar, and geothermal to their
fiscal year 1996 levels. The amendment is budget neutral and is paid
for by a .47 percent across-the-board cut to all energy supply,
research and development programs. Even with our amendment, renewables
will still be cut by $6 million from fiscal year 1996. This represents
a 20-percent cut for renewables, which is larger than the .47-percent
we are asking the other programs to sustain. The purpose is to
establish a viable funding level for renewables.
Unfortunately, renewable R&D funding in this bill sustained a $44
million cut from a fiscal year 1996, a 16-percent cut. This is a
substantially larger cut than any other civilian DOE program. If we add
this to last year's cut of 29 percent, we get a total of 40 percent
reduction in renewables over the last 2 years.
We need only look to the Middle East to see how our energy security
and national security are intimately related. We fought the Persian
Gulf war, in large part, over the threat to our oil supply. I would
remind the body that earlier this month 19 American soldiers tragically
lost their lives in Saudi Arabia defending our access to Middle East
oil. We simply cannot afford to rely on such an unstable supply. The
Department of Energy is forecasting that we will become even more
dependent on this volatile source of energy during the next 20 years.
Our best insurance policy against future energy security problems,
more gas price hikes, further pollution and degradation in the
environment is renewable energy research and development.
The majority must believe that the American public will not notice
that Congress is cutting solar and renewable R&D. Perhaps they think
that the American public will not care. However, poll after poll shows
that the American people not only know about these programs but
overwhelmingly support them. According to a recent poll done by
Republican pollster Vincent Breglio, 59 percent of Americans said that
a congressional candidate's support for energy funding will affect how
they vote.
With each new breakthrough in renewable fuels, this country moves
closer to the day when we can significantly reduce our dependence on
imported oil and become more self-sufficient in all forms of energy. It
will also ease our chronic trade deficit problem. Roughly 50 percent of
our trade deficit is caused by imports of foreign oil. It also augers
well for our national security, enabling us to become less vulnerable
to interruptions in supply from foreign oil sources and less necessary
to send our troops to defend these supplies.
Expanding the development of renewable energy is also beneficial to
our national economy. Exports of these new energy technologies on the
world market are a significant opportunity. American entrepreneurs and
national labs in our country represent the cutting edge of this
industry. We must not pull the plug on these small businesses and lose
out on this untapped potential. Already, our European and Japanese
competitors are capitalizing on these technologies and investing far
more than we in this area. Do we really want another technology
giveaway like we had with VCR's?
Renewable energy technologies provide a boost in economic benefits to
our rural communities. Farmer-owned ethanol plants have already brought
new jobs to many declining rural communities who depend on corn
production, not to mention the benefit of displacing imported oil.
Biomass R&D will further improve the efficiency of ethanol production
from biomass sources. Biomass R&D will also develop electricity
generation. Wind energy is another cutting edge energy technology that
holds promise throughout the windy Plains States. Yet wind R&D takes
the biggest hit in the committee's budget--a cut of 82 percent from
last year. This does not make any sense when the industry is on the
verge of production cost competitiveness.
We must not overlook the environmental benefits that renewable energy
technologies provide. As clean technologies like wind, biomass, solar,
geothermal, and hydro continue to displace coal and oil, and the air we
breathe will improve.
The American public understands that we have too much at stake in
energy security, in curbing pollution, and creating and capturing

[[Page H8365]]

high-technology markets. Let's show the American people that Congress
has gotten the message. I urge my colleagues to support the Schaefer-
Klug-Thurman-Minge amendment to restore renewable energy R&D.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment we offer today is about
what America wants. Americans want bipartisan answers to our Nation's
problems, and I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to work with
Members from both sides of the aisle to try to provide some of those
solutions.
But, Mr. Chairman, our amendment is also about what Americans do not
want. Americans do not want to continue to send their sons and
daughters to war because of our addiction to foreign oil. The one sure
way to reduce that possibility is to increase our commitment to
alternative energy sources.
But this is not what the bill before us today does. The committee
measure cuts renewable energy programs 16 percent below fiscal year
1996 funding.
I worked very closely with researchers at the University of Florida
solar energy labs. While the U.S. commitment to renewables is eroding,
the researchers at U.F. watch their colleagues around the world
capitalizing on the growing market for renewable technologies.
Of course, people will argue that renewable funding is somehow
corporate welfare, or pork. These folks think that we should only spend
money on basic research and forget about applying this work to
marketable technology. In fact there was a Dear Colleague that crossed
my desk yesterday that said solar energy would not be economically
competitive for 40 to 60 years.
The truth is that just last month the Financial Times reported that
solar power is increasingly being seen as a viable energy option with
vast commercial potential.
As we ignore the potential market for renewables, the British
Department of Trade and Industry just helped finance the UK's first
solar powered office building block. They know that photovoltaics allow
for power generation at the point of use. When we add the savings to be
gained by avoiding transition and distribution costs to the benefit of
not being dependent on foreign oil, we can begin to see the many
advantages solar development has in the United States.
Finally, there is a tremendous world market for these products. At
any rate, American know-how should mean American jobs and American
profits.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown].
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very
much for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I again have found it extremely interesting to listen
to the debate on this subject because of my long involvement in the
efforts to develop these alternative energy sources. We are on hard
times today with regard to developing the promise of alternative
energy, and in part it stems from opposition from a variety of sources.
Of course, the opposition that stems from a desire to cut the budget
the kind of opposition reflected by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Walker] in his remarks who feel that it is not appropriate and
wise from a policy standpoint to fund what he would describe as applied
research, which is what a great deal of his alternative energy is.
I do not happen to agree with this point of view. I have seen our
investments in alternative energy over the last 20 years produce a
continuing decline in the cost of the energy coming from these and a
continuing increase in the market and particularly in the overseas
market which is going to do so much for us in terms of creating jobs
for American workers.
I would say that the indication of this last 20 years of history is
that we have an extremely good thing which we developed in this
country, alternative energy, and this is not the time to give it up by
making these drastic cuts that we have in the program.
Now, I know the problems of the subcommittee in terms of finding
money for all these programs. I respect those problems very much. I was
worried about supporting this amendment initially because I feared that
the offsets might require cuts in other programs of equally high
priority.
I think the situation is somewhat better now, and I urge very
strongly a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the reason that we should support the
Schaefer amendment here this evening is that we will be helping to
distort favorably the marketplace to compensate for the huge financial
distortion which has been created by the Federal Government in giving
huge subsidies to the nuclear industry over the last 40 and 50 years.
Even since 1973, the last year nuclear power plant was in our country,
$27 billion has been voted on this floor to subsidize nuclear energy.
If we were going to list, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania did, all
of the investments in nuclear energy that has been wasted in the last
20 years, it would be every single dollar. We have not seen a single
benefit from it in new nuclear power generation in our country.
A solar energy investment is the investment in the technology of the
21st century. That is what a ``yes'' vote on Schaefer represents here
this evening.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I just happened to hear some things I
thought I should respond to because some folks have the impression that
nothing is really happening here; we just slide these numbers around,
everything is cool, everything is kind of like nice.
Let me just tell my colleagues a little bit about what is happening
here. Some think we are not taking away; we are just squeezing out of
nowhere. We are not.
Let me tell my colleagues the Schaefer-Klug amendment adds wind
energy, $22\1/2\ million; photovoltaic energy, $7 million; solar
energy, $2 million; solar international, $2 million; resources
assessment, $2 million; energy storage systems, $2 million; solar
building technology, $1 million; the wrecking program which, by the
way, was blown out by last year's committee entirely. And what does it
take away? These are the things it takes away: nuclear safety, domestic
environmental waste cleanup, the fusion program, environmental and
biological research, including the human genome project, lab safety and
improvement program, medical isotopes program which provide isotopes
for hospitals, environment, safety, health and improvement activities
which help ensure worker and public safety, environmental restoration,
and it goes on.

{time} 2315

Those are the things that are being taken away. So do not think this
is just something we are slipping out of the air.
I would also remind Members, maybe they did not know that this
committee provided $10 million more than last year, this year. The
President's request, by the way, was $64 million higher than DOE's own
request to OMB. The committee provided 18 percent more than fiscal year
1991.
Mr. Chairman, this is the kicker. I think it is important. Mr.
Chairman, this committee this year provided $231 million for solar and
renewable technology R&D, plus out of the basic energy services, $18
million for solar and renewable related basic research, for a grand
total of $419 million; not small potatoes.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this S.A.F.E.
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, in closing my part of this, we are talking about a
total budget here of $2.6 billion. We are talking about a .04 percent
overall cut, $11 million out of $2.6 billion. I think for the future of
our grandchildren, as has been stated, that sooner or later we are

[[Page H8366]]

going to run out of fossils, we are going to run out of coal, we are
going to run out of everything else, and this is good, clean energy
that is being developed now at less and less a cost every year.
This is not corporate welfare. Private industry is not going to go
out and develop this when there is not a profit to be made. That is why
we have to put the dollars in to find these good, clean, renewable
sources. I would urge Members to support the Schaefer-Klug-Minge-Fazio,
et al. amendment.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think everyone understands the issue here. We are
readjusting dollars away from other priority items that this committee
in its judgment felt were a higher priority and better spending of the
taxpayers' money than more money on solar.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] has identified some of
the very high priorities, such as the isotopes used not only in
diagnostic work but also in treatment that would be denied. This is
restoring some programs that we eliminated last year, some eliminated
by the President, and others that were not even in the President's
budget this year. So these new adds are denying other funds for other
programs.
It is a matter of judgment whether we want to go along with this. But
let us take a look. We have not cut to the bare bone. We started in
1991, and from 1991 to 1995 we increased solar research by 98 percent,
almost doubling funding. Last year, we realized that we were not
getting a bang for the buck from our investment, so we started cutting
back.
Photovoltaics was mentioned. There are 100 industries today producing
photovoltaics; hardly a destitute industry needing help.
We talked about helping the utility industry a while ago. We have
more than 300 companies now that are selling solar-related products.
So, Mr. Chairman, the technology is here today. Does it need more
funding?
Mr. Chairman, we have put money in this year and there is money from
prior years. Last year, we asked the department for an analysis of
remaining funds that are unspent. Solar building technology from last
year, and this was taken as of May 31, two-thirds of the way through
the year, they had an unspent balance of $3.3 million. They still had
163 percent of what we appropriated last year for solar building
technology.
Wind energy systems. My gosh, what is new about that? I am 70 years
old and as a kid we had a wind energy system. The wind program has
$56.5 million unspent, 174 percent of the amount we appropriated last
year for wind energy.
Solar technology transfer. Do we need that? We are selling solar.
They always tell us how valuable it is; $23.3 million unspent--566
percent, 5 times more money than we appropriated last year was left
unspent.
International solar energy systems, $7.8 million unspent, 194 percent
still left on May 31. For all the solar renewable programs, including
those, there was an unspent balance of $336 million. Do they need more
money?
Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, rise in opposition to the amendment, and in
support of the committee and the chairman.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I thank the gentleman. I yield myself such time
as I may consume, Mr. Chairman.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we have a letter from SURA, the
Southeastern University Research Association, from its president, Mr.
Barnes. At the proper time I will ask that it be included in the
Record. I urge us not to go along with this. We are denying some very
important research programs. He represents 41 southeastern
universities. He says, do not do this; you are hurting some valuable
programs in research and you are putting money in some places, I am
paraphrasing here, that will not get the bang from the buck.
So go along with your committee. They have not been able to spend the
money we have put in for prior years. We just are not getting the
benefit of the dollars for this investment. We are continuing to have
research on other renewable, but wind and solar just have not produced
for the dollars we have spent.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter from Mr. Dennis
Barnes.
The letter referred to is as follows:

Southeastern Universities

Research Association, Inc.,

Washington, DC, July 24, 1996.
Hon. John T. Myers,
Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee for Energy and
Water, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Myers: The purpose of this letter is to
express the opposition of the Southern Universities Research
Association (SURA) to the amendment to be offered by Mr.
Schaefer to the Energy and Water appropriations bill, H.R.
3816. It is my understanding that the amendment would add
$42.1 million to renewable energy research--which the
Committee has already increased by $10 million--while cutting
an identical amount from energy supply, research and
development programs.
SURA--which represents 41 universities in the Southeast--
fully supports the Committee bill and is particularly pleased
with the recognition the Committee gives to the importance of
the General Science programs of the Department of Energy
which funds nuclear and high energy physics. However, SURA
strongly opposes the amendment's offset which would cut basic
energy science research.
As you know, the basic science programs funded by the
Office of Energy Research over the past several decades have
led to a wealth of technological advances that have
dramatically improved the energy security of our country and
the welfare of its citizens. For more than a half century,
every Congress and every President has recognized the unique
role of basic science in sustaining the nation's world power
status.
Sincerely,
Dennis W. Barnes,
President.

I urge a no vote, and I yield back the balance of my time, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 483, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer]
will be postponed.

amendments en bloc offered by mr. markey

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
The text of the amendments en bloc is as follows:

Amendments en bloc offered by Mr. Markey: Page 17, line 21,
insert ``(reduced by $5,000,000)'' after ``$2,648,000,000''.
Page 22, line 22, insert ``(reduced by $15,000,000)'' after
``$5,409,310,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] will be recognized for 10
minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich],
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], and the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen] have joined me today in offering two
bipartisan amendments, dealt with en bloc, dealing with pyroprocessing,
a program that has important budget, nonproliferation, and
environmental consequences for our country.
Friends, colleagues, countrymen, lend me your ears. We come to bury
pyroprocessing, not to praise it. The evil that dead government
programs do lives after them, while the good is oft interred with their
bones.
So it is with pyroprocessing. Pyroprocessing is the last living
remnant of one of the biggest budget-busting boondoggles in
congressional history, the failed breeder reactor program.
Pyroprocessing is not exactly a household name instantly recognized by
citizens across the country. In fact, if you are not a nuclear
physicist, like the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], then you
probably never heard of pyroprocessing, which is a chemical procedure
used to separate plutonium and uranium, the building blocks of a
nuclear bomb from radioactive waste. Its secondary definition in the
dictionary is, it is also a fancy

[[Page H8367]]

name for burning money, taxpayers' money, at very rapid rates, getting
almost nothing in return.

Mr. Chairman, nonetheless, you do not have to be a Ph.D. to
understand that pyroprocessing is a budget-busting boondoggle that is
bad for the environment and bad for American efforts to stop the spread
of nuclear weapons.
Mr. Chairman, before any pyro- processing pyrotechnics erupt on the
floor over whether pyroprocessing at the Argonne National Lab is the
same thing as a procedure called reprocessing, let me start by simply
saying that a radioactive rose by any other name is a radioactive rose,
nonetheless.
According to James Warf, a group leader for the Manhattan project and
a holder of several patents on reprocessing, he says, ``There is no
question that the projects proposed to be conducted at the Argonne
National Lab West is reprocessing.''
Prof. Albert Wohlstetter, who over the last 45 years has served as a
science and security adviser at the White House, National Security
Council, and Departments of Defense, State, and Energy, for every
Democrat and Republican President for the last 40 years, stated in a
recent court case: ``Whatever the name, what DOE proposes is clearly
reprocessing.''
The top three reasons why the Markey-Kasich-Obey-Torkildsen
amendments should be adopted. First, our amendment is good budget
policy. Pyroprocessing is a radioactive relic from a bygone era when
specialized nuclear reactors called breeders were touted as the answer
to our energy needs.
After pouring billions of dollars into the breeder program, Congress
killed the breeders by terminating the infamous Clinch River reactor in
1983, and the advanced liquid metal reactor in 1994. Costs of a breeder
program are astronomical. Former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Ivan Selin, estimated that it would cost $82 billion to
build and operate a full-scale breeder program.
But like a vampire that just refuses to die, a money-sucking program,
the pyroprocessing part of the breeder program continues to haunt us,
sucking money from taxpayers by draining millions of dollars for a
program that should have been buried along with the breeder program.
Taxpayers for Common Sense and Citizens for a Sound Economy support
the Markey-Kasich amendment to cut funding for pyroprocessing as a way
of putting an end to the wasteful breeder program once and for all.
Pyroprocessing also raises serious nuclear proliferation issues.
According to national security experts like former assistant director
of national security policy in the White House, Frank von Hippel,
pyroprocessing could undermine the long-standing U.S. policy of
discouraging reprocessing in other countries. This policy began in the
Ford administration and has been in place ever since.
Changing course now would be a radical departure from our 20-year
position and would send a contradictory and potentially dangerous
message abroad. Pyroprocessing would make it easier for rogue states to
use a civilian nuclear program as a cover for a nuclear weapons
program, like India did and like North Korea did.
Peter Johnson, the project director of the 1994 Office of Technology
Assessment study on the advanced liquid metal reactor, has stated that
the pyroprocessing project should not be encouraged in other countries,
and it should be protected from use by countries that may wish to
protect weapons materials.
Our amendments are supported by major arms control groups, including
Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Union of Concerned
Scientists, the Nuclear Control Institute, and Greenpeace.
Finally, pyroprocessing is bad for the environment. Everyone agrees
that we must find a way to handle our nuclear waste safely and
efficiently. However, while the backers of pyroprocessing promote it as
an environmentally friendly method of handling nuclear waste, the
reality is quite different. Pyroprocessing actually creates a variety
of new waste materials. This waste has not been evaluated to determine
its stability over the long term.
As the National Academy of Sciences points out, rather than solving
the waste problem, pyroprocessing only makes it worse by generating
more waste, including wastes that have not been analyzed to ensure they
are stable enough for long-term storage.

{time} 2330

This amendment is endorsed by the Friends of the Earth and the League
of Conservation Voters. I urge my colleagues to support the Markey-
Kasich-Obey amendment. It cuts out $20 million not needed. The
amendments are supported by budget watchdog groups, Citizens for a
Sound Economy and Taxpayers for Common Sense. Our amendments are
supported by arms control groups, Physicians for Social Responsibility,
the Union of Concerned Scientists and Nuclear Control Institute. Our
amendments are supported by environmental groups, the Friends of the
Earth and the League of Conservation Voters. Bad budget policy. Bad
energy policy, bad environmental policy, bad nonproliferation policy.
A ``yes'' vote tonight helps to preserve this Congress investing in
each one of those dangerous avenues for the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of noise there and an
awful lot of misinformation beginning with the fact that I do not think
it is the Kasich amendment at all. He signed a ``Dear Colleague,'' but
I think he has some afterthoughts about having even done that.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly rise in opposition to this Markey
amendment. The amendment would zero out an appropriation of $20 million
for what I believe is an extremely important ongoing environmental
nuclear waste reduction research program being conducted by the
Department of Energy in Illinois and in Idaho.
The program is known as the electrometallurgic treatment program. It
shows, I believe, promise as a method to greatly reduce, reduce, not
increase, the volume and toxicity of over 2,700 metric tons or more
than 150 different types of spent nuclear fuel which is supported at
various DOE sites throughout this Nation.
It is a new and exciting treatment of spent fuel which also locks up
and makes inaccessible plutonium that spent fuel contains. There is no
proliferation here of plutonium. And that is what, when we talk about
reprocessing, I think the gentleman must know; when we talk about
reprocessing of nuclear waste, we are talking about the creation of
pure plutonium. That alone is weapons grade plutonium. When we take
that plutonium and we bind it with the actinides and the transuranic
wastes, then you have no problem in that regard. And that is what this
new process does. It is not reprocessing.
This technology can also potentially be applied to commercial spent
fuel as well. This process also is not an enrichment technology, as has
been erroneously contended, and it cannot become such. If, however, the
fuel that is treated contains highly enriched uranium, it is blended
down with a depleted uranium to make low enriched uranium. And it is
not a breeder reactor, it is not the IFR, it is not the old breeder
reactor. It is a research program designed to take spent nuclear fuel
and make it less threatening to the environment.
It is obviously environmentally sound, and it is endorsed by the
administration. It is endorsed by the Department of Energy. It is
endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, who have looked into this and
evaluated them very closely.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the
subcommittee for yielding me this 2 minutes. I am not an expert on this
process, but I have been led to examine it at some length, and
particularly to looking at the National Academy of Sciences review of
the program. I have become convinced that the program is

[[Page H8368]]

technically viable and desirable as giving us another option for the
control of high-level nuclear waste.
I was vastly entertained by the description of the program by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. The gentleman could follow
another career with great profit as an entertainer based upon his
performance here. I am particularly interested in his trying to relate
this to the breeder reactor program or the development of a plutonium
society. I actually led the fight at the time that he mentioned to end
the Ventura breeder reactor at the request of President Carter, and I
am not a fan of breeders.
I do not want to see an economy based upon breeders, an energy
economy or any other kind. From everything that I can see about this
technology, it has no real relationship to the development of a breeder
program. It is intended instead to be a safe way of disposing of the
waste from what is known as the EBR-2, the experimental breeder reactor
2, which we are building at the present time, merely as a small
experimental breeder.
It is intended to be a technology for disposing of a major part of
the waste stream from that reactor. I therefore urge defeat of the
Markey amendment.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] who has been a very valuable member of this
committee.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I too rise in opposition to the amendment. I
think that several things need to be restated. First, this is not a
debate over the breeder reactor. Those who oppose this technology have
consistently tried to make that connection and falsely so.
The argument has been made that this is a budget issue. The fact is
that the D.C. Superior Court recently ruled that by 1998 the Department
of Energy must take possession of and manage the spent fuel in this
country. This is a technology that will help us reduce the volume of
the spent fuel and reduce the toxicity of the spent fuel and better
manage it.
The argument has been made that it is a nonproliferation risk. I do
not know whether we are talking about the same technology here, because
this does not increase the plutonium, it binds the plutonium so that it
cannot be used for weapons grade material, and it makes it ready for
storage in safe manners.
In fact, as I listened to the debate of the gentleman from
Massachusetts, I was convinced that we were literally talking about
different technologies. As has been indicated, there are major
different scientific groups that support this. I encourage my
colleagues to look to those scientists and oppose this amendment.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
What we are talking about here is electrometallurgical treatment. It
seems to me that maybe Shakespearean scholars do not want to listen to
what scientists have to say about this, but it is, it seems to me,
somewhat relevant that the National Academy of Sciences supports this
kind of research. Shakespearean scholars may not care about what
scientists think, but it does seem to me that the fact that the
National Research Council supports this process makes some sense.
Shakespearean scholars may not care what scientists think, but it is
true that the National Academy of Engineering supports this kind of
process. It is also true that scientists at the Institute of Medicine
in looking at this think that it is worthwhile to do.
Now, we can quote a whole bunch of people who have an agenda who are
opposed to this kind of research, but let us understand what that
agenda is. That agenda is to try to kill nuclear power. And so when
they are given the kind of research that is critical to the solution of
the Nation's spent nuclear fuel problem, obviously they are opposed to
continuing that research. When they are given research that reduces the
volume and the toxicity of the spent fuel and better prepares it for
safe storage, they are opposed to that because their agenda is to kill
nuclear energy. It is not to do good science.

Good science is supported by the National Academy of Science, by the
National Research Council, by the National Academy of Engineering and
by the Institute of Medicine. They all say we ought to go forward with
this. I think we should too. Stop the Markey amendment. Defeat it
tomorrow.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me say quite clearly that the gentleman who was just in the well
unfortunately has such a commitment to these corporate welfare programs
that is is impossible to break the addiction. This amendment is opposed
by Citizens for a Sound Economy and Taxpayers for Common Sense. Those
of us who are committed to balancing the Federal budget by the year
2002 have to be informed by these taxpayer groups that are looking,
scouring the Federal budget, looking for the pork barrel projects that
cannot be justified any longer. And under the guise of the red
herrings, making this sound like some kind of antinuclear amendment,
when the primary reason we should be opposing it is that the Citizens
for a Sound Economy, Taxpayers for Common Sense, oppose it.
I am feeling right now that we should put an aquarium down in the
well to contain all of the red herrings that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania and others have injected into this debate. In fact, the
reality here is that without question not only does this not solve the
problems that have been pointed out by the opponents of this amendment,
but it creates new ones.
The scientists, well, I have scientists. And my scientists, Albert
Walstetler, perhaps the most respected, by the way, of any in the
United States, he says quite clearly, whatever the name, what DOE
proposes is clearly reprocessing. It is the separation of fissile, of
fertile material from nuclear waste in the special case of EBR-2 spent
fuel reprocessing may or may not make it easier to dispose of the
waste, but it does not alter proliferation dangers. Vote ``yes'' on the
Markey amendment.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I will present a letter from the
PIRG opposing this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my
time to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], the only scientist, I
think, in Congress who knows what he is talking about.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. After that introduction, I am almost afraid to hear what I am
going to say. It reminds me of a little medal which a friend presented
to me a few days ago which I do not have the courage to wear on the
floor. But it says, why, yes, I am a rocket scientist, which might be
appropriate at this point.
I would note that the gentleman from Massachusetts referred to red
herrings, which reminded me that you need boats in order to catch red
herrings or other-colored herrings. And I come from Michigan where we
have a great many boats, and we define a boat as a hole in the water
into which you pour money. And that is unfortunately true.
But in our nuclear waste program in this Nation, nuclear waste
repository is a hole in the ground into which you pour money. If we are
serious about budget problems, we should worry about how we can reduce
the costs of burying nuclear waste. We have spent billions and billions
of dollars on the nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Frankly, anything
we can do to reduce the volume of nuclear waste is going to be a
moneysaver, not an expenditure out the Federal budget. I support
anything that is likely to reduce the amount of waste.
It seems to me the supporter of the amendment makes a comment that it
is reprocessing, and therefore it is bad. Of course it is reprocessing.
That does not necessarily make it bad. If in fact it is able to reduce
the problem, increase the safety of disposal of the waste, I think it
is a good project.
The National Research Council has evaluated it and has come up with a
statement that this is the methodology that should be pursued. Is it in
fact going to be a positive response to our nuclear waste problems? We
cannot guarantee that, but it certainly looks promising to the Research
Council and National Academy of Sciences and others. Based on that, I
think we should pursue the research further and determine whether or
not it is going to be

[[Page H8369]]

effective. Based on that, I urge the defeat of the Markey amendment.
(Mr. TORKILDSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)

{time} 2345

Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition of this
amendment to cut funding for pyroprocessing in the fiscal year 1997
energy and water appropriations bill.
Pyroprocessing is a chemical procedure used to separate plutonium and
uranium from fuel that has been run through a nuclear reactor. The
Department of Energy planned to use pyroprocessing as part of its
program to develop the breeder reactor, similar, though not identical
to the advanced liquid metal reactor which Congress killed in 1994.
This process is extremely hazardous to our environment because it
creates additional radioactive wastes so toxic they may not be suitable
for geologic storage. Pyroprocessing just doesn't make sense,
especially when it is funded out of the DOE's waste management account
which seeks to clean up hazardous material.

Furthermore, the funds this amendment seeks to eliminate were not
authorized by the National Security Committee and will cut programs
that will do more to clean up Department of Energy sites.
This amendment is endorsed by Citizens for a Sound Economy, the
League of Conservation Voters, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and other
environmental and public interest groups. It's not every day that the
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, and the ranking
minority member on Appropriations agree, but when they do we should
listen.
Congress already had a similar debate when we voted to kill the
advanced liquid metal reactor in 1994. Although the original program
for which pyroprocessing was intended is long gone, the Department of
Energy still receives funding for this program. Somehow this technology
has taken on a life of its own and here we are again fighting for the
environment and to eliminate this wasteful spending once and for all.
I urge my colleagues to protect the environment, balance the budget,
and support the Markey-Kasich-Obey-Torkildsen amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 483, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Markey] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

amendment offered by mr. gutknecht

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Gutknecht: Page 36, after
line 10, insert the following new section:
Sec. 506. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by 1.9 percent.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, the hour is late and we have had plenty of debate. This
is the ninth time that I have offered this same amendment. This is a
1.9 percent across-the-board reduction.
Again, just for the benefit of those who may be keeping score at
home, what we are really trying to do is recover the $4.1 billion which
we increased in spending above and beyond what this House said we were
going to spend, causing a spike in the proposed deficit for next year.
Mr. Chairman, I am again offering this amendment in good faith. Even
though I know that the chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers]
and his subcommittee have done an excellent job in controlling
spending, I really believe if we are serious about balancing the budget
we have got to find a way to recover that $4.1 billion. Otherwise, I am
afraid we cannot face our kids in good conscience and say that in 3
years we will be able to save $47 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I do not have that much to say about this amendment
other than that it would ultimately reduce total expenditures in this
bill by about $376 million. We would still be spending $19.4 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Indiana in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] will be
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think everyone who has been here this evening has
heard the desperation some Members have wanting more money added in the
bill. We have cut this bill just about every category right down to the
bare bone. I am in sympathy with what the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Gutknecht] is trying to do. Through the years I think I have certainly
supported my share of across-the-board cuts. Back years ago, Frank Bow,
former ranking member of this Committee on Appropriations, used to
offer a 10-percent amendment. I often supported that. We used to have
Clarence Miller of Ohio offer a 5-percent amendment. We have had
various deviations from this. But this bill has already been cut right
down to the bare bones. As an example, we now are just barely meeting
the maintenance requirements for the Corps of Engineers to operate 50-
year-old locks and dams. There is a safety factor. We have a danger. We
had one dam in California collapse because we were not properly
maintaining it. We can not just start cutting things that we just
simply cannot afford to cut any further.
I am concerned about balancing the budget by 2002. In fact, I would
like to make it by the year 2000. But these are all investments in our
future. Much of the funding has already been cut. I ask a ``no'' vote
on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, essentially we are talking about two pennies, two
pennies out of every dollar allocated to Federal spending that can keep
us from increasing this deficit. Is it too much to expect Washington to
live within its means? Is it extreme to expect Washington to balance
the people's budget?
Millions of hard-working American families are forced to balance
their budgets every month. We are talking about balancing the budget in
7 years. We are talking about cutting domestic discretionary spending
by 1.9 percent, simply 1.9 percent, so that we can get back on that
path that we said we would stay on. We promised that we would go on a
diet but now we are saying, well, we are going to have one more
milkshake.
I do respect what the committees have done, as the chairman says, and
I believe he is speaking in good faith that we have cut this budget
down to the bone, but frankly, Mr. Chairman, we are going to have to
cut even further as we go along toward that 2002 goal. So if we are
down to the bone now, how will we ever possibly balance the people's
books?
This is not about a mean-spirited accounting exercise. I am not
trying to demagogue this issue. What I am really saying on behalf of
the children of America is that we have got to make the tough choices,
we have got to eliminate more of the waste in the Federal Government,
we have got to cut Federal spending. Otherwise, we will ensure that our
kids are going to enjoy a lower standard of living than we enjoyed.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the subcommittee
chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from CA is recognized
for 5 minutes.

[[Page H8370]]

There was no objection.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, as the subcommittee chairman well knows,
vernal pools are seasonal wetlands which form in poorly drained swales
or depressions in the earth. A number of plant species are indigenous
to these pools and they sometimes serve as temporary waterfowl habitat.
Because they are defined as jurisdictional wetlands of the United
States, vernal pools are regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers under
existing Federal law.
These vernal pools can be found in various parts of northern
California, including my congressional district. In the 102d Congress,
I convened a so-called vernal pools task force for the purpose of
trying to streamline the regulatory process dealing with vernal pools.
As our committee's report points out, the goal of the vernal pools
task force, which has been in existence and continued their work since
the 102d Congress, is to develop a general permit application that will
identify a finite area of high grade vernal pools suitable for
protection.
Funding for the vernal pools task force has been provided through the
annual energy and Water Development appropriations. As a member of this
subcommittee and as a convenor and initiator of the task force, I am
pleased to have a role in overseeing the task force funding.
However, as we proceed to consider funding for the vernal pools task
force in the future, I am concerned that the task force is diverting
from its original objectives. If this effort is to receive further
support from the Congress, then the Santa Rosa plain vernal pool
ecosystem plan and the general permit issued by the Corps of Engineers
to implement this plan should be designed to further the following
principles:
First, the regulatory burden on landowners should be reduced wherever
and whenever feasible.
Second, the regulatory process should be streamlined by simplifying
the rules, eliminating unnecessary or duplicative rules and processes
and reducing the number of agencies reviewing and approving the
activities of landowners.
Third, local control of land use should be promoted by confirming
that the primary responsibility for such matters resides with local
government.
Fourth, the plan and the implementing general permit from the Army
Corps of Engineers should recognize the interest of landowners and
society in the uses of land for a variety of purposes, such as housing,
transportation, agriculture and business as well as conservation of
natural resources.

Fifth, the plan and the implementing general permit should be based
on accurate information and sound science.
Sixth, the plan and the implementing general permit should be
developed in a manner that encourages public participation and affords
an opportunity to achieve as much consensus as possible.
Seventh, individual landowners should be directly notified by the
Corps of Engineers of actions that might impact on their properties.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the vernal pools plan and the implementing
permit should mirror nationwide permit 26. There should be sites where
activities are authorized without an individualized review or approval
by any Federal agency provided that such sites do not contain habitat
for any threatened or endangered species. Such sites should include:
any parcel of land less than 1 acre in size; any parcel of land where
90 percent or more of the land has been improved with structures,
infrastructure, landscaping or related facilities; and any parcel of
land containing less than 1 acre of these wetlands.
I ask the chairman to respond to my comments and acknowledge my
concerns regarding the ongoing work of this vernal pools task force.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for his observations
here. This committee has heard about vernal pools and has been
concerned, but no one knew what to do about them. We congratulate him
for establishing this task force to conduct an investigation and
hopefully come up with some good recommendations.
I am sure the committee will continue to be concerned about the issue
that the gentleman has identified here. It is a real problem, I know,
for the gentleman and for Californians. We will continue to support and
watch the accomplishments the gentleman makes with his task force.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that very much. I know the
gentleman is moving on and will not have to worry or concern himself
with matters such as the vernal pools, but I do appreciate his support
for the concerns that I have expressed in this colloquy and again wish
him best wishes.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Maybe I will come out and fish in those pools
sometime.
Mr. RIGGS. The gentleman would be most welcome.

amendment offered by mr. filner

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Filner: Page 2, after line 23,
insert the following: ``Tijuana River Basin, California,
$600,000;''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner].
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would allow the Army
Corps of Engineers to conduct critically needed studies to begin
addressing and remedying serious flooding in the Tijuana River Valley
in San Diego.
Back in 1979 the Army Corps built a flood control project in the
river valley but conditions have changed and it no longer works. It
needs to be reevaluated, and this study can be fit entirely within the
General Investigations account of the Army Corps.
The International Boundary and Water Commission which has the
responsibility to maintain this project recently informed me that the
situation within the Tijuana River Valley requires an immediate
reevaluation of the hydraulic conditions.
As they said, the area downstream of the project has changed
considerably within the last 25 years and has changed the hydraulic
characteristics. Because of this change the project can no longer
function as originally designed.
In fact, serious flooding has occurred in the valley in 1983, 1985
and again in 1993. Furthermore, a couple of months ago there was a bomb
scare at the Rodriguez Dam in Mexico. If this dam were to break, it
would devastate the areas downstream of the reservoir, in this case the
whole southern portion of San Diego County. It literally would imperil
hundreds of thousands of American citizens. During this apparent
terrorist episode the city of San Diego and the county water district
discovered that there was no emergency response plan to deal with the
failure of this dam.
My amendment would appropriate $600,000 and direct the Army Corps, in
consultation with the International Boundary and Water Commission, to
conduct a study to provide an update of the hydrology in the Tijuana
River Valley and prepare an emergency dam break response plan.
Mr. Chairman, the Tijuana River Valley deserves protection from
floods and from terrorists. I urge my colleagues to approve this
request.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has discussed this
problem, which is an international problem now, with the committee and
the committee is very much aware of the situation. But, unfortunately,
as we have discussed, we do not have the funds to do everything. But we
are very much aware of it and we have worked very closely with the
gentleman from California.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray]. I thank him profusely for
staying with us late in the evening and for his support.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 3
minutes.

[[Page H8371]]

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, it has been an interesting evening.
Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the amendment. It is actually not
in my district but it is adjoining my district. To be really blunt
about it, the people in my district along the coast are really kind of
tired of seeing the damage and the carnage occurring in Mr. Filner's
district through floods caused by an international agreement and
actually the damage flushing down into my district.
Frankly, I will say this, though it is not my district, I personally
rescued drowning livestock and drowning illegal aliens who have been
stranded in this situation that has been cruel and with a great loss of
life because of this situation.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a local problem and it is not a natural
problem that Mr. Filner is speaking about here. This is a problem that
has been created through the actions of the United States Government in
conjunction with the Mexican Government. Both the treaty of Guadalupe
Hidalgo which created the International Boundary and Water Commission
and the cooperative efforts on projects that have related to that
treaty are directly related to this flooding.
The flooding that has occurred has been a direct product of the
channelization on the Mexican side with the support and the subsidy of
the United States Government. The dam at Rodriguez is a dam that was
built in the 1930's and the 1940's with the subsidies and the treaty of
the U.S. Government.

{time} 0000

The problem that Mr. Filner's district is incurring at this time is a
direct responsibility of the U.S. Government. It is one that we can not
walk away from. It is one that is not just a responsibility to Mr.
Filner's district but it is also a responsibility that we bear signing
treaties with a foreign government, the Republic of Mexico, that we
would address the flooding problems that occurred because of their
channelization and the improvements on their side of the border.
I would just ask both sides of the aisle to recognize that this is
not a situation of nature flooding Mr. Filner's district. This is an
issue of a breakdown along international boundaries, of Federal
intervention without completing a project.
There has been problems that have occurred in this area, Mr.
Chairman, that were unforeseen. We all accept that. But I just ask you
that, because they were unforeseen, you do not treat them as if they
are nonexistent.
I ask this body to address this problem. It does not relay only on
Mr. Filner's people to address this problem. They did not have the
authority to make the decision for these treaties or to build these
projects. That responsibility and that right rests with us in the
Federal Government. Thus, the problems that have occurred because of
those problems rest with us today. I ask for support of the amendment.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As I previously stated, we just do not have the money to do this
project. We understand the problem.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the understanding of the
chairman and the understanding of the ranking member. I understand that
because of the international nature of this request and the urgency of
it, that they will be working with us to try to deal with it in the
future.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

amendment offered by mr. hilleary

Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Hilleary: At the appropriate place
in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. . None of the funds made available to the Tennessee
Valley Authority by this Act may be appropriated when it is
made known to the Federal official having authority to
obligate or expend such funds that the Tennessee Valley
Authority is imposing a performance deposit on persons
constructing docks or making other residential shoreline
alterations.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] and a Member opposed, each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary].
(Mr. HILLEARY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to
protect the private property rights of thousands of dock owners on
lakes in the Tennessee Valley.
TVA is currently developing new regulations known as the Shoreline
Management Initiative. The proposed regulations call for imposing a
$1,000 deposit on all persons who own docks on TVA lakes. Under the
proposal, the deposit would be returned to the owner, with interest,
upon the sale of the property. Therefore, my amendment will have no
impact on the budget.
My objection is that this new charge will have a significant impact
on the property values of the lakeshore residents.
TVA has 11,000 miles of shoreline along its lakes. More than 47,000
permits have been issued for structures on the lakes. This new deposit
will affect every one of those property owners when they attempt to
sell their property. New owners will have to bring an additional $1,000
to the table at closing. That's an awful lot of extra money needed at
closing.
This means that either the owner will have to reduce his selling
price or agree to pay the deposit for the buyer. Either way, the
homeowner has lost value in his property.
Mr. Chairman, there have been many problems in the development of
these new regulations as well.
I, like my constituents, just learned of the impact of these new
draft regulations about 2 weeks ago when TVA began holding public
hearings to explain the new 300-page document which contains the draft
regulations. Further, many of my constituents have been outraged that
they only learned about the meetings after they occurred.
Many of my constituents have contacted me complaining that they were
not informed of the development of the Shoreline Management Initiative
or the public hearings in their area. Only 6,500 people received an
invitation in the mail to these hearings out of millions who live in
the Tennessee Valley.
Clearly, the citizens impacted by the Shoreline Management Initiative
were not well informed of the process.
In a recent letter I sent to the Chairman of TVA, I encouraged TVA to
schedule additional meetings and to extend the public comment period
beyond August 31.
I am pleased to announce that late this afternoon TVA agreed to my
request and extended the comment period through the end of September.
There is an urgent need for us to adopt this amendment because if we
do nothing, TVA could implement these new regulations as soon as
December of this year. My constituents need the opportunity to be
clearly heard on the proposed regulations which will have such a major
impact on the property rights and property values of lakeside
residents.
Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HILLEARY. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has discussed this
amendment with the committee. We understand the problem, and we are
willing to accept the amendment.
Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary].

[[Page H8372]]

The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike
the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the committee has completed its
work this evening on the bill. All amendments have been taken care of.
We will have three votes tomorrow ordered on amendments and the
possibility of any votes on any amendments that might have been passed
when they come back in the full House. Then we will have a vote on
final passage.
Mr. Chairman, we thank everybody for their patience and
understanding.
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.
Riggs) 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. 3816) making
appropriations for energy and water development of the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________