[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 125 (Thursday, September 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H10336-H10344]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3816, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of 
theHouse, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3816), 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of theHouse today, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of theHouse of 
earlier today.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] will 
be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Bevill] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The conference agreement that we are bringing to the floor at this 
time for this next fiscal year is $19.973 billion of new budget 
authority. This is $562 million higher than the version passed by 
theHouse a few weeks ago and $343 million below the Senate-passed 
level.
  The greatest amount of this increase is in Defense--a $449 million 
increase in Defense activities.
  A lot of people do not realize that 57 percent of the energy and 
water bill--over half--is Defense related. Domestic discretionary 
programs have been reduced by $48 million below last year. $11.4 
billion is in Defense. Of that amount, $5,620,000,000 is for 
environmental restoration and waste management. No small amount.
  That is the most rapidly growing account that we have. We are 
cleaning up the nuclear waste and other wastes that have been 
accumulating through the years.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill has five titles. Title I is related to water 
resources. We have more than 25,000 miles of inland waterways. The deep 
ports of our country all come under the jurisdiction

[[Page H10337]]

of this bill. The title contains $3.5 billion for Corps of Engineers 
water resource programs this year. This is $136 million more than last 
year, and it is $210 million above the President's request.

  A great amount is for operation and maintenance. Some of the locks 
and dams that are operating in our country, delivering goods to the 
seaports for world markets, are 60 years old and in bad repair. We 
should really be appropriating more money for their maintenance. But 
unfortunately, this year, because of the budget restraints, we are 
unable to do the entire job that should be done.
  Title II funds the Bureau of Reclamation. It appropriates $819 
million. It is less than last year.
  Title III contains $15.8 trillion for the Department of Energy. The 
biggest part of this is for Defense-related activities. Much of it is 
for the environmental restoration and waste management program.
  Title IV funds independent agencies.
  And title V is the portion of the bill containing general provisions 
that are the responsibility of this committee.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many people to thank for this conference 
report, particularly our staff who worked into the wee hours this 
morning preparing the conference report. And they worked hard over the 
last weekend preparing the materials. So our staff and their capable 
leadership is to be thanked for the document we have today. And we are 
especially grateful to the members of our committee, both on the 
majority and minority side.
  I especially want to thank my colleague for 30 years, the ranking 
minority member, former chairman of this subcommittee, the gentleman 
from Alabama, Mr. Tom Bevill. We have worked together very closely 
through the years. When he was chairman, we worked very closely. He 
honored my requests and we always had complete agreement. That has not 
changed this year.
  I personally want to thank the chairman and all the Members in the 
other body who have worked on this bill under the capable leadership of 
Chairman Pete Domenici and the ranking member, Senator Johnston from 
Louisiana. They have worked very cooperatively with us to make this 
product possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 3816, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1997.
  Mr. Speaker, the committee of conference on H.R. 3816 met throughout 
yesterday afternoon and into the evening to revolve the substantial 
differences between theHouse and Senate versions of the bill. Because 
of the dedicated efforts of Members on both sides of the aisle and both 
sides of theHill, we were able to reach satisfactory compromises on a 
range of difficult issues.
  The conference agreement appropriates $19.973 billion in new budget 
authority for programs under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. This 
amount includes $11.352 billion for atomic Defense-related activities 
and $8.621 billion for domestic discretionary programs of the 
Department of Energy, the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of 
Reclamation, and various independent agencies. The total amount is $562 
million higher than appropriated by theHouse-passed bill but $343 
million lower than the Senate-passed version. The greatest portion of 
the increase above theHouse--approximately $449 million--is committed 
to the Defense-related activities of the Department of Energy. These 
additional funds are necessary to maintain our nuclear defense 
capabilities and to address the environmental legacy of the nuclear 
production era.
  While Defense spending in the energy and water bill has risen for 
fiscal year 1997, domestic discretionary appropriations have continued 
to decline. Funding for civilian energy and water programs is reduced 
by $48 million below last year's level. Once again, the energy and 
water bill turns the rhetoric of deficit reduction into reality, 
without sacrificing the necessary and cost-effective programs within 
the bill's domain.
  Title I of the conference report appropriates $3.5 billion to the 
water resource programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This 
represents a $136 million increase over the fiscal year 1996 level and 
an increase of $210 million over the administration's budget request. 
The conferees have taken positive action to address critical 
infrastructure needs throughout the country. The conferees appreciate 
the benefits to be derived from navigation, flood control, and harbor 
maintenance projects and have acted to ensure that the Nation will 
continue to realize a meaningful return on its infrastructure 
investments.
  The committee on conference emphatically rejected proposed policies 
of the administration which would effectively terminate the role of the 
corps in coastal flood protection and small harbor maintenance. The 
conferees recognize the real national benefits--economic and 
otherwise--which accrue from corps activities in these areas and 
continue to support the agency's historical water resource missions.
  Title II of the bill includes funding for the Bureau of Reclamation 
and the Central Utah Project completion account. The amount 
appropriated under title II, $819 million, is less than both the fiscal 
year 1996 level and the budget request for fiscal year 1997. The 
conferees recognize that the Bureau has largely accomplished its 
historical mission of reclaiming the West and expect that declining 
appropriations will continue to match the agency's diminishing role in 
western life.
  Title III appropriates $15.78 billion for the Department of Energy. 
The conferees recognize that certain missions of the Department are 
critical to the welfare of the country. The Department's management of 
these programs, however, has evoked frustration, disappointment and, in 
some instances, hostility. The Department must streamline and improve 
its management; shed low-value and nonessential missions; and set a 
bold new direction for the future. Otherwise, its own institutional 
future will remain very much in doubt.
  Funding levels for certain DOE programs include: $270 million for 
solar and renewable energy; $223 million for nuclear energy research; 
$233 million for fusion energy sciences; $996 million for general 
science and research; and $382 million for nuclear waste disposal 
activities. Spending for atomic energy defense activities of DOE 
includes $3.911 billion for weapons, including stockpile stewardship 
and management, $5.459 billion for Defense environmental restoration 
and waste management, and $1.606 billion for other Defense activities.
  Title IV of the bill funds various agencies and commissions with 
missions relating to energy and water development. Within title IV, the 
conference agreement includes $160 million for the Appalachian Regional 
Commission, $16 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
Board, $106 million for the Tennessee Valley Authority, and $472 
million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The conferees provided 
final year funding for independent river basin commissions in fiscal 
year 1996.
  Mr. Speaker, our conference could not have concluded so successfully 
without the dedicated and unified efforts of my colleagues on the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. We approached the 
conference in a spirit of teamwork and collegiality and stuck together 
through often difficult negotiations. I am proud to have been 
associated with each and every one of the subcommittee members during 
our recent deliberations and throughout the 104th Congress.
  I pay a special tribute, Mr. Speaker, to the esteemed ranking 
minority member and long-time chairman of the subcommittee, 
theHonorable Tom Bevill. Throughout his career on the committee and in 
the Congress, he has established a model for civility and honor. He has 
always approached his responsibilities in a fair and nonpartisan 
manner. He is a gentleman in the truest sense of the word and will be 
sorely missed by this institution once he begins his well-deserved 
retirement.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the conference agreement.

[[Page H10338]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12SE96.000



[[Page H10339]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH12SE96.001



[[Page H10340]]

  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this fiscal year 1997 Energy 
and Water Appropriations Conference Report. I am honored to be here 
with my good friend and colleague of many years, the gentleman from 
Indiana, Chairman John Myers, and I want to commend him for the 
leadership that he has shown in crafting this very difficult bill.
  Also, I want to commend the staff for their outstanding work. It 
looked impossible about 24 hours ago for this bill to get to the floor 
here, but they worked, as the chairman pointed out, until 5:30 this 
morning, worked all night, and, as a matter of fact, day and night all 
week.
  So, actually, this conference report is a fine example of nonpartisan 
legislating. There were very significant differences between theHouse 
and the Senate bills, and so after those many hours, and many difficult 
issues were worked out and compromises were made, we have come out, in 
my judgment, with the best possible conference report that we could 
with the limited funds that we were allocated.
  Under the chairman's able leadership this was certainly a responsible 
compromise that was fashioned. He played a very important role in this, 
of course.
  The report recommends, as the chairman has pointed out, $19.9 billion 
in funding for the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the 
Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which, by the 
way, is over last year, and many other programs. All these programs are 
crucial to the development and maintenance of our Nation's 
infrastructure as well as our science and technological research 
capabilities.

                              {time}  1100

  Although the conference report is a fair and balanced agreement, 
there just was not enough money, especially for nondefense, 
discretionary funds for all the good and worthwhile projects. We know 
and we are very much aware and very conscious of the fact that many 
good projects, civil works projects that are needed, we were not able 
to fund them. As a matter of fact, we are very much aware and very 
conscious of the fact that many of our locks and dams and canals and 
waterways, there are 25,000 miles of navigable inland waterways in this 
country, they are not adequately funded even for maintenance, and we 
know and are very much aware that this is false economics.
  This conference report required us to make tough choices. I think we 
have done the best that we could to maintain a responsible energy and 
water program for America within the limited funds. I hope that Members 
will consider the delicate balance realized in crafting this 
legislation. It is a good compromise and will ensure the Nation 
continues to move forward with critical water projects, energy 
programs, vital research, and particularly one that we put a great deal 
of money in, as much as possible, flood control projects. With the 
recent floods we are all very mindful of what these mean to our Nation 
in saving lives and of course property damages.
  I urge the Members to support this conference report. On this 
occasion of my last energy and water development appropriation bill, I 
want to take this opportunity to thank the Members for their support 
and friendship through the years. I admire their dedication to this 
country and their constituents, and I wish for them individually and as 
a Congress much success. They and this great institution have enriched 
my life and made on it better. Again, I urge my colleagues to support 
this conference report and I urge Members to be supportive of this 
throughout on this occasion.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], ranking majority 
member of this committee, a very valuable member of this conference. At 
a time when he had concerns on his own subcommittee where he is chair, 
he gave all of his time to this committee. We thank him for that.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I stand here in support of a 
good, fiscally sound bill that provides for the national security, as 
well as for important comfort to small forgotten communities that are 
flooded routinely. I support the bill very strongly.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise for a much more, I think, important reason. That 
is to personally state, and I think I speak for all Members of the body 
when I say this, how much we owe a debt of gratitude to Chairman John 
Myers and to his very able ranking member, Tom Bevill. This 
subcommittee has truly worked in a very nonpartisan way under Chairman 
Bevill earlier and now under Chairman Myers.
  Yogi Berra said you can observe a lot just by watching, and I have 
been watching the operation of these two men in that subcommittee for a 
number of years now. I have never heard a partisan word spoken in that 
subcommittee, never. Every member of the subcommittee, regardless of 
party, is given equal standing to say or do whatever they think is 
best. And the chairman, Chairman Myers, and before him, Chairman 
Bevill, always gave us the opportunity to speak, to make our case and, 
whenever possible, when they could find the money, they were always 
there to try to help their colleagues help their part of America.
  They say that the only place where success comes before work is the 
dictionary, and I can say that on this subcommittee that certainly is 
true. The big success of this subcommittee has been the tremendous hard 
work that goes into it.
  There are literally thousands of projects and programs that this 
subcommittee has to go through every year, many of them extremely 
complicated. The Nation's nuclear laboratories, for example, and the 
nuclear programs the subcommittee has to oversee, many of them top 
secret military matters which have to be heard behind closed doors, you 
get no glory for that type of thing. These men sought no glory, 
certainly, in their work on the subcommittee.
  I stand here mainly to thank John Myers and Tom Bevill, two Members 
obviously, of course, who are choosing to retire. TheHouse and, more 
importantly, the Nation will be at a great loss because the accumulated 
and cumulative experience and expertise of these two men on all the 
projects covered in this very important bill will be sorely missed. It 
is going to be really tough for the rest of us to try to pick up the 
slack that is laying there, really tough, because none of us have the 
experience nor the expertise that these two gentlemen have accumulated 
over the years. They have both been here quite a few years, not long 
enough but quite a few. But they have been here just long enough to 
pick up a vast amount of knowledge and expertise that we are going to 
sorely miss.
  Mr. Speaker, they say that duty makes one do a job well but that love 
makes one do a job beautifully. I have to tell my colleagues that the 
job these two gentlemen have been doing for their Nation has been 
beautiful, and we appreciate their love of Nation and their love of 
their work more than we can every say.
  They were also able to keep their eye on the horizon. They had to 
realize they have a finite number of dollars to spend and an incredible 
amount of work to do. They were always able to keep their eyes on that 
larger picture. The larger picture was something so important to our 
Nation that in its very earliest days it was given the highest of 
priorities by one of my favorite people in all time, and that is Henry 
Clay from my beloved State of Kentucky, who had what he called the 
American plan.
  Henry Clay the conservative, the fiscal conservative, believed that 
one of the most important things that we had to do as a nation was 
build its canals and its roads and its infrastructure. And this great 
conservative led the charge to defend the American plan and promote it. 
And these two gentlemen have picked up that cause and have carried it 
to a new height, in my judgment; that is, protecting and building the 
infrastructure, the important things that make our Nation work for all 
of us. And that is their modern day American plan, one that we support. 
They have kept their eyes on that horizon.
  I will close with this. Two stonecutters were asked the same 
question: What are you doing? The first one said, why, I am cutting 
this stone into

[[Page H10341]]

two blocks. But the second one said, and these would be the answers of 
both John Myers and Tom Bevill, the second stonecutter said, I am on a 
team that is building a cathedral.
  Gentlemen, you have built a great America in large part and we thank 
you for that.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I take this time for two purposes, first of 
all of all to explain that at the proper time I will have a motion to 
recommit at the desk, and I am offering it essentially for three 
reasons.
  First of all, on the overall spending question, this bill is $646 
million above last year. I personally find it difficult to explain that 
when we compare it to the spending level which is being provided in 
other bills for programs which affect the needs of desperately needy 
children.
  Second, I support adequate funds for cleanup of our nuclear weapons 
sites and programs, and to assist the former Soviet Union in its 
efforts to secure nuclear material and clean up unsafe nuclear power 
plants, and the bill provides for these programs. I congratulate the 
committee for it. But I do not believe that it is rational that we 
continue to increase funds for nuclear weapons production in the wake 
of the end of the cold war.
  Third, this bill contains $38 million for the advanced light water 
reactor program. Members may recall theHouse bill contained $17 
million. The Senate bill contained $22 million. Those amounts have been 
added together to continue this corporate welfare program for the 
nuclear industry. These funds will go to large corporations to assist 
them in licensing new nuclear power plants which will never be built. 
There are several other reasons that I have concerns about this bill, 
as well, and that is why I will be offering a straight motion to 
recommit with no instructions.
  Having said that, I would like to spend the rest of my time 
commenting on the two gentlemen who brought this bill to us today. If 
you took a poll of this House and asked Members to name the two most 
decent Members of theHouse, I would be very surprised if the name of 
John Myers and the name of Tom Bevill will not wind up at the very top 
of the list.
  There are two kinds of people in public life, just like there are two 
kinds of people in private endeavors. There are angle players and then 
there are problem solvers. I think anybody who knows these two 
gentleman knows that they fall into the latter category.
  I have watched both of them for as long as I have had the privilege 
to serve in this institution, and I have never once seen either one of 
them in any way bring dishonor to this House or the constituents who 
were wise enough to elect them as many times as they elected them. This 
House will suffer from their departure. We respect their decision to 
retire, but I think that whether John was speaking on the Republican 
side of the aisle or Tom on the Democratic side of the aisle, you could 
never tell which was which, had you seen them deal with the substance 
of the bill.

  We have various responsibilities in our efforts to serve our 
constituents in this place. Sometimes those responsibilities are 
complementary and sometimes they are conflicting. We have 
responsibilities to country, responsibilities to this institution, 
responsibilities to our political parties, to our districts, to our 
constituents, and to our principles.
  I have seen both of these gentlemen meet those responsibilities in 
the highest possible fashion, in the way that brings the greatest honor 
to this institution and to the country that this institution tries to 
serve. I consider it a personal privilege to have served with both of 
them, and I think every Member who knows them feels the same way.
  I wish them both everything good that can happen in life when they 
leave here, and thank them on behalf of the Members of this House for 
their service.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to our 
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a very 
valued, hard-working member of this subcommittee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to pay tribute to the 
outstanding work of my good friend, the chairman, John Myers, and 
ranking member, Tom Bevill. I can tell you that it really is not a 
partisan or challenging or confrontational kind of committee. With 
these two gentlemen they have been kind of like family. I do not 
suggest to you that it always is calm and cool, but for the most part 
it really is.
  I think it is, it really is a case where we must and should be 
obligated, are obligated to salute these two fine gentlemen for all 
their work. I have come to know them, I think, very closely, and I 
value their friendship and wish them both the very, very best in their 
future endeavors. I understand they both have something lined up, so 
good luck on all of that.
  I rise in strong support of this conference report for the Energy and 
Water Appropriations Act for 1997. I believe it is a good bill, and you 
have heard the story. It may not be perfect, but we must not let 
perfection become the enemy of good. I urge my colleagues on both sides 
to support the conference report.
  As with every other appropriations bill, this conference report is a 
product of some tough choices. We do not simply spread the pain evenly 
among the programs in our jurisdiction, because I think that causes a 
fault of subsidizing in many cases failure, programs that should be in 
fact downsized or terminated.

                              {time}  1115

  Instead what we did, we prioritized spending program by program based 
on their efficiency and their national importance.
  One thing that I like about this bill is the committee continued 
commitment to basic research and development especially when the nature 
of the research is such that it may take years or even decades to 
complete. It is the proper role of the Federal Government to support 
basic research. I am concerned that too often, however, we support 
applied technology and commercialization interfering with the 
marketplace at the expense of basic research.
  The portion of this bill which I am very enthusiastic about is the 
initiation of the closure project fund. The conference report includes 
money for this fund which will accelerate the decommissioning and 
cleanup of former defense nuclear facilities. By stabilizing, 
consolidating and removing nuclear material from the facilities more 
rapidly, we will ensure a safer environment for our workers and our 
communities. To qualify for the closure project funds, the sites must 
demonstrate and validate several criteria including a project 
completion date within 10 years of the application.
  Mr. Speaker, the closure project fund is a type of program that can 
save the EM from becoming a century-long spending fiasco. What we need 
and what the closure projects fund incentives is a responsible 
manageable cleanup program to bring closure to the EM program and free 
up the Department of Energy's largest fiscal expenditure for budget 
deficit reduction. We see this as a first step toward an accelerated 
cleanup program with a defined ending. We anticipate that this fund 
will play a much more significant role in the years to come.
  This is again a good conference report. I encourage my colleagues to 
support this conference report. I thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Myers] for yielding me this time.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our colleague, the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman from Alabama very much for the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want join the chorus in paying tribute to our 
colleagues who are retiring, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill]. It was my pleasure to serve 
with them on their subcommittee for a couple of years, and they have 
been kind to me then and ever since. I think we all wish them good 
health and happiness in the years that lie ahead.
  I also appreciate their good work in this bill and particularly with 
respect to funding for nuclear weapons plant cleanup sites. I am glad 
that the conference report, like theHouse bill, provides for a separate 
account for so-called privatization projects at DOE sites such as the 
one in my area, Rocky

[[Page H10342]]

Flats. My understanding is that this can be used for high-priority 
cleanup projects including both those that would involve construction 
of new treatment facilities and others that might not necessarily 
involve that sort of construction. If I may engage the gentleman for a 
moment, I just wanted to inquire whether this is a correct 
interpretation of that part of the bill.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. The 
funds for the privatization can be used either for new facilities for 
treatment, or they may be used to upgrade and to improve facilities. 
Rocky Flats was covered.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in obvious strong 
support of this legislation. This is once again an excellent product of 
the subcommittee that has always known how to work together. The 
efforts of the chairman and ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] have resulted 
in a conference agreement that is fair, balanced, and which seeks to 
achieve many goals with few resources.
  I want to congratulate these two Members on their long careers and 
their fine achievements in Congress. Their cooperative spirit is a 
valuable example of how bipartisan leadership can produce excellent 
results.
  This year's energy and water bill manages to provide funding for many 
important water projects including, I might say, a number in my State 
of California as well as funding for environmental cleanup, renewable 
energy and many other vital activities.
  Overall, the bill is a remarkable achievement in this time of 
declining budgets.
  The writing is on the wall. Each year it becomes more and more 
difficult to meet all of the flood control, water supply, energy and 
environmental needs of this country. More and more emphasis is being 
placed on setting priorities, and, as in many other years, the Federal 
Government will play a reduced role in the future. It is imperative 
that we take a comprehensive review of our energy and water needs and 
focus less on incremental projects and more on broad-based solutions to 
our problems.

  I want to point out that this bill is $200 million less than was 
requested by the administration. It is, I think, far more than many 
thought would be available to this committee, or possible to pass 
through this body.
  I want to pay particular tribute to the chairman and his longtime 
sidekick, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], for the degree to 
which they fought the battle that made it possible to provide the 
budget authority to this committee to meet the minimum needs that all 
of us understood needed to be provided. I want to thank both of them 
for their distinguished service. This year's bill is testament to their 
hard work, their strong leadership. I want to congratulate them for a 
wonderful achievement, and I can only say for those of us like the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] and myself who will hopefully 
be here in the next Congress, we have no better model from which we can 
take whatever key to success we may have in the future.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to our colleague, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman].
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  I rise in obvious support of the conference report. But more than 
supporting the product of the subcommittee this year in the conference 
work of yesterday, I want to join so many of my colleagues today in 
saying that what I think is a fine legislative product that theHouse 
will vote on in just a few minutes exemplifies, as many have said, the 
tremendous work not only of this subcommittee, which I have been 
pleased to be a member of for a number of years, but the team spirit 
and the nonpartisan work ethic of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Myers], the chairman, and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the 
ranking member. It has been my privilege to serve with these two 
gentleman since 1985 and on the committee since 1989.
  I will say that I do not believe there exists in this body, and 
perhaps in the history of the country, two men who came to public life 
together in this institution and who have worked hand in hand in a way 
to fashion not just a legislative product that is good for the country 
and good for all of us, but a product that truly has improved the lives 
of all Americans because it is our infrastructure, our future, our 
economy. It is transportation and water resources that truly have made 
America without question the strongest country in the world.
  The legacy of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], and the legacy 
of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], will be one that they leave 
this institution after three decades, with a legacy that they have made 
this country stronger and better, have helped its people and its 
families, and who leave here the kind of dedicated service and an 
example to which all who follow should aspire to duplicate.
  My hat is off, and my congratulations to both of these gentleman. I 
appreciate so much just having the opportunity to work with them, to be 
a part of their great careers in this institution, and to have been 
able to serve with them on what I think is some of the best work, the 
best committee in the entire U.S. Congress. I congratulate them on this 
product and urge the adoption of the conference report.
  Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  I just want to say as these two gentleman leave the Chamber after 
years of distinguished service, when I came here as a freshman in 1993, 
they were among the first two leaders I met, and I remember the 
gentleman from Indiana, John Myers, when we were going up to what was 
called the Princeton Conference, but should have been called Plainsboro 
because that is where it was, I remember he said on the way, ``Don't 
let anyone tell you how to vote, including me,'' and I have not 
forgotten that, and I have followed his wisdom, and I can remember the 
distinguished chairman at that time, the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. 
Bevill] who was nice enough when he met me to take me back to his 
office, offered me a cup of tea and introduced me to his wife, and both 
of these gentleman are the type of hard-working legislators, they do 
not always hit the headlines, they are both very civil gentleman, and 
they are the key and the core of what makes the Congress of the United 
States work. We have a few colleagues on both sides that get up and 
scream and shout and do a lot of things. Not much happens. We have a 
few that even violateHouse rules in terms of assaulting other Members 
occasionally. Nobody much cares about them. But when it comes to the 
team of Myers and Bevill and that is replicated in a few places, I 
think all of theHouse and the American people can take pride in what 
these two gentleman have done during their career in Congress, and I 
wish them both the best in the years ahead.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to say, ``Thank you'' for the nice things people have said 
about this subcommittee, and more particularly, what they have said 
about the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and me. There are three 
of us on the subcommittee who are voluntarily not coming back next 
year: the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Bevill, and myself. 
While we are retiring from Congress, that does not mean we are 
quitting. We are still going to be concerned about Congress and what it 
is doing and the activities of this subcommittee.
  It has been a great honor for 30 years to serve in theHouse, but even 
more particularly, to serve with my colleague Mr. Bevill. The 
subcommittee truly has been not bipartisan, but nonpartisan. But under 
Mr. Bevill's leadership, the subcommittee has always disregarded 
politics. So it has been a

[[Page H10343]]

honor to have served on this committee. I thank the staff and the 
committee for their charity, their understanding, and the help that 
they have provided for both Tom and me.
  So we thank you very much from deep in our heart.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
briefly address section 302 of H.R. 3816, the Energy and Water 
Development Conference Report for Fiscal Year 1997. Section 302 
pertains to section 3140 of the 1997 Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 
3230, which I had introduced in the National Security Committee and 
which has been approved by both theHouse and Senate.
  Section 3140 addresses an issue of critical importance to our 
national security--the management of the Nation's nuclear weapons 
complex and, specifically, whether a management structure which was 
designed 45 years ago is able to meet the challenges we face today. 
Numerous studies completed over the past several years have revealed 
that it is not.
  As far back as 1981, in a report revealingly entitled ``A New 
Headquarters/Field Structure Could Provide a Better Framework for 
Improving Department of Energy Operations,'' the General Accounting 
Office was recommending that changes needed to be made to the basic 
management structure at DOE.
  More recently, in August 1993, the GAO issued a detailed criticism of 
past management practices in the Department entitled ``Management 
Problems Require a Long-Term Commitment to Change.'' The report lauded 
recent initiatives by the DOE over the previous year, but noted that 
strong leadership was needed to build an effective management structure 
for the future. The report noted communication problems and a weak work 
force with limited technical and administrative skills. Overall, GAO 
concluded, ``DOE has significant management problems, as reported by 
many oversight groups and acknowledged by agency leadership.'' As 
examples, the report cited a number of telling observations and 
conclusions, including:

       According to over 90 percent of the 114 senior DOE managers 
     we interviewed, organizational lines of authority need to be 
     clarified * * * . Many of DOE's senior managers told GAO that 
     ``fiefdoms'' throughout the field structure hampered their 
     operations.
       Management of the nuclear weapons complex and the national 
     laboratory system * * * is today in disarray * * * its 
     management is under severe stress.
       GAO believes that having field units report directly to 
     senior officials at headquarters who are responsible for a 
     program is a promising strategy. We have supported stronger 
     headquarters-to-field-program accountability in DOE, and 
     having field offices report directly to program assistant 
     secretaries is a way to establish accountability. [Our goal] 
     is to establish a more direct line of command between 
     headquarters and field program personnel.
       Overall reporting between field offices and headquarters 
     must be established and understood. And direction and 
     guidance on program matters and oversight from headquarters 
     offices needs to be clarified, coordinated, and integrated if 
     the [O'Leary reporting scheme] or any other scheme is to work 
     effectively.

  The GAO followed its August 1993 report with another in February 1994 
in which it once again found that, ``DOE's management of the 
laboratories is highly fragmented, lacking both a strategic focus and 
consistency across program lines.''
  Two years later, and 2 years after the most recent reforms by the 
current Secretary were put in place, the GAO released another report 
which uncovered still more problems. In this report, entitled 
``Department of Energy, A Framework for Restructuring DOE and Its 
Missions,'' the GAO found that: ``Attempts to establish direct 
accountability among program offices at headquarters, administrative 
units, field offices, and the national laboratories have been 
especially difficult. Reporting relationships changed often and 
sometimes have been confusing.''
  But GAO is not the only one who has been critical of DOE's management 
structure over the past several years.
  In 1989, in a report to the Secretary of Energy, the Advisory 
Committee on Nuclear Safety recommended that the Secretary: 
``streamline management to make responsibilities clear, that you put 
knowledgeable people in line positions of responsibility, and that you 
give them authority. This is important for assurance of nuclear safety. 
Solving the DOE's problems will require upper management and operating 
personnel to work together closely and effectively. This will not be 
possible if the staff must work through buffers of people who are not 
technically competent.''
  The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board--whose members are 
appointed by the President--has echoed these concerns. In March of 
1996, one of its members, John W. Crawford, issued a report titled 
``Assessment Concerning Safety at Defense Nuclear Facilities: The DOE 
Technical Personnel Problem.'' The report contained a number of 
conclusions regarding DOE management and internal efforts to fix the 
problems, including:

       Field organizations have had a long history of relative 
     independence from subordination to Headquarters; thus these 
     differences are likely to be difficult to resolve. A recent 
     effort to do so was led by an action group of senior 
     Headquarters and field managers under the aegis of the 
     Strategic Alignment Implementation Group. The results of the 
     deliberations by the action group were reported to the 
     Associate Deputy Secretary for Field Management in a 
     memorandum dated June 22, 1995, from the Manager Richland 
     Operations Office. The document states that ``The Strategic 
     Alignment Team identified the need for clarity in roles, 
     responsibilities, authority, and accountability between 
     Headquarters [and] the operations offices * * * to improve 
     coordination and eliminate duplication of work.'' It offered 
     a plan for doing so. However, the plan was submitted in draft 
     form and, as far as the Board has been made aware, no action 
     has been taken on it.
       The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has recommended 
     a strengthened and streamlined managerial approach and clear 
     lines of authority and control. The DNFSB acknowledges that 
     years of doing things a certain way and bureaucratic inertia 
     has made reform next to impossible.

  It is because of these studies that section 3140 was included as part 
of the 1997 Defense Authorization Act. The section would accomplish 
three main objectives aimed at streamlining the DOE management 
structure and addressing the concerns raised in these numerous reports. 
These objectives include: Establishing a clear and streamlined 
reporting channel between the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense 
Programs and the area offices of the four production sites, three labs 
and the Nevada test site. The direct reporting channel applies only to 
site operations matters within the context of the site's security 
function. Site operations matters are defined to include budget, 
personnel and procurement matters.
  Requiring the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress on how to 
further reorganize field activities and management of the national 
security functions of the Department of Energy. The plan must identify 
all significant functions presently performed by the operations offices 
relating to any of the facilities and laboratories covered by this 
section and which of these functions could be performed: (1) by the 
area offices of the Department of Energy located at the facilities and 
laboratories; or (2) by the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense 
Programs. The plan must also recommend and address other internal 
streamlining and reorganization initiatives that the Department of 
Energy could pursue.
  Establishing a Defense Programs Management Council to advise the 
Secretary on policy matters, operational concerns, strategic planning, 
and development of priorities relating to the Department's national 
security functions. The Council shall be composed of the directors of 
the four production sites, the three labs, and the Nevada test site and 
shall report directly to the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs. 
The Council shall be operated and staffed by the Assistant Secretary 
for Defense Programs through resources available to the Office of the 
Secretary of Energy.
  Section 3140 would apply to the following facilities and laboratories 
of the Department of Energy: the Kansas City plant, Kansas City, MO, 
the Pantex plant, Amarillo, TX; the Y-12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN, the 
Savannah River site, Aiken, SC; the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los 
Alamos, NM; the Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM; the 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA; the Nevada test 
site, Nevada.
  The provision in this appropriation bill pertains to section 3140 
requires that the Secretary of Energy ``develop a plan to reorganize 
the field activities and management of the national security functions 
of the Department of Energy.'' I have been assured by officials within 
the Department of Energy that they recognize the seriousness of the 
problem, and they will conduct a serious study in response to this 
provision and that they will take action.
  Therefore, I support the conference report. I will, however, closely 
follow the actions of the DOE to ensure that the safety of workers and 
civilians are protected, that taxpayer dollars are used wisely and 
efficiently, and that the security of the country is protected.
  Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.


                 motion to recommit offered by mr. obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is the gentleman opposed to 
the conference report?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.

[[Page H10344]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the conference report to the 
     committee of conference.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion to recommit was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 383, 
nays 29, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 413]

                               YEAS--383

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (TX)
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                                NAYS--29

     Burton
     Chabot
     Cooley
     Davis
     DeFazio
     Ensign
     Gekas
     Hilleary
     Holden
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Klug
     McHale
     Moran
     Morella
     Neumann
     Obey
     Oxley
     Petri
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Roemer
     Royce
     Sanford
     Schroeder
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Stearns
     Stockman

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bass
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clinger
     de la Garza
     Dooley
     Flake
     Ganske
     Hayes
     Heineman
     Lincoln
     McNulty
     Meyers
     Payne (NJ)
     Richardson
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Scott
     Smith (TX)
     Stokes
     Zeliff

                              {time}  1150

  Messrs. PETRI, SHAYS, and BURTON of Indiana changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. MALONEY, Mrs. LOWEY, and Mr. SCHUMER changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________