[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.

                          ____________________