[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

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense, other 
     defense activities, in carrying

[[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

       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, $200,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                    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.

                          ____________________