[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.

                          ____________________