Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 106 (Thursday, July 24, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 106 (Thursday, July 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5750-H5775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2159, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT
FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that consideration
of H.R. 2159 may proceed according to the following order:
(1) The Speaker may at any time, as though 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.
2159) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing
and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and
for other purposes.
(2) The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of
order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with
clause 7 of rule XXI are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled
by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule.
(3) Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived except as follows:
beginning with ``: Provided'' on page 24, line 8, through ``justice''
on line 16. Where points of order are waived against part of a
paragraph, points of order against a provision in another part of such
paragraph may be made only against such provision and not against the
entire paragraph.
(4) The amendments printed in House Report 105-184 may be offered
only by a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate
point in the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments
printed in the report are waived. No other amendment shall be in order
unless printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.
(5) 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 5
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 in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes.
(6) 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.
(7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this order, the amendment
numbered 1 in House report 105-184 shall be debatable for 40 minutes.
(8) Notwithstanding any other provision of this order, it shall be in
order in lieu of the amendment numbered 2 in House report 105-184 to
consider the amendment I have placed at the desk authored by
Representative Gilman of New York, Representative Pelosi of California,
Representative Campbell of California, Representative Lowey of New
York, Representative Greenwood of Pennsylvania, Representative DeLauro
of Connecticut and Representative Slaughter of New York, which may be
offered by any of the named authors, shall be debatable for 40 minutes,
and shall otherwise be considered as though printed as the amendment
numbered 2 in House report 105-184.
For clarification, Mr. Speaker, the perfecting amendment that I have
just mentioned is to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia], the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Minnesota
[Mr. Oberstar].

Amendment in Lieu of Amendment Numbered 2 in House Report 105-184

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment as a
new subsection (h) of section 104 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), insert before the period at the
end the following: ``, or to organizations that do not
promote abortion as a method of family planning and that
utilize these funds to prevent abortion as a method of family
planning''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)(A), strike ``or engage'' and insert
the following: ``or (except in the

[[Page H5751]]

case of organizations that do not promote abortion as a
method of family planning and that utilize these funds to
prevent abortion as a method of family planning) engage''.
In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment as a
new subsection (i) of section 301 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961, insert before the quotation marks at the end the
following sentence: ``If the President is unable to make the
certification required by paragraph (1) or (2) with respect
to a fiscal year, the funds appropriated for the UNFPA for
such fiscal year shall be transferred to the Agency for
International Development for population planning activities
or other population assistance.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon] wish to add to his request?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that a section 9 be added to
the unanimous-consent request: (9) House Resolution 185 is laid on the
table.
That is the previous rule.
Mr. Speaker, might I also at this time make it clear that it is the
intention of the Committee on Rules that the 40 minutes on each
amendment be equally divided between the proponent and an opponent and
that divided equally at the discretion of the manager of the amendment
on both sides among the two parties.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the waiver of
points of order against amendments pertains to those in the report
actually or constructively and not those actually in the Record.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.

{time} 2200
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Klug). Pursuant to House Resolution 194
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill, H.R. 2203.

{time} 2200

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill (H.R. 2203) making appropriations for energy and water development
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Oxley in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier
today, 52 minutes remained in general debate. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] has 26\1/2\ minutes remaining and the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] has 25\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade].
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] for purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
distinguished chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank first of all the chairman and the
ranking member and all the members of the subcommittee for the
excellent work they did under difficult budgetary restraints, and I
want to particularly comment favorably upon their treatment of my home
State of Delaware. However, I would like to point out a short-term and
potentially long-term problem in the small community of St. Georges,
DE.
As the chairman knows, this Congress has recognized on a number of
occasions that the United States has an ongoing legal obligation to
provide good and sufficient crossings over many of our Nation's canals
with ownership and operation bestowed upon the Army Corps of Engineers.
Currently, the Army Corps owns and operates four such crossings over
the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal in Delaware, including two crossings
at St. Georges. The Army Corps has notified the State of Delaware of
its plan to close and remove one of those crossings, the St. Georges
Bridge, at a cost of $20 million and without any consideration to my
constituents or the taxpayers of this country.
I believe this plan is shortsighted and is being implemented without
congressional consent from either the gentleman's committee or the
authorizing committee which has jurisdiction. I believe that there are
many cost-efficient alternatives that properly take into account cost,
safety, and human need, but I am afraid these alternatives will not be
fully considered once the corps moves ahead with their demolition plan.
I would therefore ask the chairman, whose committee oversees the Army
Corps' spending, if it is his intent to allow the Army Corps to move
ahead with a plan for the demolition of St. Georges Bridge without the
consent of this body?
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. May I say as strongly as I can, Mr. Chairman, that it is
not the intent of the committee to allow the corps to move ahead with
the plan for the demolition of the St. Georges Bridge.
In the bill we are considering today, there are no funds, I repeat,
no funds for the demolition of the bridge nor any report language
directing the Army Corps to demolish the St. Georges Bridge.
Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman,
and I would hope that the chairman would work with me and the
authorizers to see that a commonsense solution is found that benefits
both the Army Corps, the taxpayers and, most importantly, my
constituents.
Will the chairman work with me toward this goal?
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it
is my intent to work with my friend towards reaching a commonsense
solution that benefits everybody involved.
I appreciate the gentleman's bringing this important issue to my
attention, and I want to assure him that the committee will work to
meet many of the Member's concerns regarding the St. Georges Bridge.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, this Member thanks the distinguished
gentleman for his time.
Since this issue does affect a great number of my constituents, it
could set a dangerous precedent which other Members may face in their
districts, so I appreciate the gentleman's clarification.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] for the purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
As the gentleman knows, I am particularly interested in the programs
managed by the Office of Worker and Community Transition. I authored
section 3161 of the 1993 defense bill that authorized these programs. I
think they will continue to play a very important role as we go further
into the post-cold war period. So I was worried about proposals
initially in the report to limit the extent of these programs as they
would continue at the Rocky Flats site and other sites where weapons
production has ended but our final mission cleanup remains to be
completed.
I am glad we were able to work out some changes on that part of the
report so that there is no doubt that 3161 will continue to apply to
Rocky Flats and other similar sites. I appreciate the gentleman's
cooperation and that of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg]
in getting those changes made.
However, I think there is still a need to clarify one related
provision of the bill. As the gentleman knows, section 305 essentially
makes section 3161 of the 1993 defense bill unavailable to ``employees
of the Department of Energy.''
A question has come up as to whether that restriction extends to
employees of DOE's contractors or subcontractors. And I just want to
make sure that I am correct in understanding that section 305 of the
bill refers only to Federal employees of the Department of Energy and
not to employees of companies operating under DOE contracts or
subcontracts.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and let me
say

[[Page H5752]]

that his interpretation is correct. Section 305 of the bill applies
only to Federal employees and not to employees of any DOE contractor or
subcontractor.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his clarification.
Let me again express my thanks to him and the ranking member for the
usual pleasure that this alumnus of the subcommittee had in working
with him and with the ever-distinguished staff.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] for purposes of a
colloquy.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] in colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, the first sentence of section 301 of H.R. 2203 states,
``None of the funds appropriated by this act or any prior
appropriations act may be used to award a management and operating
contract unless such contract is awarded using the competitive
procedures.''
First, I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee for
the strong endorsement of awarding such contracts on a competitive
basis. For far too long the Department of Energy has awarded far too
many M&O contracts on a sole-source basis.
However, I have a concern about the second sentence of section 301,
which states, ``The preceding sentence does not apply to a management
and operating contract for research and development activities at a
federally funded research and development center.'' My concern is that
this language may send an unintended signal to the DOE that Congress is
encouraging sole-source awards of M&O contracts for research and
development activities at federally funded research and development
centers rather than encouraging more competition.
While I understand that in some cases sole-source awards of such M&O
contracts may be justified, I would like the gentleman's assurance that
this language does not prohibit nor discourage the competitive awards
of M&O contracts for R&D.
Further, I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania if he
would be willing to work with the Committee on Science to craft
language that could be submitted to the conference committee that would
address these concerns.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. May I say, Mr. Chairman, to my friend, the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], that the gentleman is correct, that the
intent of this section is to encourage and foster more competition in
the future awards of M&O contracts for the Department of Energy
laboratories.
Furthermore, there is no intention to prohibit or discourage the
Department from awarding M&O contracts for research and development on
a competitive basis.
Finally, the gentleman has my assurances that the subcommittee will
work with the Committee on Science to craft language that could be
submitted to the conference that would address his concerns.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman from Pennsylvania and look forward to working with him on
this matter and on other important issues in the future.
As a general rule, I, as a Member of Congress, would prefer that all
DOE contracts be awarded on a competitive basis, and I believe that the
burden of proof should be on the department to justify any sole-source
award.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me
this time, and I wish to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the
gentlewoman from Idaho in a colloquy.
I am very concerned about the administration's proposed American
Heritage Rivers Initiative. This initiative could threaten private
properties if it is implemented. Although the initiative purports to be
community-led, the Federal agencies involved will dominate the process
and could well dictate to property owners how they can use their lands.
If this occurs, we could see a severe erosion of the private
properties rights guaranteed to American citizens under the
Constitution. A prime example of this could occur in the West where
restricting cattle from streams, their only water supply, would create
enormous uncompensated losses for ranchers.
The American people have not been given a voice in the process. The
agencies involved are currently planning to reprogram funds for
purposes that were not authorized or appropriated by Congress.
The reprogramming of funds to pay for an initiative where the voices
of the American people have not been heard is simply not acceptable.
Until Congress has reviewed this initiative and the agencies have
provided substantial protections for private property rights, I am
proposing that Congress in general, and the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations in particular,
withhold any funds for implementation of the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative.
Any assurances that the chairman can provide that no reprogramming
requests will be entertained by the committee until all questions have
been answered and private property rights have been protected would be
appreciated.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I
really appreciate the gentleman from Texas bringing this matter to the
attention of the Members. I, too, have grave concerns about the Clinton
Administration's American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
There are so many things wrong about both the programming itself and
the process by which it was brought forth that we simply do not have
time to go into it now, but I wholeheartedly agree with the gentleman
from Texas. Private property rights really are at risk.
I have to object also and am very concerned about the process by
which this initiative was brought forward. The White House is
attempting to spend millions of dollars on an unauthorized program.
Congress has never authorized nor appropriated funds for the American
Heritage Rivers Initiative. This means that other on-the-ground
programs that have been authorized and appropriated for, such as
programs in the Bureau of Land Management or programs in the Fish and
Wildlife Service or the Forest Service, are being robbed to bring this
unauthorized program, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative program,
on line.
When we are so desperately striving to meet our existing obligations
and commitments to the American people, when we ask the American people
to once again tighten their belts, and when we continue to spend our
grandchildren's money by engaging in deficit spending, I have to ask if
this is really the best use of taxpayers' money. And I say that it is
not. We must take care of what we already own and owe.
I introduced H.R. 1842, a bill to stop this proposal. I note that the
gentleman from Texas is a cosponsor, and I thank him for raising this
ill-conceived program to the attention of the Members.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that my friends from Texas and
Idaho have raised a very important issue. Although the bill before us
does not include language regarding the American Heritage Rivers
Initiative, the committee shares both their concerns, and they can be
certain that I will not agree to funding for this program until we can
be assured that there are adequate protections for private property
rights.
The gentleman from Texas and the gentlewoman from Idaho have my
assurance that we will carefully consider any reprogramming related to
the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from

[[Page H5753]]

Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding me this
time in order to engage in a brief colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to thank the gentleman for the
funding that Dade County and Palm Beach County, Florida, received under
his committee's appropriation bill. I also appreciate the committee's
rejecting the administration's policy to limit the role of the Corps of
Engineers in shore protection policies.
I am deeply concerned, however, that one project in Broward County,
FL for which I requested $17 million, only received $100,000.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend that the committee
provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to review the general
design memorandum for the renourishment of the Broward County project
currently being prepared by the local sponsor.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman, as usual,
is quite correct. However, large portions of Broward's beaches are
severely eroded. While this is partly due to storm damage, it is mainly
because the life of the project is nearing its end. The expected life
of a renourishment project is 10 years, and Broward County is an
excellent example of a beach restoration project that has worked
exactly as it was designed.
In January 1996, Broward County's local sponsor made application for
approximately $17 million in fiscal year 1998 appropriations,
representing the Federal share of the estimated $27 million for the 12-
mile-long Broward County beach nourishment and shore protection
project.

{time} 2215

This Federal cost-share was calculated in two Corps of Engineers
approved section 934 reevaluation reports for segment II, which is
Hillsboro Inlet to Port Everglades, and section III, which covers Port
Everglades to South County Line. The county plans to include
appropriate innovative project features, such as highly engineered
structures, which will maximize the life of the beach fill, as
requested by the State and Federal legislators.
Broward County requested the full Federal cost of the project in
order to ensure maximum cost efficiencies. In fact, Broward County
estimates that past nourishment projects have protected approximately
$4 billion in infrastructure from storm damage.
However, Broward beaches are reaching minimum storm damage protection
right now, and if implementation of the new project does not commence
on schedule and we have a hurricane of any great strength, I fear next
year I will be back to ask for double the requested amount just to
repair the damage.
Mr. Chairman, feasibility studies have been completed on the project,
and crucially needed additional appropriations could be used to
commence action on this project.
I thank the chairman for listening to me in the past and for allowing
me the chance to provide a more complete explanation of Broward's
needs.
I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. McDADE. I want to commend my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], for the briefing he gave me on this
project for bringing to our attention. I understand, and we share his
concerns on this issue. And we will continue to give this matter our
deepest study during the conference.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kind].
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the
committee and ranking member of the committee for the fine work they
did on this bill. I rise in support of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, as we consider the Energy and Water appropriations bill
for fiscal year 1998, I want to commend the chairman and members of the
Appropriations Committee for maintaining funding for the Environmental
Management Program [EMP]. By appropriating $16.7 million for 1998 the
EMP will be able to operate at the same funding level as last year.
The Environmental Management Program is a cooperative effort of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Biological Service, and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate, restore, and enhance
ravine and wetland habitat along a 1,200-mile stretch of the upper
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. The EMP is authorized through fiscal
year 2002 in the Army Corps of Engineers budget.
The 1986 Water Resources Development Act authorized funding for the
implementation of an overall Upper Mississippi River Basin
Comprehensive Master Plan. This consisted of two essential components,
one dedicated to improved navigation on the river for barge traffic,
most notably lock and dam improvements, and the other to the long term
environmental and recreational preservation of the river, which became
the EMP.
The EMP is an essential tool in maintaining the quality of the river
environment, as well as recreational and economic opportunities along
the Mississippi River. Navigation along the upper Mississippi River
supports 400,000 full or part time jobs, which produces over $4 billion
in individual income. Recreation use of the river generates 12 million
visitors and spending of $1.2 billion in direct and indirect
expenditures in the communities along the Mississippi.
The EMP has always received bipartisan support, and this year is no
different. Republican and Democratic members of Congress who represent
areas along the upper Mississippi River joined me in helping secure
adequate funding for the EMP in this year's Appropriations bill. The
Governors of all five States who border the upper Mississippi and
Illinois River--(Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri)--
support the EMP and have been active in maintaining its long term
viability.
The Mississippi River is a national treasure. It flows southward from
Minnesota and Wisconsin through the heart of our Nation and into the
Gulf of Mexico. The river is a vital source of clean water, a major
navigational corridor, a crucial environmental ecosystem, an important
flood damage reduction source and a tremendous recreational resource
for millions of Americans. The Environmental Management Program serves
a crucial role in protecting that resource so we can continue to
provide for all of those needs into the future.
The unique bipartisan, multistate support that the EMP receives, and
the strong level of cooperation between Federal agencies is a model for
all government resource programs. No other program on the Mississippi
River is doing the kind of data collection and habitat restoration
projects that the EMP does. I applaud the members of the Appropriations
Committee for the support of this valuable project and I urge my
colleagues to fully support the EMP at the appropriated funding level.
On a personal note I want to thank Bob Dellany, the Director of the
Environmental Management Technical Center [EMTC], and his staff for
their dedicated work to study, protect and promote the upper
Mississippi River. The folks at the EMTC, located in Onalaska, WI, do
an outstanding job and they deserve our recognition and praise.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I yield to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Kentucky
[Mr. Whitfield], for purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman and his
staff and the minority and their staff for the work that they have done
with me on many projects in my district, and I ask for the opportunity
to enter into a colloquy with the chairman.
As the chairman knows from our many discussions, the national
recreation area land between the lakes better known as LBL is in the
district that I represent in Kentucky. LBL is the only federally owned
national recreation area in the United States managed by the Tennessee
Valley Authority and to my knowledge is the only national recreation
area with no statutory governance.
My constituents are concerned about continued Federal support for LBL
following the TVA Chairman Crowell's announcement to no longer seek
funding for the non-power programs including LBL. That decision was
later reversed by Chairman Crowell but not before the Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development had already approved the plan to eliminate
all appropriated funds for non-power programs and instead pay for those
activities from TVA revenues and savings from the power program.
I appreciate very much the chairman's efforts to find another source
of revenue to finance LBL operations. However, my constituents remain
skeptical about this funding approach and fear further reductions in
Federal financial support for LBL because

[[Page H5754]]

there is no actual line item designating the amount LBL should receive.
In the Senate passed bill, monies were appropriated for the non-power
program and LBL received $7.9 million.
Mr. Chairman, do you share my view that the Federal Government is
financially responsible for this national recreation area, which was
established in the 1960's by the Kennedy administration and resulted in
the forcible removal of over 800 families from their land in Kentucky?
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say that the
answer to your question is yes. The committee fully expects TVA to
commit sufficient funding to the Land Between the Lakes to permit
continued enjoyment of these resources by the public. We have written
into our report, may I say to my friend, that we will exercise vigorous
oversight over this problem to make sure that this occurs and we are
grateful to the gentleman for bringing it to our attention.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to
yield, when he goes to conference with the Senate, is it his intention
to support a funding level for LBL that will ensure the proper
operation and maintenance of this national recreation area? I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time further, may I say to my
colleague that the committee intends to work closely with the
gentleman, as we have tried to today, to ensure that his interest in
the continued operation and maintenance of LBL is protected.
Mr. WHITFIELD. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the
chairman very much. And once again, I want to thank him and his staff
for their cooperation.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that we have about three,
perhaps four more Members, and we are down toward the end of the
colloquies on this side of the aisle. I believe my friend, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], has taken care of that side.
It is the Chair's intention, once we finish the colloquies, if there
is any time left, to yield it back and to ask that the bill be
considered as read and open for amendment. So I make that statement in
order that Members who may want to introduce amendments will be advised
that their opportunity may come very quickly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
LaTourette].
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to engage the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], an acknowledged friend and supporter of
Great Lakes priorities, in a colloquy regarding the Army Corps of
Engineers Division Reorganization Plan and recently authorized Sediment
Remediation Technology Demonstration project.
Mr. Chairman, it has recently come to my attention that the Army
Corps of Engineers is planning to restructure its Great Lakes and Ohio
River Division by first severely reducing the number of employees,
particularly those with decision-making authority, at its Chicago
office and eventually closing down that facility. This plan is
documented in an internal Army Corps memo that I will submit for the
Record at the appropriate time. This plan would leave the Great Lakes
region with only one office, in Cincinnati, and would obliterate the
institutional memory that is so vital to Army Corps operations in this
region.
Last year, when this Congress passed the Energy and Water
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997, the Army Corps was directed to
reduce its divisions to no less than six and no more than eight. The
Department of the Army's Office of Civil Works submitted a plan to the
Congress which detailed the restructuring plan, approved by the
Secretary. Again, I will submit this document for the Record at the
appropriate time.
The plan stated that, ``the Great Lakes districts of the North
Central Division will be combined with the districts of the Ohio River
Division to form the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division. Division
headquarters will remain in both Chicago and Cincinnati, each with a
deputy commander and SES.''
Mr. Chairman, do you agree with me that it is imperative that we
exercise congressional oversight authority over the reorganization
plan?
I will yield to the chairman.
Mr. McDADE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to say to
him that we remain interested in the Corps of Engineers division office
reorganization plan. We will continue to monitor it, and we appreciate
the gentleman bringing his concern to our attention.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the
chairman for his willingness to work on that issue.
The second issue that I would like to address is the Army Corps'
sediment remediation technology program, also known as ARCS 2, which
was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This
program is important to my district and Members' districts throughout
the Great Lakes because of the huge quantity of contaminated sediments
in the Lakes. Contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes are the largest
repository of toxic pollution in the basin and pose a threat to human
health as these toxins are slowly released into the water where they
can enter the food chain through fish and birds.
The sediments, primarily in harbors, collect many pollutants that
have been entering the Great Lakes for decades. A total of 362
contaminants have been identified in the Great Lakes sediments, many of
which are known to have potentially severe human health impacts.
The current Energy and Water Appropriations bill does not include
language regarding the ARCS 2 account. Pilot and laboratory-scale
projects for the assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments
were conducted under the assessment of remediation of contaminated
sediments authority in the Clean Water Act. Section 515 of the WRDA
bill of 1996 builds upon the old ARCS program by directing the Army
Corps to conduct full-scale demonstration projects of promising
sediment remediation technology. Such full-scale projects are an
essential next step to removing the clean-up process from the planning
to the implementation phase.
Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, it is within your jurisdiction to see
that this issue is addressed in the conference on the energy and water
bill in the Senate. I would request on behalf of my colleagues in the
Great Lakes region that you support the inclusion of language that will
allow the Army Corps to move forward with this important sediment
remediation program for fiscal year 1998.
I would further yield to the chair.
Mr. McDADE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate my
colleague bringing this matter to our attention. I look forward to
working on this issue as the bill moves through the appropriations
process.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, I
wish to thank him for his wisdom and continued support of the issues
important to myself and those in the Great Lakes region. I look forward
to working with him on this and other matters. I thank him for his
courtesy.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let
me also take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the subcommittee
and the ranking member for the excellent work they have done in
producing this bipartisan bill so important, indeed so vital to the
State of Arizona.
Mr. Chairman, as you may know, San Carlos Lake, located in the Sixth
District, is now on the verge of drying up. Current estimates suggest
it could be dry by September. Now as we might expect, this is causing
great concern among the local residents because this lake has great
recreational value; and, Mr. Chairman, as we all know, it is vital
economically to the residents of the sixth district living around San
Carlos Lake.
Commensurate with the philosophy of the new majority, Mr. Chairman,
we are seeking to solve this problem, first at the State level, but
certainly we would be remiss if we did not try to employ every
opportunity and explore every avenue of possibility that may exist.
And, so, Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to say that I would appreciate the
gentleman's help in exploring ways to provide assistance to these
people of Arizona's sixth district as we seek to prevent this lake from
drying out.

[[Page H5755]]

Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me tell my
colleague that we are grateful to him for bringing this to our
attention. We realize the serious nature of the problem, and we will be
glad to work with him through the process to try to resolve it.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, I
very much appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee. I appreciate his
attention to so many matters of vital importance within the State of
Arizona and certainly his attention in this regard.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of a colloquy, I am pleased to
yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Talent].
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
yielding. I would ask the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee
on Energy and Water to engage in a colloquy regarding the transfer of
FUSRAP responsibility from the Department of Energy to the Army Corps
of Engineers.
Mr. Chairman, my district in Missouri has a major FUSRAP site which
contains nuclear contamination from the Manhattan Project and other
hazardous waste as well. For 15 years, the St. Louis community has
attempted to work with the Department of Energy to clean up this site.
After years of frustration and delay, however, the Department of Energy
has finally begun a serious effort to begin to clean up the site.
Contracts have been let, feasibility studies completed, the site
recommendations have been prepared and commitments have been made.
As a result, Mr. Chairman, there are many people in the community,
who while very appreciative of the abilities of the Army Corps of
Engineers, are very concerned that the progress we finally made in
getting DOE to clean up the site will be undone by this transfer. As a
result, I would like to ask the gentleman, as a sponsor of this
legislation, to clarify some of the concerns the community and I have
about the effects of the legislation.
Although there is no formal record of decision yet for this clean-up,
in St. Louis, several feasibility sites have been completed and a site
recommendation has been made by the Department of energy. Would the
Army Corps of Engineers respect these studies and the site plan and the
contracts which have already been let for work at the site?
Mr. McDADE. Reclaiming my time, let me say that we are appreciative
to the gentleman for bringing this important problem to our attention.
Let me say that the committee intends that the feasibility studies and
the site recommendations prepared by the DOE at the time of the
enactment of this legislation will be accepted and carried out by the
Corps of Engineers and that existing contracts will be honored.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I
thank the gentleman for his responsiveness.
The Department of Energy, in its site recommendations, has targeted
the year 2004 for completion of this project. I would say to the
gentleman it is very important to the community that this commitment be
maintained.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we have, as you know,
because we have discussed it substantially, increased money
appropriated to the FUSRAP program, with the intent that it will be
more likely that the sites will be cleaned up on schedule.
Mr. TALENT. If the gentleman would yield further, I thank the
gentleman.
One other concern: The local community has been very involved in
designing a plan to clean up the site. Their concern is that the
administration of clean-up will be moved away from the St. Louis area
to Omaha, reducing the community's input and influence on the clean-up
process.
If the Army Corps of Engineers takes over the FUSRAP program, is it
committee's intention that it be administered out of the St. Louis
Corps office?
Mr. McDADE. Reclaiming my time, let me say to the gentleman that the
Corps of Engineers typically manages projects from its closest district
office and we would intend for that to be done.

{time} 2230

Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman for his assurances and I thank him
and the ranking member for their hard work on this outstanding bill.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
legislation. The bill contains several provisions that will be
critically important to the safety of the Sacramento area that I
represent.
I wish to express my deep gratitude to the Appropriations Committee,
particularly Energy and Water Development Subcommittee Chairman Joe
McDade and ranking member Vic Fazio, for their recognition of the
severe danger of flooding that my district faces. The bill they have
crafted will allow for significant progress on the project for flood
protection from the American River authorized by last year's Water
Resources Development Act. The project, while in itself far from
sufficient to provide comprehensive protection for the Sacramento area,
is a vital step toward that absolutely critical goal. I am extremely
pleased that the bill provides funding that will enable the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to make maximum progress on this initiative in
fiscal year 1998.
H.R. 2203 also makes a very important statement in providing
reimbursements in two areas where the Sacramento Area Flood Control
Agency [SAFCA] has moved forward with flood control efforts in advance
of federal funding. One of these instances is SAFCA's project to
improve flood protection for the Natomas area of Sacramento. By
partially funding the reimbursement that has been authorized for this
local effort, the committee has given valuable encouragement to
communities that wish to move forward in the most aggressive manner in
acting to address pressing flood threats. Similarly, the committee has
sent an important signal by fully reimbursing SAFCA for costs
associated with the variable flood control operation of Folsom Dam and
Reservoir implemented by a 1995 agreement between SAFCA and the Bureau
of Reclamation. This contract has provided a very necessary increment
of added flood protection for the Sacramento area. Under last year's
WRDA bill, the Federal Government accepted responsibility for 75
percent of the costs of lost water and power resulting from this
agreement over a four year period. I am extremely pleased that the
Committee has acted to meet this federal commitment.
The bill funds a number of other greatly needed flood control
initiatives for the Sacramento area. These include the Sacramento River
Bank Protection Project, which is helping to prevent bank erosion along
the American River levees that represent the last line of flood defense
for many Sacramentans. The bill also supports important area flood
control efforts by including funds for construction of the Magpie Creek
small flood control project, for feasibility studies as well as
preconstruction engineering and design for the South Sacramento Streams
Group project, and for a reconnaissance study for flood damage
reduction from the Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers.
Finally, the Committee has provided support for two other innovative
projects in the Sacramento area. One of these is an important water
quality project--the city of Sacramento's efforts to improve its
combined sewer system in order to prevent the flow of sewage into the
Sacramento River. The second is the Ueda Parkway, a set of bicycle,
equestrian and pedestrian trails to be constructed along a portion of
the Natomas levee improvements.
Again, I deeply thank the committee for its support and look forward
to working with them to gain final approval for these initiatives.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to commend
the Appropriations Committee in general, and its Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee in particular, for the fine job they did in
crafting the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations bill
being considered today. Not only is H.R. 2203 fiscally responsible, but
there is much to be said for its policy and project provisions.
As a Member of Congress, it has long been my position that the
Federal Government should spend less money more wisely. In its current
form, this bill does just that. As reported, H.R. 2203 calls for a
$573-million reduction in spending for energy and water projects next
year, precisely what is needed in these times of fiscal restraint. Not
only that, but the measure is notable for the quality of the projects
it funds.
Let me cite two examples, with which I am particularly familiar. The
first is the Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project [DPRWDP],
for which $1 million has been provided, while the second is the Fox
River Floodgate Installation Project, to which $1.178 million has been
directed. Both are located in northern Illinois and, with the monies
allocated by H.R. 2203, each is likely to pay big dividends in the
future.
When complete, the DPRWDP will give policymakers the information they
need to protect wetlands, preserve species habitat, reduce

[[Page H5756]]

flooding and improve water quality, while the Fox River project will
reduce the threat and expense of flooding along one of America's more
popular recreational waterways. In short, both endeavors will provide a
substantial and tangible return on the money being invested, just as
they should. My thanks to the chairman and members of the Energy and
Water Development Subcommittee for including them in H.R. 2203 and to
the chairman and members of the Appropriations Committee for approving
them subsequently.
By singling out these two projects, I do not mean to suggest that
others funded by H.R. 2203 are not equally deserving. To the contrary,
there are a number of other projects worthy of favorable mention
including the North Libertyville estates flood control project, the
Chicago Shoreline project and the Yucca Mountain interim nuclear waste
storage project just to name a few. That being the case, I urge my
colleagues to give this measure their support. Not only does it
contribute to budget reduction but it has many other benefits to offer
as well.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to
express my appreciation for the efforts of Chairman McDade--and his
staff, Jim Ogsbury, Bob Schmidt, Jeanne Wilson, Don McKinnon, and
Sandra Farrow--in the formulation and passage of the Energy and Water
development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. They were
exceedingly helpful, insightful, and responsive.
This is Joe McDade's first Energy and Water bill. While he follows
two outstanding chairmen--Tom Bevill and John Myers--few can dispute
that Joe stepped up to the plate and managed to formulate a fine bill
and send it swiftly through the complex Appropriations Committee
process. And this is not an easy bill to write. It is diverse, funding
programs from nuclear weapons research to geothermal heat pump
technologies, from the construction of Army Corps of Engineers water
infrastructure projects, to the funding of critical development
programs like those in the Appalachian Regional Commission. This bill
demands an appreciation for physics, electronics, the needs of the
rural poor, and, more importantly, a respect for the ravages of nature.
Few of us will forget the loss of life and property, and the
heartache that resulted in the floods this year in the West Coast and
Midwest United States. We know we cannot control nature, but we can do
everything humanly possible to anticipate nature's worst forces, and to
the best of our ability prevent loss of life.
We concern ourselves with the well-being of our neighbors, relatives,
and communities--to ensure they are protected, and that they are
provided a fair chance to prosper in the American economy. That is what
we are supposed to do in this body. That is what Joe McDade has done in
this bill.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of this bill.
I want to express my appreciation to Chairman McDade and Ranking Member
Fazio for their efforts and assistance with this bill. I also want to
give a big thanks to the entire Energy and Water Subcommittee Staff who
were always ready and able to assist me and my staff on this bill.
This is a good bill. This bill provides adequate funding for
continued construction of a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain. Furthermore, it still provides $85 million to begin
construction of an interim storage facility once we enact authorization
for such a facility later this year. This will help the Department of
Energy meet its contract obligations to the commercial nuclear
industry.
This bill also provides $7 million for the university nuclear reactor
programs, $5 million of which is designated for the nuclear engineering
R&D. This will ensure that we have the next generation of engineers
prepared to develop and oversee our Nation's nuclear power
infrastructure.
Although this bill does not fund the administration's request for the
Nuclear Energy Security Program, I believe that nuclear power is an
essential part of the Nation's energy portfolio and as such, I support
some level of nuclear energy R&D for energy security. Considering
nuclear power supplies over 20 percent of our Nation's electricity, we
need to ensure the existing supply as a component of the Nation's
baseload well into the next century. I encourage the Department to re-
scope this year's proposal and to propose research that only takes
advantage of DOE's unique capabilities but provides the best possible
return on investment. The bottom line is that as our primary in nuclear
R&D declines, we will lose our ability to participate on the world
stage and to observe and understand the civilian nuclear programs of
emerging nations.
When we began the appropriations process this year, I was cautiously
optimistic that the Department of Energy was turning the corner on its
environmental management program--that a new vision had been embraced
over at the Department--a vision of accelerating and completing the
cleanup of DOE's defense nuclear sites so that as many of them as
possible are closed down within the next decade.
But, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to say that it's been more than a year
since DOE brought forth this new vision and still, the Department has
not been able to deliver a credible, defensible plan. As the old saying
goes, ``the Devil's in the Details.'' DOE's ``Discussion Draft'' was
finally released in June and is little other than a top-level framework
to start the planning process. It is a document that is not supported
by DOE's own site data or by what is realistically achievable. I still
believe that this vision is well within our grasp and this bill get us
much closer to it.
Frustrated with years of mismanagement in clearning up the former
nuclear defense sites, this bill directs the Department of Energy to
cleanup and close out the two major environmental management sites.
Specifically, the Closure Project accelerates the closure of the Rocky
Flats and Fernald sites. These are the two sites where all the
entities--the administration, the States, the contractors, and the
citizens--agree that closure by 2006 can and should be done. We've
added funding above the administration's request to ensure just that--
so that cleanup by 2006 becomes a reality. I'm also glad the bill
preserves funding for other closure projects, a proposal that I
championed last year. I hope that the Department follows this lead and
creates more closure projects in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I also support transferring funding for cleanup of the
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program to the U.S. Corps of
Engineers. As you know, this is a program for cleanup of 46 former
Manhattan District or Atomic Energy Commission sites--a program that's
been underway for 17 years and is still only 50 percent complete. I
think it's time to try something different--and I believe the Corps,
who successfully manages Department of Defense cleanups will be able to
bring these projects to closure more quickly and at a more reasonable
cost to the taxpayer.
We need to remain vigilant about new and innovative ways to
accelerate cleanup. In this context, I support privatization. However,
I want greater assurances of the Department's ability to manage
privatized cleanups and less dependence on large sums of up-front
federal funding, even when it's held in reserve.
I also support efforts to leverage technology and encourage the
Department to better utilize the best and brightest of the universities
and national laboratories. For example, DOE's use of the leading
universities in the area of robotics technology development and
deployment is a success story within the technology
development program. Using advanced state-of-the-art robotics for a
broad spectrum of cleanup tasks is not just efficient and more
effective than using humans, but it reduces occupational exposure to
hazardous environments.

Finally, I want to see DOE bring forth, along with next year's budget
request, a detailed and defensible closure plan based on an aggressive
but realistic estimate of the most that can be completed and closed out
over the next decade. I agree that the vision can be accomplished by
doing more sooner rather than later, by substantial mortgage and risk
reduction, and by leveraging technology. But let's get on with it.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your leadership
and for the efforts of the staff.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the rule
and H.R. 2203, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations for
fiscal year 1998. I support this bill mainly because it provides $413
million 39--percent more for the Army Corps of Engineers construction
programs than requested by the administration. The administration
originally requested $9.5 million for the construction of the Sims
Bayou Project in Houston, TX. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development specifically earmarked an additional $3.5 million bringing
the total funding for the project to $13 million.
Mr. Chairman, the Sims Bayou Project is a project that stretches
through my district. Over the course of recent years, the Sims Bayou
has seen massive amounts of flooding. Citizens in my congressional
district, have been flooded out of their homes, and their lives have
been disrupted. In 1994, 759 homes were flooded as a result of the
overflow from the Sims Bayou. That is 759 families that were forced to
leave their homes.
I mainly support this bill, Mr. Chairman, because the subcommittee
has earmarked in this bill $13 million for the construction and
improvement of the Sims Bayou project that will soon be underway by the
Army Corps of Engineers. I would like to thank the Army Corps of
Engineers for their cooperation with my office in helping to bring
relief to the people of the 18th Congressional District in order to
avoid dangerous flooding. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development added an additional $3.5 million for the construction of
this Sims Bayou project after my office worked to explain the
devastating impact of the past flooding in this area. I am quite
certain, Mr.

[[Page H5757]]

Chairman, that this project would not have been able to go forward if
this additional money would not have been granted by the Subcommittee.
For that I have to thank Chairman McDade, Ranking Member Fazio, and my
Texas colleague Chet Edwards, a new member on the Appropriations
Committee.
However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call on the Army Corps of
Engineers to do everything that they can to accelerate the completion
of this project. The project will now extend to Martin Luther King and
Airport Boulevards, and Mykaw to Cullen Boulevard. This is flooding
that can be remedied and the project must be completed before the
expected date of 2006. While I applaud the Army Corps of Engineers for
their cooperation, this is unacceptable for the people in my
congressional district who are suffering. They need relief and I know
that they cannot wait until the expected completion date of 2006. This
must be done and I will work with the Army Corps of Engineers and local
officials to ensure that this is done.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY98 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act and to congratulate my friend,
Chairman McDade, for his work on this bill.
I am particularly pleased that this bill recognizes a federal role in
preserving our Nation's water resources, including our shorelines. I
want to alert my colleagues to language on page 7 of the Committee
Report to H.R. 2203:

The Committee believes that the budget request represents a
lack of commitment by the Administration to the traditional
roles and missions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
navigation, flood control, and share protection.

I wholly agree with this statement. I would further add that when the
Administration fails to offer an acceptable budget request, it makes
the job of the appropriators that much more difficult. In light of a
woeful budget request, Chairman McDade has done an outstanding job.
My district encompasses over 100 miles of coastline and has several
ports and navigation channels. These resources provide avenues of
commerce, transportation routes and access to military facilities. They
are a vast and crucial resource for my district and their maintenance
and protection is very important.
In addition to ports and navigation channels, my district has miles
of beaches. President Clinton has proposed an end to federal funding of
beach nourishment projects, saying that they are not in the ``national
interest.''
I do not support this belief. Shore protection serves the same
purpose as flood control projects, by protecting property and saving
lives. Furthermore, our Nation's beaches and coastal areas are a great
source of national pride. Millions of American and foreign tourists
flock to these areas every year, all year, to enjoy clean, safe and
beautiful beaches. To say that these areas are only of interest to the
states in which they are located is the equivalent of saying that
Yosemite is only of interest to the State of California.
The funding for water resource development in this bill will enhance
commerce and protect homes and lives. Nonetheless, there is much work
ahead of us. I applaud the Chairman and I hope he will be able to
preserve our commitment to water resources when this bill goes to
Conference.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2703
making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year
1998. I would first like to thank Chairman McDade and ranking member
Vic Fazio for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor
today.
I would also like to thank the hard-working subcommittee staff, for
without them our jobs would be tremendously more difficult. I truly
appreciate their knowledge and professionalism.
The bill before the House today stresses national priorities while
keeping our commitment to downsize the Federal Government, maintain
funding for critical flood safety projects, coastal protection, and
dredging harbors and waterways throughout our Nation. We have made some
tough choices about where to reduce spending and have written a bill
which is $573 million less than last year.
As a member of the subcommittee, I am very pleased with two
recommendations that were included in this year's bill. First, the bill
has again flatly rejected the President's proposal to end coastal
protection and second the bill terminates funding for the Tennessee
Valley Authority's [TVA] nonpower program.
Coastal protection projects are very important to local economies all
over the United States and especially New Jersey. The President's
policy was shortsighted and would have resulted in hurting many
communities that rely on promises the Federal Government has made to
provide flood protection. And more often than not, they are projects
that have been undertaken in partnerships with local and State
governments. I am hopeful that the administration will abandon future
efforts such as these and concentrate on providing protection to our
coastal communities.
This bill also terminates the direct Federal subsidy for the TVA,
which began in 1933. Perhaps the best reason for terminating the TVA
can be found in the committee's report. Let me quote:

In a concession that its Depression-era missions have been
largely achieved, TVA has proposed termination of its non-
power programs after Fiscal Year 1998. Enthused by the
Administration's proposal to discontinue direct
appropriations, the Committee has decided to accelerate its
implementation.

Last year the TVA made over $5.7 billion in electric power sales and
set an all time record for revenue. Given this fact, surely the time
has come to move the TVA away from direct Federal subsidization and
encourage it to continue only those programs which are necessary to
meet its power production needs. I encourage all my colleagues to
support this recommendation and turn out the lights of direct
subsidization at the TVA.
In addition to these two important recommendations, this bill
provides $225 million for magnetic fusion energy research. While this
number is slightly reduced from last year's level, I am hopeful that as
the bill moves through the legislative process the committee will be
able to increase the number so that fusion can continue to make its
remarkable achievements in plasma science research.
Mr. Chairman, this bill represents real progress toward setting
national priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill, and
to congratulate our chairman and ranking member 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.
Although this bill does not meet the administration's spending levels
for several Department of Energy programs, it goes a long way toward
adequately funding several of the administration's priorities. Where
differences still exist, I anticipate and look forward to continued
dialog as we move through the appropriations process.
Considering the number of days of sunshine in my State of Arizona, it
is no surprise that I am a strong supporter of solar energy
technologies. Although the committee did not fund the President's full
request for solar and renewable energy programs, I do appreciate the
increase over last year's funding and believe the funding levels will
allow the Department of Energy to continue an effective program for
developing these technologies.
Overall, I am proud of the emphasis this committee continues to place
on research, especially basic research. This bill provides the
President's request or more for basic energy sciences, biological and
environmental research, fusion energy, and high energy and nuclear
physics. I am particularly pleased that the committee included language
in the report that supports the Department's efforts to increase the
ethnic diversity of students, researchers, and scientists working to
maintain our Nation's international leadership in science and
technology.
The committee continues to struggle, as in previous years, with
reaching a balance between micromanaging the Department of Energy and
providing adequate and responsible oversight for our Nation's
taxpayers. In this bill, the chairman and ranking Member have taken a
hard look, and in some cases a hard line, on issues of DOE's management
practices. Although I see room for discussion, compromise, and positive
resolution, I support the committee's efforts to bring better
government to many of the Department's activities. I look forward to
working with our counterparts in the Senate, and the administration, to
finding mutually acceptable solutions in the areas where presently
there is disagreement.
Again, many thanks to my chairman, ranking member, and fellow
committee members for their assistance, bipartisanship and friendship.
I would also like to thank the staffs on both sides of their aisle for
their hard work.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the energy and
water appropriations bill. I believe it's a thoughtful approach to the
difficult task of balancing our Nation's energy and water priorities in
an era of fiscal restraint. I commend Chairman McDade for his work.
I support the $5.45 billion appropriation for the Department of
Energy's Environmental Restoration and Waste Management budget, and
particularly the $258.7 million included in the bill for the Fernald
environmental management project located in my congressional district.
This funding level represents an acknowledgement of the Federal
Government's responsibility to clean up the hazardous waste sites that
it created. Significant progress has been made in cleaning up our
hazardous waste sites, including Fernald. But we still have a long way
to go.
My approach has been to ensure that taxpayer funds for Fernald are
used in the most

[[Page H5758]]

cost-effective manner possible to safely clean up the site. I support
the accelerated cleanup plan to achieve these goals and am pleased that
the committee report also advocates this approach.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It helps us meet our
energy and water priorities responsibly, while still achieving the
necessary savings to help us balance the Federal budget by the year
2002.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be
considered as having been read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will read.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill
through page 35, line 20 be considered as read, printed in the RECORD,
and open to amendment at any point.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill through page 35, line 20 is as follows:

H.R. 2203

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1998, for energy and water development,
and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers--Civil

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

General Investigations

For expenses necessary for the collection and study of
basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood
control, shore protection, and related projects, restudy of
authorized projects, miscellaneous investigations, and, when
authorized by laws, surveys and detailed studies and plans
and specifications of projects prior to construction,
$157,260,000, to remain available until expended, of which
funds are provided for the following projects in the amounts
specified:
Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware and New Jersey, $656,000;
Tampa Harbor, Alafia Channel, Florida, $270,000;
Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey,
$400,000;
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey,
$472,000;
Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey,
$400,000;
Lower Cape May Meadows--Cape May Point, New Jersey,
$154,000;
Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, $400,000;
Raritan Bay to Sandy Hook Bay (Cliffwood Beach), New
Jersey, $300,000;
Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey, $500,000;
and
Monongahela River, Fairmont, West Virginia, $350,000:

Provided, That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, is directed to use $600,000 of the funds
appropriated in Public Law 102-377 for the Red River
Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana, to Daingerfield, Texas,
project for the feasibility phase of the Red River
Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, study: Provided further, That
the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, is directed to use $470,000 of the funds
appropriated herein to initiate the feasibility phase for the
Metropolitan Louisville, Southwest, Kentucky, study.

Construction, General

For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control,
shore protection, and related projects authorized by laws;
and detailed studies, and plans and specifications, of
projects (including those for development with participation
or under consideration for participation by States, local
governments, or private groups) authorized or made eligible
for selection by law (but such studies shall not constitute a
commitment of the Government to construction),
$1,475,892,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such sums as are necessary pursuant to Public Law 99-662
shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, for
one-half of the costs of construction and rehabilitation of
inland waterways projects, including rehabilitation costs for
the Lock and Dam 25, Mississippi River, Illinois and
Missouri; Lock and Dam 14, Mississippi River, Iowa; Lock and
Dam 24, Mississippi River, Illinois and Missouri; and Lock
and Dam 3, Mississippi River, Minnesota, projects, and of
which funds are provided for the following projects in the
amounts specified:
Norco Bluffs, California, $1,000,000;
San Timoteo Creek (Santa Ana River Mainstem), California,
$5,000,000;
Tybee Island, Georgia, $2,500,000;
Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana, $7,000,000;
Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana, $3,000,000;
Lake George, Hobart, Indiana, $3,500,000;
Ohio River Flood Protection, Indiana, $1,300,000;
Harlan, Williamsburg, and Middlesboro, Kentucky, element of
the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper
Cumberland River, $27,890,000;
Martin County, Kentucky, element of the Levisa and Tug
Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River,
$5,500,000;
Pike County, Kentucky, element of the Levisa and Tug Forks
of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River,
$5,800,000;
Salyersville, Kentucky, $2,050,000;
Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (Hurricane Protection),
Louisiana, $22,920,000;
Lake Pontchartrain (Jefferson Parish) Stormwater Discharge,
Louisiana, $2,379,000;
Flint River, Michigan, $875,000;
Jackson County, Mississippi, $3,000,000;
Joseph G. Minish Passaic River Park, New Jersey,
$5,000,000;
Hudson River, Athens, New York, $8,700,000;
Lackawanna River, Olyphant, Pennsylvania, $1,400,000;
Lackawanna River, Scranton, Pennsylvania, $5,425,000;
Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, $339,000;
South Central Pennsylvania Environment Improvement Program,
$30,000,000, of which $10,000,000 shall be available only for
water-related environmental infrastructure and resource
protection and development projects in Lackawanna, Lycoming,
Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, and Monroe counties in
Pennsylvania in accordance with the purposes of subsection
(a) and requirements of subsections (b) through (e) of
section 313 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992,
as amended;
Williamsport, Pennsylvania, $225,000;
Wallisville Lake, Texas, $9,200,000;
Virginia Beach, Virginia, $10,000,000;
West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control, West Virginia
and Pennsylvania, $3,000,000;

Provided, That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, is directed to proceed with design and
construction of the Southeast Louisiana, Louisiana, project
and to award continuing contracts, which are not to be
considered fully funded, beginning in fiscal year 1998
consistent with the limit of the authorized appropriation
ceiling: Provided further, That the Secretary of the Army is
directed to incorporate the economic analyses for the Green
Ridge and Plot sections of the Lackawanna River, Scranton,
Pennsylvania, project with the economic analysis for the
Albright Street section of the project, and to cost-share and
implement these combined sections as a single project with no
separable elements, except that each section may be
undertaken individually when the non-Federal sponsor provides
the applicable local cooperation requirements: Provided
further, That section 114 of Public Law 101-101, the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1990, is amended by
striking ``total cost of $19,600,000'' and inserting in lieu
thereof, ``total cost of $40,000,000'': Provided further,
That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, is authorized and directed to combine the
Wilmington Harbor--Northeast Cape Fear River, North Carolina,
project authorized in section 202(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986, the Wilmington Harbor, Cape Fear
River, North Carolina, project authorized in section
101(a)(23) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996,
and the Cape Fear--Northeast (Cape Fear) Rivers, North
Carolina, project authorized in section 101(a)(22) of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996 into a single project
with one Project Cooperation Agreement based on cost sharing
as a single project.

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

For expenses necessary for prosecuting work of flood
control, and rescue work, repair, restoration, or maintenance
of flood control projects threatened or destroyed by flood,
as authorized by law (33 U.S.C. 702a, 702g-1), $285,450,000,
to remain available until expended.

Operation and Maintenance, General

For expenses necessary for the preservation, operation,
maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood
control, and related works, including such sums as may be

[[Page H5759]]

necessary for the maintenance of harbor channels provided by
a State, municipality or other public agency, outside of
harbor lines, and serving essential needs of general commerce
and navigation; surveys and charting of northern and
northwestern lakes and connecting waters; clearing and
straightening channels; and removal of obstructions to
navigation, $1,726,955,000, to remain available until
expended, of which such sums as become available in the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662,
may be derived from that Fund, and of which such sums as
become available from the special account established by the
Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16
U.S.C. 460l), may be derived from that Fund for construction,
operation, and maintenance of outdoor recreation facilities,
and of which funds are provided for the following projects in
the amounts specified:
Anclote River, Florida, $1,500,000; and
Raystown Lake, Pennsylvania, $4,690,000:

Provided, That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, is directed to use funds appropriated in
Public Law 104-206 to reimburse the local sponsor of the Fort
Myers Beach, Florida, project for the maintenance dredging
performed by the local sponsor to open the authorized channel
to navigation in fiscal year 1996.

Regulatory Program

For expenses necessary for administration of laws
pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands,
$112,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies

For expenses necessary for emergency flood control,
hurricane, and shore protection activities, as authorized by
section 5 of the Flood Control Act approved August 18, 1941,
as amended, $14,000,000, to remain available until expended.

formerly utilized sites remedial action program

(including transfer of funds)

For expenses necessary to administer and execute the
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program to clean up
contaminated sites throughout the United States where work
was performed as part of the Nation's early atomic energy
program, $110,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That funding obligated to an individual site in the
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program shall not
exceed the amount obligated during fiscal year 1997 unless
the following conditions are met: (1) there is a technical
plan, schedule, and life-cycle cost estimate for the work to
be performed; (2) the remedy selected for the site has been
developed to meet, but not exceed, the standard of cleanup
required for reasonably anticipated future land use and
ground water uses; (3) the remedy selected has incorporated
separation or other technology where practicable to reduce
the amount of material that is to be excavated, removed,
transported, or disposed; (4) the contracting mechanism used
for the cleanup of each site will be competitive fixed-price
wherever possible, but as a minimum shall include
performance-based incentives; and (5) the cleanup plan has
been presented to the affected communities, and State and
Federal officials, and has not received substantial
disagreement: Provided further, That the unexpended balances
of prior appropriations provided for these activities in this
Act or any previous Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act may be transferred to and merged with this
appropriation account, and thereafter, may be accounted for
as one fund for the same time period as originally enacted.

General Expenses

For expenses necessary for general administration and
related functions in the Office of the Chief of Engineers and
offices of the Division Engineers; activities of the Coastal
Engineering Research Board, the Humphreys Engineer Center
Support Activity, the Engineering Strategic Studies Center,
the Water Resources Support Center, and the USACE Finance
Center; and for costs of implementing the Secretary of the
Army's plan to reduce the number of division offices as
directed in title I, Public Law 104-206, $148,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That no part of
any other appropriation provided in title I of this Act shall
be available to fund the activities of the Office of the
Chief of Engineers or the executive direction and management
activities of the division offices.

Administrative Provisions

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

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Central Utah Project

central utah project completion account

For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, and for activities related to the
Uintah and Upalco Units authorized by 43 U.S.C. 620,
$40,353,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$16,610,000 shall be deposited into the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Account: Provided, That of the
amounts deposited into that account, $5,000,000 shall be
considered the Federal contribution authorized by paragraph
402(b)(2) of the Central Utah Project Completion Act and
$11,610,000 shall be available to the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission to carry out
activities authorized under that Act.
In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying
out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the
Interior, $800,000, to remain available until expended.

Bureau of Reclamation

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

Water and Related Resources

(including transfer of funds)

For management, development, and restoration of water and
related natural resources and for related activities,
including the operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of
reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling
related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and
related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with,
State and local governments, Indian tribes, and others,
$651,931,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$12,758,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper
Colorado River Basin Fund and $54,242,000 shall be available
for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development
Fund, and of which such amounts as may be necessary may be
advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund: Provided, That such
transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall
appropriation under this heading: Provided further, That of
the total appropriated, the amount for program activities
that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund or the Bureau of
Reclamation special fee account established by 16 U.S.C.
460l-6a(i) shall be derived from that Fund or account:
Provided further, That funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395
are available until expended for the purposes for which
contributed: Provided further, That funds advanced under 43
U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to this account and are
available until expended for the same purposes as the sums
appropriated under this heading: Provided further, That any
amounts provided for the safety of dams modification work at
Coolidge Dam, San Carlos Irrigation Project, Arizona, are in
addition to the amount authorized in 43 U.S.C. 509: Provided
further, That the unexpended balances of the Bureau of
Reclamation appropriation accounts for ``Construction Program
(Including Transfer of Funds)'', ``General Investigations'',
``Emergency Fund'', and ``Operation and Maintenance'' shall
be transferred to and merged with this account, to be
available for the purposes for which they originally were
appropriated.

bureau of reclamation loan program account

For the cost of direct loans and/or grants, $10,000,000, to
remain available until expended, as authorized by the Small
Reclamation Projects Act of August 6, 1956, as amended (43
U.S.C. 422a-422l): Provided, That such costs, including the
cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize gross
obligations for the principal amount of direct loans not to
exceed $31,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the program for direct loans and/or grants, $425,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the total
sums appropriated, the amount of program activities that can
be financed by the Reclamation Fund shall be derived from
that Fund.

central valley project restoration fund

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

California Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration

(Including Transfer of Funds)

For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior
and other participating Federal agencies in carrying out the
California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement and Water
Security Act consistent with plans to be approved by the
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with such Federal
agencies, $120,000,000, to remain available until expended,
of which such amounts as may be necessary to conform with
such plans shall be transferred to appropriate accounts of
such Federal agencies: Provided, That such funds may be
obligated only as non-Federal sources provide their share in
accordance with the cost-sharing agreement required under
section 102(d) of such Act: Provided further, That such funds
may be obligated prior to the completion of a final
programmatic environmental impact statement only if: (1)
consistent with 40 C.F.R. 1506.1(c), and (2) used for
purposes that the Secretary finds are of sufficiently high
priority to warrant such an expenditure.

[[Page H5760]]

policy and administration

For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and
related functions in the office of the Commissioner, the
Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau
of Reclamation, to remain available until expended,
$47,658,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be
nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That
no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be
available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and
administration expenses.

administrative provision

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

TITLE III

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Energy Programs

energy supply

For expenses of the Department of Energy activities
including the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant
and capital equipment and other expenses necessary for energy
supply, and uranium supply and enrichment activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion, $880,730,000.

non-defense environmental management

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for non-defense environmental
management activities in carrying out the purposes of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 1701, et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction or expansion, $497,619,000, to
remain available until expended.

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment
facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial
actions and other activities of title II of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 and title X, subtitle A of the Energy Policy Act
of 1992, $220,200,000, to be derived from the Fund, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That $37,000,000 of
amounts derived from the Fund for such expenses shall be
available in accordance with title X, subtitle A, of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992.

science

For expenses of the Department of Energy activities
including the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant
and capital equipment and other expenses necessary for
science activities in carrying out the purposes of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or facility or for plant or facility acquisition,
construction, or expansion, and purchase of 15 passenger
motor vehicles for replacement only, $2,207,632,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That $35,000,000
of the unobligated balances originally available for
Superconducting Super Collider termination activities shall
be made available for other activities under this heading.

Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund

For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the
purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the
acquisition of real property or facility construction or
expansion, $160,000,000, to remain available until expended,
to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That
none of the funds provided herein shall be distributed to the
State of Nevada or affected units of local government (as
defined by Public Law 97-425) by direct payment, grant, or
other means, for financial assistance under section 116 of
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended: Provided
further, That the foregoing proviso shall not apply to
payments in lieu of taxes under section 116(c)(3)(A) of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended.

Departmental Administration

For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy
necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and official reception and representation expenses
(not to exceed $35,000), $214,723,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That moneys received by the
Department for miscellaneous revenues estimated to total
$131,330,000 in fiscal year 1998 may be retained and used for
operating expenses within this account, and may remain
available until expended, as authorized by section 201 of
Public Law 95-238, notwithstanding the provisions of 31
U.S.C. 3302: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of miscellaneous
revenues received during fiscal year 1998 so as to result in
a final fiscal year 1998 appropriation from the General Fund
estimated at not more than $83,393,000.

Office of the Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the office of the inspector
general in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $27,500,000, to remain
available until expended.

Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Weapons Activities

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy
defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion; and the purchase of
passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 70 for replacement
only), $3,943,442,000.

Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense
environmental restoration and waste management activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion; and the purchase of passenger motor vehicles
(not to exceed 6 for replacement only), $5,263,270,000.

Other Defense Activities

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense, other
defense activities, in carrying out the purposes of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of
passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 2 for replacement
only), $1,580,504,000.

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the
purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the
acquisition of real property or facility construction or
expansion, $190,000,000.

Power Marketing Administrations

Operation and Maintenance, Alaska Power Administration

For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
projects in Alaska and of marketing electric power and
energy, $1,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Bonneville Power Administration Fund

Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund,
established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for
the anadromous fish supplementation facilities in the Yakima
River Basin, Methow River Basin and Upper Snake River Basin,
for the Billy Shaw Reservoir resident fish substitution
project, and for the resident trout fish culture facility in
Southeast Idaho; and official reception and representation
expenses in an amount not to exceed $3,000.
During fiscal year 1998, no new direct loan obligations may
be made.

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the
Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the
southeastern power area, $12,222,000, to remain available
until expended; in addition, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302,
not to exceed $20,000,000 in reimbursements for transmission
wheeling and ancillary services, to remain available until
expended.

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy, and for construction and acquisition of
transmission lines, substations and appurtenant facilities,
and for administrative expenses, including official reception
and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500
in carrying out the provisions of section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the
southwestern power area, $25,210,000, to remain available
until expended; in addition, notwithstanding the provisions
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, not to exceed $4,650,000 in
reimbursements, to remain available until expended.

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

For carrying out the functions authorized by title III,
section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7101, et seq.), and other related activities including
conservation and renewable resources programs as authorized,
including the replacement of not more than two helicopters
through transfers, exchanges, or sale, and official reception
and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed
$1,500, $189,043,000, to remain available until expended, of
which $182,806,000 shall be derived from the Department of
the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That of the amount
herein appropriated, $5,432,000 is for deposit into the Utah
Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account pursuant to

[[Page H5761]]

title IV of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and
Adjustment Act of 1992.

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

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

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and
representation expenses (not to exceed $3,000), $162,141,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed
$162,141,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and
other services and collections in fiscal year 1998 shall be
retained and used for necessary expenses in this account, and
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
the sum herein appropriated from the General Fund shall be
reduced as revenues are received during fiscal year 1998 so
as to result in a final fiscal year 1998 appropriation from
the General Fund estimated at not more than $0.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

General Provisions

Sec. 301. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any
prior appropriations Act may be used to award a management
and operating contract unless such contract is awarded using
competitive procedures. The preceding sentence does not apply
to a management and operating contract for research and
development activities performed at a federally funded
research and development center.
Sec. 302. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act or
any prior appropriations Act may be used to award, amend, or
modify a contract in a manner that deviates from the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, unless the Secretary of Energy
grants, on a case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for such a
deviation. The Secretary may not delegate the authority to
grant such a waiver.
(b) At least 60 days before a contract award, amendment, or
modification for which the Secretary intends to grant such a
waiver, the Secretary shall submit to the Subcommittees on
Energy and Water Development of the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
a report notifying the subcommittees of the waiver and
setting forth the reasons for the waiver.
Sec. 303. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any
prior appropriations Act may be used to award, amend, or
modify any contract for support services unless a cost
comparison conducted under the procedures and requirements of
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 shows that the
cost of performing the support services by contractor
personnel is lower than the cost of performing such services
by Department of Energy personnel.
Sec. 304. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any
prior appropriations Act may be used to make payments under a
management and operating contract for providing products or
services for use by Department of Energy employees.
Sec. 305. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any
prior appropriations Act may be used to--
(1) develop or implement a workforce restructuring plan
that covers employees of the Department of Energy; or
(2) provide enhanced severance payments or other benefits
for employees of the Department of Energy;

under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act
of Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2644; 42
U.S.C. 7274h).
Sec. 306. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any
prior appropriations Act may be used to augment the
$56,000,000 made available for obligation by this Act for
severance payments and other benefits and community
assistance grants under section 3161 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484;
106 Stat. 2644; 42 U.S.C. 7274h).
Sec. 307. None of the funds appropriated by this Act to
initiate new construction projects in fiscal year 1998 by the
Department of Energy may be obligated for such a construction
project until the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers--
(1) performs an independent assessment of the cost, scope,
and schedule of the construction project and validates the
accuracy of the Department of Energy's estimates for the
cost, scope, and schedule for the project; and
(2) submits to the Subcommittees on Energy and Water
Development of the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate a report on such
assessment.
Sec. 308. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any
prior appropriations Act may be used to prepare or initiate
requests for proposals for a program if the program has not
been funded by Congress.
Sec. 309. None of the funds appropriated by this Act
(including funds appropriated for salaries of employees of
the Department of Energy) may be used in any way, directly or
indirectly, to influence congressional action on any
legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress.

(transfers of unexpended balances)

Sec. 310. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations
provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to
appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred may be merged
with funds in the applicable established accounts and
thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time
period as originally enacted.

TITLE IV

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission

For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized
by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as
amended, notwithstanding section 405 of said Act, and for
necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman and the
alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission and for
payment of the Federal share of the administrative expenses
of the Commission, including services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, and hire of passenger motor vehicles,
$160,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456,
section 1441, $16,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Salaries and Expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out
the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as
amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
including the employment of aliens; services authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109; publication and dissemination of atomic
information; purchase, repair, and cleaning of uniforms;
official representation expenses (not to exceed $20,000);
reimbursements to the General Services Administration for
security guard services; hire of passenger motor vehicles and
aircraft, $462,700,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That of the amount appropriated herein, $13,000,000
shall be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided
further, That from this appropriation, transfers of sums may
be made to other agencies of the Government for the
performance of the work for which this appropriation is made,
and in such cases the sums so transferred may be merged with
the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further,
That moneys received by the Commission for the cooperative
nuclear safety research program, services rendered to State
governments, foreign governments and international
organizations, and the material and information access
authorization programs, including criminal history checks
under section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act may be retained
and used for salaries and expenses associated with those
activities, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That revenues
from licensing fees, inspection services, and other services
and collections estimated at $446,700,000 in fiscal year 1998
shall be retained and used for necessary salaries and
expenses in this account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
$3,000,000 of the funds herein appropriated for regulatory
reviews and other assistance provided to the Department of
Energy and other Federal agencies shall be excluded from
license fee revenues, notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 2214:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be
reduced by the amount of revenues received during fiscal year
1998 from licensing fees, inspection services and other
services and collections, excluding those moneys received for
the cooperative nuclear safety research program, services
rendered to State governments, foreign governments and
international organizations, and the material and information
access authorization programs, so as to result in a final
fiscal year 1998 appropriation estimated at not more than
$16,000,000.

Office of Inspector General

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, including services authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, $4,800,000, to remain available until expended;
and in addition, an amount not to exceed 5 percent of this
sum may be transferred from Salaries and Expenses, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission: Provided, That notice of such
transfers shall be given to the Committees on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives and Senate: Provided further,
That from this appropriation, transfers of sums may be made
to other agencies of the Government for the performance of
the work for which this appropriation is made, and in such
cases the sums so transferred may be merged with the
appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That
revenues from licensing fees, inspection services, and other
services and collections shall be retained and used for
necessary salaries and expenses in this account,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available
until expended: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of revenues
received during fiscal year 1998 from licensing fees,
inspection

[[Page H5762]]

services, and other services and collections, so as to result
in a final fiscal year 1998 appropriation estimated at not
more than $0.

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section
5051, $2,400,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund,
and to remain available until expended.

Tennessee Valley Authority

For essential stewardship activities for which
appropriations were provided to the Tennessee Valley
Authority in Public Law 104-206, such sums as are necessary
in fiscal year 1998 and thereafter, to be derived only from
one or more of the following sources: nonpower fund balances
and collections; investment returns of the nonpower program;
applied programmatic savings in the power and nonpower
programs; savings from the suspension of bonuses and awards;
savings from reductions in memberships and contributions;
increases in collections resulting from nonpower activities,
including user fees; or increases in charges to private and
public utilities both investor and cooperatively owned, as
well as to direct load customers: Provided, That such funds
are available to fund the stewardship activities under this
paragraph, notwithstanding sections 11, 14, 15, 29, or other
provisions of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, as amended:
Provided further, That the savings from, and revenue
adjustments to, the TVA budget in fiscal year 1998 and
thereafter shall be sufficient to fund the aforementioned
stewardship activities such that the net spending authority
and resulting outlays for these activities shall not exceed
$0 in fiscal year 1998 and thereafter: Provided further, That
within thirty days of enactment of this Act, the Chairman of
the TVA shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and Senate an itemized listing
of the amounts of the proposed reductions and increased
receipts to be made pursuant to this paragraph in fiscal year
1998: Provided further, That by November 1, 1999, the
Chairman of the TVA shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House and Senate an itemized listing of
the amounts of the reductions or increased receipts made
pursuant to this paragraph for fiscal year 1998.

TITLE V

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal
agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Skaggs

Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Skaggs:
On page 22, line 2, after ``$1,580,504,000'' strike the
period and insert ``, including $62,000,000 for the worker
and community transition program.''

Mr. SKAGGS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment pending the gentleman's explanation.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania reserves a point of
order.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I assure the distinguished chairman that my
intention is to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment in just
a moment, but I wanted to use it to bring one matter before the
attention of the House.
I am concerned about the inadequate funding in this bill to take care
of the legitimate demands for worker transition services and benefits
under section 3161 and otherwise at former nuclear weapons sites around
the country including Rocky Flats. I am also concerned that we approach
the worker transition program funding issue as straightforwardly as we
can with sufficient funds appropriated to the proper accounts and not
invite later needs for reprogramming or for use of funds from other
accounts within the department.
As the chairman of the subcommittee knows, the bill provides now, I
think, for $56 million for these purposes. My amendment would raise
that to $62 million, the current fiscal year amount, still less than
the President has requested. I think we need to provide additional
funds for this. I believe the chairman anticipates that we may make
further movement in this direction in conference. I also respect his
intentions and that of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] in
particular that we try to make all of this handled in the bill and in
practice in a much more straightforward fashion.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. I simply want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for
bringing this matter to our attention. It is our intention and
hopefully we can cooperate with him as we go through the process to see
if we can work this out.
Mr. SKAGGS. I appreciate the gentleman's statement.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Colorado?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Klug

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that during
consideration of title IV of this bill, debate on an amendment and any
amendments thereto to be offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Klug] regarding the Appalachian Regional Commission be limited to 20
minutes, divided equally between the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Klug] as the proponent of the amendment and myself as an opponent of
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Let the Chair inquire, is the pending amendment covered
under that unanimous-consent request?
Mr. McDADE. The pending amendment and all amendments thereto, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Klug
Page 29, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $90,000,000)''.

The CHAIRMAN. Under the previous order of the House, the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
McDade] each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Appalachian Regional Commission was first
established in 1965 to help promote the economic development of the
Appalachian region. Since then the Federal Government has poured more
than $7 billion into funding for projects. Some of these projects to
essentially boost economic development include $750,000 from Federal
taxpayers to help pay for the Carolina Panthers NFL stadium or $1.2
million for the National Track and Field Hall of Fame.
The Appalachian Regional Commission was first established back in
1965 and 3 years later, the Nixon administration began one of the first
attempts to kill the Appalachian Regional Commission. Here I am 32
years after the Appalachian Regional Commission was first begun to
essentially carry on this sometimes valiant and quixotic fight.
What we are here to consider tonight, Mr. Chairman, is an amendment
specifically aimed at the Appalachian Regional Commission's road
program. Some of these projects, back to a catalog of ARC's long and
sordid history, include $2.9 million under the guise of economic
development for an access road to a Pennsylvania ski resort. The bigger
problem is that the roads or corridors in the Appalachian region have
access already to two other funding sources, with a request for a
third.
Essentially we have 13 States in the country which have been
receiving an

[[Page H5763]]

additional boost of economic aid now for 32 years, and now they are
trying to add a third source of income to still build more roads. Let
me, if I can, give my colleagues one example of how absurd this entire
program is.
In West Virginia, one of the corridors, known as Corridor H, has a
project that would rip through 41 streams and cut through two national
forests. The amazing thing involving that individual road project in
West Virginia is the fact that government studies show that traffic
levels along this corridor to be served by the proposed highway average
less than 3,000 vehicles a day. As my colleagues will know, when
driving to the U.S. Capitol in the morning, traffic is often backed up
in multiple directions. Three thousand vehicles a day barely approaches
the traffic at rush hour in the Capitol heading in one simple
direction. In fact, the national threshold is 10,000 vehicles a day.
Let me make this important point. The Director of the Appalachian
Regional Commission, Jesse White, has stated publicly that what local
residents need is not more money for new roads but increased support
for education and small business development.
In brief, even if my colleagues support the general principle of the
Appalachian Regional Commission, which I am not prepared to do at this
point, we have essentially told welfare recipients across this country,
``You've got 2 years to stand on your feet,'' and the Appalachian
Regional Commission we have already committed ourselves to 32 years of
funding. But even if Members buy the argument that the Appalachian
Regional Commission as a whole is still necessary, I would argue very
passionately this evening that $90 million more is not needed for road
projects when the ARC States already have money that comes through the
normal transportation cycle and through the normal economic development
channel. Those are moneys that the other 37 States get. The difference
is the Appalachian Regional Commission gets to ante it up one more
level.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is vitally important tonight that as we
attempt to balance the Federal budget, we as Republicans have an
obligation and a duty and a responsibility to revisit outdated Federal
programs, and as I have indicated, beginning since 1968, a whole raft
of us have tried to rein in the Appalachian Regional Commission. Let us
begin tonight by killing specifically the $90 million in new funding
for new highways this year in this appropriation bill in front of us
this evening.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee
on Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary.
Mr. ROGERS. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this
time and thank him for his tremendous work on this bill, incidentally,
as we take up this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, of course, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment. Here we go again. Two years ago, this House overwhelmingly
defeated a similar amendment. With all the talk of the exploding
economy around the country, I have to tell my colleagues that
Appalachia has not yet experienced it. This region represents the
poorest of the poor in our country. This amendment would halt a
commitment we made to millions of Americans in the Appalachian region
some 30 to 35 years ago. The interstate highway system through the
gentleman's district has been finished. But the highway system has
largely bypassed the Appalachian system, because, they said, ``We'll
let the Appalachian system build the highways in Appalachia.'' That was
the deal struck many, many years ago.
Now the gentleman's amendment would strike our commitment and our end
of the bargain to complete what passes for an interstate system in the
Appalachian region. These are not four-lane thoroughfares. These, by
and large, are two-lane paved roads through the poorest part of our
country. This amendment would leave vast pockets of this region without
access to national markets, but also without access to local markets.
While the interstate system is nearly 99 percent complete, the
Appalachian system lags way behind. It is only 78 percent complete.
This Congress is providing over $21 billion on the Federal highway
program. Yet this amendment would strip the poorest communities of $90
million for their highway construction. I maintain that is just not
fair.
Congress has already cut the Appalachian highway funding by half. We
have already cut it by half. It has delayed construction of needed
roads, roads that we take for granted in other parts of the country.
Even though the Appalachian system is only three-fourths complete, its
impacts are already considerable. Industries and businesses have grown
along the highways that we have built in this poor part of our country.
This growth should be allowed to continue. Let the people of the
Appalachian region join the rest of America in access to this growing
economy.
I urge my colleagues, in all fairness, as we did two years ago,
almost 3 to 1, reject the Klug amendment.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Kind].
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding me this time and for offering this amendment. I also commend
him for his diligent search for wasteful projects in the Federal budget
in an era, at a time when we are trying to balance the books.
The $90 million appropriated for the Appalachian Regional Commission
road projects is bad for the environment, bad for taxpayers, and one
more example of budget waste that should be eliminated.
I want to make it clear that I do strongly support the efforts of the
regional commission to cut poverty rates, reduce infant mortality,
provide health care access and increase high school graduation rates.
This amendment does not touch any of those programs in dollars. The
amendment only seeks to eliminate the $90 million that go to fund
highway projects in the 13-State Appalachian region.
In the past, highway money from the Appalachian Regional Commission
has funded environmentally unsound projects, such as the Corridor H
highway project that my colleague has already cited. The Corridor H
project does cut through two national forests. It rips up 41 streams.
It would bring thousands of cars and minivans into the scenic West
Virginia mountains. As my colleague has already noted, the commission
has funded inappropriate projects, such as the $750,000 for the
Carolina Panthers football stadium and $1.2 million for the National
Track and Field Hall of Fame.
But finally, the $90 million I think is an unfair distribution of the
highway funds. The State of Wisconsin has historically been a donor
State under the Federal highway funding system, meaning the taxpayers
there pay more in the Federal highway tax fund than they receive back
for their infrastructure needs. The people of my State only ask that
they get a fair distribution of the Federal highway dollars.

{time} 2245

At the same time the 13 States of the Appalachian region receive
Federal highway dollars as part of the ISTEA allocation and they
receive additional highway dollars through the Appalachian Region
Commission.
Now where I come from that is called double dipping, and it is unfair
to my constituents, and it is unfair to the taxpayers in the other 37
States in this country.
Now I am sure that there are people who represent the beautiful area,
can stand up and speak about all the great things that the Appalachian
Commission has done, and as I stated earlier I support most of these
efforts in the programs that are being accomplished in the Appalachian
region, and in fact the people of my State would love to have some of
these programs back home for their use. But in our attempt to balance
the budget, I believe that we can and should support programs to reduce
poverty and promote economic development, but allocate funds under the
appropriate avenue and venue such as ISTEA.
We cannot support pork being delivered to a few privileged States,
and it is time we stop the taxpayer handout and distribute highway
funds in a fair and equitable manner through ISTEA, rather than double
dipping as the commission is doing with these 90 million additional tax
dollars.

[[Page H5764]]

Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, before I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
help in the Marmet Lock situation and helping a lot of people in the
Marmet take area get some certainty by including some money for the
beginning of the Marmet Locks, and I thank the gentleman for his
nonpartisan way of handling this.
First, I want to ask the two gentlemen from Wisconsin who have spoken
so eloquently on corridor H, ``Have either of you ever driven corridor
H? Have you ever been on that segment of road that you're protesting so
much?'' The answer I think is quite evident by the silence. They have
not, and they have not driven the 40 miles of corridor H that was
completed from Weston to Buckhannon and then on to Elkins, and so they
have not seen the economic growth that is already taking place on that.
So I would use that as evidence of the academic background that I
bring, which is that the Appalachian Regional Commission studies
clearly document that every county with Appalachian Road Commission
highways has job growth three to four times as high as those
Appalachian and rural counties without.
And so before my colleagues go and talk about corridor H, I think
they ought to drive it and understand why it is that almost every
elected official in that whole area supports corridor H, but let us
talk about the 13 States that will also lose under this.
We started a program in this Congress a number of years ago, the ARC
highway system in which we were to build over 3,000 miles of roads in
almost impoverished areas, and the good news is that 75 percent of that
is complete. The bad news is that we still have some miles to go. And
it is not just West Virginia. I thank my colleagues for calling such
attention to our State and its beauty, but it is also 12 other States:
Alabama, Kentucky, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia. And there are
some others I probably should have included as well.
This is a project that is well underway, and I would also urge my
colleagues, since they have not driven corridor H, I would urge them to
drive corridor G and see what the Appalachian Regional System highway
is doing for southern West Virginia. I would urge my colleagues to
drive corridor D, and that is just in my State. Go to those other
States as well.
Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this, and let the ARC finish the
job that it set out to do.
Mr. McDADE, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Wicker], my very able friend.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Appalachian
Regional Commission and against the amendment offered by my friend from
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
The gentleman from Kentucky is correct. A similar companion amendment
was offered in 1995 at the beginning of this Republican Congress, and
it was rejected overwhelmingly on a bipartisan vote, and it was
rejected and the Appalachian Regional Commission was endorsed by this
body because we were able to demonstrate on the basis of the facts that
this program is a successful program, a program which has worked. It
has provided jobs for over 108,000 people in the Appalachian region, it
has helped to retain another 80,000 additional jobs, and highways are
an important part of the mix. The highways are 75 percent complete, but
we need to finish the rest of them.
Since the ARC with the highway program has been in place, the poverty
rate in the Appalachian region has been cut in half, infant mortality
has been cut by two-thirds, and out-migration has slowed. Also, Mr.
Chairman, I would state to you that this is a program which is still
very much needed.
In our region, per capita income is 16 percent below the national
average. The poverty rate in the region is 16 percent higher than the
national average. And I want to address this issue of double dipping.
Some of my friends have said well, Appalachia, through the highway
portion of it, gets an extra dip into the Federal Treasury. That is not
true at all. In the Appalachian region we receive 11 percent less in
total per capita Federal spending than the national average.
So please do not accuse us of getting more than our fair share. If
anything, we get less than the national average.
Mr. Chairman, this is level funding from the last fiscal year, it is
within our budget allocation, it continues us on a path which will put
us within the guidelines and bring us into a balanced budget by the
year 2002.
And let us say this: My friends have talked about welfare spending.
This is not welfare spending at all. This is spending to create
infrastructure, to create jobs in the private sector and to turn people
away from welfare and into taxpayers. It is government at its best, it
is money well spent, and I am sure the Members of this body will reject
the amendment just as they did in 1995.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself another minute or two.
Mr. Chairman, I want to, if I can for a moment, really strike at the
heart of the argument. The Appalachian Regional Commission was set up
in 1965 under the premise that if we poured more money from the Federal
Government into this area we would get an economic boom. Now I think
there is a flaw in this argument, because clearly 32 years later my
opponents are down here making the case they still need more money and
more years to turn it around.
My colleague and I are here from Wisconsin tonight. Wisconsin
actually ranks 50th in Federal spending in the country. The
unemployment rate in my home district is less than 2 percent. We have
not had Federal money for 30 years so let me make the argument, if I
can, that actually with increased Federal funding over the years, they
have actually put Appalachia at a disadvantage because it has been
dependent on Federal aid rather than standing on its own feet.
Let me also say that I understand that there are problems in
Appalachia with undeveloped regions, but so are there in California and
Florida and Alaska and Hawaii and New Mexico and every other State in
the country. But the bottom line is 13 States have been singled out,
and I would suggest after 32 years, 32 years is enough.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield a minute and a half to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] the distinguished ranking member.
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do
so, fully aware of the frustration that I felt, as the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has felt, with the Carolina Panther Stadium
construction project. I have concluded, frankly, that we ought to
remove discretion from the Governors of these States and target the
money to the poorest counties within Appalachia.
But this is a job for the authorizing committee. The fine-tuning of
the Appalachian Regional Commission should not be done on an
appropriations bill and not done on the floor at this hour of the
night. The road program is very valuable to many of the counties in
these States.
Mr. Chairman, I know there are many people on our side of the aisle
who will join the majority and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
McDade] in opposing this amendment.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim], the chairman of the
committee that handles this matter.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me.
This argument has nothing to do with how much money we put into this
particular region. This amendment is to save $90 million or stop
funding, no matter of $90 million on highway projects. That is why I am
rising in opposition to this amendment.
If we stop funding now, the highway project will just stop,
unfinished. That is not the way it should be. If we try to pick up this
highway program later, it is going cost twice as much, sometimes three
times as much. This is not a good practice, stopping the highway
program almost in the middle of completion.
As my colleagues know, 70 percent of the total 3,025 miles of highway
has been completed. We have only 22 percent to go. This is not the time
to stop it.

[[Page H5765]]

Second, the mentioning of this duplicate roadway funding; this is not
true. ISTEA funding was merely proposed by Mr. Clinton, and that
funding has not been approved by this Congress yet. Even if approved,
we are not talking about seeing overlapping funding. We are talking
about additional funding to accelerate those highway programs so we can
finish earlier rather than dragging on.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I will use the rest of my time to close. Fortunately, a
disagreement with my colleague from California; let me make it clear:
Since 1991, ARC roads or quarters received over $599 million in funding
from ISTEA for demonstration projects alone. That is on top of the
funding that is done on this bill. That is money that comes out of the
transportation appropriations bill, not out of energy and water. And
since 1993 ARC has received $688 million in additional funding from
this bill. Removing the $90 million does not stop funding the
construction of roads in Appalachia, it simply allows them to get
funding from the same sources that the 37 other States have to compete
for.
Now my colleague from California, Mr. Fazio, indicated his
frustration with the fact that $750,000 in economic development money
went into the Carolina Panthers football stadium. Let me refresh his
memory on some other things. Five hundred ninety-three thousand dollars
for the NASCAR Hall of Fame; $17,000 for the Alabama Music Hall of
Fame; $1,200,000 for the National Track and Field Hall of Fame; and
$10,000 to celebrate Bridge Day in Fayette County, West Virginia. I
imagine that is to celebrate the bridge that the Federal Government
also paid for along the way.
In closing, let me go back to the words of Jesse White, the
Appalachian Regional Commissioner. ``We are trying to seek more
balance,'' Mr. White said. ``Congress does not share those
priorities.'' He wants, according to the Cumberland Maryland Times,
``more money for education and economic development, not roads. This
year Congress placed $61 million in other commission programs but
directed $109 million to roads.'' That was back in 1996.
I think it is time we took Mr. White up on his advice: Preserve the
part of the Appalachian Regional Commission that does education and
economic development, and join me and my colleagues in zeroing out the
additional boost in money they get for highway projects.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time on our
side.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by
my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
A few years ago my district was expanded, as so many of us have
experienced in our careers in Washington. I picked up a section of
Appalachia. I was not very familiar with this new area. After spending
a little bit of time there, I saw how much this particular area had
been bypassed by the economic revolution that hit this country. Not
just economically bypassed, but they were bypassed by the Federal road
programs.
Unlike my friend from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] whose district benefited
from 90/10 interstate financing for the highway program, this area got
nothing until just a few years ago. The highway that was replaced was
one of the most dangerous highways in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
People were killed on that road, school buses were in accidents, and
children on their way to school were endangered.
Let me say that since the Appalachian Regional Commission has focused
on this problem, these unsafe conditions no longer exist. The road that
I am speaking of is now a safe highway and has contributed to the
economic development in this area.
I want to remind my colleagues as well that this program is, in my
view, one of the best intergovernmental programs that exists in the
Nation. It begins at the local level. It requires State participation
in the road program, a 20 percent local share, and it then must be
signed off at the Federal level.

{time} 2300

Local and State government involvement is something we talk about all
the time. Here is a program where it actually works. I hope that the
amendment will be roundly defeated.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of funding for the
Appalachian Regional Commission and in opposition to the Klug
amendment.
The amendment cuts ARC highway funding, a key ingredient in the
effort to move Appalachia into the Nation's economic mainstream.
But, ARC funding has already been cut by almost 50 percent over the
past 2 years. There's no more blood to be taken from this stone.
ARC serves the poorest and neediest in the country. In Kentucky, it
has helped us reach the lonely hollers. It has linked isolated
communities.
Our interstate highway system largely bypasses areas like eastern
Kentucky because of the cost of building roads over the mountains.
Except for a few communities on the major east-west routes, most
Appalachian communities have had a hard time competing for jobs because
of poor access to national markets.
But, the Appalachian Development Highway System is helping to link
our people with the outside world.
The facts speak for themselves. For instance, back in the 1980's,
improved transportation and roads created over half a million jobs in
local economies in Appalachia. And studies show that counties with
major highways have three times the job growth than those without.
More and better jobs are helping to make a difference. Since 1960,
ARC has helped cut the poverty rate in Appalachia by 50 percent. Infant
mortality is down by two-thirds, high school graduations have doubled.
Now, over 75 percent of the Appalachian Highway Development System is
either completed or under contract. But, key parts of it remain
uncompleted.
To cut off spending now that we are three-quarters of the way
finished just doesn't make sense.
Mr. Chairman, most of the poor isolated communities in Kentucky and
other States served by ARC desperately need this funding. They are
poor, and without it they won't be able to meet Federal match
requirements or leverage State or private dollars. It's essential.
Passing the Klug amendment today would be a sad setback.
Even in these budget balancing times, I don't know many Government
programs or agencies that have been cut in half. And certainly not many
that have as strong a track record as the Appalachian Regional
Commission.
Mr. Chairman, I've worked hard over the last 11 years in Congress,
fighting wasteful Government spending and opposing programs that don't
work.
But, ARC isn't one of those programs. In Kentucky ARC has made a
difference for the poorest of the poor and for our neediest
communities.
The Appalachian Regional Commission is one of those rare Government
programs that works. It deserves our support.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Klug amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 194, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug]
will be postponed.
Are there other amendments?

Amendment offered by Mr. Markey

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
Insert at the end before the short title the following:
Sec. 502. (a) Limitation.--No funds shall be made available
under this Act for--
(1) nuclear technology research and development programs to
continue the study of treating spent nuclear fuel using
electrometallurgical technology; or
(2) the demonstration of the electrometallurgical
technology at the Fuel Conditioning Facility.
(b) Reduction.--Under the heading ``Department of Energy-
Energy Programs-Energy Supply'' insert after the dollar
figure the following ``(reduced by $33,000,000)'' and under
the heading ``Department of Energy-Atomic Energy Defense
Activities-Other Defense Activities'' insert after the dollar
figure the following: ``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.

Mr. MARKEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?

[[Page H5766]]

There was no objection.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, may I make an inquiry? What is the
parliamentary procedure we are operating under now?
The CHAIRMAN. The 5-minute rule.
Mr. MARKEY. The 5-minute rule? There is no time limitation?
The CHAIRMAN. Not at this point. Would the gentleman request one?
Mr. MARKEY. Not at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which I am making with
the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Foley], along with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr.
Spratt], the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], and the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews]. It is an amendment that is going to
attempt to deal with a technology which is called pyroprocessing, which
is bad energy policy, bad environmental policy, bad budget policy, and
bad nonproliferation policy.
Friends, colleagues, countrymen, lend me your ears. We come to bury
pyroprocessing, not to praise it. The evil that dead government
programs do lives after them, while the good is oft interred with their
bones. So it is with pyroprocessing. Pyroprocessing is the last living
remnant of one of the biggest budget-busting boondoggles in
congressional history, the failed breeder reactor program.
Pyroprocessing is not exactly a household word. In fact, if Members
do not have a degree in physics they may not understand what it is, but
it is in fact a chemical procedure by which separation of plutonium and
uranium is in fact achieved, and the building blocks of nuclear bombs
are in fact made available to those who have the technology.
There is in fact a secondary definition in the Webster's Dictionary
for pyroprocessing, which is a very efficient and fast way for burning
money, taxpayers' money, with boondoggle projects that have been left
over as remnants from nuclear projects of the 1970's and the 1980's.
This is an amendment which is endorsed by the Citizens for a Sound
Economy, by the Taxpayers for Common Sense, by the League of
Conservation Voters, by the Physicians for Social Responsibility, by
the Natural Resources Defense Council, by the Friends of the Earth, and
by arms control groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists and
the Nuclear Control Institute, and it is on the top 10 list of the
Green Scissors wasteful, environmentally destructive programs that they
believe should be cut out of the Federal budget.
What more do Members want? Just about every leading budget,
environmental, energy, and nonproliferation group in America says this
is a bad idea, but it lives on because in fact we need someplace, I
guess, that we can have some of the leftover nuclear scientists who
have been left behind from the nuclear arms age to continue to work.
Mr. Chairman, the reality here is that pyroprocessing, according to
the Department of Energy, is a piece of equipment that is about the
size of a bathtub. Its original purpose was to be attached to the back
of the breeder reactor, a nuclear reactor that could create more
plutonium and highly enriched uranium than it burned.
Pyroprocessing technology would reprocess the spent fuel and extract
as much of the bomb-usable leftovers as possible. That way, reasoned
the nuclear industry, we could produce lots and lots of cheap nuclear
electricity and still make more nuclear fuel once we pyroprocess the
uranium and plutonium out of the spent fuel.
We all know what an oxymoron the phrase ``cheap nuclear energy'' has
become, and in 1994, after the Cold War ended, we found ourselves with
50 tons of extra plutonium that we did have to still get rid of.
Congress decided that pouring more money into the multi-billion-dollar
sinkhole that was the breeder reactor program was just pointless, so we
killed that program.
Pyroprocessing should have been terminated along with the nuclear
breeder reactor, but instead it has metamorphosed into something new
but just as deadly. It entered the Federal witless protection program,
hiding out in a DOE safe house. Advocates contend that the new pyro
identity was that the program would be a good way to treat DOE spent
nuclear fuel before it went into permanent storage at Yucca Mountain.
They said it was the only way to treat that fuel in order to make it
stable for permanent burial. They said pyroprocessing would take care
of everything. They were wrong.
Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition once again to the Markey
amendment. I think this is about the third time. This amendment would
zero out an appropriation of $20 million for a very important ongoing
environmental nuclear waste reduction research program which is being
conducted by the Department of Energy in Illinois and Idaho.
In addition, this amendment would, in the words of the Department of
Energy, also, if passed, zero out an additional $25 million, and as a
result, and I quote the Department of Energy, ``end all activities by
the Department of Energy to place the EBR II nuclear reactor in a
radiologically and industrially safe condition.''
In other words, it would end the shutdown of the EBR reactor,
something which the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and his
allies have worked so hard to achieve 4 years ago, to kill that nuclear
reactor.
I shall, however, refer primarily to the effect that this amendment
would have in ending a very valuable and ongoing research program, the
electrometallurgical treatment of DOE spent fuel. This is not
commercial spent fuel, but spent fuel owned by the Federal Government.
Electrometallurgical treatment is the new technology which, if
ultimately approved by the National Academy of Sciences and by the
Department of Energy, will greatly reduce the volume and the toxicity
of over 2,700 metric tons of more than 150 different types of spent
nuclear fuel stored at the various Department of Energy sites around
the Nation, in Idaho, Washington, Tennessee, South Carolina, and many
other States.
It is a new and exciting research of the treatment of Department of
Energy spent nuclear fuel which also locks up and makes inaccessible
plutonium that all fuel, spent fuel, contains, thus eliminating the
possibility of any proliferation of plutonium. It is locked up with all
the hot actinides that are radioactive. If anybody touches it they are
dead.
Any plutonium contained in this spent fuel would be bound up, as I
have said, in highly radioactive fission waste products and then
immobilized in a stable glass-ceramic waste form for burial. This is
not a nuclear reactor we are talking about, it is not a breeder
reactor. We are talking about burying spent nuclear fuel that is owned
by the public.

All of this can be accomplished at greatly reduced cost, compared to
what current technology is out there. Electrometallurgical treatment is
a research program designed to take spent nuclear fuel and make it less
in volume, less in toxicity and less threatening to the environment,
and thus suitable for burial. I cannot understand how anybody could be
afraid of that. It is environmentally sound and it does not pose a
proliferation risk, and it is strongly endorsed by the administration
and by the Department of Energy, who are not noted for being people who
favor proliferation, by any means.
The National Research Council, composed of members from the National
Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the
Institute of Medicine, all support the continuation of this promising
technology. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences is closely
monitoring the feasibility of this technology upon request of the
Department of Energy. They are doing a good job of monitoring it. They
are critical in their judgments.
This latest finding of the National Research Council states that
``The committee continues to support the overall recommendations of its
July, 1995 report,'' concluding that the Department of Energy ``should
proceed with its development plan.''
Mr. Chairman, 2,700 metric tons of nuclear waste poses a dire
environmental responsibility of the Federal Government and of this
Congress. It is not going to go away, no matter how

[[Page H5767]]

much we might hate nuclear power, as some people unfortunately do. We
need places in which to store spent nuclear waste. We need the
technology to treat these wastes in order to lessen their volume and
toxicity, and in order to assure their safe disposal in Yucca Mountain
or wherever.
Indeed, the Department of Energy is obligated, under the Federal
Facilities Compliance Act, to adequately prepare its spent nuclear fuel
for burial and to comply with the Federal Environmental Protection Act.
The Department of Energy, like all the rest of us, has to act. For
Congress to zero out such research would be an act of irresponsibility.
Mr. Chairman, we debated the same kind of amendment last year and the
year before that, and each time it was soundly defeated on a good,
solid, bipartisan vote. I think it deserves the same fate today. I urge
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Markey amendment.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, pyroprocessing, also known as electrometallurgical
treatment, is a relic of the budget-busting breeder reactor program
which Congress killed in 1994 by terminating the Advanced Liquid Metal
Reactor. According to a 1995 paper on pyroprocessing prepared by
Argonne National Laboratory, the basic technology was developed for the
integral fast reactor program, which until recently canceled, was the
United States' nuclear research and development program for advanced
liquid metal reactors.
The ALMR was to be a breeder reactor that was supposed to produce
more plutonium than it consumed, and pyroprocessing was to be used in
extracting the plutonium from the spent fuel to be reused for civilian
or military purposes. Since termination of the ALMR, supporters of the
pyroprocessing technology have, in effect, searched for a mission. Now
they say the technology is being developed to prepare spent nuclear
fuel for proper disposal.
However, according to the publication ``Nuclear Fuel,'' the only
thing certain about Argonne National Lab's effort to demonstrate
whether pyroprocessing is a viable and versatile spent fuel management
tool is that it will take longer and cost more to reach a conclusion on
its potential than originally thought.
The review also states that completion of this development and
demonstration program requires a proposed Argonne National Laboratory-
West spent nuclear fuel processing program that would extend beyond
fiscal year 2005, which is 6 years and at least $270 million behind
schedule. The National Academy of Sciences says the DOE must clearly
understand that additional funding will be necessary beyond the
demonstration phase to achieve the program's objectives.
Nevertheless, it is unclear at best that pyroprocessing technology
will ever meet its objective of simplifying disposal of certain types
of Department of Energy spent fuel. For instance, the National Academy
of Sciences has pointed out that the nuclear waste generated by
pyroprocessing is probably unsuitable for Yucca Mountain. If the
treated fuel is indeed stored at Yucca Mountain, radioactive materials
could be released into the environment at very clear risk to health and
safety.

{time} 2315

The fact is, pyroprocessing is not needed. In the 1980's, 59 cans
containing 17 tons of DOE spent nuclear fuel was shipped from the
Argonne National Laboratories to Rocketdyne in California, where the
unstable elements were neutralized.
The question then arises: Why should Congress continue to fund a
program that is not needed and will cost the U.S. taxpayers hundreds of
millions of dollars when there is no guarantee that its objectives will
ever even be met?
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Electrometallurgical treatment or pyroprocessing is finding answers to
our most difficult nuclear fuel disposal problems. This process will
greatly reduce the volume and the level of toxicity of spent fuel.
Spent nuclear fuel is not amenable to geological disposal because of
its nature. It ignites upon contact with air and explodes upon contact
with water. Pyroprocessing changes the composition of spent nuclear
fuel so that it may be disposed of by safely separating the uranium and
the plutonium contained in it. As a matter of fact, this process
changes the spent fuel to sodium chloride, more commonly known as table
salt.
Furthermore, the Department of Energy has stated that the plutonium
produced by this process is not suitable for making nuclear weapons.
DOE has further stated that the material produced from this process is
not attractive to those who might want to make a weapon.
Pyroprocessing is entirely consistent with the administration's
nonproliferation policies. This is not an issue of nuclear
proliferation. It is about developing a process that will allow for
safe disposal of nuclear wastes. Some wrongfully argue that the uranium
produced as a result of this process could be used to build nuclear
weapons. This could not be further from the truth.
Pyroprocessing changes the condition of uranium in such a way that it
is no longer capable of being used in nuclear weapons. Some may argue
that nuclear power should be done away with. Well, I am not here to
argue the merits of that position, but I will make one point. I will
point out that until such alternatives become reality, we must make
every effort to ensure that waste produced by nuclear plants is
disposed of safely. Pyroprocessing makes the disposal of spent fuel
safer.
The National Research Council has stated that pyroprocessing is the
result of well-established science that is technologically feasible.
The National Research Council has further stated that this research has
the capacity to become the basis for a larger global waste management
plan. In light of these facts, it would be irresponsible for us to cut
funding at this time.
Nuclear waste is a reality of our modern age. As responsible leaders,
it is incumbent upon us to support innovation and technology which will
benefit our constituents. Pyroprocessing is such a technology.
This is not corporate welfare. ET, electrometallurgical treatment, is
being developed to deal with DOE's own spent fuels. The research is
being performed by the nonprofit Argonne National Laboratory operated
by the University of Chicago on behalf of the DOE. It seeks to carry
out the congressionally authorized mission to clean up sites across
this country that supported our Nation's defense missions and to
protect human health and the environment now and in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. As some of my
colleagues have said, it has come up before, it has been soundly
defeated, but it seems, like a bad penny, to keep coming back.
Mr. Chairman, I support the chairman's mark for $20 million. The
chairman, by the way, who along with the ranking member worked very
hard to craft a bill that I think is a bill of substance. This $20
million for the electrometallurgical processing I think is vital. It is
vital R&D, and it is a program that hopefully will enable the
Department of Energy to treat its own, I am saying its own spent
nuclear fuel and convert it to a form that is safe for final disposal.
It is important, I think, to understand that a portion of DOE's spent
fuel is chemically reactive and it cannot, and I repeat, it cannot be
disposed of in its present form.
In fact it is my understanding that some of this fuel is pyrophoric.
I am not a chemist, but I do know what it means and I have been told by
a number of experts that it will spontaneously ignite when exposed to
air.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a program directed at research for the
commercial nuclear industry. It is not corporate welfare. Nothing of
the kind. The commercial industry does not need, does not even need
this technology. But who does? DOE does and America needs it.
Nor is it an R&D effort that will result in technology to separate
out the plutonium from the spent fuel. The

[[Page H5768]]

plutonium remains suspended in the spent fuel. There are no valid
proliferation issues associated with this technology. Rather, it is an
R&D program that will render DOE's own inventory of spent fuel safe,
while at the same time substantially reducing the volume of waste and
the cost of characterization, handling, storage and ultimately, of
course, disposal.
Mr. Chairman, this program is in its last year of funding. I urge
Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment so that can be completed as
requested by the department, and as recommended by the National Academy
of Sciences.
Mr. Chairman, I believe, as has been done historically, this has been
passed on a bipartisan basis two, three, four years going back. I think
we should do it again, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to join this stimulating debate that is taking
place at 11:20 here on electrometallurgical treatment. I know that my
colleagues are fascinated by it, but the fact of the matter is, it is a
very serious and important matter.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose, as I have in the past, the amendment
being offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], my very
good friend, and I would like to associate myself with the words of my
colleagues who have spoken in opposition.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], my friend from
Bloomfield Hills, has just raised the issue of corporate welfare. The
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rush] also raised that issue. The fact of
the matter is this is not corporate welfare. We are not talking about
the disposal of fuels that are in any way related with anything other
than direct government programs. We have the Department of Energy faced
with this very serious question of how to deal with this spent fuel,
and we have a very creative, positive solution which is being
researched and developed at Argonne.
It seems to me that as we look at this problem which is looming and
continues to grow, we have a responsibility to face it.
So Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join in strong opposition to
the Markey amendment. I strongly encourage them to support the position
that has been moved forward by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
McDade], chairman of the subcommittee, and the work of this
subcommittee.
It seems to me that when we look at the challenges that loom ahead,
we have a responsibility to look at every creative way that we can to
deal with this pressing issue, because it is not going to be an issue
that will in any way go away. It is one that is going to become greater
and greater. That is why the work at Argonne must continue. We have got
to have once again a very strong vote in opposition to the Markey
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join with us when we cast that
vote tomorrow.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey amendment. A number of
us are supporting it for a very real reason. We are very concerned
about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We are very concerned that,
as the cold war has ended, we are in a different kind of war, the kind
of war that will occur when terrorists or rogue nations get access to
nuclear weapons.
Mr. Chairman, we can have long and extended debates about this issue,
but the bottom line is that if we continue with pyroprocessing, we are
going to be allowing a process to be developed that is quite simple,
not complex, and nations that do not have a lot of resources will be
able to get this type of technology because once we develop it, we
cannot contain the knowledge. Once the knowledge is developed, it is
there to share with everyone. Terrorists will get it. That is the
bottom line.
We talk about this being a serious issue. It is a serious issue. The
promoters of this technique, pyroprocessing, make it very clear that
this process can be developed in a very small room. When we had dialog
about it, they said it could not be developed in a small room because
other ancillary services would be needed that would make this product
show up and be visible to many.
But, Mr. Chairman, the fact is this is a process that can be
developed in a small room. It is a process that separates uranium and
can also lead to the separation of plutonium. The trusted scientists
that we have spoken to make it very clear that while pyroprocessing
does not separate plutonium, a slight change in the process can
separate this item.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot speak strongly enough. I wish I could be more
eloquent about my feelings, but this is, in my judgment, something that
is important to Illinois and Idaho. It is important to these two States
because it is a jobs program. But it is absolutely deadly for this
Nation and the world. For that reason, I support the Markey amendment
and hope that tomorrow we will have the good sense to pass it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, there are so many red herrings that are
tossed out in a debate like this that we might as well put an aquarium
down in the well to contain them all as they are swimming around in
this debate.
Mr. Chairman, this is a technology which makes it possible to extract
highly enriched uranium. Highly enriched uranium can be used to make
nuclear bombs. Terrorists can find the designs for the building of
nuclear bombs on the Internet. It took me 10 minutes tonight to find
the documents titled ``Documentation and Design of an Atom Bomb'' on
the Internet; 10 minutes.
What are they missing? They are missing the enriched uranium. What
this technology does is make it possible for enriched uranium to be
extracted from a very small, very simple process that our Government is
funding.
Now, we have had a 25-year policy in the United States against
reprocessing, and it is a policy that we try to spread across the rest
of the globe. Now, what do we gain by having this tiny project, for our
purposes, be funded in the United States, having it be viewed by other
countries in the rest of the world who view us as hypocrites for
developing reprocessing technologies, and for the long-term not expect
those countries then to seek to emulate us?
Mr. Chairman, if we are in fact going to be realistic about the post-
cold war era that we live in, we live in a world of deregulation. The
United States and Soviet Union can no longer control the rest of the
world. So as a result these issues of nonproliferation loom larger in
our future.
Do we voluntarily want to undertake policies that gut a 25-year
message we have sent to the rest of the world that we are not going to
reprocess spent fuel in a way that can create nuclear bomb grade
material?

{time} 2330

Mr. Chairman, I think that is not the right direction for our country
to be heading into the 21st century. That is why I urge a yes vote on
the Markey amendment. We do this because for no other purpose we must
begin to seriously discuss in our country the real threats of the 21st
century, the threats of nuclear materials going from Russia into Iran,
from China into Pakistan or into Iraq. We must begin to discuss what we
ourselves can do to give the world leadership on this issue.
If we here tonight continue to fund a project which is nothing more
than a leftover from the breeder reactor debates of the 1970s and
1980s, then yes, for a very short period of time we might be able
vampirelike to allow this program to suck the budgetary life's blood
out of the taxpayers' pockets. But, Mr. Chairman, we will also be
sending a message to a couple of dozen countries in the world that
there is a technology that perhaps they as well should start to think
about availing themselves of, and this technology will come back to
haunt us because the next ayatollah could in fact have nuclear weapons.
The process that they use could very well be this process. The internet
tells them how to build it.
We should not in any way send a message that we think is appropriate
for it to be built. That is why I make this amendment this evening.
That is

[[Page H5769]]

why the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Foley] make this amendment this evening. It is that we
begin the process ourselves of giving the world leadership on an issue
that for several decades the United States and Soviet Union turned
their backs.
It is now time that we turn to this issue. We are never going to blow
ourselves up, the United States and the Soviet Union. What is 10 times
more likely to happen is that a terrorist or a Third World country will
gain access to this technology and then we will reap the whirlwind. I
thank the gentleman from New Jersey so much for yielding to me.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I was going to talk about the proliferation risk at the
end of my comments, but because of the impassioned speech we just heard
and the debate that we have heard, I think I will bring that discussion
to the forefront. In doing so, let me point out that this research has
been requested by the Department of Energy, supported by the
administration, authorized by both House committees of jurisdiction and
is being supported and monitored by our Nation's premier science
organization, the National Academy of Sciences. I ask, do you believe
that the Clinton administration with Vice President Gore heavily
involved in these environmental matters would endorse the
electrometallurgical technology if it constituted a proliferation risk?
Would both the committees of Congress, would the National Academy of
Sciences and the many other scientific groups and boards that have said
this research is so critical support this if it were a proliferation
risk? No, they would not.
The reason is because, even though we have had this same tired old
debate on every nuclear research project for the last four years it has
come up, it is always the same argument no matter what the research is
on the floor at the particular time. It must be a proliferation risk
because that seems to be the only thing that can be said by those who
simply want to shut down nuclear research in this country.
The fact is this is not a proliferation risk. Plutonium is not and
cannot be separated by this technology. The fact is that this
technology blends down plutonium and binds it with other types of
products so that it cannot be used in nuclear bombs. The chemistry and
physics of the technology does not allow this. The plutonium is
automatically bound together with fission products and other
transuranic elements, and those materials make the plutonium unusable
for weapons use.
Quite simply, this technology is self-protecting. And that is why
this Nation, that is why this administration, that is why the
committees of this Congress have endorsed it. And those who oppose it
do so in my opinion because they do not support nuclear energy research
and they do not want to have the beneficial results of this research to
occur.
Independent nonpolitical scientific review boards convened in 1986,
1992 and 1994 have all confirmed that this technology does not present
a proliferation risk. What is this technology? This technology that is
currently being developed by Argonne National Laboratory is a research
program designed to prepare spent nuclear fuel for proper disposal. It
is interesting for me to note that many of those who oppose this
technology are also opposing the legislation that will hopefully come
on this floor later this year to provide for the permanent disposal of
spent nuclear fuel. This technology has the potential to treat 2700
metric tons of DOE owned spent fuel, some of which has become seriously
degraded, as other Members who have spoken tonight have explained.
It is important to me in Idaho not only because the research is being
done there but because over the past few decades much of the spent
nuclear fuel of this country has been stored in Idaho. And the State of
Idaho recently in litigation with the Department of Energy has achieved
a negotiated result enforced by a court order that says that the
Federal Government has got to take that spent nuclear fuel, treat it
and store it somewhere else. And those who would stop this research and
those who would stop the implementation of storage facilities would
force that spent fuel to stay in Idaho over the aquifer which we have
fought so hard to assure that it must move to protect.
This research, as I said, has been supported by the administration,
the committees of Congress, and the scientific review boards that have
reviewed it have consistently supported it and said that it is needed
research. And a special committee at the independent nonpolitical
Academy of Sciences has reviewed this program extensively and is
monitoring its progress.
In their report, the committee recommends that DOE assign high
priority to electrometallurgical research at Argonne National
Laboratory saying that it represents a promising technology for
treating a variety of DOE spent fuels.
Mr. Chairman, the fact is that this research is critical to this
Nation's nuclear research policy, regardless of whether one supports
nuclear energy in the future, which I do, or whether one simply
supports solving the problems of the existing spent nuclear fuel that
needs to be handled. We must support this needed critical research and
we must not listen to those who continually throw up the false argument
of proliferation against every aspect of our nuclear program in this
country.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say I think the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] in bringing this amendment to the floor even
at this late hour, which I know is a frustration for him, does a
service to the institution, to this committee in that he makes us
rethink the position that I think most of us have come to; and that is
that we must support the administration's nonproliferation goals and
policies. He is obviously impassioned and deeply concerned about
nonproliferation. I think his colorful rhetoric sometimes gives Members
the impression that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] just
loves a fight. But we know in addition he is truly committed to keeping
the pressure on in this country to make sure that we do not
accidentally or without sufficient debate make decisions that we would
live to regret.
I know his opposition stems from a very strong advocacy of
nonproliferation and a fear that this technology could be used to
reprocess spent fuel to separate out the plutonium. He believes, I am
sure sincerely, that the department's research on this technology keeps
the possibility of reprocessing alive.

Let me read to my colleagues what has helped convince me of the
position that I take. It is a letter that was sent very recently by
Terry Lash, Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy Science and
Technology, writing to Chairman McDade. He says,

The electrometallurgical treatment technology is not
reprocessing. It cannot be used or modified to separate pure
plutonium. It is technically possible, he says, to modify it
to separate a highly radioactive mixture of actinides
including plutonium but this material would be
extraordinarily difficult to make into a weapon.
This material therefore is not at all attractive to those
who might want to make a nuclear explosive. It is doubtful
that a rogue nation or terrorist organization could do so
even if it wanted to.

I think that when we hear from our colleagues speaking sincerely, the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley], the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr.
Shays], talking about the rogue nation, the terrorist attack, we have
to look to the people whose job it is to protect us at all times from
that kind of threat. And we all know it is a greater threat, as the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] says, than the kind of
nuclear exchange that dominated our thinking during all of the cold war
years.
In addition, indicating to us that the pure recollection reprocessing
is easier to use, cheaper to set up and that can fit any facility,
probably the choice of those who would be rogue nations or terrorist
organizations, this letter points out that electrometallurgical
technology must be conducted in airless inert environments using
advanced remote handling equipment that is technologically far more
challenging than the conventional pure recollection reprocessing.
So I think we have seen a real debate within the administration. I
think they

[[Page H5770]]

have properly concluded that this is not the threat that some fear it
to be. And I would hope that Members would act as we have in the last 2
years to defeat this amendment and support a rational policy which
should be a bipartisan one. I think it will be reaffirmed as such this
evening.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 194, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Markey] will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 1998''.

Amendments Offered by Mr. Solomon

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. 502. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be provided by contract or by grant (including a grant of
funds to be available for student aid) to any institution of
higher education, or subelement thereof, that is currently
ineligible for contracts and grants pursuant to section 514
of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1997 (as
contained in section 101(e) of division A of Public Law 104-
208; 110 Stat. 3009-270).

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment Offered by Mr. Solomon:
Page 35, after line 20, insert the following new section:
Sec. 502. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be obligated or expended to enter into or renew a contract
with a contractor that is subject to the reporting
requirement set forth in subsection (d) of section 4212 of
title 38, United States Code, but has not submitted the most
recent report required by such subsection.

Mr. SOLOMON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon] offering the amendments en bloc?
There was no objection.
(Mr. Solomon asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I will not debate the amendments. I
mentioned the title of the first, it being a requirement on the
reporting requirements of hiring practices of veterans of the former
armed forces of the United States of America. The other is an amendment
that would require recruiters and ROTC units to be present on college
campuses. Both of these amendments have been offered to numerous
legislations and become law. I would appreciate if they could be
accepted here tonight.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from New
York, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, on his
amendments. We are pleased to accept them.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman. I have
nothing but praise for him and the ranking member and their staffs, for
the outstanding job that they do on a very difficult Appropriations
Subcommittee. We thank them very much for all of their efforts on
behalf of the entire body.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Given the fact that I had very little background or information about
what was coming on this bill, what seems to be on the surface an
extraneous amendment, I have been informed that we have supported this
in the past. The House has overwhelmingly done so. I will not object.
But I do find it a bit out of the ordinary.
Mr. Chairman, I will accept the gentleman's amendment.
However, as we go to conference, I would ask the gentleman to furnish
the committee with a more detailed description of what his amendment
will do and the problem that it seeks to address.
As I understand the gentleman's amendment, it would simply make
contractors who do business with the Federal Government comply with
existing Federal veterans' preference law.
I also understand that should such a contractor fail to comply with
the reporting requirements in the law, the contractor would be denied
Federal funds.
I certainly don't object to veterans preference, and I hope this will
ensure that DOE and other agencies are fulfilling their
responsibilities.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
The amendments were agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. 502. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control
Manual when it is made known to the Federal entity or
official to which the funds are made available that such
revision provides for an increase in the springtime water
release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow
melt period in States that have rivers draining into the
Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam.

Mr. BEREUTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Nebraska?
There was no objection.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the pending
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].

{time} 2345

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this common sense amendment is needed to
ensure that the Corps of Engineers does not repeat its previous
mistake, a proposal which would have devastated farms, businesses,
landowners and countless communities along the Missouri River.
In 1994, the Corps issued its proposed changes to the Master Manual
and made a colossal blunder by proposing to drastically increase the
flow and water level of the Missouri River during the months of April,
May and June. These, obviously, are the very months when States such as
Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri, especially in the area south of
Plattsmouth, NE, are already most vulnerable to flooding due to snow
melt and heavy rainfall in the internal watersheds that drain into the
Missouri River.
It is bad enough that farmers and other landowners along the river
have to contend with natural disasters, they should not be forced to
deal with the kind of man-made disasters that would have been caused by
the Corps' proposal. The floods and heavy spring rains of recent years
offer clear and convincing proof that the proposal was seriously
flawed.
At a series of two dozen hearings throughout the Missouri River Basin
region, participants expressed very strong, even vociferous remarks and
nearly unanimous opposition to a number of provisions in the Corps'
preferred alternative. One of the most detested provisions was the
increased spring rise.
Following this massive opposition to the proposed changes, the Corps
acknowledged the flaws in the original proposal and expressed a
willingness to reevaluate the issue. However, this Member believes this
common sense amendment is desirably discussed each year to make
absolutely certain that the Corps does not repeat this mistake.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member again heard the strong
concerns and objections to the current

[[Page H5771]]

Missouri River bottomland flooding from affected landowners and farmers
in Otoe County and Nemaha County at town hall meetings this Member held
on Monday of this week in Nebraska City, NE, and Auburn, NE.
Some of these individuals have had their crops destroyed by flooding
in 4 of the last 5 years. Their crop insurance costs are soaring and
they are understandably suffering great economic losses which do
threaten their survival. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is important that
any changes in the Missouri River Master Water Control Plan alleviate
this severe flooding problem and not accentuate it.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member will attempt to address this
subject throughout any appropriate authorizing committees.
I have had tremendous cooperation from the chairman and the ranking
member on this subcommittee, and I am very much appreciative of it. I
know that the rules, or the interpretation of the rules which made this
amendment possible to be considered in the last two Congresses are
different.
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the gentleman from Pennsylvania has
reserved a point of order and I would be willing to hear anything that
he wishes to say to me at this point, and will end my remarks by
conceding the point of order to the gentleman.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Point of Order

Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to my friend for conceding
the point of order. I am constrained to put the language on the Record
because, as the gentleman knows, he is attempting here to set a
precedent, and so we need to make sure that the Parliamentarian makes a
ruling.
Mr. Chairman, I object and make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause
2(c) of rule XXI.
The rule States in pertinent part, and I quote:

No amendment to a general appropriations shall be in order
if changing existing law, including an amendment making the
availability of funds contingent upon the receipt or
possession of information not required by existing law for
the period of the appropriation.

The amendment changes existing laws because it is based on receipt or
possession of information not currently required under existing law and
thereby imposes additional duties on a governmental official. This rule
was changed for the 105th Congress to specifically prohibit this
loophole, a technical loophole, which was used to circumvent the
prohibition of legislating on an appropriation bill.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling from the chairman.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to reluctantly agree, as I said,
to concede the point of order and express my general appreciation for
the treatment this Member has had.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will proceed to rule.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania makes a point of order against the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] that
the amendment violates clause 2(c) of rule XXI, which precludes an
amendment to an appropriation bill that changes existing law.
As the Chair ruled on July 15, 1997, clause 2(c) of rule XXI was
amended in this Congress to include in the definition of an amendment
``changing existing law'' one that makes the availability of funds
contingent upon the receipt or possession of information not required
by existing law for the period of the appropriation. Precedents to the
contrary from prior Congresses are no longer dispositive. The amendment
thus constitutes a change in existing law and is in violation of clause
2(c) of rule XXI.
Accordingly, the point of order is sustained.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Petri

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Petri:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to pay the salary of any officer or employee of the
Department of the Interior who authorizes, or implements the
acquisition of land for, or construction of, the Animas-La
Plata Project, in Colorado and New Mexico, pursuant to the
Act of April 11, 1956 (43 U.S.C. 620 et seq.) and the
Colorado River Basin Project Act (43 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

Mr. PETRI (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that no money can be
spent on land acquisition or construction of the Animas LaPlata Water
Project in Colorado and New Mexico.
Although this Energy and Water Appropriations bill does not contain
any additional funds for the Animas LaPlata project, there is
approximately $8.2 million of previously appropriated and unobligated
funds that remain, and the other body has appropriated an additional $6
million for this year. I believe the House of Representatives deserves
an opportunity to restate its view on this important issue.
As Members know, last year the House voted against the project by a
221 to 200 vote, removing its money from last year's appropriations
bill. Nine and a half million dollars was then inserted in the bill in
conference.
Fortunately, the supporters to the project have agreed that the
project as originally conceived cannot be built. Yet now they have
recently presented an alternative which still costs hundreds of
millions of dollars, still contains a number of objectionable features,
is not in compliance with existing Federal laws and, most importantly,
has not been authorized. This alternative is a new project and should
be authorized before it goes forward.
We appreciate the fact that the bill contains no new money for the
Animas LaPlata project, and we thank the chairman for that. Our concern
is that the committee report language directs that existing funds
continue to be spent on the project and that spending is not limited to
studies of alternatives. We do not believe any funds should be
committed to the construction of a project that everyone has abandoned
or an unauthorized alternative under the guise of the old project until
a new alternative has been developed and authorized.
There is, in fact, a negotiation process underway in the State of
Colorado led by Governor Romer and Lieutenant Governor Schoettler
discussing new alternatives and other possibilities. We support this
negotiation process and hope it results in an acceptable alternative.
But until it does so, it is completely premature to be appropriating
and spending any more money for the construction of the old project or
a new one.
I would just like to have the House be very clear that no funds
should be used to start construction until Congress has authorized a
new alternative, and that is what this amendment attempts to do.
I would ask all my colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I have a question for the gentleman from Wisconsin.
As the gentleman knows, there are a number of controversies
associated with this project, most notably environmental and cost
concerns, and as he mentioned, there are currently negotiations
underway attempting to address these problems and come up with an
alternative that addresses both of these concerns. We are calling it
the Romer-Schoettler process in Colorado and every place else.
What I am wondering is, if the gentleman's amendment would in any way
prohibit any Department of Interior personnel from participating in the
Romer-Schoettler process or in any way exclude or interfere with this
resolution process?
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as I have previously
stated, the only limitation on the use of

[[Page H5772]]

the funds would be on activities related to the acquisition of land for
the construction of the project as originally authorized.
In fact, it has always been our intention that by eliminating the
funds in this way, the funds would still be available for the study and
planning of a reasonable alternative.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
just so that I may follow up, there are currently approximately $8.2
million in unobligated funds in the Animas LaPlata account. Under this
amendment, could these funds be used for the continued involvement of
Department of Interior personnel in the Romer-Schoettler negotiations
or any other negotiations designed to develop an alternative that will
resolve the environmental and cost concerns associated with this
project?
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, that is right. As I have stated, the only
limitation on the use of funds would be on activities related to the
acquisition of lands for or construction of the project as originally
authorized.
It has always been our intention that by eliminating the funds in
this way, the funds would be still available for the study and planning
of a reasonable alternative.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Fazio of California as a Substitute for the
Amendment Offered by Mr. Petri

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a
substitute for the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Fazio of California as a
substitute for the amendment offered by Mr. Petri:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
None of the funds made available in this act to pay the
salary of any officer or employee of the Department of
Interior may be used for the Animals-La Plata Project, in
Colorado and New Mexico, except for (1) activities required
to comply with the applicable provisions of current law; and
(2) continuation of activities pursuant to the Colorado Ute
Indian Water Rights settlement Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-585).

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Petri amendment and in support of an amendment that I have just offered
along with the gentlemen from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] and [Mr. McInnis]
as a substitute on Animas LaPlata.
The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] and the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], his colleague, have been really spoiling for a
fight on this subject all year long, and I think what they are showing
us tonight is they are not going to allow the lack of funding for the
project in our bill to stand in the way of having that debate.
In a sense, our colleagues are really asking us to revote last year's
amendment because this amendment, really, has to do with spending last
year's funds. The effect of their amendment would be to prevent the
Interior Department's agencies and employees from doing the one thing
they have said to be seeking in the past, and that is a cost effective
alternative to the full-blown Animas LaPlata project.
The effect of their amendment would also be to throw in enormous
obstacles in the way of the successful Romer-Schoettler process. The
tribes and their neighbors are cooperating in the process in good
faith. Proposals, in fact, for changes in this project are due July 31,
not very many days from now.
The tribes made their proposal a few weeks ago, and when it is
advanced for authorization, we will have the opportunity to debate it
on its merits.
The good faith of the tribes is demonstrated by their proposal, which
cuts the project cost by $400 million, almost entirely because the non-
Indian irrigation components have been removed, one of the great goals
of the environmental movement through the years.
Shelving the irrigation features also eliminates any water quality
concerns. Two-thirds of the water would go to the tribes and depletions
are limited to 57,100 acre-feet, in full compliance with the Endangered
Species Act.
All of these proposed changes respond in a responsible manner to
concerns the amendment sponsors have raised in previous debates.
The tribes will not accept a buy-out of their water rights. That
point was emphasized by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt during our
committee hearings. The tribes want real water, wet water, not a paper
right and the promise of cash.
The tribes have been cooperative and they have been remarkably
patient.
The amendment I am offering with the gentlemen from Colorado [Mr.
Skaggs] and [Mr. McInnis] is a substitute to the language that would
not permit construction to go forward immediately. But unlike the Petri
amendment, it will allow the tribes' trustee, the Department of the
Interior, to participate in a process which seeks a less expensive way
to fulfill our obligation to the Colorado Ute tribes.
The substitute amendment is fair, I think it is evenhanded and,
better yet, it, as my colleagues have heard, has the bipartisan support
of the Colorado delegation, who know more than anyone how difficult
this process has been and the type of balance that is finally being
obtained through this process that has long alluded us.
This has been an issue that has been before this committee for as
long as I have served on it, I believe 18 years. The substitute
amendment is evenhanded and will permit this process that the governor
and lieutenant governor engaged in to go forward. I do not think any of
us want to interfere with the downsizing and the improvement of a
project that obviously has cried out for change.

{time} 2400

If we let this process proceed and agreement can be reached, we can
move forward to complete a scaledown and improved project rather than
have to leave it for future deliberation in a way that will only serve
to meet the goals of those who want no project whatsoever and have no
interest in compromise.
I hope the Members will accept this as a real step forward in lieu of
the kind of amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Petri], which I think would put an end to the good-faith
negotiations now underway.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that it is too late; the
substitute has already been offered.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words. I rise to address the substitute amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important. First of all, let me
thank the gentleman from California. The gentleman from California has
been very cooperative. The gentleman from California understands the
history of the Animas-La Plata project. The gentleman from California
understands the importance of bipartisan support, which this project
has had through a number of Congresses, through a number of Presidents,
through a number of State legislatures.
This project is in compliance with an agreement made by the United
States Government with the Indian tribes of this country. We gave the
Native Americans our word that we would comply with an agreement if
they simply would not sue us in the courts to get the water that we
originally promised them.
Let me quote from an article from a good friend of mine, Bob Ewegen,
from the State of Colorado. It involves a fellow named Otto Mears:
`` `The Utes, for whom the San Juans had been home for generations,
naturally resented the rush of the white man to the lands they
considered their own. Otto Mears made removing the Indians to smaller
reservations in the west his first order of business, thereby opening
his area to settlement. He played a prominent role in drawing up the
various treaties by which the Utes lost their lands. The first was the
Brunot Treaty of 1873, named for Felix Brunot, the United States Indian
Commissioner, in which the Utes gave up their San Juan area,' that is a
massive area in the State of Colorado, `for a payment of $25,000 a
year.
`` `. . In 1880 Mears was asked to serve as one of the five
commissioners to make another treaty with the Utes. The government was
prepared to pay $1.8 million to the Indians for the balance of their
land, 11 million acres on the Western Slope' of Colorado. `Mears had a
better idea. He gave each Indian $2 to sign the treaty, thereby saving
the government, the United States Government, practically the total sum
that it expected to pay.' ''.

[[Page H5773]]

``Promise them $1.8 million. Give them two bucks. How typical of the
United States Government. Unfortunately, things haven't changed much
since 1880. In 1988 Congress passed the Colorado Ute Indian Water
Rights Settlement Act to honor water rights that were granted the Utes
more than a century ago in 1868.''
Ever since, we have worked hard to pass the Animas-La Plata water
project in compliance with that agreement. ``The only way that this
would be is to convert these legal rights into `wet water' that the
tribes can actually use. But ALP, the Animas-La Plata, ``has been
blocked by a coalition of fiscal conservatives,'' theoretically, ``and
what I call `theme park' environmentalists.''
And the article goes on. The intent of the article is the reflection
of the history, the sad history of the way that the Native Americans
have been treated in this country. And once again, this Congress,
through the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] is
about again to add to that sad history, and that is to break the word
that we gave to the Native Americans.
Now that water that we stole from them originally, we agreed to give
the water back to them. We did not give it back to them, so they sued
us. We asked them to drop the lawsuit. We promised them we would give
them wet water, not money, not beads, not an ax handle. We would give
them water, a water project.
We agreed to it. This Congress agreed to it. The previous Congress
agreed to it. The previous Congress agreed to it. Previous Presidents
agreed to it. And now, once again, here we are on the verge of breaking
the word and the honor of the United States Government.
Do not support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin,
because all we do is put into effect a participatory breach of contract
with the Native Americans. I urge everyone in the Chamber to support
the substitute amendment of the gentleman from California. That is what
is fair. That is what is just. And frankly, that is what keeps our word
with the Native Americans.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute
amendment.
Mr. Chairman and Members, this Nation has a moral and legal
obligation to meet the water right claims of the Ute and Mountain Ute
Indian tribes in southwestern Colorado. We should recognize and
stipulate to that.
The second thing that I think we all recognize, and the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] in particular, that the existing authorized
means of accomplishing that purpose and meeting that obligation, the
original Animas-La Plata project, is excessive in cost and damage to
the environment. It will not and should not be built as originally
designed. But we cannot let that legitimate opposition to the old
Animas-La Plata configuration cloud or compromise the vigor of our
commitment to meet the Indian water rights claims that are at stake
here.
Unfortunately, I am afraid that the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin will have that effect, and so I oppose it.
There is an important effort underway now in Colorado that has already
been discussed under auspices of Governor Romer and Lieutenant Governor
Schoettler, a search for a compromise between proponents and opponents
of the old Animas-La Plata project. I want to see that effort through
to a successful conclusion if that is at all possible.
I believe the substitute makes clear that the Nation will not renege
on its commitment to the tribes. Admittedly, I think this debate may be
largely symbolic. I do not know that the substitute will have a
significant effect on changing the legal landscape. I am not sure that
the gentleman's original amendment will have much effect either. But I
do believe, and regrettably, that there is a connection between this
year's amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin and last year's, which
was, I think, a much more directed attempt to end this effort
altogether, and therefore there is an understandable interpretation
that this represents an effort to undermine that fundamental commitment
to meet the tribes' water needs and their water rights. And for that
reason, we cannot let that proceed.
Mr. Chairman, I am fully aware of the problems with the original
project, serious environmental problems, serious problems with cost.
But the fact is, as I said, that it is legally linked by law passed by
Congress and signed by President Reagan to settlement of water rights
to two Indian tribes. Killing the project without providing an adequate
alternative to accommodate those rights would repudiate the settlement
and I am afraid lead to costly litigation.
Let us let the Romer-Schoettler process go forward. Let us try to
bring the parties together to a compromised solution if we possibly
can. I hope that, therefore, we will support the substitute and reject
the original amendment and allow this process to go forward.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against the substitute.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I apologize to you and Members since I
had not had an opportunity to read the amendment and it was not
submitted to anyone or printed in the RECORD to stand to my feet to
object. I have reserved a point of order and perhaps could have saved
some time, because it appears to me, at least on the face of it, that
it is legislating on appropriation and would not withstand a point of
order.
Leaving that aside, nonetheless, it is somewhat of a symbolic
argument in that the issue really here is pending the negotiations
going on in Colorado to come up with a viable project that honors the
Indian treaty rights and is environmentally sensible at the same time:
Do we continue down the road of a roughly $750 million project that is
a road to nowhere, at great expense to the taxpayers' spending, money
that is in the pipeline; or do we stop what is being done now until we
have a new project that in fact there is a consensus for?
We are arguing not to throw good money after bad. Let the
negotiations go forward. Do not bias those negotiations by continuing
to spend money on a project really to nowhere. And, therefore, I would
oppose this amendment since it would encourage and permit the spending
of money that might be wasteful
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to assure the gentleman, I do
not want to go down that road either. That is a road that has properly
now, I think, been blocked. And progress that has already been made
under the discussions convened by the Governor and Lieutenant Governor
I think make that clear. But I want to assure the gentleman anyway of
my opposition to that original overpriced, overblown project that would
have had serious environmental consequences that I agree with him are
uncalled for.
Mr. PETRI. Reclaiming my time, as I said, I have not had a chance to
read the amendment completely, but as best I can tell, the basic
difference between the amendment that I offered and the substitute is
that ours would insert in the bill language to the effect that no
activity can be conducted that would provide for implementing the
acquisition of land for or the construction of the current Animas-La
Plata project. And that would obviously be pending the negotiations and
the new project coming forward.
This substitute amendment provides, yes, you can go ahead and
continue spending money and engaging in activities pursuant to the
Colorado Ute Water Settlement Act of 1988; in other words, biasing the
negotiations that are now going on in Colorado. I think that would be a
mistake, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the substitute and
support the underlying amendment.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, the concern that we have about the
amendment that my colleague has placed out as his amendment, while
there are negotiations going on in Colorado, the Romer negotiations,
your amendment gives tremendous leverage to the opponents of the
project. Our position is that we should maintain the status quo in the
House and that if a compromise is reached by these parties, that that
compromise be free to go forward.

[[Page H5774]]

We are under a time limitation, a contractual time limitation, to
deliver this project to the Native Americans to avoid being in breach
of contract.
Mr. PETRI. Reclaiming my time, there is mutual suspicion, obviously,
in this. But the report language accompanying the bill that we are
considering today does contain language providing for continued
spending on the project.
My amendment was an effort to overcome that support language and
provide for what we regard as a more neutral field. And, hopefully,
there will be some discussions before this comes out of conference and
maybe the whole thing can be resolved at that point, I think, we have
identified the area of difference.
Mr. REDMOND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, 41 years ago, when I was 2 years old, there were Native
Americans in the American Southwest who were carrying water in buckets
to their homes. Plenty of water ran through their land but there was no
way to store it or transport it, and therefore, it was virtually
useless.
The United States Government promised them a storage and delivery
system which became known as the Animas-La Plata water project. For 41
years, this promised storage system has been studied and analyzed, and
today our Native American brothers still carry water in buckets to
their homes. Cost concerns have been raised and addressed, and still
our Native American brothers carry water in buckets to their homes.
Environmental concerns have been addressed and resolved, and still our
Native American brothers carry water in their buckets to their homes.
In good faith, they have shared some of their water rights with their
neighbors to entice this body to keep its word. Several weeks ago,
Native American tribal leaders, local water officials, and members of
the Colorado and New Mexico delegations came together to show their
unified support for the Animas-La Plata reconciliation project. This
significantly revised proposal cuts the cost of the original project by
two-thirds. It satisfies the NEPA process, and it meets the
requirements of the Indian Water Rights Settlement Act.
But tonight my colleagues, using dated information, are offering an
amendment that not only prevents further funding of this project, it
prevents even negotiation under the Romer-Schoettler process. The
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] and the gentleman from California
[Mr. Fazio] offer this amendment despite the fact that their concerns
with the original project have been addressed.
My colleagues have long been opposed to this project for its cost.
The revised proposal is two-thirds the original cost of the project.
They claim the original plan does not satisfy the requirements of the
Indian Water Rights Settlement Act, the revised plan does satisfy those
claims, and the tribes are willing to sign an agreement stating such.
My colleagues oppose the old plan because they believe the
construction time limitation would be exceeded. The new project will be
completed by 2005, a date the tribes have agreed upon.

{time} 0015

My colleagues claim that significant environmental concerns will be
raised with the construction of this project. All National
Environmental Policy Act requirements will be met.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to do the right thing. It is time to fulfill
the promise that the U.S. Government made decades ago to the Colorado
Ute Tribes. If this body does not act tonight to support this project,
our native American brothers will settle this in the courts and they
will most certainly win. When they win, the U.S. Government will not
only pay for the construction of the Animas La Plata Water Project, it
will pay for litigation costs and for damages as well. It is time to
put an end to the days that our native American brothers must carry
water in buckets to their homes. Let us keep our word.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Fazio amendment to the
Petri-DeFazio amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following article from Colorado for the
Record:

Two Bucks for a Birthright

(By Bob Ewegen)

There's a stained glass window in the Colorado Senate
honoring Otto Mears as: ``The Pathfinder.''
My wife would offer a blunter title for Mears: ``The
Scoundrel.''
My wife, novelist Yvonne Montgomery, is part Cherokee and
thus sympathizes with the Utes, who once owned almost all of
Colorado's Western Slope--thanks to one of those famous
treaties solemnly binding the Great White Father to protect
his red children as long as the rivers run, the grass grows
and the Broncos lose the Super Bowl.
In practice, those treaties lasted until Great White Father
discovered something else he wanted to steal. Then the rivers
would dry up, the grass would stop growing, and the Broncos,
after losing to the Jaguars in the playoffs, would ask the
taxpayers to buy them a new teepee. And the Indians would
lose still more of their land and water.
U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis, who represents the Western Slope
and Pueblo, reminded me of that sordid past last week by
facing a chapter from a delightful book by Gladys R. Bueler,
``Colorado's Colorful Characters,'' published by Pruett Press
in Boulder.
Bueler notes that silver and gold were discovered in 1871
in the San Juan mountains, where Mears operated a freight
business.
``The Utes, for whom the San Juans had been home for
generations, naturally resented the rush of white men to
lands they considered their own. Otto Mears made removing the
Indians to smaller reservations to the west his first order
of business, thereby opening this area to settlement. He
played a prominent role in drawing up the various treaties by
which the Utes lost their lands. The first was the Brunot
Treaty of 1873, named for Felix Brunot, the U.S. Indian
Commissioner, in which the Utes gave up their San Juan area
for a payment of $25,000 a year.
``. . . In 1880 Mears was asked to serve as one of the five
commissioners to make another treaty with the Utes. The
government was prepared to pay $1.8 million to the Indians
for the balance of their land, 11 million acres on the
Western Slope. Mears had a better idea. He gave each Indian
$2 to sign the treaty, thereby saving the government
practically the total sum it had expected to pay.''
Promise them $1.8 million. Give them two bucks. How typical
of the government. Unfortunately, things haven't changed that
much since 1880. In 1988 Congress passed the Colorado Ute
Indian Water Rights Settlement Act to honor water rights that
were granted the Utes more than a century ago, in 1868. Ever
since, McInnis and Sen. Ben Campbell have worked hard to pass
the Animas-La Plata water project near Durango, the only way
to convert those legal rights into ``wet water'' the tribes
can actually use. But A-LP has been blocked by a coalition of
fiscal conservatives and what I call ``theme park''
environmentalists.
Theme-park environmentalists are those souls, usually
Easterners or transplants from the East, who profess to love
the West. But what they really love is a fantasy image of the
West as it never was--and they don't want the people who
actually live in the real West to mess up their theme park by
earning a living. They want us natives to remain in a quaint
and colorful condition, ready to ferry our environmentalist
overlords on their rare rafting trips or serve as their maids
and bartenders at our ski resorts. But let a rancher graze a
few cows in the high country, and the first yuppie backpacker
to step in a cow pie will--what else?--have a cow.
The theme-park environmentalists have now replaced Otto
Mears in the time-dishonored effort to cheat the Utes out of
their legacy. In their latest scam, the theme parkers have
promised that if the Utes will abandon their support for A-
LP, the enviros will ask Congress to give them $167 million
to buy up some land and water rights. Of course, the Utes
already own plenty of such abstract water rights. What they
need is a ``bucket''--the Ridges Basin Reservoir--to store
that water so the Utes can use it when they need it.
If the fiscal conservatives in the congressional coalition
opposing A-LP are fair, they'll accept the offer the Utes
made last week to slash the cost of the project from $714
million to $257 million. But if Congress won't even
appropriate $257 million, why should it give the Utes $167
million? The fact is, the theme-park environmentalists are
just following the path blazed by Otto Mears when he promised
the Utes $1.8 million and delivered two bucks.
This time, the Utes should tell the Sierra Clubbers to keep
their $2--and go jump in the lake. Specifically, into a
Ridges Basin reservoir filled with Ute-owned water.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the Fazio amendment. I am happy to join
my colleagues from Colorado, from New Mexico, and from California,
indeed all the members of the subcommittee that heard the testimony
with respect to this project. We think they have done yeoman work in
attempting to meet the criticisms that were leveled on the much
different project that was proposed some time

[[Page H5775]]

ago. I congratulate them for a marvelous debate tonight in showing
their concern for our native Americans and the need for the Government
to live up to the water rights that have been agreed to. I hope the
substitute amendment will be roundly accepted.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fazio substitute
and in opposition to the Petri-DeFazio amendment. The effort to scuttle
the Animas-La Plata project has arisen year after year with accusations
of corporate welfare, antienvironmental impacts, and excessive cost.
But a good faith effort is being made to reach a compromise that
addresses the high cost and eliminates water quality concerns. The
concerns raised by the opponents of this project are being addressed.
But the Petri-DeFazio amendment would stop that effort in its tracks.
It would freeze the Interior Department out of the only process that is
examining alternatives to the full blown Animas-La Plata project.
Mr. Chairman, that's just not right. The Indian tribes involved in
this effort, like it or not, have agreements with the Federal and State
governments--the promise to meet the water supply needs of the Ute
Tribes goes back over a century.
I urge my colleagues to support the Fazio amendment--it prohibits
construction from going forward but allows the Interior Department to
continue its role in working out a reasonable alternative to the
current project. Hopefully, this approach will allow the Federal
Government to fulfill the commitment it made to the Ute Indians so long
ago.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] as a substitute for the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 194, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]
as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] will be postponed.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr.
McInnis] having assumed the chair, Mr. Oxley, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2203) making
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________