[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 106 (Thursday, July 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5732-H5744]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2203, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 194 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 194
Resolved, That at anytime after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2203) making appropriations for energy and
water development for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1998, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone
until a time during further consideration in the Committee of
the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and
(2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic
voting on any postponed question that follows another
electronic vote without intervening business, provided that
the minimum time for electronic voting on the first
[[Page H5733]]
in any series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings]
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Moakley], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on
Rules, pending which I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 194 is an
open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2203, a bill making
appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 1998.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between
the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
The rule waives clause 2 and clause 6 of rule XXI, prohibiting
unauthorized appropriations, legislative provisions in general
appropriations bills, and reappropriations in appropriations bills.
Mr. Speaker, these waivers are necessary because so many programs
funded by this bill have not been reauthorized. The measure also
includes transfers of certain funds and contains minor legislative
provisions on which the committee has consulted closely with the
appropriate authorizing committees.
In addition, the rule permits the Chair to accord priority in
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the
Congressional Record. The rule also allows the Chair to postpone
recorded votes and reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic
voting on any postponed votes, provided voting time on the first in a
series of questions shall be not less than 15 minutes. Finally, the
rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], the
chairman, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the ranking
member, are to be commended for their outstanding effort on this
legislation. Together, they have worked hard to provide adequate
funding for a number of important programs, while contributing
significantly to the vitally important task of deficit reduction.
H.R. 2203 appropriates $20 billion in new budget authority for fiscal
year 1998 for the Department of Energy and related programs. I am
pleased to report that that amount is $573 million less than last year
and $2.6 billion less than the President's request. The subcommittee
has essentially met its 602(b) allocation for discretionary spending.
The vast majority of the bill's funding, some $15.3 billion, goes to
various programs run by the Department of Energy, including the cleanup
of nuclear wastes on a variety of Federal facilities, including the
Hanford Nuclear Reservation in my own district.
The bill also allocates $4 billion to the Army Corps of Engineers,
$910 million to the Department of Interior, mainly for its Bureau of
Reclamation, and $194 million for related independent agencies.
Mr. Speaker, the funding provided in this bill is necessary to
protect important investments in our Nation's water and energy
infrastructure and to maintain and operate facilities and programs
within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I commend the Committee on Appropriations
and its Subcommittee on Energy and Water for seeking an open rule on
H.R. 2203 so that the House may work its will on this important
legislation without unnecessary restrictions. I urge my colleagues to
support this open rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume;
and I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings],
for yielding me the customary half hour.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleagues, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
McDade], for their very hard work on this very difficult bill. The
energy and water development appropriations bill represents the
culmination of long hours on the part of all the members of that
subcommittee, and we owe them a debt of thanks.
Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule which, like the rules for most
other appropriation bills, waives points of order against legislating
on an appropriations bill. But I am told this waiver is not a cause for
objection on the part of the authorizing committees.
The bill we will soon consider contains funding for some very good
water resource infrastructure projects. It contains over $4 billion for
the water resource programs of the Army Corps of Engineers, which is
actually an increase over the President's request.
Mr. Speaker, it also contains funding for the Department of Energy,
which is unfortunately below the President's request. The Energy
Department, in addition to atomic defense activities, conducts basic
science and energy research, which I think is tremendously important,
especially in today's high-tech world. So I regret to see, Mr. Speaker,
that my colleagues did not appropriate as much money as the Energy
Department needs. But, all in all, this is a very good bill.
On the more controversial side, this bill eliminates the Tennessee
Valley Authority's subsidies for non-power functions, like flood
control and navigation. And it also transfers some of the Energy
Department's environmental cleanup projects to the Army Corps of
Engineers.
Some other concerns are the $60 million cut in solar and renewable
energy research and development. I am sorry to see my Republican
colleagues decided to cut this R&D money. These energy sources are both
economic and environmentally very sound. We should be running as fast
as we can toward solar and renewable energy, not turning the other way.
Mr. Speaker, this bill also contains cuts in nuclear nonproliferation
programs, which is going to have some unfortunate consequences. These
cuts are going to delay the sensors that detect nuclear, chemical, and
biological weapons. And I, for one, think we need those now more than
ever.
The $30 million cut in civilian radioactive waste program could
jeopardize the completion of the Energy Department's viability
assessment of Yucca Mountain. And this bill also eliminates $25 million
for the next generation Internet, which was created to help
universities and national laboratories implement advanced, high-speed
connections.
But, Mr. Speaker, fortunate for those who object to these provisions
in the bill, it is coming to the floor with an open rule, which means
that any Member with a germane amendment to this bill can offer their
amendment on the floor.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleagues, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Fazio] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
McDade] for their very hard work. I urge my colleagues to support the
rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller].
(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to thank my friend from
Washington State [Mr. Hastings] for yielding me this time. I do want to
rise in support of this rule and also in support of this bill.
I particularly want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. McDade], the chairman, and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio], the ranking member, for their hard work in bringing an
important piece of legislation, a bill that deserves bipartisan
support, before this House.
When I am back home talking with the folks who pay the bills, they
always ask the questions: ``What does this legislation mean to our
communities?'' ``What does this legislation mean right here in our
neighborhoods?''
[[Page H5734]]
Clearly, this is an important bill, a bill that funds energy
research, flood control, environmental initiatives, as well as sewer
and water facilities for many communities. Particularly, I think it is
important to emphasize some critical U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
initiatives that will benefit the people of the 11th Congressional
District: flood control, environmental initiatives, and also projects
that will create jobs back home.
We currently have three initiatives in this bill I would like to
point out. One is important to the entire south suburban region,
serving the south side of Chicago, as well as the south suburbs in Cook
and eastern Will Counties. That is the Thornton Reservoir project.
And, of course, I appreciate the subcommittee's initiative to help
this important initiative, which will help 131,000 homeowners to
address flood control problems in the south suburbs. I also want to
note the funding for initiatives to help clean up and address flood
control problems affecting the Kankakee River. I have enjoyed working
with my colleagues, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] and the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], to address the need to bring better
flood control and also to address the siltation problem in the Kankakee
River, an important environmental initiative. And I appreciate the
subcommittee's support.
I also want to note that unlock 14 on the Illinois and Michigan Canal
is addressed with an initiative that is also funded in this
appropriations bill, an initiative that provides an opportunity to
create 110 acres of new wetlands; a new environmental initiative right
next to LaSalle County also will create new jobs.
This bill means something to the folks back in Illinois. It deserves
bipartisan support. I urge bipartisan support for the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
{time} 2045
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will take the 3 minutes, but
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I would simply say this
is the kind of rule that I think we should have. This rule will allow
the resolution of virtually every difference that I know of in the
bill. The administration has some concerns with the number of items. I
will insert in the Record at the proper time the Statement of
Administration Policy which indicates that there is still a way that
this bill has to go before it can receive the blessing of the White
House. But I would not expect that in the end that will be a problem.
I would simply say that I would hope that we can have the kind of
cooperation on other rules that are brought to the House floor that we
have had on this one. If we can, we can get our work done a whole lot
faster and in a whole lot more pleasant fashion and we will all
eventually get to the August recess in a whole lot less tired shape
than we will otherwise reach that week. Let me at this point simply
thank the Committee on Rules for doing what they needed to do.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Statement of Administration
Policy, as follows:
Statement of Administration Policy
h.r. 2203--energy and water development appropriations bill fiscal year
1998
Sponsors: Livingston (R), Louisiana; McDade (R),
Pennsylvania.
This Statement of Administration Policy provides the
Administration's views on H.R. 2203, the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill, FY 1998, as reported by the
House Appropriations Committee. Your consideration of the
Administration's views would be appreciated.
The Committee has developed a bill that provides requested
funding for many of the Administration's priorities. However,
the Administration strongly objects to the Committee's
reallocation of national defense funds from Department of
Energy programs to Department of Defense programs. These
funds are needed for key environmental privatization projects
and to provide full funding for Atomic Energy Defense
Activities, as requested, which is consistent with fixed
asset funding practices in the Government's other defense
programs. We believe that this action is an unacceptable
deviation from our understanding of the Bipartisan Budget
Agreement.
As discussed below, the Administration will seek
restoration of certain of the Committee's reductions. We
recognize that it will not be possible in all cases to attain
the Administration's full request and will work with the
House toward achieving acceptable funding levels. We urge the
House to reduce funding for lower priority programs, or for
programs that would be adequately funded at the requested
level, and to redirect funding to programs of higher
priority.
Department of Energy
The Administration objects to the Committee's providing
only $102 million of the $1.006 billion requested for
environmental management privatization projects. Based on
this mark, several environmental privatization projects would
not be funded at all, and it is questionable whether the
expected out-year funding would allow support for higher
priority cleanup privatization projects at this funding
level. Failure to invest in competitive privatization
contracts for cleanup activities would force the Department
of Energy (DOE) to continue using more costly, traditional
contracting approaches, which the Committee Report has
strongly criticized. This would result in a substantial
increase to DOE's cleanup costs in future years and could
jeopardize the Department's ability to comply with cleanup
agreements.
The Administration strongly opposes the cuts to DOE's
Federal staff and management accounts, including Departmental
Administration and the Office of the Inspector General. Cuts
in Federal staff and support service contractors of this
magnitude would make it nearly impossible for the Department
to improve contractor oversight or to develop, award, and
manage more competitive fixed-price contracts, which are some
of the Committee's own recommendations in the accompanying
report.
The Administration also opposes the Committee's attempt to
micromanage the Department, limit its ability to exercise
good business judgment, overly restrict its ability to
implement sound innovative contracting practices, and limit
its ability to participate in procurement reinvention. It
would do this by: (1) requiring special reports and
notification prior to the start of any FY 1998 approved
construction and special congressional permission to make
procurement decisions currently authorized by other statutes;
(2) inhibiting market research; (3) further restricting the
Department's ability to outsource beyond that required in OMB
Circular No. A-76; (4) unnecessarily restricting the
Department's ability to deviate from the Federal Acquisition
Regulation; and, (5) inappropriately limiting the
Department's ability to use current statutory exemptions from
competition. Additional reporting requirements combined with
the proposed staffing reductions would erode DOE's ability to
gain better control over its operations and improve
management of its complex mission.
The Administration also strongly opposes the transfer of
the Formerly Used Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) from
DOE to the Corps of Engineers. In recent years, the
Department has placed nearly half of this program under
competitive, fixed-price contracts and developed a plan to
accelerate cleanup by 12 years. DOE has established an open,
interactive dialogue with communities and regulators, through
which the Department has developed cleanup standards
commensurate with land use plans and proceeded with early
removal of contamination at many sites. DOE has completed
cleanup at 52 percent of the main sites and 56 percent of the
vicinity properties. Between FYs 1996 and 1997, DOE has
reduced support costs for this program by 23 percent.
Transferring this well-managed program that is nearly
complete to another agency would be disruptive and would most
likely delay completion and increase costs.
The Administration objects to the program cuts in the
requests for nuclear nonproliferation programs. For example,
the reductions in verification research and development would
delay the completion of next generation land-based and
satellite-borne sensors for the detection of nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons programs.
The Administration also opposes the $29 million reduction
to the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning
(D&D) program. DOE is about to enter into a large contract
for D&D and re-industrialization of the large gaseous
diffusion plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, using an approach
that will expedite cleanup, reduce costs, and create new
jobs. The Committee's funding cuts in this program would make
it difficult to proceed with this effort, comply with
environmental requirements, and provide reimbursements to
radium and thorium licensees.
The Administration opposes the Committee's elimination of
$25 million requested for the Next Generation Internet. While
the Administration acknowledges that the private sector has
shown the capability and willingness to fund considerable
technology development for the Internet, the Next Generation
Internet funds requested in the President's budget are
necessary to assist universities and national laboratories in
implementing advanced, high-speed connections that will not
be financed by industry, and to accelerate research in areas
where DOE laboratories have particular expertise.
The Committee's overall reduction of $30 million from the
request for the civilian radioactive waste management program
would threaten satisfactory completion of the Department of
Energy's viability assessment of Yucca Mountain. Both the
Nuclear Waste
[[Page H5735]]
Technical Review Board and independent expert advisers have
urged DOE to build and study an ``east-west tunnel'' or
``drift'' through the repository block at Yucca Mountain in
order to reduce uncertainty about water moving downward
through the site. The $14 million (16 percent) reduction to
the request for the core science program would virtually
eliminate any scientific input from this important research
to the viability assessment. Additionally, the 416 million
reduction in support services and personnel costs would
severely constrain, if not eliminate, an independent review
of critical elements of the viability assessment, including a
validation of repository design concepts and operating
strategies, as well as refined cost estimates of these
designs.
The Administration strongly objects to the Committee's $60
million reduction to the Solar and Renewable Energy R&D
request (calculated on a comparable basis). The overall
funding cuts, particularly in biofuels and solar thermal
energy, would seriously set back environmentally promising
and increasingly economic sources of energy. Research
programs such as these are also the least burdensome way for
the Nation to respond to global climate change.
Army Corps of Engineers
The Administration urges the House to reduce the number of
unrequested Corps of Engineers' projects and programs and to
restore funds that the Administration has requested for
priority Corps projects, including the Columbia and Snake
Rivers Juvenile Fish Mitigation Program for salmon run
restoration and for construction of an emergency outlet for
Devils Lake, North Dakota. The Administration urges the House
to use the $540 million in unrequested funds that the
Committee has provided for the Corps of Engineers
construction, studies, and operation and maintenance programs
to restore reductions made in other priority Corps and DOE
programs.
The Administration appreciates the Committee's full funding
of the Administration's request for the Corps' regulatory
program. This will allow the Corps to implement its
administrative appeals process fully and to continue to
process wetlands permits in a timely manner. The
Administration urges the House to include the
Administration's requested regulatory permit fee, which would
allow the Corps to recover its costs for processing permit
applications for commercial uses.
Bureau of Reclamation
The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for
funding to restore the California Bay-Delta ecosystem.
However, we urge the House to provide the full $143 million
that Congress authorized for this program and that was
requested by the President in the FY 1998 Budget. This
important program plays a central role in resolving long-
standing water conflicts that have plagued the State of
California. In addition, we oppose the reduction of $14
million in requested Central Valley Project funding, which is
an important component of the effort to restore this critical
ecosystem.
The Administration objects to the Committee's decision to
fund a number of Reclamation projects and activities not
requested in the FY 1998 Budget, some of which could result
in demands for additional funding in the out-years. The
Administration supports the Committee's decision to provide
funds to cover the estimated authorized Federal share of
costs for the purchase of water associated with variable
flood control operations at Folsom Dam during FY 1997.
Tennessee Valley Authority
The Administration objects to the Committee's elimination
of all appropriations for the Tennessee Valley Authority in
FY 1998. We believe that an abrupt and total elimination of
funding for the agency in FY 1998 is premature. The
Administration has proposed continued funding in FY 1998
while TVA completes its consultations on potential alternate
funding arrangements for future years for its appropriated
program.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
The Administration urges restoration of the Committee's $4
million reduction to the request for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's (NRC's) High-level Waste Program. This 24-
percent reduction would adversely affect the NRC's ability to
maintain a strong scientific capability, independent of DOE,
to review high-level waste activities. This reduction could
jeopardize the NRC's ability to complete timely reviews of
DOE's viability assessment. Timely resolution of the high-
level waste issue is important to the Nation as well as to
the nuclear industry.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert].
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule on H.R.
2203. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] for crafting
a fiscally responsible bill which will ensure that the United States
remains on the forefront in energy research for years to come.
As chairman of the subcommittee that authorizes many of the
Department of Energy programs addressed in this legislation, I am
encouraged that the chairman fully funded the Large Hadron Collider.
There had been some concerns among some members of the Committee on
Science that U.S. scientists would not be guaranteed a formal role in
managing the operation. Thanks to the work of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Sensenbrenner], the chairman of the Committee on Science, these
concerns have been addressed.
Second, although the Committee on Science authorized the fusion
program at a level slightly higher than this bill, I am encouraged to
see a stabilization in funding for this crucial research effort. The
fusion community has responded well to congressional calls to
restructure their program, and I look forward to seeing the results of
their research.
Finally, just as the Committee on Science authorization bill had,
this legislation substantially increases funding for renewable energy.
I applaud that move, hoping this money will be used primarily for basic
research and that the Department of Energy will not involve itself in
corporate welfare and subsidies.
Finally, once again, I look forward back home to the Santa Ana
Mainstem project to start construction soon. My friends in Orange
County need to be protected from future floods potentially. The Norco
Bluffs Project in Norco, CA, is moving ahead. Wetlands protection in
Lake Elsinore, CA; the Gunderson project and flood control at Murritta
Creek. Again I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] for
this legislation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].
Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express on this
rule my opposition to the funding level in the bill for the Formerly
Utilized Site Remedial Action Program, FUSRAP, as it is called.
Mr. Speaker, I have one of those sites in my district. Radioactive
material from it has now leaked into a tributary of the Farmington
River. The Farmington River is a wild and scenic river, one of our
Nation's treasures. For this reason, I wrote to the Committee on
Appropriations, strongly supporting funding at the administration's
requested level of $182 million for FUSRAP. According to the Department
of Energy, that level of funding would permit cleanup of all the
existing sites by 2002 rather than what we are talking about now, 2016.
An accelerated cleanup program would limit both environmental damage
and cost, including the costs associated with maintenance and
management of these sites.
Unfortunately, the committee was unable to accommodate this request
and now, to make matters worse, has included in this bill a provision
to transfer the jurisdiction of FUSRAP from the Department of Energy to
the Army Corps of Engineers. Further, the bill directs the Corps of
Engineers to evaluate the cost and timetable for the cleanup.
Mr. Speaker, this transfer will serve only to slow critical cleanup
of these sites further, endangering the natural resources of the
communities near them. Mr. Speaker, these communities have already made
sacrifices for national security. The least we could do would be to
move expediently to clean up these sites and to protect the health and
safety of these communities. I would hope we could work together to
make this thing much better than what we are looking at tonight.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a member of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Washington, my friend and a highly valued member of the Committee on
Rules, for yielding me this time.
I rise in support of what is very clearly a fair and open rule. This
rule balances the interests of the authorizing committee as well as the
appropriators in what is often a contentious area. For all those
involved, I think it is a breakthrough and I congratulate them.
Mr. Speaker, the bill we will consider shortly is an extremely
important piece of legislation for the people of Florida, and I will
speak parochially about it for a moment. In recent years, the Clinton
administration seems to have engaged in an all-out assault on Federal
support for beach renourishment, a subject of great interest in our
[[Page H5736]]
State. First, the President suggested that the Federal Government had
no role in assisting State and local governments to protect our
Nation's beaches, beaches that I would say are used by all citizens of
our Nation as well as the many, many visitors who come to our country,
and especially to Florida.
In response, last year's Congress passed the Shore Protection Act
which revises the Army Corps of Engineers' mission to specifically
include beach renourishment. As evidenced by his budget request this
year, the President is continuing his assault on beach programs by not
requesting adequate funds for these vital projects. The report
accompanying this year's Energy and Water bill admonishes the
President, ``In the area of shore protection, the committee is
extremely disappointed that the administration has once again failed to
request funds to continue several ongoing construction projects and
studies or to initiate new studies or projects. As the committee stated
last year, shore protection projects serve the same function as other
flood control projects. They protect lives and property from the
impacts of flooding.''
I think that says it all and it certainly brings back the recent
tragedy of the floods and the flood victims. I think if we understand
that we are going to provide relief for flood victims in one part of
the Nation, we should do it for flood victims in all parts of the
Nation. I hope the administration understands that.
I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and the
Committee on Appropriations for their work on this bill. I am
particularly pleased with the committee's attention to the shore
protection projects and I am sure all Members from States with
shoreline that need protection will share that view, as well as all
Members from States with people who go to the beach, and that is most
of us.
This is a fair rule and a good bill, and I strongly urge my
colleagues to support both the bill and the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Brown].
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am not totally dissatisfied with this rule although
the love fest that is developing here would indicate that it is close
to perfection, and I do find a few minor flaws in it. I would like to
just indicate those very briefly.
I observe that in title III of the bill there are a number of waivers
of authorizing legislation on an appropriations bill. I have
consistently over the years objected to having authorizing legislation
on appropriations bills. I am becoming a little mellower in my old age
that I am not condemning the Committee on Appropriations for doing
this, or at least I am not condemning them as much as I used to condemn
them. But I would like to point out, and I hope that this can be
resolved either by colloquy during the processing of this bill or by
further action with the Members of the other body in conference, there
are certain problems with regard to some of these titles which are
going to give us some headaches unless we do something about them.
For example, the requirement contained in section 301 for the
competition of maintenance and operating contracts by the laboratories
of the Department of Energy is something that I thoroughly approve of,
nevertheless requires some transitional language. There are several
major contracts in the final stages of renegotiation at the present
time, and there is no clear direction as to how these should be
handled. I have indicated this to the chairman of the subcommittee, who
I know is concerned and who is a dear friend who will do what is right,
but I commend to his attention the need to do something about this
particular problem.
I might say that the contracts in the process of renegotiation
include several of the major Department of Energy facilities, such as
Los Alamos, Livermore, Berkeley, Stanford Linear Accelerator and
Pacific Northwest Laboratories. These represent multibillion dollar
accounts. They have proceeded to renegotiate existing contracts in good
faith, and to now stop that and renegotiate and recompete would require
months, if not years of time and considerably more expense. I hope that
the chairman will consider this problem and see if it can be resolved
in some reasonable way.
Some of the other provisions which constitute legislation I think
could have been written much better by the authorizing committee. This
is maybe pure ego, but I think we will find that the ambiguities and
uncertainties contained in the language here, which could have been
resolved if there had been a hearing process in the authorizing
committee, will need considerable improvement. I urge the committee to
seek for ways to improve this language as the bill moves forward.
Let me say that the rule itself, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] has indicated, is not a totally bad rule although I think he has
so exhausted himself that he has not been able to probe into the finer
details of what might be wrong with it. We have a situation now where
the Committee on Rules will not waive the rule with regard to
authorizing language on an appropriations bill if the chairman of the
authorizing committee objects. In this case there are 3 separate
authorizing committees whose rights are being infringed upon, and none
of the chairmen objected. The procedures do not allow a ranking
minority member this same right. If it had, I would have objected to
the language here, and I might still try and do something about it, but
it does not rise to the level of importance that I am going to waste
too much of my energies trying to do that. I hope that will console the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade]. If I have his assurances that
he will try and remedy some of these things, I will rest a little more
easily tonight.
One final thing. Last year I took the floor to ask the cooperation of
the then chairman, the distinguished gentleman Mr. Myers, to help
provide a little funding to do research on the Salton Sea. He did that.
The Bureau of Reclamation had not asked for it. This year they asked
for it, and the gentleman kindly granted them the $400,000 that they
requested. What happened to last year's $400,000?
They have had several very high level conferences with regard to what
makes birds die. I know what makes birds die. They eat rotten fish and
the hot weather kills them and a lot of other things like that, and I
appreciate all of these conferences. As I say, they have had at least 3
of them and there is another one scheduled next month and they are
bringing people from all over the United States down there to look at
the Salton Sea to find out something that I could have told them anyway
and that the gentlemen from California [Mr. Bono] and the gentleman
from California [Mr. Hunter] and some others could have told them.
I do not want to see too many more conferences. I want to see some
action on what is developing to be the largest ecological catastrophe
in California, or maybe the United States. I will make this point over
and over again until we see something productive coming out of this
situation.
{time} 2100
It is already costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and it
threatens to go much higher.
With that, let me thank my good friends on the Committee on
Appropriations for the fine work that they have otherwise done.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Washington for yielding this time to me, and I rise in strong support
of the rule before us and in strong support of the bill, H.R. 2203, the
fiscal year 1998 energy and water appropriation.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
McDade] had a very difficult task before him of balancing all of the
many meritorious and various requests with the very limited budget, and
I commend him, his work as well as the other members of the committee
and the ranking member. I would like to take this opportunity to
express my particular support for the chairman's commitment to
continuing to place an
[[Page H5737]]
emphasis on coastal storm damage prevention projects, and in particular
where there is an obvious and clear Federal responsibility and
culpability.
Mr. Speaker, we have experienced considerable erosion problems along
our beaches in Florida and along the beaches in Brevard and Indian
River Counties in my district in particular. In particular in Brevard
County, there is a very obvious Federal responsibility in that much of
the erosion began after the creation of a Federal inlet at Port
Canaveral. The committee has chosen to continue to place a priority in
these projects, and in particular they recognize the fairness and
honesty and are continuing to pursue this. And I am hopeful, hopeful
that the administration may soon realize the error of their ways in
opposing such projects and begin to once again request funding for
these very, very critical programs.
We have seen the increasing devastation caused by hurricanes in
recent years, and it is important that we pursue policies that protect
our citizens and our property from these storms. Much like levees and
dikes protect our citizens and property from floods along lakes, rivers
and streams, storm damage prevention projects in the form of beach
renourishment projects offer the same protection to our coastal
citizens and properties from the high seas and the damage that
accompanies these storms.
I again commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and I
urge all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Pastor].
(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and congratulate
our chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and our
ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] for the
strong bipartisan manner in which they bring this bill to the floor.
Both gentlemen have led this committee in a spirit of great
cooperation, listening to all parties and, I believe, producing a bill
that is a fair balance between critical needs and limited resources.
Foremost to me and to many of my colleagues are the programs funded
in this bill that ensure the safety of our constituents and the
protection of our communities from flooding and other related damages.
I am pleased that the committee recognized the necessity to ensure
adequate funding for the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of
Reclamation to carry out their missions in an effective manner.
Although more funding is needed, the committee has done an excellent
job in allocating funds to those projects that need them the most.
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that the committee has
rejected the administration request for total up-front funding for all
new Corps of Engineer construction projects. The number of projects,
the number of years to complete them and the limited funds available
would make this a disastrous approach to maintaining the integrity and
safety of our Nation's water resources. I encourage my chairman and
ranking member and my fellow committee members to continue to oppose
this ill-advised plan.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my fellow colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bill.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to commend the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], the chairman,
and the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the
ranking member of the subcommittee, for their exceptional work in
bringing this bill to the floor. This Member recognizes that extremely
tight budgetary constraints made the job of the subcommittee much more
difficult this year. Therefore the subcommittee, I think, is to be
particularly commended for its diligence in creating such a fiscally
responsible bill. In light of the budgetary pressures, this Member
would like to express his appreciation to the subcommittee for a number
of actions that are important to a four-State region where I carried a
bi-State region and some various projects like that one in Pender, NE,
which is extraordinarily important for flood control purposes.
So I do thank the subcommittee for their work and appreciate their
effort once again.
Mr. Speaker, in light of these budgetary pressures, this Member would
like to express his appreciation to the subcommittee and formally
recognize that the energy and water development appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1998 includes funding for several water projects that are
of great importance to Nebraska.
First, this Member is very pleased, for example, that the bill
includes $3,741,000 for construction of the Pender, NE, section 205
Logan Creek flood control project. There is an urgent need for this
funding and this Member is particularly grateful to the subcommittee
for agreeing to this appropriations item during a time when the
restrictions on available funding are exceedingly tight.
The community of Pender, a small municipality, and the Lower Elkhorn
Natural Resources District have expended approximately $160,000 of
their own funds to date. The municipality has expended an additional
approximate amount of $25,000 on the costs of engineering, project
coordination, and other related costs. Without the flood control
project the community will remain at risk and will be stymied from
undertaking future developments in their community due to FEMA flood
plain development restrictions; 60 percent of Pender is in the
floodplain and 40 percent is in the floodway.
The plan calls for right bank levees and flood walls with a retention
pond for internal storm water during flood periods. The project will
remove the entire community from the FEMA 100-year flood plain. This
project is needed to protect life and property, eliminate or greatly
reduce flood insurance costs, and allow community and housing
development.
Mr. Speaker, quite simply, at great expense the State and local
entities involved in the project have held up their end of the
agreement. If Federal-local partnerships are to work, Federal
commitments need to be met; therefore, this Member is pleased that this
legislation will greatly facilitate the completion of this project.
In addition, this bill provides additional funding for other flood-
related projects of tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's
First Congressional District. Mr. Chairman, flooding in 1993
temporarily closed Interstate 80 and seriously threatened the Lincoln
municipal water system which is located along the Platte River near
Ashland, NE. Therefore, this Member is extremely pleased the committee
agreed to continue funding for the Lower Platte River and Tributaries
Flood Control Study. This study should help formulate and develop
feasible solutions which will alleviate future flood problems along the
Lower Platte River and tributaries.
Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to take this opportunity to thank
the subcommittee and the full committee for providing $300,000 in
funding for the Lower Platte River and Tributaries Flood Control Study.
In addition, a related study was authorized by section 503(d)(11) of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This Member would request
that the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and
Water into a colloquy on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, additionally, the bill provides $90,000 in continued
funding for an ongoing floodplain study of the Antelope Creek which
runs through the heart of Nebraska's capital city, Lincoln. The purpose
of the study is to find a solution to multifaceted problems involving
the flood control and drainage problems in Antelope Creek as well as
existing transportation and safety problems all within the context of
broad land-use issues. This Member continues to have a strong interest
in this project since this Member was responsible for stimulating the
city of Lincoln, the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, and
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to work jointly and cooperatively
with the Army Corps of Engineers to identify an effective flood control
system for downtown Lincoln.
Antelope Creek, which was originally a small meandering stream,
became a straightened urban drainage channel as Lincoln grew and
urbanized. Resulting erosion has deepened and widened the channel and
created an unstable situation. A 10-foot by 20-foot--height and width--
closed underground
[[Page H5738]]
conduit that was constructed between 1911 and 1916 now requires
significant maintenance and major rehabilitation. A dangerous flood
threat to adjacent public and private facilities exists.
The goals of the study are to anticipate and provide for the control
of flooding of Antelope Creek, map the floodway, evaluate the condition
of the underground conduit, make recommendations for any necessary
repair, suggest the appropriate limitations of neighborhood and UN-L
city campus development within current defined boundaries, eliminate
fragmentation of the city campus, minimize vehicle-pedestrian-bicycle
conflicts while providing adequate capacity, and improve bikeway and
pedestrian systems.
This Member is also pleased that the bill includes $150,000 for a
study of flooding problems in Ponca, NE. This funding is needed to
initiate and complete a study to determine the feasibility of a
solution to the flooding problems on Aowa and South Creeks at Ponca,
NE. The city of Ponca is located on the north side of the junction of
South Creek and Aowa Creek. During the flood of July 16-17, 1996, water
left the banks and covered Ponca from the west end to the east, causing
extensive damage throughout the area. In addition to extensive private
property losses, damage to public property reached nearly $100,000. For
example, both of the city's wells were damaged and all the pumps and
motors in the sewage treatment plant had to be removed and repaired.
The flood also caused considerable damage to city streets and park.
Future flooding poses a significant risk to life and property. Clearly,
action must be taken to prevent a reoccurrence of the flooding disaster
of last year.
This Member is also pleased that the bill provides $200,000 for
operation and maintenance and $150,000 for construction of the Missouri
National Recreational River Project. This project addresses a serious
problem by protecting the river banks from the extraordinary and
excessive erosion rates caused by the sporadic and varying releases
from the Gavins Point Dam. These erosion rates are a result of previous
work on the river by the Federal Government.
In addition, this Member appreciates the funding provided for the
Missouri River Mitigation Project. This funding is needed to restore
fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the federally sponsored
channelization and stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. The
Islands, wetlands, and flat floodplains needed to support the wildlife
and waterfowl that once lived along the river are gone. An estimated
475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas have
been lost. Today's fishery resources are estimated to be only one-fifth
of those which existed in predevelopment days.
The Missouri River Mitigation Project addresses fish and wildlife
habitat concerns much more effectively than the Corps' overwhelmingly
unpopular and ill-conceived proposed changes to the Missouri River
Master Manual. Although the Corps' proposed plan was designed to
improve fish and wildlife habitat, these environmental issues are
already being addressed by the Missouri River Mitigation Project. In
1986 the Congress authorized over $50 million to fund the Missouri
River Mitigation Project to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due
to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan plan.
This Member is also pleased that the legislation includes full
funding for the section 22 planning assistance for States and tribes
program as well as significant funding in excess of the budget request
for the section 205 small flood control projects program, and the
section 14 emergency streambank and shoreline protection program of the
Corps of Engineers.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Member recognizes that H.R. 2203 also
provides funding for a Bureau of Reclamation assessment of Nebraska's
water supply, $88,000, and an assessment of the Nebraska Rainwater
Basin, $133,000, as well as funding for Army Corps projects in Nebraska
at the following sites: Harlan County Lake; Papillion Creek and
Tributaries; Gavins Point Dam, Lewis and Clark Lake; Salt Creek and
Tributaries; and Wood River.
Again Mr. Speaker, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], the chairman of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the ranking member of the
subcommittee for their support of projects which are important to
Nebraska and the First Congressional District, as well as to the people
living in the Missouri River Basin.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Capps].
Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I would
like to take this opportunity to personally thank the subcommittee
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], and the ranking
member, my colleague from California [Mr. Fazio] for the help and
support they have given me on an issue of paramount concern to many of
my constituents.
Among its many critical provisions, the bill contains $3.2 million to
continue the dredging of Morro Bay Harbor in the 22d district of
California. Without this critical dredging project, a vibrant community
on the central coast of California would be greatly imperiled. Morro
Bay Harbor supports approximately 250 home-ported fishing vessels and
related marine-dependent businesses which earn $53 million a year and
employ over 700 people.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the committee could include this
funding and ensure the viability of this important community.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. I am pleased that
the bill before us contains critical funding for a number of important
projects in my district, in particular the continuation of the much
needed $3.2 million dredging project for Morro Bay Harbor.
I want to convey my deep appreciation to Chairman McDade and the
subcommittee's ranking member, my colleague and good friend from
California, Mr. Fazio, for their unwavering support of my request for
this funding. I cannot express how important this funding is to this
thriving coastal community of the 22d district of California.
Morro Bay Harbor, the only commercial harbor between Santa Barbara
and Monterey, supports approximately 250 home-ported fishing vessels
and related marine-dependent businesses. Businesses that depend on the
harbor generate $53 million a year and employ over 700 people. The Army
Corps of Engineers has maintained the harbor since it was initially
constructed by the Federal Government as an emergency naval base during
World War II, and the dredging project keeps the channel depth between
30 and 40 feet to allow safe passage for the harbor's commercial and
recreational traffic.
In fiscal year 1995, the Corps completed construction of the Morro
Bay Harbor Entrance Improvement Project to enhance commerce, fishing
and navigation safety. Prior to the improvements, the harbor mouth and
its giant sea swells were particularly dangerous, as evidenced by the
history of serious boating accidents. This project was funded 80
percent by the Federal Government and 20 percent by the city, and has
greatly reduced the danger to vessels leaving and entering the harbor.
This year, only 3 years after the Corps completed the enhancement
project at Morro Bay Harbor, the President's budget request failed to
include the $3.2 million funding necessary to maintain the harbor. Due
to the fact that the harbor has limited recreational facilities to
generate revenues, there is no local sponsor to assist with dredging
costs should the Federal Government cease or reduce maintenance
dredging support. For economic and safety reasons, it is critical that
the harbor dredging project continue. I am very pleased that the
committee has granted my request to include funding for this important
project.
This bill also contains $100,000 for an Army Corps reconnaissance
study of Morro Bay estuary. The estuary is part of the National Estuary
Program administered by the Environmental Protection Agency and is
experiencing tidal circulation restrictions and sedimentation, and
shoaling of sensitive environmental habitat areas. This funding will
allow for Army Corps to perform an analysis of the estuary's present
and future conditions and to define problems, needs and potential
solutions. At my request earlier this year, the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee authorized funding for this project and I am
grateful that the Appropriations Committee could act so quickly in
response to this development.
I am also grateful to the committee for including in this bill two
projects that were requested by the administration in this year's
budget. The bill provides $1.492 million for operations and maintenance
work for Santa Barbara Harbor. The harbor accumulates approximately
400,000 cubic yards of sand every winter. In years of severe storms,
the accumulated sand can close the channel, bringing local fishing and
other businesses in the harbor to a standstill. This funding will allow
the harbor to remain clear for both commercial and recreational use.
Finally, the bill includes $380,000 to complete a feasibility study
for the Santa Barbara County Streams, Mission Creek Flood Control
project. The proposed project, which runs through downtown Santa
Barbara, would construct a natural bottom channel with vegetated
stabilized sides.
All of these projects are important public works actions that will
increase the quality of life on the central coast. I thank the chairman
and the members of the committee for their assistance and I look
forward to working with you as this legislation moves forward.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
[[Page H5739]]
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and also in
support of the fiscal 1998 energy and water appropriations bill. As co-
chairman of the bipartisan House Coastal Coalition, I would like to
thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Frelinghuysen], and all the members of the Committee on Appropriations
for once again rejecting the administration's anti-shore protection
policy.
Mr. Speaker, for several years now, despite congressional opposition,
the administration has been clinging to an ill-conceived and
unjustified policy that attempts to eliminate Federal involvement in
the protection of our Nation's coastal residents from the impacts of
flooding, and, as the committee report states, shore protection
projects serve the same function as other flood control projects. They
protect lives and property from the impacts of flooding.
There are only two differences really between shore protection
projects and other flood control projects. Unlike other flood control
projects in which structural remedies are the only solution, the best
remedy for protecting our coastal flooding is often beach nourishment.
The other difference is that shore protection projects have added
recreational benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that 28.3 million jobs and
billions of dollars in economic contributions come from coastal
tourism. Coastal tourism-related businesses serve 180 million Americans
annually. Recent polls in my home State of New Jersey show that 82
percent of State residents, and that is State residents not just
coastal residents, favor beach restoration projects. Those opposed to a
Federal role in shore protection point out that it is a source of
revenue for local and State economies. But currently all levels of
government, local, State and Federal, participate in funding these
shore protection projects and all levels of government benefit
economically as a result. So who exactly is losing by maintaining a
Federal role in shore protection? I say nobody is losing, it is a good
thing.
I just want to say again on behalf of the House Coastal Coalition,
which is bipartisan, and coastal residents around the country, I thank
the committee for its rejection of this policy and I applaud committee
members for seeing shore protection for what it is: a wise investment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade].
(Mr. McDade asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I want to inform my colleagues that I am
taking this time because we have agreements with 17 of our colleagues
to engage in pre-decided colloquies which we negotiated. We are going
to try to do that under the rule, thanks to the Committee on Rules,
using time on both sides of the aisle to get through as many of them as
we can so we can expedite the business of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings].
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] I appreciate the work that
he has done on my behalf. My district is home to nearly two-thirds of
the Nation's nuclear waste. This is a legacy of World War II and the
Cold War and a testimony to the role that the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation played in producing much of the Nation's plutonium over the
past 40 years.
As a result, I am concerned by the committee's decision to reduce
funding for the department's cleanup privatization program. We all
agree that the Department of Energy has a poor track record in managing
large-scale cleanup projects. As a result, the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Dicks] and I introduced legislation in the 104th
Congress to require that the department utilize the expertise of
private sector experts in solving these complex problems.
Unfortunately, the department has not done an adequate job explaining
their new way of doing business and the committee has reduced the
privatization program from a $1 billion request to only $70 million.
These are significant reductions in a critical environmental program.
As a result, I would seek an assurance from the subcommittee chairman
that this year's action does not indicate the committee's intent to
abandon the Hanford tank waste cleanup program in future years. When
final contracts are submitted next year, Congress needs to be willing
to support an aggressive cleanup program.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman from Washington's continued interest in this issue. As he and
I have discussed on several occasions this year, the committee realizes
that while we have certainly been critical of the Department of Energy,
the nuclear and hazardous waste stored in the Hanford tanks must be
remediated.
We understand in less than 6 months, two private companies will
submit their proposals to try to deal with the waste problem. The
committee is not prejudging this process, and we look forward to
reviewing the proposals when they are presented to the Congress in
1998. We believe the committee has provided adequate funding to ensure
the bid process is fully supported, and we will commit to working with
the gentleman from Washington to ensure that a responsible cleanup
program for the Hanford tanks is funded by the committee.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Goss].
Mr. GOSS. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman
from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and congratulate him
for his work on this.
I have discussed previously with the chairman that the corps has
failed to accomplish projects they have promised or to provide
repayment for costs incurred for projects with public sponsors in the
southwest Florida area. I understand this bill has funds that will now
allow the corps to honor its commitments in southwest Florida for these
shore protection issues.
I wish to receive some assurance that the corps will actually use
these funds for the Lee County GRR and reimbursement of the Matanzas
Pass as intended. Additionally I wish to receive some assurances that
the corps will undertake no further dredging of Boca Grande Pass in the
future until the corps' outstanding obligations to Lee County have been
satisfied, and then only if the dredging and spoilage plan for Boca
Grande Pass is agreed to by the State of Florida, the County of Lee and
the local community of Gasparilla Island.
The chairman notes from photographs I have showed him and the
material I have provided how badly the corps has botched their recent
dredging of Boca Grande Pass, and over the last decade taxpayers have
spent 10 million for the dredging of this pass, and it is time to
reassess justification before any further expenditure.
Mr. McDADE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very
extensive briefing the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] accorded me on
the problem that exists here, and I want to assure him that I am going
to look into what assurances may be appropriate, but I agree it is
critical that the corps has a strong relationship with the local
governments that sponsor these projects and put up their own money.
They are very much partners in the projects, and the corps' actions
ought to reflect that.
I, too, may I say to my colleague, am concerned about the corps'
actions with regard to the Boca Grande Pass project. I believe it
raises some serious questions deserving the committee's attention,
which I will be mindful of in conference.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Calvert].
{time} 2115
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
First, I would like to thank the distinguished subcommittee chair and
his staff for their assistance in addressing the needs of my district.
Their fine work is very much appreciated. I am grateful for the
$300,000 listed in the
[[Page H5740]]
committee report accompanying the bill to initiate a feasibility study
for the Santa Margarita River project.
However, I believe the flooding issues surrounding Murietta Creek
which are mentioned in the Santa Margarita project are serious enough
to deserve a separate study. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague for his
assistance in conference to make this clarification, and indicate that
a separate feasibility study should proceed for Murietta Creek. The
community has suffered back-to-back flooding and deserves a resolution
to their problems.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to my colleague my
appreciation of his bringing this matter to my attention. I want say
that I look forward to working on this issue as this bill moves through
the process and into conference. We are going to try to do everything
we can to help the gentleman from California.
Mr. CALVERT. I thank the chairman for his attention to this matter.
MR. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend, the gentleman
from Colorado, [Mr. Dan Schaefer], chairman of the Subcommittee on
Energy and Power of the Committee on Commerce.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me, and I would like to engage the gentleman from
Pennsylvania in a colloquy.
As the gentleman is aware, title I of this bill would transfer
funding from the management of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial
Action Program, or as we call it, FUSRAP, from the Department of Energy
to the U.S. Corps of Engineers. As the gentleman knows, the Committee
on Commerce has the responsibility of the management of nuclear waste
disposal, including remediation of these nondefense sites.
It has been our goal to ensure that FUSRAP sites are cleaned up in a
very effective and efficient manner, and I must admit that I have some
concerns about whether transferring funding to the Corps of Engineers
is the best way to ensure that these sites are cleaned up.
At the same time, however, I would simply like to confirm my
understanding that this transfer of funding from the Department of
Energy to the U.S. Corps of Engineers is not intended to and in fact
would not affect the Committee on Commerce's jurisdiction over the
management of these facilities.
Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman confirm my understanding of this?
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, may I say the gentleman is correct. It is
not our intention to have any effect on the jurisdiction of the
authorizing committee by providing funding to the Corps to conduct the
cleanup activities. It is my understanding the committee jurisdiction
over these FUSRAP sites is not affected in any way regardless of which
governmental agency is involved in managing the cleanup.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. If the gentleman will continue to
yield, Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the chairman again for a
very excellent bill, and would like to clarify one provision regarding
renewable energy in the fiscal year 1998 energy and water development
appropriation bill.
That is, the report language with regard to wind energy research
development and demonstration projects appears to restrict ongoing and
future cost-shared partnership efforts between the Department of Energy
and the wind energy industry. Is it the intention of the House that
these and other cost-shared programs should not be continued as
appropriate in collaboration with DOE, the National Laboratories and
U.S. industries?
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, may I say to my colleague that the energy
and water development appropriations bill has no intention, nor do its
members, to impede appropriate current or future research, development,
and demonstration projects involving competitively awarded cost-shared
partnerships between the Department of Energy, the National
Laboratories, and the U.S. wind industry.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the
gentleman yielding to me.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from
Nevada [Mr. Gibbons].
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the distinguished chairman
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], in a
colloquy.
As the distinguished gentleman is well aware, the issue of how to
best deal with high level nuclear waste is of grave concern to me, to
my respected colleague, the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign], and to
all Nevadans. Currently the Department of Energy is in the process of
determining whether the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada meets the
scientific standards necessary to become a permanent repository for
thousands of metric tons of high-level defense and more particularly
civilian nuclear waste generated at 109 locations across America.
The bill under consideration by the House appropriates $160 million
from the Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund in fiscal year 1998. In addition
to the $190 million recommended from the Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
Fund, the total amount available for disposal activities authorized
under current law is $350 million. Moreover, $85 million in fiscal 1996
funds have not been obligated simply because the release of those funds
is subject to the enactment of legislation directing the Department of
Energy to establish an interim storage site while permanent site
characterization at Yucca Mountain continues.
The gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] and I would like to make sure
that it is the gentleman's intent and the intent of the committee that
the $350 million appropriation from the Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund is
to support ongoing permanent site characterization activities.
Our concern and reason for engaging the chairman in a colloquy is to
correct the perception which may exist among Members in the House that
the appropriation in question has been reserved for site-specific
interim storage activities. Simply put, site-specific interim storage
activities are not authorized under current and existing law.
At this time my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] and
I would like to respectfully ask the assurance and clarification of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] that the $350 million
appropriation recommended in the bill is directly for use only on those
program activities associated with the permanent, and not interim,
storage of high-level nuclear waste.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the gentleman that all of
the money appropriated in this bill is only for permanent and not site-
specific interim storage of high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.
Mr. GIBBONS. I thank the distinguished gentleman for his
understanding and willingness to work with us on this critically
important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to discuss the ability of the State of
Nevada and all affected local governments to carry out oversight
authority of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, granted to them under the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982.
Currently, the Department of Energy is conducting tests to determine
if Yucca Mountain will be a permanent repository site for nuclear
waste. When the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 was created, Members
of this body felt it was imperative for the State of Nevada and all
affected local governments adversely affected by the storage of nuclear
waste to have the necessary monies to properly oversee tests that the
Department of Energy was carrying out to determine whether or not Yucca
Mountain is suitable as a permanent nuclear waste site.
This was a very critical part of the 1982 Act, because it allowed for
the education of Nevada residents as to the scientific validity of the
tests that the Department of Energy was conducting, and these resources
allowed for State and local governments to perform their own
independent tests to ensure that the best science available is used for
the site suitability. It has been my experience that the local
scientists have been non-biased and have produced needed assurances
that only the best scientific data is used to determine the hydrologic
and geologic character of Yucca Mountain.
We have nearly 1.8 million people in Nevada, and their safety and
quality of life should not be ignored in this debate, making it
imperative that we provide for the financial resources to ensure that
State and affected local
[[Page H5741]]
governments are able to monitor and report this activity.
I am hopeful that the gentleman will work with me in conference to
appropriate up to $1,500,000 for the State of Nevada and $6,175,200 for
the affected local governments. These appropriation amounts are
consistent with the monies appropriated in the Senate fiscal year 1998
Energy and Water Appropriations Act. As the legislation moves closer
and closer to designating Yucca Mountain as a permanent nuclear waste
repository, it becomes imperative that we address the safety and
concerns of the citizens of Nevada.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, we know how important this issue is to our
friends in the State of Nevada, and I want to assure the gentleman that
I will be pleased to work with him as the issue moves along.
Mr. GIBBONS. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his willingness
to work with me on this very important issue.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the RECORD an editorial from the Las
Vegas Sun.
The document referred to is as follows:
Let State Nuke Office Do Its Job
The Legislature should not overreact to criticism of the
state Office of Nuclear Projects or it may unwittingly become
a pawn of the nuclear power industry.
Lawmakers last week debated whether to impose tight fiscal
controls on the agency, which monitors the federal nuclear
waste dump study at Yucca Mountain. State and federal audits
last year criticized the office headed by Bob Loux for sloppy
bookkeeping and possibly spending more than it should have on
private contracts.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, R-Reno, wants the
Legislature to oversee the organization, placing its budget
in reserve and meting out funds every three months. Raggio's
assumption is that 90-day reports to the Interim Finance
Committee will produce better accountability.
But alloting funds for only three months would destroy
long-range planning. Contracts with highly technical
organizations could not be continued, wrecking the state's
ability to ensure the federal study is scientifically sound.
Nevada needs all the technical ammunition it can muster to
watch over the politically motivated study at Yucca Mountain.
That site was selected by Congress--not scientists--as the
most suitable location in the nation to bury about 70,000
tons of highly radioactive waste. Nevadans have long
suspected that the study would be railroaded--ignoring or
doctoring negative data--in an effort to soothe public
opinion about the safety of the site.
That's why the Nevada office is important. It provides an
essential balance to a one-sided information flow from the
nuclear industry and the Department of Energy.
Raggio's contention that the office needs closer oversight
makes no sense, especially after all deficiencies found in
the audits were corrected shortly afterward.
And some of the so-called deficiencies were exaggerated.
The General Accounting Office criticized Loux's organization
for spending $125 an hour to clip newspaper stories, a report
which delighted proponents of the dump and industry hacks.
What wasn't said was that the office managed to convince the
management of seven major daily newspapers that the dump was
a threat to public health and they published editorials to
that effect. They included USA Today, the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch and the San Francisco Chronicle.
We fear that overreacting to the audit reports will play
into the hands of the well-funded industry lobbyists who want
the office shut down altogether. They would be delighted if
Nevada could not challenge any of the data promoted by the
nuclear industry and would quietly accept the dump.
The better course is to require full financial reports
during each legislative session, but let the office do its
job in the meantime. For more than a year, there have been
increasing indications the dump cannot pass scientific muster
as a safe site and Nevadans need an alert watchdog to ensure
no games are played in these waning days of the study.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I have a simple colloquy, one question, really: Is it
the committee's intention that the appropriations made for the Lower
Platte River and Tributaries Nebraska study may also be used to conduct
studies authorized by section 503(d)(11) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996 watershed management, restoration, development
of the Lower Platte River watershed, Nebraska?
Mr. McDADE. May I say to my colleague, Mr. Speaker, that we have
looked at it with great seriousness. We appreciate the briefings he has
given us. I want to tell the gentleman that his comments are absolutely
correct.
Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman very much for his statement of
intent and clarification.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
2203, making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal
year 1998.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2203, making appropriations
for energy and water development for fiscal year 1998.
This bill provides funds for critical flood control and navigation
projects in Contra Costa County and 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 will assist in
funding the initial share of Federal participation in the Bay-Delta
Environmental Enhancement and Water Security Act.
Funding the Bay-Delta programs will allow us to begin a comprehensive
effort to restore the many components of this huge area that have been
damaged by human activity. The California Bay-Delta Environmental
Enhancement and Water Security Act went into effect when California
votes approved proposition 204, which sets aside nearly a billion
dollars for Bay-Delta water programs and guarantees that the State of
California will pay a fair share of its costs.
The Bay-Delta initiative is one of the boldest ecosystem restoration
programs ever conceived. Funding for Bay-Delta programs in fiscal year
1998 has the full bipartisan support of the entire California
congressional delegation, and I believe this initial appropriation
deserves the full support of the Congress.
The committee bill raises a new problem with the Central Valley
Project Restoration Fund. According to the committee report, the
restoration fund is to be cut $14 million in fiscal year 1998 to
eliminate funding for the Water Acquisition Reserve. I believe this
reduction, apparently suggested by the General Accounting Office, is
misguided, and I hope there will be an opportunity to reconsider this
matter in conference. Specifically, I believe the Water Acquisition
Reserve is a sensible approach to water management needs in California,
and that it is well within the authorities granted by the Central
Valley Project Improvement Act. I will be pleased to work with the
committee to resolve this matter prior to conference.
Lastly, the bill includes funding to study the removal of rock
hazards near Alcatraz Island that threaten oil tankers and risk a
devastating oil spill in San Francisco Bay. This funding is an
important first step in determining how to remove these navigation
hazards in a cost-effective and environmentally sound way.
I thank the committee for its hard work on this legislation, and I
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2203.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the
Record immediately after my remarks earlier this evening the text of
the article to which I referred during the debate on the agriculture
appropriations bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Nussle]. Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and legislation. As a new
member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the
Committee on Appropriations, I especially want to thank Chairman McDade
for his fairness and bipartisanship in crafting this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, while most Americans only hear of the partisan battles
in Congress, the work of Chairman McDade and the ranking member, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Vic Fazio], is an example of the
Congress at its best: two leaders, along with an excellent staff,
working hard and doing simply what they believe is best for the
interests of this Nation.
This bill may not be tomorrow's national headlines because the work
was done without rancor, but this bill makes an important commitment to
[[Page H5742]]
our Nation's future. Because of this legislation, there will be
communities that will never face the tragedy of devastating floods.
By strengthening our Nation's infrastructure, ports, and waterways,
this bill will make America more competitive in the world marketplace.
That means more jobs and better jobs for American families.
By investing in the clean-up of nuclear waste and in renewable energy
resources, this bill will make our environment cleaner and make America
less dependent upon foreign energy sources.
Because of this legislation's commitment to stop the proliferation of
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, my two small children will
grow up in a safer world. For that, I am deeply grateful.
The efforts of Chairman McDade and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio] may not make prime time news tonight, but millions of American
families will be better off tomorrow because of their effective
leadership and teamwork in crafting this legislation.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, what other piece of
legislation can at the same time protect this Nation's environment,
provide opportunity for energy, and yes, strike a chord for removal of
flood danger all over America? This is a good, good piece of
legislation. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman McDade for his generosity in
spirit and cooperation in some very important issues. I thank the
ranking Member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], and we thank
him as well for working in a cooperative spirit and for helping all of
us, no matter where we might live, in an urban or rural community. I am
gratified this bill gives $52 million more than the current fiscal
year, and it gives $413 million to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Just for a moment imagine a community in inner city Houston, flooded
in 1994, flooded in 1995, and yes, flooded again in 1997, bungalow
homes without flood insurance, my constituents in the Cullen and
McCullough area. Let me simply say to the Members, they are rejoicing
tonight, not because we are taking taxpayers' dollars and moving them
from one place to the next, but because this country cares about those
citizens who live day-to-day, struggling to work and to survive.
This is a good bill. I look forward to working with the Army Corps of
Engineers, as I said, which is getting $413 million more. Likewise, I
look forward to working with them to move that date when this project
will be completed beyond the 2006 to an earlier date. I look forward to
working with the local community to ensure that happens.
{time} 2130
This is an important piece of legislation, and I thank the committee
for working with the chairman and ranking member to ensure that we
protect this Nation's waterways, energy, and, yes, the environment.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
[Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.]
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and H.R.
2203, the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. McDade] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], ranking
member, for their wisdom and foresight in crafting this bill,
particularly as it relates to two projects in my district, Sims, Brays,
and Greens Bayous and the Houston Ship Channel expansion.
Also I want to thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], my
colleague, who is a new member of the committee, for the work he did on
behalf of our State.
I am especially pleased by the support this legislation provides for
addressing the chronic flooding problems in Harris County, Texas. This
area has suffered numerous floods over the years as the gentlewoman
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] mentioned.
In particular, this bill provides funding for Sims, Brays, and Greens
Bayous, and follows legislation that we passed in the Water Resources
Development Act in the last Congress, including that authored by myself
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] of the Houston area.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the committee's decision to fully fund
the Sims Bayou project at $13 million for fiscal year 1998. This is an
ongoing project, which the Corps of Engineers initially asked for $13
million, but the administration's budget only provided $9.5 million.
The additional funding is what the corps asked for and will allow for
two additional contracts to be funded and the project to remain on
schedule, which is very important to the people that live along that
watershed who have experienced a lot of flooding, and this will result
in rapid completion of the project.
I also appreciate the fact that the bill includes funding for the
expansion of the Houston Ship Channel. This is the first expansion of
the ship channel in 30 years. The ship channel has the second largest
amount of tonnage of any port in the United States, and it is a major
player in the economy in our area.
I might also add that this ship channel modernization is considered
the largest dredging project since the Panama Canal. But in particular,
I appreciate the fact that the committee had the foresight to deal with
this problem because the administration's original proposal would not
have fully funded the project and created numerous legal problems. So
the committee has done yeoman's work on this.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and support the
bill.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the amount of time
remaining for both parties.
The Speaker pro tempore [Mr. Nussle]. The gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from Washington [Mr. Hastings] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. LaFalce].
(Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.]
Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I have five sites in my district, which are
in the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, and that is why
I am very concerned about the transfer of FUSRAP from the Department of
Energy to the Corps of Engineers, which has been included as part of
this appropriations bill. DOE has already completed cleanup in 24 of
the 46 FUSRAP sites around the country, and is currently planning an
accelerated cleanup of the remainder.
I have a great deal of respect for the Army Corps of Engineers, and I
have no doubt that over time it can do a fine job with FUSRAP, but I do
not think this is the time to switch horses in midstream.
The administration also opposes this transfer of authority over
FUSRAP. In a letter to Chairman Livingston of the Committee on
Appropriations dated July 16, Franklin Raines, the Director of OMB,
states:
The administration strongly opposes the transfer of the
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program from DOE to
the Corps of Engineers. Transferring this well-managed
program to another agency would be disruptive and would most
likely delay completion and increase costs.
I hope this particular provision can be addressed and changed in
conference with the Senate. I also hope the level of funding provided
for FUSRAP would be significantly increased in conference to more
closely reflect the administration's $182 million request for fiscal
1998 in order to clean up the remaining FUSRAP sites as quickly as
possible.
Mr. Speaker, I have five sites in my district which are in the
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, more than any other
Member of Congress. The communities of Buffalo, Tonawanda, and Niagara
Falls in my district made a disproportionate sacrifice for the Nation's
nuclear successes in the Manhattan project and the cold war. Now, the
radioactive legacy of those efforts must be cleaned up as efficiently,
safely, and quickly as possible.
That is why I am very concerned about the transfer of FUSRAP from the
Department of Energy to the Army Corps of Engineers which has been
included as part of this Energy and
[[Page H5743]]
Water Development appropriations bill. DOE has already completed
cleanup in 24 of the 46 FUSRAP sites around the country, and is
currently planning an accelerated cleanup of the remainder. I have a
great deal of respect for the Army Corps of Engineers and have no doubt
that, over time, it could do a fine job with FUSRAP. But now is not the
time to switch horses in midstream.
The administration also opposes this transfer of authority over
FUSRAP. In a letter to Chairman Livingston of the Appropriations
Committee dated July 16, Franklin D. Raines, the Director of OMB,
states:
The administration also strongly opposes the transfer of
the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program [FUSRAP]
from DOE to the Corps of Engineers--Transferring this well-
managed program that is nearly complete to another agency
would be disruptive and would most likely delay completion
and increase costs.
Whatever problems existed in the past with the DOE's performance in
FUSRAP cleanup, I believe the DOE is now making a genuine effort to
correct them. Just yesterday, local citizens in one of my cities agreed
to the Department of Energy's plan for the cleanup of two of these
sites. In any case, the fencing language in the bill, which sets
standards which must be met before funds can be expended, should be
insurance enough that the DOE will properly conduct its FUSRAP
cleanups. I am concerned that a transfer of this responsibility from
the DOE to the Army Corps of Engineers at this point could delay the
cleanups that are now underway and planned, and I hope this particular
provision can be addressed and changed in conference with the Senate.
I also hope the level of funding provided for FUSRAP must be
significantly increased in conference to more closely reflect the
administration's $182 million request for fiscal year 1998 in order to
clean up the remaining FUSRAP sites as quickly as possible.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Green].
(Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a very important
provision of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill that provides for
the $23.8 million for the widening and deepening of the Port of
Houston. This construction project is investment not only in Houston's
future, but also in the economic viability of our Nation, and I am
proud to represent a large portion of the Port of Houston. The port
provides $5.5 billion in annual business revenue and creates 196,000
direct and indirect jobs in our community.
By generating $213 million annually in State and local taxes, this
project will more than pay for itself over the next several years.
With last year's passage of the Water Resources Development Act, the
Port of Houston was authorized to receive $240 million in Federal funds
for the deepening and widening project. Additionally, in a 1989 bond
election, Houston voters approved $130 million in local contributions.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. McDade] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the ranking
member, and also the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], my friend and
fellow Texan who serves on the subcommittee. The gentleman from Texas
has been instrumental in working with us on this important project.
The expansion of the port is important to Houston on many levels. The
Port of Houston, connected to the Gulf of Mexico with a 53-mile ship
channel, is the busiest U.S. port in foreign tonnage, second in
domestic tonnage, and the eighth busiest U.S. port overall. With more
than 5,535 vessels navigating the channel annually, and anticipated
increases over the next few years, the widening of the channel from 400
to 520 feet and its deepening from 40 to 45 feet is necessary to
safeguard the economic viability of the port.
The Port of Houston generates $5.5 billion annually to the Nation's
economy and the port generates over $200 million again in State and
local taxes and nearly $300 million in customs fees, so there is no
doubt that the Port of Houston continues to be a vital force in the
commerce of the United States.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade].
Mr. Chairman, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation is heavily contaminated
as a result of nuclear weapons-related activities that took place
during the Cold War. The Fast Flux Test Facility was built there as
part of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Program, which was canceled in
1983.
Does the Chairman agree that nothing should be done with FFTF now
that diverts resources from the primary mission of Hanford, which is
cleanup?
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. FURSE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentlewoman from Oregon
[Ms. Furse.] The gentlewoman is correct.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss the amendment I
considered offering on the Energy and Water appropriations bill. It
calls for beginning to permanently retire the Fast Flux Test Facility,
known as FFTF, at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington State.
It allows funds to be used only for deactivation and cleanup of the
facility.
I believe it is time we stop wasting $40 million a year on this white
elephant. It is time that we spend environmental cleanup money on real
cleanup.
There are several reasons why we should deactivate FFTF.
First, we need to stop wasting taxpayer dollars on FFTF.
FFTF was part of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Program, which
Congress cancelled in 1983. It has been searching for a mission ever
since, to the tune of some $40 million last year. In 1993, DOE
announced it would begin the shutdown of FFTF. The sooner we begin
deactivating FFTF, the sooner we can stop wasting money to maintain it.
Second, cleanup funds should be used for cleanup.
Early this year, FFTF was added to as a candidate to produce tritium,
which is used to boost the power of nuclear weapons. Funding for FFTF
currently comes from the Non-Defense Environmental Management account.
The purpose of that account is for environmental restoration
activities, waste management functions, and nuclear materials and
facilities stabilization activities. Keeping FFTF on hot standby as a
potential source of tritium is none of those things.
Third, Hanford's mission must remain cleanup.
Hanford is the most contaminated site in the Western Hemisphere. Its
sole mission needs to be cleanup. Producing tritium there will create
more contamination and divert resources.
Fourth, FFTF is expensive to operate.
If FFTF were to be used for producing tritium, it would require
highly-enriched plutonium for fuel. That creates a waste stream that is
very difficult to manage. FFTF was not designed to produce tritium and
would have to undergo significant technical modifications first.
Fifth, FFTF is an unreliable type of reactor.
FFTF is a sodium-cooled reactor. Germany, Britain, and France have
all cancelled this type of reactor due to safety and reliability
concerns.
Finally, FFTF is not needed for producing medical isotopes.
I want to share with my colleagues the response to my questions
regarding this issue at a House Commerce Subcommittee hearing in
February. During that hearing, the Acting Secretary of Energy said
those who propose to use FFTF as a medical isotope facility ``would
have a very, very hard burden of persuasion at the Department that that
makes sense.''
My amendment is endorsed by a number of taxpayer, environmental and
arms control groups. They include the Council for Citizens Against
Government Waste, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Council for a Livable
World, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Military Production
Network, Peace Action, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Plutonium
Challenge, 20/20 Vision, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
I would like to submit to the Record the resolution adopted nearly
unanimously by the Oregon Legislature last month. It says, in part,
that the State of Oregon is unalterably opposed to the use of the
Hanford Nuclear Reservation for operations that create more
contamination, divert resources from cleanup and make Hanford cleanup
more difficult.
My constituents want Hanford cleaned up. My amendment will assure
that the necessary steps are taken to enable us to finally move in that
direction with FFTF.
This bill passed 53-3 (with 4 excused) in the Oregon House
of Representatives and 28-1 (with 1 excused in the Oregon
Senate.
69th Oregon Legislative Assembly--1997 Regular Session
Note: Matter within {+braces and plus signs+} in an amended
section is new. Matter within {-braces and minus signs-} is
existing law to be omitted. New sections are within {+braces
and plus signs+}.
[[Page H5744]]
LC 3730
A-Engrossed House Bill 3640
Ordered by the House June 5
Including House Amendments dated June 5
Sponsored by Representative SOWA; Representative ROBERTS,
Senators DERFLER, TROW.
summary
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of
the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure.
Makes findings regarding Hanford Nuclear Reservation {-and
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory-}, importance of
uncontaminated ecosystem and state's history regarding
nuclear facilities. Declares state policy concerning
processing of mixed oxide fuel at Hanford Nuclear Reservation
{-and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory-}. Requests that
federal officials clean up Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
{-Refers Act to people at next regular general election.-}
a bill for an act
Relating to nuclear facilities.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
Section 1. {+The Legislative Assembly and the people of the
State or Oregon find that:
(1) The maintenance of healthy, unpolluted river systems,
airsheds and land are essential to the economic vitality and
well-being of the citizens of the State of Oregon and the
Pacific Northwest.
(2) Radioactive waste stored at the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation is already leaking into and contaminating the
water table and watershed of the Columbia River and
radioactive materials and toxic compounds have been found in
plants, animals and waters downstream from the Hanford
Nuclear Reservation and constitute a present and potential
threat to the health, safety and welfare of the people of the
State of Oregon.
(3) The Hanford Nuclear Reservation is now one of the most
radioactively contaminated sites in the world, according to
government studies, and will require billions of dollars in
costs for cleanup and the ongoing assessment of health
effects.
(4) In November 1980, the people of the State of Oregon, by
direct vote in a statewide election, enacted a moratorium on
the construction of nuclear power plants, and no nuclear
power plants are presently operating in the State of Oregon.
(5) In May 1987, the people of the State of Oregon, by
direct vote in a statewide election, enacted Ballot Measure
1, opposing the disposal of highly radioactive spent fuel
from commercial power plants at the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation.
(6) In 1995, the Legislative Assembly resolved that Oregon
should have all legal rights in matters affecting the Hanford
Nuclear Reservation, including party status in the Hanford
tri-party agreement that governs the cleanup of the
reservation.
(7) Throughout the administrations of Presidents Ford,
Carter, Reagan and Bush, the policy of the Federal Government
banned the use of plutonium in commercial nuclear power
plants due to the risk that the plutonium could be diverted
to terrorists and to nations that have not renounced the use
of nuclear weapons.
(8) The Federal Government has announced that it will
process plutonium from weapons with uranium to produce mixed
oxide fuel for commercial nuclear power plants and other
nuclear facilities. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation, located
on the Columbia River, is a primary candidate site being
considered for the production facilities.
(9) The production of mixed oxide fuel will result in
enormous new quantities of radioactive and chemical wastes
that will present significant additional disposal problems
and unknown costs.+}
Section 2. {+The Legislative Assembly and the people of the
State of Oregon:
(1) Declare that the State of Oregon is unalterably opposed
to the use of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation for operations
that create more contamination at the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation, divert resources from cleanup at the Hanford
Nuclear Reservation and make the Hanford Nuclear Reservation
cleanup more difficult, such as the processing of plutonium
to fuel nuclear power plants, reactors or any other
facilities, and further declare that vitrification in a safe
manner is the preferred means to dispose of excess plutonium,
in order to protect human health and the environment.
(2) Request that the President of the United States and the
Secretary of the Department of Energy continue their previous
policy of banning the use of plutonium to fuel commercial
power plants and nuclear facilities.
(3) Request that the Federal Government honor the Federal
Government's original mandate to implement and complete the
cleanup and restoration of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.+}
Section 3. {+Not more than 10 days after the effective date
of this Act, the Secretary of State shall transmit copies of
sections 1 and 2 of this Act to the President of the United
States, the Secretary of the Department of Energy, the
Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the Speaker of
the United States House of Representatives, each member of
the Oregon Congressional Delegation, the Governors of the
other 49 states and the tribal councils of the federally
recognized Indian tribes in Oregon, Washington and Idaho.+}
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey, [Mr. Rothman].
(Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade].
Mr. Speaker, I have a FUSRAP site in my district in Maywood, NJ, and
I am very concerned about the committee's proposal to transfer
responsibility for this program from the Department of Energy to the
Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Speaker, cleanup of this site has been in progress for 13 years,
and it should be completed in another 4. I want to be able to assure
the residents of Maywood that these actions will not jeopardize or slow
down the cleanup of this site.
Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if the gentleman from Pennsylvania
could assure me that this transfer of responsibility from the DOE to
the Army Corps will not stop or slow down the progress which is being
made at the Maywood site and that existing contracts and agreements
will be honored.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROTHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concerns of my colleague,
and I want to assure the gentleman that it is clearly the intention of
the committee to expedite cleanup at these sites, complete ongoing
activities and cleanups as quickly as possible, and to honor existing
agreements.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Hastings].
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] in a colloquy.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Section 107 program
allows the Army Corps of Engineers to engage in small navigation
construction projects absent a specific authorization. According to
Section 107, the sand transfer plant project at Lake Worth Inlet, which
requires just $354,000 in funding for preliminary design and
engineering, is eligible for funding under this authority and indeed
should be so funded with monies made available in this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], the
chairman, be willing to consider this in conference?
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Hastings], my friend, has briefed me extensively on this
project and we are very willing to work with the gentleman as this
issue works toward conference.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman in advance for his help.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. This is an
open rule, and I think what it represents is what the Committee on
Rules has been trying to do on many occasions, which is to have an open
rule so we can have open discussion on any issues that the Members want
to bring to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. McDade], the chairman, and the gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio] for their work on this. It certainly shows that when there is a
will, that we can get something done with bipartisan support on a
bipartisan basis.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________