[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8173-H8184]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H8173]]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, On rollcall vote No. 467, I was unavoidably
detained in New Jersey attending funeral services for Florence Rothman.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 254, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2203), making appropriations
for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1998, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). Pursuant to House Resolution 254,
the conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
September 16, 1997, at page H7917.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade]
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from California
[Mr. Fazio] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade].
{time} 1145
General Leave
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on the pending bill and that I may be permitted to include tabular and
extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ney). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise, of course, in support of this conference report
and urge my colleagues to do likewise. We are delighted, all of us on
both sides of the subcommittee, to present this bill before the close
of the fiscal year, and may I say to my colleagues that this required
cooperative efforts on both sides of this aisle and on both sides of
the Capitol to get this done.
We met in conference and concluded last Wednesday, after a very
difficult series of negotiations with the Senate. The key numbers are
that this bill is $2 billion, roughly, lower than the administration's
budget request appropriating $20.7 billion. It is also lower than the
Senate level. And of the total amount, $20.7 billion, roughly 56
percent of it is devoted to the atomic energy defense activities, the
050 account within the Department of Energy.
We had a lot of difficult issues, Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased that
we were able to work them out in a manner that protected the Members of
the House and the prerogatives of the House. As a consequence of all of
that, the final appropriation for the Corps of Engineers is $3.9
billion, which is very roughly, almost to the penny, the amount that
was agreed upon when we left the House.
In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, may I say that there were a number
of initiatives that were agreed upon by the House, numbering about
seven general provisions, all of which in one form or another survived
the conference. I want to say to my colleagues in the House that they
bear a bit of their attention because they do represent significant
reforms with respect to the Department of Energy.
As we went through this account exercising our duty for general
oversight, we discovered, to our shock, that the Department of Energy
had the authority to enter into M&O contracts without ever going to
competitive bid. The worst case that we found, Mr. Speaker, was a bid
that had been outstanding and extended periodically, since the
Manhattan Project, 40 years ago. I am talking about a contractor, Mr.
Speaker, for 40 years not having to bid on a contract.
There are other examples, as well. That is the worst case. We denied
them the opportunity of getting to go to a no-bid unless there is a
unique research project, like hiring Albert Einstein, in which case we
might consider a waiver. But they must get a waiver and they must
consult with us.
We found out, as well, that the same sort of exemption removed the
Federal acquisition regulations from the Department of Energy. In other
words, they could not only go out and do a no-bid contract, but they
could do one that need not comply with the Federal regulations on
acquisition which apply to every other agency of the Government.
Mr. Speaker, those Federal acquisition rules and the requirement for
competition are the taxpayers' guarantee that we will have competition
and, therefore, lower prices and higher quality work. There will not be
any rip-offs or abuses, or at least as few as we can help. And we hope
we do not have any within the Department.
Perhaps the most difficult issue that we had as we went through the
debate with the Senate was the issue of TVA. As my colleagues will
recall, there was a zero appropriation for appropriated accounts within
the TVA. We met with the Senate, which had a substantial amount; and we
finally agreed, as we should have, on a number that represents a 33-
percent reduction in appropriated funds for the TVA for the last fiscal
year. And perhaps most importantly, working with all of my colleagues
who have great interests, in return for that we agreed that this would
be the final year in which TVA will receive any kind of appropriated
dollars.
An item of great interest to the Members is the Bay-Delta
Environmental Enhancement and Water Supply project in California; $85
million is included in the bill for that important project that affects
the San Francisco Bay-Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary in Northern
California.
The amount is less than the $120 million that we appropriated, with
the great help of my friend from California. But it is considerably
more than the $50 million that the Senate included. And I think
everybody's last analysis is this will really kick-start the project
and get it moving expeditiously.
Mr. Speaker, there were several other items that were within the
conference report with which we had great difficulties. We have
resolved them. This is a unanimous conference report. Every single
conferee has agreed to the provisions.
I want to say to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that without the able
cooperation of the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the ranking
member, we would not have achieved that kind of unanimity. I want to
commend every single member of the subcommittee. Every one of them has
put an imprint and a footprint on this bill and a positive one.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the very able staff members,
who burn the midnight oil 24 hours a day, many days a week to bring
this work product to us. I hope that there will be a resounding vote in
the House to adopt it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement to
accompany H.R. 2203, making appropriations for energy and water
development in fiscal year 1998.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the conference agreement on energy and
water development is being considered by the House before the
expiration of the current fiscal year. Getting this agreement to the
floor expeditiously required the concerted and cooperative efforts of
the conferees from both sides of the Hill and both sides of the aisle.
I am especially proud of the managers on the part of the House, whose
dedicated work produced a fair compromise agreement.
The conference on the energy and water bill concluded last Wednesday
night after difficult negotiations with the Senate. The total amount of
spending in the conference agreement is $20.7 billion. This represents
an increase of $729 million above the House level and $782 million over
the fiscal year 1997 level. This amount, however, is $1.9 billion lower
than the administration's budget request and $58 million below the
Senate recommendation for fiscal year 1998. Of the $20.7 billion
appropriated, $11.5 billion or 56 percent is committed to the atomic
energy defense activities of the Department of Energy.
Negotiations were particularly arduous this year because of the
substantial differences between the House and Senate versions of the
legislation. I am pleased to report that the House conferees
successfully defended the House position on a great number of items in
disagreement between the two Chambers. In particular, the House
conferees protected the interests of Members in water infrastructure
development; as a consequence, the conference committee agreed to a
final appropriation of $3.9 billion for the water resource programs of
the Army Corps of Engineers. This amount, which is nearly identical to
the House-passed level, is $262 million higher than had been included
in the Senate bill.
Furthermore, the final agreement includes a number of initiatives
recommended by the
[[Page H8174]]
House, including: General provisions to promote greater accountability
and efficiency within the U.S. Department of Energy; transfer of the
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program from the Department of
Energy to the Corps of Engineers; and a requirement for external review
of DOE construction projects. The conferees crafted a delicate
compromise with respect to the Tennessee Valley Authority. For fiscal
year 1998, TVA will receive $70 million for its nonpower programs; this
represents a 33-percent reduction from both the fiscal year 1997 level
and the fiscal year 1998 budget request. For fiscal year 1999 and
thereafter, the Authority will have to pay for these programs with
internally generated revenues and savings.
The conference agreement also includes $85 million for the Bay-Delta
Environmental Enhancement and Water Supply project, a new multiagency
effort to protect and enhance water resources in the San Francisco Bay/
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta estuary (the bay-delta) in northern
California. Although this amount is less than the $120 million
recommended by the House, it is considerably more than the $50 million
included in the Senate bill. We are confident that this sum,
representing a generous first-year installment on a multiyear Federal
commitment, will be sufficient to kick-start the effort to save the
bay-delta.
As previously noted, the conference agreement includes a number of
general provisions within the Department of Energy title of the bill.
These provisions, originally recommended by the House, are intended to
enhance accountability, promote efficiency, and control mission creep
at the Department of Energy. One of these provisions, section 301,
requires the Department to competitively bid all contracts, unless the
Secretary of Energy determines that a waiver of this requirement is
necessary and notifies Congress of the waiver 60 days in advance. These
are contracts at the Department of Energy which have not been competed
since the Manhattan project. Section 301 is designed to vigorously
promote competition, an effective tool for reducing costs and
increasing contractor accountability.
Another provision, section 302, requires the Department of Energy to
adhere to the Federal Acquisition Regulation. As observed by the
General Accounting Office, the Department has its own unique
procurement regulations which permit deviations from normal contracting
requirements used by most Federal agencies. These nonstandard contract
clauses can limit DOE's ability to adequately protect the Government's
interests and ensure the efficient use of contract funds. The conferees
have directed the Department to ensure that Federal Acquisition
Regulation policies are used in drafting new contracts or amending or
modifying existing contracts. Along with competition in awarding
contracts, consistency in contract requirements is a critical element
in increasing contractor accountability.
Mr. Speaker, due to a production error, report language agreed to by
conferees from the House and the Senate was inadvertently excluded from
the joint statement of the managers. The text of that language follows:
With respect to funds appropriated in fiscal year 1993 and
made available to the Center for Energy and Environmental
Resources, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, the conferees strongly recommend that the
Department disperse these funds only in accordance with the
original intent to place the facility on property owned by
the Research Park Corporation in Baton Rouge, Louisiana or
contiguous property thereto owned by Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge.
We fully expect that the Department of Energy and interested
stakeholders will regard this language as though included in full in
the joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again thank and commend the Members
of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for their
extraordinary efforts with respect to this conference agreement. I am
especially indebted to the ranking minority member, the Honorable Vic
Fazio, whose good will and cooperation were essential to the
expenditous conclusion of conference.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues in the House to support the
conference agreement to accompany H.R. 2203, making appropriations for
energy and water development in fiscal year 1998.
[[Page H8175]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30SE97.000
[[Page H8176]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30SE97.001
[[Page H8177]]
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2203, the Energy
and water conference report for fiscal year 1998.
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] for all
the work he has done to bring about a balanced, reasonable, and fair
bill that provides adequate funding for not only important water
projects all over this country, but for vital energy programs as well.
I want to say on behalf of my Democratic colleagues on the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky], the gentleman
from Arizona [Mr. Pastor], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards],
how much we appreciate the way in which the majority has worked with
us, and also thank the staff for the degree to which they have
cooperated in our mutual goal of bringing a bipartisan bill to the
floor.
Mr. Speaker, Chairman McDade has reached out to Members on both sides
of the aisle to try to move infrastructure-related projects to
completion and to begin a limited number of reconnaissance and
feasibility studies mandated by the Water Resources Development Act of
1996. We have all read in the Washington Post how some of these
projects may be subjected to the line-item veto.
I think there is a serious question worth considering here: our
continued commitment to the types of infrastructure funding that we
present in this bill.
There is little debate about the need for a Transportation
appropriations bill or an ISTEA bill to authorize and fund our highways
and mass transit systems.
I believe the projects presented in this bill--projects that
contribute to building our modern harbors and keeping them serviceable;
projects that contribute to the flood control systems that protect our
communities; and projects that contribute to our abundant production
agriculture--these projects are equally important and equally worthy of
both congressional and administration support.
For example, in the Sacramento area, the bill supplies funding for
the long-term flood control improvements pointed out not by this year's
floods, but by the flooding of 1986. However, funding is also provided
for a comprehensive study of the Sacramento and San Joaquin River
Basins, based on this year's flood event, to determine what additional
flood control measures may need to be adopted. An important component
of such a comprehensive study will be the post-flood assessment and a
hydraulic/hydrologic model of the entire system.
Other Members can testify to the importance of these projects to the
infrastructure in their own regions which the Nation depends upon for
interstate commerce and sustained economic development.
I also want to particularly highlight a new program in our bill that
has been generously funded--the Calfed initiative for San Francisco-
Sacramento Bay-Delta. The Bay-Delta is a source of drinking water for
20 million people and irrigation water for over 200 crops--45 percent
of the Nation's produce.
The people of the State of California made a significant commitment
to this ecosystem restoration by approving a nearly $1 billion bond
issue in 1996. There has been a bipartisan effort by a united
California congressional delegation, and by urban and agricultural
water users as well as the environmental community to acquiring the
Federal share of ecosystem restoration projects. I am pleased to see
that $85 million has been provided in this bill, and I can assure you
that California will use this money well.
I also want to comment briefly on a complicated subject--the Central
Valley project restoration fund. This fund is generated by assessments
on water and power users, and is devoted to ecosystem restoration. The
conferees ultimately settled on a $7 million reduction in the
restoration fund, an even split between the Houses. Although this
amount does not fully fund the restoration fund for 1998, the
conference did well given California's extensive priorities.
The conferees were able to voice the limitations on the 1998 funding
in terms that do not amend the Central Valley Project Improvement Act,
and therefore will not affect restoration fund collections or
appropriations in any other year.
The CVPIA's restoration fund provisions are confusing, contradictory,
unfair, and counterproductive. They should be reformed by the
authorizing committee as soon as possible.
On the energy side, this bill continues our investment in the
development of alternative energy sources. Finding alternative means to
help meet the energy needs of our growing economy is critical if we are
to tackle air pollution and other environmental threats. Our strategy
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global climate
change assumes that cleaner solar and renewable energy sources will be
available and economically viable in the future, and this bill supports
that goal. Alternative energy sources are also critical to our energy
security by helping reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
The bill invests $302 million in research and development into a
range of promising technologies that make use of a variety of potential
energy sources, including solar and photovoltaics, biomass, hydrogen,
geothermal sources, and wind. And it does so while encouraging industry
interest and commitment through cost-share programs that will later
ensure the technologies will be commercially viable.
The bill also continues vital research and development in fusion
energy, supports the national laboratories, and provides for national
security by supporting the development of critical verification
technology to assess the safety and reliability of our nuclear
stockpile. It also funds the cleanup of the nuclear weapons complex to
fulfill the country's obligation to restore those sites. The
subcommittee has worked hard to encourage the Department to be more
efficient and effective, and Secretary Pena has been highly responsive
to this concern.
In short, this is a balanced bill, but one that should have the
support of every Member and the administration as well. I ask that we
support the work of our committee and the work of the House-Senate
conference with a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Speaker, if appropriate at this time, I would place my remarks in
the Record and yield to Members who have an interest in colloquies.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington
[Mr. Dicks], a colleague on the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]
in a brief colloquy with regard to language in the conference report.
As the chairman will recall, during the deliberations over the
conference report on the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 1998, both Senators from the State of Washington and I were
interested in clarifying Senate language that addressed the Corps of
Engineers' actions with regard to the Terminal 5 expansion project at
the Port of Seattle. We appreciate the conference committee's decision
to include a statement urging the corps to make a final decision with
regard to the Port of Seattle permit application.
However, events that have occurred after the conference committee
adjourned have rendered the language unnecessary. Specifically, the
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, which had been opposing the terminal 5
expansion, has now adopted a resolution approving a settlement that has
been reached between the tribe and the port, including significant
mitigation and enhancement measures that will benefit the tribes who
utilize the Duwamish River fishery.
In this resolution of approval, the Muckleshoot Tribe has requested
recognition in Congress that the language inserted in the conference
report relating to the terminal 5 project is no longer necessary. We
appreciate the committee's assistance in this project, which is
critically important to the further development of international
trading opportunities at the Port of Seattle.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend, the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Dicks], that I appreciate the information that he has
provided to update the Committee on the status of the terminal 5
expansion project in Seattle. We are grateful for his input.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield,
that certainly satisfies me. I appreciate the information the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] provides.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would take the
remaining time to thank the chairman and ranking member for all the
help for our State. We have many important projects, and they have done
an outstanding job. We strongly support the bill.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from
[[Page H8178]]
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] for purposes of a colloquy.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
subcommittee chairman.
I would like to applaud both the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
McDade] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], the ranking
member, for the work that has been done to put this bipartisan bill
together.
As my colleagues know, I have been concerned about the delays in
contracting out the Point Beach, Milford Plain Army Corps of Engineers
project. This project would enlist Army Corps of Engineers' assistance
in raising 58 homes above flood level. The Corps of Engineers is
authorized to provide this type of assistance to communities such as
Milford under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962.
After consultation with Members of both the authorizing and
appropriations committees, it is my understanding that no further
authorization and no earmarked appropriation is necessary for the Corps
to bid out this project.
Is that the understanding of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
McDade] as well?
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. DeLAURO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. That understanding is mine completely.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this is good news for
the people of Milford, whose homes can now be made safe from flooding.
I thank the chairman of the authorizing committee for clarification,
and I thank the ranking member.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] for purposes of a
colloquy as well.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr.
Fazio] for yielding me the time.
I need to ask the chairman's assistance in clarifying one aspect of
the conference report. Section 304 of the conference report says that
DOE cannot use funds from other accounts to augment the funds provided
for ``severance payments and other benefits and community assistance
grants authorized under section 3161'' of the 1993 Defense
Authorization Act.
As the author of section 3161, I am aware that severance payments and
other payments are authorized under it. I am also aware that sometimes
DOE makes severance payments in order to comply with other contract
provisions.
Am I right, Mr. Chairman, that section 304 should be understood as
not intending to restrict DOE's ability to fulfill such contractual
requirements but merely sets a ceiling on payments not required by
contract but made under 3161?
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. May I say to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
Skaggs], his understanding is absolutely correct.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
I ask the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and
Water if he would engage me in a colloquy regarding the transfer for a
FUSRAP to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] for
his patience in this issue. Mr. Chairman, my district in Missouri has a
major FUSRAP site which contains nuclear contamination from the
Manhattan Project and other hazardous waste. For 15 years, we have
worked with the Department of Energy to clean up this site.
Finally, in just the past 2 weeks, after much frustration and delay,
we have come to the point where DOE has begun preliminary cleanup
efforts. Given this recent progress, the news of the FUSRAP program's
transfer out of DOE has, quite understandably, caused a great deal of
distress in the community.
While we are by no means questioning the corps' ability to handle the
FUSRAP project, we are concerned that potential delays caused by the
transfer will undo much of the recent progress.
With site recommendations already made, feasibility studies
concluded, and contracts let, it is important that the corps honor the
preliminary groundwork laid by DOE in order to avoid any further
delays.
Will the corps be willing to respect these studies, site plans, and
contracts?
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TALENT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my distinguished colleague
from Missouri, Mr. Talent, that the committee fully intends that the
feasibility studies and the site recommendations prepared by the DOE
will be accepted and carried out by the Corps of Engineers.
Furthermore, may I say to my friend that the Energy and Water
Development Conference Report for fiscal year 1998 specifically
contains language requiring the Corps to honor all existing contracts.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] for his concern.
One further issue: The local community has been very involved in
designing a plan to clean up the site. They are concerned that the
administration of the cleanup will be moved away from the St. Louis
area to Omaha or Kansas City, reducing their input and influence on the
cleanup process.
When the Army Corps of Engineers takes over the FUSRAP program, will
the St. Louis program be managed out of the St. Louis Corps' office?
{time} 1200
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TALENT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend that it is the
understanding of the committee that the cleanup and restoration of
contaminated sites following within the purview of FUSRAP will be
managed and executed by the nearest civil works district of the Corps
of Engineers which has been designated as an improved design center for
handling hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes.
Local communities throughout the country have been very involved in
designing cleanup plans at FUSRAP sites, and this strategy effectively
maintains community input in the process.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
his assurances and his assistance.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy], who has had so much
influence on the amount of funds for his State in this bill.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
This Chamber at its best moments represents their work on a
bipartisan basis of Members coming together to address problems,
problems that really mean something to the people who are struggling
with them. In representing the State of North Dakota, I would wager to
say that the population I represent per capita has more, and verified,
water problems than any other State in the entire country.
I rise to express particular personal gratitude to the chairman, to
the chairman's staff, to the ranking member, and the ranking member's
staff for all of the patience and time they have spent with me in
understanding our problems and in crafting a bill that responds in a
meaningful way to those problems.
Mr. Speaker, we did not get everything we wanted. Certainly some of
the funding limits and some of the limiting language we would have
liked to have had something different. But in balance, I mean it, this
really is a responsive and meaningful effort to help the people of
North Dakota with the problems that presently plague them. I am very,
very grateful for this effort and have enjoyed working with my
colleagues in this regard. I urge support for the bill.
[[Page H8179]]
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise], a member of the authorizing
committee, who worked so hard for his State and is so influential in
this bill.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and the ranking member, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio], and rise in strong support of this conference
report.
Very important in this legislation is language including $1.8 million
for the Marment Locks, and the action of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and the ranking member, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio], begin to end a lot of uncertainty for 200
families in the affected Belle area, in the affected construction area
of the Marment Locks.
The conference report also provides money for the Appalachian
Regional Commission which is crucial to Appalachia, and I would like to
make a tribute at this point, and I would like to take a moment to pay
tribute to one of its adopted sons, Michael Wenger, the Appalachian
Regional Commission's State representative.
Mike has a long and distinguished history with the ARC beginning 20
years ago when, under then Governor Rockefeller, he served as the West
Virginia Governor's alternate to the ARC. He ably represented West
Virginia in that role. Four years later, he began representing all 13
States of Appalachia as the State's Washington representative to the
ARC. In this capacity, Mike has spent many years working with local
development districts, States' alternates, and Members of Congress,
defending the agency and its priorities through the 1980's and into the
1990's. He has provided the States' good perspective in discussions of
commission programs and ensured that the Nation keeps its commitments
to the people of Appalachia.
I am going to miss Mike's detailed knowledge of the ARC's history,
its politics, and its policy. I wish Mike well in his new role as
deputy director of the President's Advisory Board on Race Relations. A
job well done.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
very distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], an able
member of the subcommittee.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] has done, I
think, an extraordinary job, and I rise in strong support of this
conference report.
I could express my appreciation to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. McDade] in many ways, but I think he has shepherded through not
just an extraordinary bill but, frankly, something that I think is a
credit to the gentleman, to the man, and it is not an easy job, as
everybody knows, to perform this so-called miracle, if my colleagues
will.
I also want to express my thanks to the ranking member, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Fazio]. Mr. Fazio has again been also a strong
contributor to bringing about some collegiality, some understanding,
and it really has been a bipartisan effort.
I would be remiss if I did not also thank the staff. They have all
been monumentally resourceful about this whole thing in bringing about
closure on some very, very difficult points that we have brought to
closure in a way that I think benefits everybody.
Mr. Speaker, I will have my statement, which is a longer version in
support of H.R. 2203, included in the appropriate place in the
Congressional Record.
I rise in strong support of this conference report. I want to
reexpress 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 Energy and Water Subcommittee staff who were always
ready and able to assist me and my staff on this bill.
H.R. 2203 includes several very important reforms that should have a
dramatic impact on accelerating the environmental management cleanup of
the Department of Energy and moving the Department forward after years
of too little progress. Among the reforms are a funding mechanism to
bring closure to the Rocky Flats site and the Ferndale site;
transferring FUSRAP to the Corps of Engineers, who have been
successfully completing similar low level cleanup programs for the
Department of Defense; and stopping the flow of funding away from the
mission-related work of the environmental management program to pay for
separation benefits for workers who are displaced because of efficiency
decisions of their employers. And, although not related to DOE, this
bill contains another very important reform--the end of TVA
appropriated funding after fiscal year 1998.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear about our resolve on the Department's
efforts to accelerate cleanup. We support the vision brought forth by
the Department but we were very discouraged in June with the 10-year
plan--Accelerating Cleanup: Focus on 2006, Discussion Draft--that was
brought forth. After a year of preparation, the result appeared to be
nothing more than a top-level framework to begin the planning process.
it was a document not supported by the details or by what could be
realistically achieved. With this in mind, it is essential that DOE
bring forth with next year's budget request, a detailed and defensible
closure plan, based on aggressive but realistic estimates--that is,
budget quality data--of the most that can be completed and closed out
within the 10-year timeframe. I strongly believe that this vision can
be accomplished by doing more sooner rather than later, by substantial
mortgage and risk reduction, and by leveraging technology. As I've said
many times before, it's time to get on with it.
One provision I worked with the committee to have included in H.R.
2203 is bill and report language under the Worker and Community
Transition Program authorized under section 3161 of the 1993 National
Defense Authorization Act. This year's appropriation stops the flow of
funding from mission accomplishment to fund worker separations that are
due to business and efficiency decisions. I believe this will be a
tremendous benefit to the environmental management program, who has
been required to bear the cost of the more than $500 million spent thus
far on these types of separations. This bill provides more than enough
funds to protect this narrow class of workers, displaced from current
defense missions of the Department, who are the often unrecognized
heroes of the cold war.
However, the enormous task of cleaning up the former nuclear defense
facilities has been estimated to cost over $200 billion. Far too many
dollars have been diverted away from the primary missions at these
sites--to clean the environment. This bill protects those workers who
may be displaced due to the end of the cold war, but it also protects
the workers and nearby communities by keeping the cleanup dollars
focused on cleanup.
Since its inception, more than 37,000 workers at Department of Energy
sites across the Nation have benefited from the worker transition
program. In fact, since that time, Congress has spent over $650 million
providing very generous severance packages to workers displaced from
the former nuclear weapons production sites. Of this, it is
estimated that at least $500 million have been taken from mission-
related funds of the environmental management program to fund
separation benefits to workers, all of whom are being displaced not
because of a current change in defense mission but because of business
and efficiency decisions of their employers. Further, an additional
$168 million has been provided to communities surrounding former
nuclear weapons production sites for economic development activities.
It's been 6 years since we won the cold war and ceased nuclear
weapons production. Most of these production sites have moved on to new
missions and to cleaning up the legacy waste. Most of those who worked
during the production era left these sites long ago or are protected
under a seniority system of employment.
This bill says that it is no longer reasonable or sustainable to
provide extraordinary benefits, to those who do not meet the original
intent of section 3161 of the 1993 Defense Authorization Act. The $61
million provided for worker and community transition is more than
enough to fund all cold war warriors who still work for a current or
former nuclear facility and who would like to voluntarily separate
during the next fiscal year. Frankly, I believe it is time to move
toward giving the contractors more autonomy--those companies who are
cleaning up the environmental management sites should manage and right-
size their own work force without Federal subsidies.
Additionally, I would tell you that this program has been plagued by
mismanagement and by questionable practices. The General Accounting
Office has reported that individuals received extraordinary severance
packages, in some cases in excess of $90,000 per person. Further, many
of the workers receiving Federal assistance were hired in the years
after the end of the cold war. Finally, the program has been criticized
for providing benefits to terminate positions that were later refilled
or rehired at added cost to the Government.
As I said before, the Department of Energy has provided over $168
million in economic assistance to the local communities surrounding DOE
defense nuclear sites. Not only do I
[[Page H8180]]
believe that this is not a proper allocation of Federal dollars, but I
believe that these dollars have not yielded the desired results.
Take the Savannah River site in South Carolina as an example--3 years
ago, the South Carolina Regional Diversification Initiative was set up
as an economic development initiative to help offset layoffs at the
former defense plant. According to newspaper report, only 34 jobs have
been created with a Federal investment of $7 million. My understanding
is that the majority of the money was spent on studies and
administration. Not exactly the return on investment or track record
that would justify additional Federal investmnent. However, very
recently, when the local community leaders met with the Department of
Energy, they were given another $4.6 million for this initiative.
It is time to fund this program within it's authorized and
appropriate levels--to provide help to the true cold war warriors--but
stop diverting the money away from cleanup of the environmental
management sites. This money should be used to accelerate cleanup and
get this show on the road.
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
I would first like to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. McDade] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] for their
work on essential parts of this bill that contribute to the national
infrastructure and to vital concerns of ports and other infrastructure
concerns in my region.
I would like to go back to something that was vigorously debated in a
somewhat confusing manner during the original consideration of the
bill, and that was the DeFazio-Fazio amendment process regarding Animas
la Plata.
Besides confusing the pronunciation of our names, many Members were
confused over exactly what they were voting on, and when I look at the
report from the committee, I think it is not quite on target if one
refers back to the debate and would like to make that point here today.
The key point in the debate made with the Fazio amendment to the
DeFazio amendment was that we were funding a process, the Romer-
Schoettler process, to go forward and come up with a new proposal, all
sides having admitted that the original Animas La Plata project was not
affordable and was not going to go forward in its entirety.
Yet the report urges that the Corps of Engineers or Bureau of
Reclamation go ahead with great dispatch in terms of beginning parts
which were proved under the Endangered Species Act should be
constructed without delay. I think that contradicts the debate we had
here on the floor. Later on it does mention the Romer-Schoettler
process and working toward a compromise.
I think it would be a great mistake if construction went forward at
this point in time when the emphasis in the debate, in the close vote
we had here on the floor of the House, was, no, we are going to develop
an alternative that is cost effective and environmentally responsible.
So I would like to suggest that perhaps the drafting of the report is
such that there could be a problem in dealing with the Bureau of
Reclamation and would want the Bureau to refer back to the debate and
the vote rather than looking at the report language.
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to simply read the language in the report.
It says the conferees directed funds previously appropriated for the
project and still available, part to be used for the project and
advancement of a modified project from the process which meets the
original intent of the settlement.
So I think what we are saying here is, we are not restricting prior
appropriations, but we are looking for the modification of the project,
and the money that has been prior appropriated would be available for
that purpose.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Green].
(Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, I would like to rise today to thank both the chairman and
ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and the
gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], for their fairness and courtesy
to many Members, and also to the only Texas Member on the Subcommittee
on Energy and Water, my colleague, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Chet
Edwards, who was instrumental in helping this project begin this year.
The Port of Houston is so important to many levels, not only to the
Houston region, but also to the State and outlining our Nation. More
than 5,535 vessels navigate the channel. It is the eighth largest port
in the world, and with this startup money for the 45-foot depth and the
520-feet widening, it is so important to be competitive in this day and
time. In fact, yesterday's Journal of Commerce talked about the
importance of ports being at least 45 feet in depth.
Again, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member and
the staff working on this and appreciate the first money for the
startup here, and we will be back again
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to another gentleman from Houston, TX, Mr. Bentsen.
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California, Mr.
Fazio for yielding this time to me.
First of all, let me tell my colleagues I rise in strong support of
H.R. 2203, the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations
conference report. I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], the ranking member, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio], as well as my colleague, the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Edwards], who has done a lot of work on behalf of the Harris
County delegation.
H.R. 2203 includes vital funding for several flood control projects
in the Houston, TX area. These projects include Sims, Brays, Clear
Creek, Greens, and White Oak Bayous, as well as Hunting Bayous, and
provided much needed protection for our communities.
I am most grateful for the committee's decision to fully fund the
Sims Bayou project at $13 million in fiscal year 1998 which will allow
for speeding up construction of this much needed project to improve
flood protection for an extensively developed urban area along Sims
Bayou in southern Harris County.
Additionally, I appreciate the committee's decision to fully fund the
Harris County Flood Control District's efforts to carry out three flood
control projects on Brays, Hunting, and White Oak Bayous that were
authorized last year in Public Law 104-303, the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996, for some language that my colleague, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], and I had pursued.
This is a new direct grant program to the counties, and I appreciate
the fact that the committee has specifically included in the bill the
implementation of section 211(f)(6) in funding $2 million for the
reimbursement to the Harris County Flood Control District for Brays
Bayou. This is an innovative program that the Congress authorized last
year, as I mentioned, and the fact that the committee is doing this, I
believe, sends a message to the Corps of Engineers to follow through
with the word of the bill and the language in that, and I appreciate
the members of the subcommittee for doing that.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that this legislation provides $20
million to begin construction to the Houston Ship Channel expansion
project which was also authorized in the word of the bill.
What is particularly important about this is not the fact that it is
more than what was in the original request or the Senate request,
although that is important, but also what is important is that it
directs the Corps to move forward and implement a project cooperation
agreement for the entire project. Had that not been done, there was
some question, based upon the administration's original request,
whether or not both Houston and Galveston authorities would be included
in that.
I appreciate the committee for doing that, and in addition, by
putting in the funding level and working with the Corps of Engineers,
they ensured that the project will meet the 4-year time line which is
critical to its implementation in the economic basis.
[[Page H8181]]
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his
work on this bill and the committee's work.
I rise in support of H.R. 2203, making appropriations for energy and
water development for fiscal year 1998.
This conference report provides funds for critical flood control and
navigation projects in Contra Costa County and the San Francisco Bay
area of California. Also included is $1.5 million to begin construction
of fish screens for the Contra Costa Water District's intake at Rock
Slough. The screens are needed to reduce the number of fish drawn into
the system's pumping and storage facilities. Securing the funding is
critical not only as part of fishery protection efforts but also to
ensure that the district's Los Vaqueros Reservoir will be completed on
schedule. I appreciate the committee's continued support for these
projects.
I am particularly pleased that the conference report provides $85
million to fund the initial share of Federal participation in the bay-
delta programs authorized last fall in the California Bay-Delta
Environmental Enhancement and Water Security Act. Funding the bay-delta
programs will allow us to begin a comprehensive effort to restore the
many components of this huge area that have been damaged by human
activity.
The bill also contains a prohibition on taking steps to build the San
Luis drain, a huge canal that would convey contaminated agricultural
waste water up to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, where it would be
discharged. I firmly believe that this drain should not be built, as it
would allow the export of toxic pollution to the delta.
In addition, the bill contains $100,000 to begin studying the removal
of underwater rock formations near the mouth of San Francisco Bay that
threaten oil tankers and other deep-draft vessels. This funding will be
used to assess the benefits of oil spill avoidance and improved
navigation relative to the cost of the project.
I thank the conferees for their hard work on this legislation, and I
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2203.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Tauscher] for a
colloquy.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this
time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2203. This spending bill makes
a number of important commitments to improve our environment, and I
want to also congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], for their leadership in this effort.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2203 also includes language that will allow the
Corps of Engineers to participate in projects that will improve aquatic
ecosystems such as the San Francisco Bay delta.
I would ask the distinguished ranking Democrat to clarify my
understanding that the conference committee agreement allows the Corps
of Engineers to work with the East Bay Municipal Utility District and
the State of California on this project.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. TAUSCHER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to answer the
gentlewoman's inquiry. She is correct that the agreements permit the
Corps of Engineers to participate at the site of the Penn Mine.
The conference agreement provides that the Corps of Engineers shall
have $6 million to support eligible projects which include that Penn
Mine site as well as others. I would encourage the Corps to make
available necessary funds for this project.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his
clarification on this important environmental issue.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, having no further requests for
time, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take this opportunity to
express my support for the conference report on H.R. 2203, the Energy
and Water Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998.
While I would have preferred the version of H.R. 2203 that was passed
by the House in July, this bill has much to be said for it. Not only
does it keep spending within 1 percent of last year's level, but it
helps address a longstanding inequity that the distinguished chairman
of the Rules Committee reminded us of in a Dear Colleague distributed
to all Members on August 28 of this year.
Attached to that Dear Colleague was a chart prepared by the Tax
Foundation of Washington D.C. Entitled ``Federal Tax Burden by State,''
that chart compared all the taxes paid by each state to the federal
government in 1996 to the total amount spend by Uncle Sam on those
states in that year. Its figures are indeed interesting, reaffirming
what those of us from the great state of Illinois have known for a long
time. Our state continues to be one of the biggest of all donor states,
only getting 73 cents back for every federal tax dollar it sent to
Washington last year.
Mr. Speaker, according to the Tax Foundation's figures, only two
other states in the country have a lower ratio of taxes paid to dollars
returned than does Illinois. Therefore, it is important for a bill like
this not to forget the needs of the Prairie State and this bill does
not. Not only does the conference report on H.R. 2203 provide needed
moneys for two projects in which I have a particular interest--the
internationally recognized Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration
Project [DPRWDP] and the Fox River Floodgate Installation Project
[FRFIP]--but it also funds at least 10 other water-related projects
that will benefit Chicago and some of the suburbs to the north and
west. As a result, over $20 million will be coming back to the Chicago
area this coming fiscal year that will be put to good use combatting
the threat of flooding, promoting the preservation of wetlands, dealing
with shoreline erosion and maintaining harbors.
With all the flooding the Chicagoland has suffered in recent years,
this assistance could not come at a better time. That being the case, I
want to express my particular thanks to the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, to the chairman of its Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee, and to the conferees on H.R. 2203 for their
support of such Chicago area projects as the Des Plaines River Wetlands
Demonstration Project and the Fox River Floodgate Installation Project.
Not only do I appreciate it but I am sure many others, who want to get
a good return on the tax dollars they invest in our government, will as
well.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
personally congratulate Chairman Joe McDade and ranking member Vic
Fazio for crafting a bill that recognizes the vital energy and water
needs of California while maintaining the needed funding levels
required for the balanced budget agreement.
Despite fiscal constraints, my colleagues and I were able to secure
funding for a variety of projects designed to help alleviate southern
California's continual water problems including needed construction
funding, flood control programs, beach erosion studies and financial
support of operation and maintenance for navigation.
Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to see that several projects that
will greatly assist my constituents received adequate levels of
funding. Key projects that directly impact my district include the
Oceanside Harbor Maintenance and Operation Dredging program. Although
it was not included in the President's budget request, we were able to
secure $900,000 in funding for this important project. This project is
seen as critical to the military, industrial and recreational
communities that rely on Oceanside Harbor.
The Santa Ana River Mainstem Flood Control Project is another project
that is of fundamental importance to the citizens of the 48th District
and its surrounding communities. The funding provided will prove both
important and essential for all three of my counties--Riverside, Orange
and San Diego.
Mr. Speaker, let me once again commend the fine work of Chairman
McDade and Mr. Fazio for their fine work on the Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill for FY 1998. Their hard work and dedication not
only insured that critical projects received needed funding, but that
they did so within the framework of a balanced budget.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report
on the FY 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. This
legislation is very important in that it funds a number of vitally
important flood control projects across the nation. I thank Chairman
McDade, the ranking Democrat, Mr. Fazio, and the other conferees on all
the hard work they put into crafting this important of legislation. In
particular, I would especially like to thank them for funding two Army
Corps flood control projects in my district.
This legislation provides $250,000 for a feasibility study of Stoney
Creek and $200,000 for a study of Tinley Creek. I strongly believe that
this is a prudent allocation of federal funds. Funding the feasibility
studies for these Army Corps projects is an important step in
eliminating the flooding problems.
[[Page H8182]]
The flooding problems attributable to these creeks affect a number of
communities in my district: Oak Lawn, Crestwood, Alsip, and the
unincorporated Bluecrest subdivision of Worth Township. I have visited
these communities in the aftermath of heavy rains and flooding, and I
have seen firsthand the structural damages caused by the floods. It is
estimated that average annual damages resulting from these floods total
over one million dollars, and this does not even begin to take into
account all of the heartache and grief experienced by the residents of
the affected communities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure. We need to
pass this important piece legislation to bring much needed funds for
communities that live under the constant threat of floods.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
conference report and want to thank Chairman McDade and Ranking Member
Fazio for their hard work. I know they had a difficult task balancing
hundreds of requests.
It is important to note the importance and priority the Congress has
again placed on federal beach renourishment projects. As a member of
the Coastal Caucus I believe it is critical that we pass this important
legislation.
As the chairman is aware, we have experienced unprecedented erosion
along the beaches in Brevard and Indian River counties in Florida.
These beaches are not only important for our tourism industry, but they
are home to the largest concentration of endangered sea turtle nests
along our Nation's Atlantic coast. The failure to move forward with
these beach renourishment efforts will continue erosion of this
critical habitat.
Most of the erosion in Brevard County is directly attributable to the
construction of the Canaveral Inlet by the Federal Government in the
1950's. Since that time homes and infrastructure that once stood 400
yards from the breaking waves are now at the water's edge. Indeed,
study after study has shown that the inlet has acted as a barrier and
has stopped sand from flowing to the beaches south of the inlet.
More than 300 residents of Brevard County whose property is in danger
of falling into the Atlantic have filed suit against the federal
government. This has the potential of costing the federal government
hundreds of millions of dollars. The conference report before us moves
forward with the Brevard County Storm Damage Prevention project and
will help the U.S. government avoid several hundred million dollars in
liability.
The project doesn't propose putting the beach back like it was. It
would create a 50 foot buffer to protect properties and rectify some of
the damage caused by the federal inlet.
Additionally, I am pleased that the Committee has included $500,000
that I requested for environmental restoration efforts along the Indian
River Lagoon. This funding will help us move forward with the C-1
rediversion project which will help us reduce the flow of fresh water
and sediment into this Estuary of National Significance. This will
improve the health of the lagoon and benefit the manatee and the lagoon
aquiculture industry.
I thank the Chairman and the conferees for their support of these
projects.
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference
Report. On June 30 of this year, I toured the State Port Authority at
Wilmington, NC with local and federal elected officials. Congressman
Vic Fazio joined us, and I thank him for that.
The Port of Wilmington has historically served as one of the greatest
sources of revenue along the East Coast. While generating over $300
million in state and local taxes, the port creates over 80,000 jobs.
Along with North Carolina, many of the landlocked states of the South
East have used the Port of Wilmington, and the Cape Fear River, as a
conduit to the Atlantic Ocean and the rest of the world. The Cape Fear
River has always been a vital resource for American overseas shipping.
The maximum water level is at an approximate depth of 38 feet, which
is too shallow to accommodate the girth and weight of the larger
commercial shipping vessels, which can carry more than 100 tons of
goods, the kind of which are now being used. There is a plan to
increase the draft space by four feet. This would allow the new,
larger, vessels to use the Cape Fear River, as well as the Port of
Wilmington, at an extremely faster rate than at the present time.
In the past, there have been three separate plans to improve the
conditions of the Cape Fear River: widening the channel; deepening the
river upstream of the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge; deepening the
remainder of the river. The three proposals were considered
individually, thereby financed separately. As distinct and separate
projects, they would be far more costly and time consuming than
necessary. Consolidating these three proposals into a single plan,
results in the entire process costing considerably less time and money,
and could be enacted with a heightened level of efficiency.
The Port of Wilmington is at a prime location for the overseas
shipping of goods. Along with accommodating special purpose subzones,
Wilmington can lower, defer, or avoid import duties. There is a 117,000
square foot heated on-dock warehouse, which is equipped with portable
fumigation tents. There is also nearly one-half million square feet of
warehouse space dedicated to forest products.
The larger vessels that would be permitted to use the Cape Fear
River, as a result of the deepening and widening of the channel,
possess a far greater load capacity. The increased speed and efficiency
with which the new ships could travel the Cape Fear River would be a
strong benefit for all manufacturers, transporters, distributors, and
purchasers of any of the goods shipped on vessels coming to or from the
Port of Wilmington.
Following the tour, as part of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill, the Subcommittee on Energy and Water did pass a
provision that embraces the consolidation, funds the first year effort
and commits to funding the full project.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R.
2203, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations for fiscal year
1998. I support this bill mainly because it provides $413 million which
is (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, Texas.
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. Speaker, 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 the conference report, Mr. Speaker, 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 in bringing 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
and it remains in this conference report. I am quite certain, Mr.
Speaker, 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
friends and colleagues Chet Edwards, and Mike Parker who sit on the
Appropriations Committee.
However, Mr. Speaker, 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 can not 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. I urge my colleagues to vote yes
on this conference report.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important
legislation and want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman McDade
for his continued support for the Ramapo River at Oakland Flood
project.
This has been a long and hard-fought battle. And it has been a
cooperative effort with Mayor Peter Kendall and the Oakland Council and
State Senator McNamara and Assemblymen Felice and Russo all working
effectively. With the funds included in this bill, we can finally make
this project a reality for my constituents in Oakland. This is
government doing what government should do--putting taxpayers to work
helping real people with real problems.
Flooding along the Ramapo River has occurred 15 times in the past 24
years. The 330 families that live along the 3.3-mile stretch cannot
continue to endure the repeated hardship and personal turmoil that the
flood waters bring.
The principal problems along the Ramapo River are flooding caused by
the backwater effect produced by the Pompton Lake Dam, the hydraulic
constrictions produced by bridges crossing the river, and insufficient
channel capacity.
[[Page H8183]]
The project is now ready to move into the construction stage. The
overall cost of the project through construction is estimated at $12.2
million. This cost is shared by the Federal Government, 75 percent, and
the State, 25 percent.
The $2.5 million included in this bill will allow construction to
advance by 1 year and substantially complete the first piece of the
project. The completion of the first piece, the channel widening, would
provide immediate flood reduction benefits to Oakland.
Flood protection is about more than money. The emotional price of
being forced from your home by raging flood waters and returning only
to find your most prized possessions ruined with mud and water goes far
beyond the economic price.
On behalf of those families who have endured these floods I support
this appropriation and thank Chairman McDade and Congressman
Frelinghuysen.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2203, the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998. This
bill provides needed funding for the Nation's water resources
infrastructure through such agencies as the Army Corps of Engineers.
H.R. 2203 includes funding for many of the critically needed Flood
Control and Navigation Infrastructure projects that were contained in
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
I would like to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. McDade, for
his leadership and cooperation and for clarifying several provisions in
the Senate bill within the jurisdiction of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. While in a perfect world there would be no
authorizing language at all in an appropriations bill, most of the
authorizing provisions contained in this legislation have taken into
account concerns of the authorizing committee. For example, the
conferees have significantly limited the scope of the Senate provision
regarding environmental infrastructure to take our concerns into
account.
The conference report also includes provisions on Devils Lake, ND,
addressing the emergency flooding conditions that continue to threaten
citizens, property and the environment. I want to assure the North
Dakota delegation and Governor Schafer, who have worked tirelessly on
this issue, that we will continue to look for appropriate, long-term
solutions that help to stabilize the lake levels and balance the
concerns of citizens within and beyond the watershed.
I would also like to address provisions relating to the Tennessee
Valley Authority. The final compromise language reflects the views of
many that TVA must change. As chairman of the authorizing committee, I
expect we will continue our review of TVA's appropriated and
nonappropriated programs.
On the transfer of the formerly Utilized Remedial Action Program
[FUSRAP] to the Army Corps of Engineers, I would simply note that it is
not our intent--and I have been assured by the chairman of the House
Energy and Water Development Subcommittee that it is not his intent--to
affect the jurisdiction of the authorizing committee. For example, the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will obviously continue to
exercise jurisdiction over Corps of Engineers civil works programs,
including its support for others program that involves activities to
clean up hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes. I would also note
that the statement of managers provides that ``overall program
management, schedule and resource priority setting and principal point
of contact responsibilities for FUSRAP are to be handled as part of,
and integrally with, the overall civil works program of the corps.''
H.R. 2203 is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.
{time} 1215
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield
back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the
conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Ney]. The question is on the conference
report.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 404,
nays 17, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No 468]
YEAS--404
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Pascrell
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--17
Campbell
Chenoweth
Deal
Ensign
Gibbons
Hoekstra
Kleczka
Klug
Neumann
Paul
Petri
Ramstad
Royce
Sanford
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Sununu
NOT VOTING--12
Brown (CA)
Clayton
Cox
Dellums
English
Gonzalez
Pallone
Pickett
Rothman
Saxton
Schiff
Smith (OR)
{time} 1235
Mr. KLUG changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H8184]]
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________