[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.

                          ____________________