Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 82 (Monday, June 22, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 82 (Monday, June 22, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4913-H4944]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 478 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill, H.R. 4060.

{time} 1718

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4060) making appropriations for energy and water development for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Barrett of Nebraska in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade).
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of the energy and water bill making appropriations
for fiscal year 1999. I want to point out to my colleagues that this
bill was reported about a week ago unanimously by the Committee on
Appropriations, and just about a week before that it was also reported
unanimously by our subcommittee.
We in the subcommittee had a tremendous challenge this year, a tough
bill, difficult to work, primarily because we had a budget that was
inadequate.
I do not believe there was a scintilla of doubt among the membership
that when we saw the budget for the Corps of Engineers particularly we
knew that we could not execute it. But the Members hunkered down, on
both sides of the aisle, and re-wrote this bill, Mr. Chairman, from the
bottom up. We reordered priorities, we focused resources on areas of
investment promising the greatest returns, we demanded greater
efficiencies, and produced a bill that in my view is both fiscally
responsive and protective of so many interests within the jurisdiction
of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
Total spending on the bill is $20.65 billion. That represents a
reduction of $80 million from fiscal year 1998 and $649 million below
the budget request. Of the total amount, $11.8 billion, just about 60
percent of every penny spent in this bill, is for the atomic energy
defense activities of the Department of Energy. The remaining $8.7
billion is for domestic programs, and it represents a decrease of $473
million from the current fiscal year and $284 million from the budget
request.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to my colleagues in the House
that in reordering those priorities that we talked about, we looked at
highly significant projects that we could complete in an efficient and
effective way. My colleagues will see this bill unanimously
appropriating $63 million for the Los Angeles harbor project, and $60
million for the Houston-Galveston navigation project, and $60 million
for the L.A. County drainage area project, where human lives are at
stake and where people of lower incomes have been forced to pay ever-
rising insurance costs to try to stay in their homes.
We have completed a work that represents a togetherness on the
subcommittee and on the full committee, and that respects the necessary
programs to keep this Nation strong. There is, as far as I know, and I
think I can speak with authority, no dissent from any member of the
committee on this bill. I hope that all Members will support this bill.
Mr. Chairman: I rise in support of the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1999. The bill was reported without
dissent by the Committee on Appropriations last Tuesday, June 16.

[[Page H4914]]

The Committee has faced--and, I believe, has met--a tremendous
challenge in assembling a responsible bill within the constraints of a
significantly reduced allocation for domestic discretionary programs.
By reordering budgetary priorities, focusing resources on areas of
investment promising the greatest returns, and demanding greater
efficiencies from program managers, we have produced a bill that is
both fiscally responsible and protective of the vital services within
the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
Total spending in the bill is $20.65 billion, a reduction of $80
million from fiscal year 1998 and $649 million from the budget request.
Of the total amount, $11.8 billion--approximately 60 percent of the
total spending in the bill--is for the atomic energy defense activities
of the Department of Energy. The remaining $8.7 billion for domestic
programs represents a decrease of $473 million from the current fiscal
year and $284 million from the budget request.
Although the Committee faced severe budgetary constraints, it was
able to thoroughly reject and repudiate the Administration's proposal
to decimate the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers. The
budget request for the Corps--a reduction of $948 million from the
fiscal year 1998 level--was completely irresponsible. The
Administration presented a proposal to halve the Corps' construction
budget. According to the testimony of the Corps, this would be, in
terms of real dollars, the lowest construction budget in the history of
the civil works program.
Our recommendation for the Corps of Engineers is nearly $4 billion.
While this is $202 million below the fiscal year 1998 level, it is $745
million above the budget request. Where the Administration proposed to
terminate scores of construction projects, place dozens more on life
support, increase costs, and extend project completion schedules, the
Committee has concentrated available resources on continuing projects
in the construction pipeline, and funding them at levels that, in
several cases, represent the Corps' maximum capability for fiscal year
1999. This includes $63 million for the Los Angeles Harbor project, $60
million for the Houston-Galveston navigation channels project; $60
million for the Los Angeles County Drainage Area project; $15 million
for construction and operation and maintenance of the Boston Harbor
project; and dozens more.
By focusing on the traditional and vital missions of flood control,
navigation and shoreline protection, the Commission has drawn a sharp
distinction between its priorities and those of the Administration.
Still, we labored under serious budget constraints, and as a
consequence, we were unable to fund new starts in the Construction,
General account of the Corps of Engineers.
The Committee acknowledges that there are many very worthy projects
that were unable to receive funding because of the Administration's
opposition to beach renourishment projects and its failure to include
sufficient funding in the budget for a viable civil works program. The
Committee would have liked to provide funding for worthy projects, like
the Brevard County Shoreline Protection project. The Federal government
has an obligation to address problems that have arisen because of Corps
projects, like the erosion along Brevard County's shoreline that has
been caused by construction of a Federal inlet. The Committee, which
does not share the Administration's antipathy toward shoreline
protection, will continue to work toward the provision of sufficient
funding for these worthy projects.

Title II of the bill funds the Bureau of Reclamation within the
Department of the Interior. Our recommendation includes $804 million
for Title II. This is a reduction of $112 million from the FY 98 level
and $131 million from the budget request. Now that the West has been
reclaimed and the Bureau has changed its mission to one of water
resource protection and management, it is time to begin a serious
dialogue on the agency's future and abiding role in western resource
issues. The Committee is anxious to participate in that discussion.
Title III of the bill provides funding for all of the atomic energy
defense activities, and most of the domestic discretionary activities,
of the Department of Energy. Of the $16.2 billion provided for DOE,
$11.8 billion is for atomic energy defense activities. This funding
provides for stewardship of our nuclear weapons stockpile, arms control
and nonproliferation activities, and naval reactor research and
development. In terms of dollars this bill's largest commitment is to
cleaning up the environmental degradation that is the legacy of decades
of nuclear weapons production. The bill provides over $6.3 billion for
environmental restoration and waste management activities of the
Department of Energy.
The non-defense activities of the DOE are funded at or near fiscal
year 1998 levels. One notable exception is funding for domestic science
programs, which were increased by $164 million (or 7 percent) to
provide first year funding for construction of the Spallation Neutron
Source in Tennessee, and additional funding to operate existing science
facilities.
Title IV of the bill funds independent agencies. The amount in Title
IV is $103 million, a decrease of $175 million from the budget request
and $396 million from the budget request. There are two principal
components of this sizable reduction. First, the Committee
recommendation includes no new funding for the highway program of the
Appalachian Regional Commission. Funding for that program will now come
from the Highway Trust Fund, pursuant to the recently enacted highway
bill. Second, the bill includes no new funding for the nonpower
programs of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Consistent with Public Law
105-62, TVA is empowered and directed to continue funding those
programs with internally generated revenues and savings.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Members of the Subcommittee on
Energy and Water for their hard work and for their commitment to
working through a vast number of difficult issues and choices for
fiscal year 1999. I am deeply appreciative of their contributions and
their dedication to this bill.
I am especially pleased to commend the Ranking Minority Member on the
Energy and Water Subcommittee, the Honorable Vic Fazio. The Energy and
Water Bill has enjoyed a long tradition of bipartisanship, and the
gentleman from California has done everything within his power to
perpetuate that tradition. I am grateful for his service to the
Subcommittee, to the House of Representatives, and to the country.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 1999.

[[Page H4915]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN98.003

[[Page H4916]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH22JN98.004

[[Page H4917]]

Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H.R. 4060, the energy and water appropriation bill
for fiscal year 1999.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), the ranking member of this
important subcommittee, will be on the floor in just a few moments, but
in the meantime, Mr. Chairman, I would like to pay tribute to two
leaders of this subcommittee who, along with the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Hefner) whom we honored a few minutes ago, are retiring
at the end of this Congress.
This will represent the last time that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade), the chairman, and the ranking member,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Vic Fazio), will be responsible for
bringing the energy and water appropriations bill to the floor of this
House, and on behalf of all of us who have had the privilege to serve
with both of these leaders in Congress, I want to thank them for their
lifetime of service to our Nation.
Let me begin with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and while we often
say, Mr. Chairman, ``gentleman'' when referring to our colleagues on
this floor, I think whoever coined that phrase must have had Mr. McDade
in mind when he developed that word because I could think of no better
way to describe the chairman, our friend and colleague of this
committee, then to say he is a gentleman from head to toe. His lifetime
of service, over 3 decades of commitment to our country and this House,
are living proof of that. In all the times that I have known him he has
served with great dignity and honesty and integrity.
And while I have only had the honor of serving on his particular
subcommittee for a year and a half, I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that
when I was coming onto the Committee on Appropriations I asked a former
member of this subcommittee, Mr. Chapman of Texas, which subcommittee I
should consider serving on, and he said to me that the most important
factor I ought to look at is not just the substance of the committee
but the chairman of that committee. For that reason he said without
doubt I should ask to be on that subcommittee because the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) is the kind of Member that all Americans
could be proud of.
And once again there is not a floor full of Members on this floor for
the very reason that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) has
handled this business like he handles all of his business, in a fair,
evenhanded and on a totally nonpartisan basis.
So, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of all of us in this House and families
all across America from his district to mine who will live in a better
country, better flood control, better safety in terms of the
proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world; for those and so
many more important issues that are part of this bill and other bills
the gentleman from Pennsylvania has been a part of, I want to express
my lasting gratitude to the gentleman for his sacrifice and service on
behalf of this country.
Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from California
(Mr. Fazio), the ranking member of this subcommittee, will be retiring
at the end of this Congress, so this will also be the last time he
comes to the floor as a ranking member to push the energy and water
appropriations bill.
Time will not permit me to list all of the accomplishments of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), but no one in this House would
doubt that he has been one of the true leaders in the House of
Representatives for his many years of service as former chairman of the
Democratic Campaign Committee, as being a leading spokesman for the
Democratic Party and Democratic Members of this House. But in serving
as a leading member of the Committee on Appropriations he put that
partisanship aside, particularly on the energy and water bill, because
he knew that providing flood protection and providing funds for
research for renewable sources of energy to make our country
economically sound for decades to come, he knew that in providing
efforts to try to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons across the
Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union, and through other countries in
the world, he knew that those efforts were far more important than any
particular party, and in that capacity Mr. Fazio has fought hard to
bring legislation to this floor that will reflect well upon this body
for many years and many decades to come.
Finally, as a member of this committee, let me just thank the
chairman and ranking member for working on this particular bill under
the limits of a very difficult budget, but to work in a way that the
taxpayers would be proud, and using limited resources to focus on
priority programs from flood control to nuclear weapons proliferation.
They spent these dollars in a way that I think will be good for this
country, and I think the best reflection of that was the committee
vote, which as the chairman said was a unanimous vote of both Democrats
and Republicans.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) the very able chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, colleague,
mentor, and guidance counselor, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Joe McDade) not only for yielding this time to me, but for doing such
an outstanding job both as chairman of his subcommittee but also as a
Member of Congress since his appearance here on the scene in
Washington, D.C. back in 1963.
I certainly rise to support his bill. It is one of the most important
bills in the appropriations process, at least from the standpoint of a
Member who lives in New Orleans, in the center of the Mississippi River
Valley watershed, because all that water that comes down from the
drainage area that starts up in Minnesota and comes through our
territory, and I want to say that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
McDade) together with the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) has
certainly worked with all of the members on the subcommittee to make
sure that their responsibility has been carried out in a sensitive
manner and that the people of Louisiana and all throughout the
watershed have been protected from the onslaught of floods.
But let me simply say on a personal note that first of all the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) has been a wonderful Member of
Congress, and this is his last year as chairman and last year as a
Member of the House of Representatives, and of all the Members that we
might talk about today or that we might think about today he is going
to be one of the most sorely missed.

{time} 1730

Joe McDade has not only a wealth of experience that he has brought to
his role over these last many years, but he has got incredibly good
judgment. He is a gifted politician in the finest sense of the word.
Where some of us get led astray into areas of legislative domain that
might seem to sink the most able of us, I guarantee you that Joe McDade
rises above the tide and carries the way so that others can follow.
He was born in Scranton, and still lives there. He has represented
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, in a number of ways since his
graduation from Notre Dame in 1953 and at the University of
Pennsylvania where he got his LLB. He was a clerk to a Federal judge;
he practiced law; he became city solicitor of the city of Scranton; and
then, in 1963, he was elected to the Congress of the United States.
I have had the pleasure of serving with Joe since my appearance in
Congress in 1977, but more closely since I got to be a member of the
Committee on Appropriations in 1980. We have served closely together on
the same subcommittees. I just want to say that I have never seen a
more able, more capable, more skilled legislator than Joe McDade. He
has had a remarkable career.
I just want to take the opportunity to wish Joe and his wife Sarah
and their family all of the best, a long, healthy, happy lifetime of
success, and send with them the good wishes that

[[Page H4918]]

all of us here who have had the pleasure and honor of serving with him
extend to them, so that he will know that he can always come back,
because he has got lots of friends here.
Mr. Chairman, I would take another couple of minutes to say that Vic
Fazio is another outstanding Member who came on the scene after I did,
in the 96th Congress. I was elected in the 95th. Vic Fazio likewise has
shown the skill, and understanding on legislative process that,
frankly, few other Members have exhibited.
Vic has been elected to a number of partisan positions on his own
side. He has been a formidable adversary, and, at the same time, he has
conducted his affairs in good humor and with the ability to compromise
when he has to and in bipartisan fashion. That is appreciated from this
side of the aisle. He has been a friend, and we certainly want to
extend our best wishes to him. I am sorry, apparently his flight has
been delayed and he is not yet here today for the discussion of this
bill but we want him to know that we send our best wishes to him and to
his family for lots of success and happiness as he leaves Congress.
Finally, to Mike Parker, who came over to the Republican side of the
aisle from the other side, after he first arrived here a few years ago,
with great foresight, since we took the majority about the time that he
made the switch, and has shown extraordinary diplomatic and legislative
skills in his performance here.
Mike has not been here as long as the other two, but he is a very,
very talented guy, and a fellow who has got great judgment, upon which
all of us have had the opportunity to value and treasure, because we
find that he is a person that we can indeed rely on. We are going to
miss him greatly, from the standpoint of leadership on the Committee on
Appropriations and throughout the Republican Conference.
We wish him well in Mississippi, and hope that his political career
is not over, that he will have other things in mind, and that his
leadership will serve the people of Mississippi and the people of
America in great fashion.
So with all of these three people, I want to say thank you for your
service to the Committee on Appropriations, to this subcommittee and to
the people of America. We value and treasure your friendship, we wish
you well and bon voyage when you depart from Congress, but we thank you
for the opportunity for allowing us to serve with you.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I too want to extend my congratulations to the
distinguished careers of the chairman and ranking member, and
especially in one regard, and that is that they have been true
champions of a great national treasure that we have in the country
called the Mississippi River. In fact, in this appropriations bill, we
nearly fully fund a very important program affecting the Mississippi
River called the environmental management program that is a multistate,
multiagency cooperative effort in order to collect data and monitor
resources and conduct some habitat restoration on the Mississippi in
order to preserve this treasure for future generations. It affects the
upper Mississippi in particular, but I have always said that if we blow
it up there, there is going to be consequences down south.
I look forward to working with these gentlemen throughout the course
of the year in reauthorizing the environmental management program, and
I too want to again just congratulate them on the leadership that they
have shown on this issue, an issue that not only affects me and my
constituents in western Wisconsin, but millions of people throughout
middle America who appreciate the river and the multiple uses that we
all share and use the river for.
As we consider the energy and water appropriations bill for fiscal
year 1999, I want to commend the chairman and members of the
Appropriations Committee for prioritizing funding for one of our
Nation's most treasured natural resources, the Mississippi River. By
providing nearly full funding, the environmental management program
[EMP] for the Mississippi River will continue to excel at restoring and
monitoring the long-term ecological health of one of our Nation's most
treasured waterways.
During this Congress, I have worked with Representative Oberstar,
Representative Leach, and Representative Gutknecht to form the
Bipartisan Upper Mississippi River Task Force. Sixteen Members of
Congress--eight Members from each side of the aisle--have come
together, in a bipartisan fashion, in recognition of the national
importance of the navigational, recreational, and environmental
benefits this Nation enjoys because of a healthy, vibrant Mississippi
River. The Upper Mississippi River Task Force has repeatedly voiced its
unwavering support for fully funding the EMP. I thank the members of
the task force for their bipartisanship, diligence, and perseverance in
supporting our Nation's interest in the Mississippi River.
The EMP is a cooperative effort of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the
five Upper Mississippi River Basin States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, and Wisconsin to evaluate, restore and enhance the river and
wetland habitat along 1200 miles of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois
Rivers. The EMP is a tremendous example of how Federal funds support
the successful multi-state, multi-agency cooperation responsible for
ensuring a healthy, vital Upper Mississippi River system.
The EMP is an essential tool in maintaining the quality of the river
environment, as well as recreational and economic opportunities along
the Mississippi River. Navigation along the Upper Mississippi River
supports 400,000 full or part time jobs, which produces over $4 billion
in individual income, Recreation use of the river generates 12 million
visitors and spending of $1.2 billion in direct and indirect
expenditures in the communities along the Mississippi.
I would also like to commend the Appropriations Committee for funding
the La Farge Dam land transfer, an Army Corps of Engineers project in
my district in western Wisconsin. The funding in this bill finally
allow the Federal Government to return the Kickapoo reserve lands to
the people of western Wisconsin. It will begin to restore the natural
surroundings so that visitors from across the country may once again
enjoy the beautiful bluffs and flowing waters of the Kickapoo River. I
look forward to working with the conference committee to guarantee that
the Corps of Engineers fulfills its financial obligations under current
authorizing legislation by providing the necessary funds to the
transferees.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
(Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong
support for this bill, but first I, too, want to pay tribute to a
gentleman who has become my friend. I am sorry that the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio) is not here, he will be along shortly, but let
me just pay for a moment tribute to the man that I believe has earned
the respect of this whole House, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Joe
McDade).
Along with Vic Fazio, their spirit of cooperation is commendable. But
the competence and the thoughtfulness of Joe McDade, his years of hard
work, it will take many of us to fill the congressional shoes of
Chairman Joe McDade. His character, his warmth, and, speaking on a
personal note, his kindness and courtesy to me, and the fact that he is
truly a gentleman in every respect, I will truly miss him, his counsel,
his guidance, but never, however, his friendship. I will keep that.
Along with Chairman McDade, I see that Mr. Fazio is here now, and I
will extend and salute a hail, how are you. Certainly, as well, the
competence of this man, Vic Fazio, and his ability to work both sides
of the aisle, has been something that I think this committee has
benefitted by and this House has benefitted by.
Along with Joe McDade and Vic Fazio, I would like to salute efforts
by the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development staff for bringing
this strong bill to the floor. The administration's budget request,
especially the funding shortfall they created in the water projects,
was unworkable, if not irresponsible. This bill is responsible and
balanced.
Just a few portions I would like to focus on. This year the
administration more than doubled the budget request for climate change
initiatives, creating a $1.7 billion government-wide umbrella to fund
existing and new programs. Since the Senate has not yet ratified the
Kyoto Protocol, it seems

[[Page H4919]]

the administration has put the cart in front of the horse.
I wanted to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman McDade)
and the subcommittee staff for taking my concerns about Kyoto into
account in this year's bill. Specifically I am pleased that the
committee provided none of the $100 million increase requested by the
administration to further research towards the goals of meeting the
Kyoto Accord.
Also the committee was critical of the administration's tendency to
devote half of its resources to advanced policy instead of conducting
scientific research. The $27 million was cut to $13.5 million, in half,
to reflect this criticism.
Furthermore, I support this bill's focusing on closing out the former
defense and nuclear facilities. When I was first assigned to this
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on
Appropriations, the Department of Energy reported we would not complete
clean up of the environmental management sites until after the year
2075, with a total cost of some $230 billion. We are now looking to
close all of the small EM sites and even some the larger sites,
including Fernald in Ohio and Rocky Flats in Colorado by the year 2006.
The reduction of landlord costs may be in the tens of billions of
dollars.
Frankly, I also want to express my strong support for the nuclear
energy and research initiative, NERI, and the nuclear energy water
research grant program. I am pleased have we have included $5 million
for the NERI program. This program is designed to reinvigorate the
Department of Energy's nuclear energy R&D based on competitive and
peer-reviewed applications concerning such issues as more efficient
reactor designs, lower costs, improved safety, better on-site storage
and proliferation resistant reactors.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this important R&D program and I
urge support for the energy and water appropriations bill
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time. I also want to extend my congratulations and appreciation for the
outstanding work that the chairman and the ranking member have done on
the appropriation. Both of them have gallantly looked at our natural
resources and tried to appropriate, with resources that are scarce, as
efficiently and as passionately and caring so as to preserve those
resources.
In particular I am appreciative and urge the support of this
appropriation, because it indeed allows North Carolina to have the
opportunity to widen their port authorities. The port authorities there
have been historically valuable to the East Coast, but, in particular,
to North Carolina. So you have allowed us to have at least $8.3 million
that would allow us to go towards the long-range plan. Obviously the
State is doing its part, the private sector is doing its part, and I am
appreciative that the Federal Government is doing its part to allow us
to have at least 80,000 jobs in our State as part of that.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the appropriation. I thank both the
chairman and ranking member. My hat is off to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio) for all of the fine work he has done for the
people of America.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, for
several reasons, not the least of which is the expertise and the
judgment and wisdom that the chairman and the ranking member have put
into this bill.
This is a bittersweet moment, I think, for all of us on this
committee, and in fact the Congress, to see a fine bill like this
brought to the floor, the finest that I have seen in my experience,
given the circumstances; sweet in that respect, but bitter in that we
are losing two of the most able gentleman this House has been able to
have for many years.
Joe McDade, as has been said, is leaving us after this term. We wish
we could talk him into staying, but I think his mind is set. The same
for Vic Fazio. But these two men have offered leadership at a time when
we need leadership, and they have done it in a bipartisan, in fact,
nonpartisan way, and we are certainly going to miss them deeply and
long on this subcommittee and on the full committee and, of course, in
this body. We wish for each of them happiness and success in the years
to come.
The chairman has done an outstanding job in producing this
appropriations bill, which adequately funds such diverse programs as
nuclear weapons research, to solar and renewable energy technologies,
to water infrastructure projects, to critical rural development
programs like the Appalachian Regional Commission. This is not an easy
bill to write.
I am particularly grateful for the chairman's efforts in increasing
the administration's requested level for the Army Corps of Engineers.
The President had the audacity to propose a funding level nearly $2
billion below the level required to continue ongoing water
infrastructure projects at their optimal level. The President's request
was the lowest budget request in terms of real dollars in the history
of the civil works program of the United States.

{time} 1745

This bill goes a long way toward getting those projects back on
track. The recommendation is $3.97 billion. That will ensure that vital
national priorities of flood control, navigation, and shoreline
protection are adequately funded.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman McDade) and his very
capable staff have put together something that we can all be proud of,
and I truly appreciate their insight and their responsiveness.
As has been said, we are losing a true patriot and statesman in the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade). He has provided
leadership, courage, and overwhelming devotion to the American people
for nearly four decades in this body. This institution will not be the
same without Joe McDade.
The same can be said of our friend, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Fazio), and of course, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Mike
Parker), who has served on this subcommittee admirably and well. He
will be sorely missed, as well.
Whatever endeavors each decides to undertake in the future, I know
they will display the same compassion and understanding and devotion as
they always have here in the body. It has been a great personal honor
to have served with them, and I wish for them and their family all the
best. God speed.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, 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. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank both the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman McDade) and our ranking member,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), for the service not only
that they have provided to their districts over the years, but also to
our great Nation. We will miss them, all of us will. I am not saying
that just because they have been kind to the Port of Houston for a
number of years, even before I was involved in serving in Congress.
But Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. It is a second year
appropriation for the deepening and widening of the Port of Houston,
and the committee, in its wisdom, with our only Texan on the committee,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Chet Edwards), provided for $60 million
for the deepening and widening of the Houston ship channel.
It is so important, not just for Houston but for all of America,
because it generates $300 million annually for America in customs fees,
and $213 million annually for local taxes.
The expansion of the Port of Houston and the Houston ship channel is
important not only because it is the busiest port in foreign tonnage,
and second in domestic tonnage, with more than 6,435 vessels navigating
the channel annually. Again, this is a second year appropriation of $60
million.
Again, I would like to thank both the chairman and the ranking member
for their service, but also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a
neighbor of ours from Waco, Texas, for his efforts.

[[Page H4920]]

Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the able
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a very valued member of
our subcommittee.
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this energy and water
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. First, let me thank the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman McDade) and the ranking member,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), for their bipartisan effort
in bringing this bill to the floor, and to thank our excellent
committee staff for their assistance, as well.
This will be these gentlemen's final energy and water bill presented
in this House. As a member of this subcommittee, I have learned to
depend on them for their outstanding guidance and for their incredible
institutional memory. It is difficult to comprehend how we will be able
to work without them. Their retirement from Congress will leave a big
hole in this institution, and I will miss both of them as friends and
leaders.
This bill before the House today stresses national priorities while
keeping our commitment to downsizing the Federal Government. Unlike the
President's budget request in January for the Army Corps of Engineers,
this bill does maintain critical funding for flood safety, coastal
protection, and dredging projects throughout my home State of New
Jersey and throughout our Nation.
This bill flatly rejects the Administration's efforts to back away
from these types of national commitments and investments, and restores
funds needed to protect American life and property, and promotes our
international competitiveness.
Of particular concern to me were efforts to shortchange our Nation's
ports. In New York and our New Jersey harbor alone, the President's
request was over $40 million short for what was needed to keep these
important dredging projects on time and on track.
International trade is too important to jeopardize, and ships cannot
enter our ports without adequate channel depth. Too many jobs depend on
the Army Corp's work, literally $70 billion annually in commerce for
both New York and New Jersey.
In addition to the civil works program, this bill also funds many
important scientific programs, and I am particularly happy that the
committee moved ahead on fusion power research. I am disappointed that
there is no funding for international fusion power, but I am grateful
to the committee for their leadership and work on it.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full
committee.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take this time to note that
this is the last time that the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio)
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) will be managing a
regular appropriation bill on this floor because of their retirement. I
just have to say something about both gentlemen.
As far as the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) is concerned, I
can think of no more decent person who has ever served in this
institution. He is not only a person of immense graciousness
personally, but he is a person who is willing to take on any task for
the benefit of the national interest.
He is one of the people in this place who recognizes that there are
many times when the job of governing has to take precedence over
politics, and has never ceased to act on that assumption. He has also,
in virtually every issue that I have ever seen him deal with,
consistently insisted on putting public interest ahead of virtually
every other interest. He is one of those rare people in politics who
is, first and foremost, a workhorse rather than a show horse. I will
miss him very much personally. I know the rest of this House will, as
well.
As far as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) is concerned,
he had already established a reputation for legislative quality and
leadership when I arrived here as a freshman. I never cease to marvel
at the talent with which he handled every responsibility given to him
during the years that I have served or watched him in this body.
I have to say that he has demonstrated to me time and time again that
he is a person of absolute integrity and extreme wisdom, to boot. He
has treated Members fairly regardless of their partisan stripe, and he
certainly is, as is the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), what
people who truly care about this institution call ``institutional
men.'' They are both institutional men. They recognize the needs of
this institution in the finest sense of that recognition. I am going to
greatly miss both of them.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the
remarks that have been made here this evening for the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) and the ranking member, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio), two great Members who are going to be missed a
great deal next year.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the chairman, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade) and the ranking member, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), for crafting a bill that
maintains funding for the Army Corps of Engineers and many critical
projects, but also remains true to the budget parameters we have set
here in Congress.
The Energy and Water Development Act preserves our commitment to
cleaning up nuclear waste, maintaining our waterways, and promoting the
future energy needs of each American.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I voted
in favor of this bill in committee, in particular because of a project
important to the people of Sioux City, Iowa. Sioux City is one of the
many cities in America established on a river, and while the river
remains the lifeblood of the city, the people oftentimes find
themselves at its mercy.
The Perry Creek Flood Control Project is funded in this bill. This
important flood control project removes fear of flooding for downtown
Sioux City and for a large community of retirees. The project enjoys
the support of local funding, and allows the city to further redevelop
its infrastructure without losing investors due to unforeseen
disasters.
The Perry Creek Flood Control Project is one of several funded in
this bill to protect towns and cities at risk from flooding. I want to
thank the chairman and the committee for working with me to make sure
this project received appropriate funding. I recognize the Committee on
Appropriations has faced a daunting task in writing bills with very
limited amount of resources. For Sioux City, for many other cities in
similar situations, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).
(Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks).
Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I, too, join with all of our
colleagues in commending the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade)
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) for the tremendous work
they have provided on behalf of this country.
I understand that this year we had one of the most difficult
decisions and conflicts in trying to move the appropriations bills
forward because of the tight fiscal constraints they were working
under. It was very clear in the energy and water appropriation bill,
which I support, that we were in a situation where we were not able to
fund any new starts because we had to meet the priorities of continuing
our funding for ongoing projects.
Given the tight fiscal constraints, I greatly appreciate the efforts
of my colleagues on the committee to provide much needed funds for
other high priority water resource development and flood control
projects that are vital to the safety and well-being of the residents
of the San Joaquin Valley.
However, I will continue to work to secure funding to address a
particular flooding problem along a river referred to as the White
River. The situation there is dire, and Federal assistance is vital to
achieving a long-term solution.

[[Page H4921]]

This past February the area around Earlimart in Tulare and Kern
Counties was flooded for the fifth time in 40 years. State and Federal
disaster assistance was granted to assist the town of 5,000 residents.
It is this project which we need to fund at least for a reconnaissance
study. I look forward to working with the committee to secure that.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss).
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my concern about the level
of funding in the bill for the Everglades restoration, to get right to
the point. Specifically, I am concerned about the level of funding for
the Kissimmee River Restoration Project, the Central and Southern
Florida Project, as well as funding provided for the Everglades
Critical Projects.
Clearly, the committee has done a very judicious job of balancing the
competing interests in a very difficult bill. It goes without saying
that the committee's task was not made any easier by the Clinton
administration's irresponsible, if not reckless, budget request, which
essentially gutted all funds for beach renourishment work by the Corps.
As the Committee sought to restore these devastating cuts, it had a
lot of devastating choices to make, I know. Unfortunately, that has
resulted in fewer funds available for the Corps and its
responsibilities when it comes to the Everglades.
Earlier today I received an analysis prepared by the Jacksonville
District of the Army Corps which estimates that the progress on all of
these projects, the Kissimmee River restoration, the Central and
Southern Florida Project, and the Everglades Critical Projects, would
be significantly delayed if these funding levels were enacted.
Mr. Chairman, suffice it to say that the Federal Government has made
a significant commitment to the restoration of the Everglades, a vital
national treasure. As the energy and water bill moves to conference, I
would request the committee review the analysis prepared by the
Jacksonville District of the Corps.
I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee
on Appropriations again for their hard work, and look forward to moving
forward on this issue.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade) has been a great
friend of Florida, a Member of Congress who is, I think, outstanding.
He has been a mentor of mine. He has served his district and our
country faithfully, professionally, successfully, with integrity, and
for a long time. I think we would say just about the same thing for the
gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), except it was California, in his
case.
I am proud to know these Members, and I hope they can help us with
the Everglades.
Mr. Chairman, I include this Corps analysis for the Record.
The material referred to is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY98 FY99
project budget Senate House
allocations request markup markup
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C&SF......................... $21,833 $40,800 $25,000 $20,900
Kissimmee.................... 2,817 27,300 10,000 3,500
Critical projects............ 4,009 20,000 10,000 3,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

CENTRAL & SOUTHERN FLORIDA

All assumptions are made with the understanding that
funding will only be delayed for one year and required
funding will be available in the following year.
If Senate Budget is Adopted ($25,000,000 allocation)
West Palm Beach (C-51): Delay in funding for relocations
may not impact the overall project schedule. Delay in funding
S-360, G-312, and levees (components of Stormwater Treatment
Area 1 East) would not significantly impact the project. The
project would likely still be completed within the overall
completion schedule.
South Dade (C-111): Delay in funding for S-332A, B, and C
pumping plants, and Levees and Canal work will not
significantly impact the overall project completion. Recent
requirements for a new GRR supplement have caused this delay
to be necessary regardless of funding.
Upper St. Johns: Delays in funding L74N and S-96E will
increase the overall project completion time.
If House Budget is Adopted ($20,900,000 allocation)
West Palm Beach (C-51): Delay in funding for relocations
may not impact the overall project schedule. Delay in funding
S-360, G-312, and levees (components of Stormwater Treatment
Area 1 East) would not significantly impact the project.
However, the additional cuts would delay completion of Pump
Station S-362 (Stormwater Treatment Area 1 East outflow pump
station) which would delay the overall project completion.
The time could not be made up regardless of the follow-on
funding.
Comprehensive Restudy: The additional cuts will adversely
impact work on the Restudy. A delay in funding will result in
completion beyond the mandatory completion dates.
South Dade (C-111): Delay in funding for S-332A, B, and C
pumping plants, and Levees and Canal work will not
significantly impact the overall project completion. Recent
requirements for a new GRR supplement have caused this delay
to be necessary regardless of funding.
Upper St. Johns: Delays in funding L74N and S-96E will
increase the overall project completion time.

kissimmee river restoration

If Senate Budget is Adopted ($10,000,000 allocation)
Contract 3 (S-65 Modification), CNT 4C (local levee
removal), and Contract 2 (Canal widening for C-35 & 36) can
be completed.
Contract 14A (to remove 1M CY of material) can be
completed. Contact 14B (to remove 5M CY of material) will not
be awarded in FY 99. The entire 6M CY of material of Contract
14A & B must be removed before any work in the lower basin is
initiated.
Majority of the environmental restoration benefits are
claimed in the lower basin. However, if the request is
reduced to 10 million, the initial environmental component
Contract 7 (Reach 1 Backfill of canal C-38) will definitely
not be awarded in FY 99. A prior commitment was made to
initiate Reach 1 Backfill by 30 March 1999. This commitment
will not be met. The remaining three reaches will also be
delayed, and the corresponding environmental benefits will
not be obtained. Engineering efforts in preparing P&S for
future contracts will be downscaled because of limited funds
and no A-E contract awards in 1999.
To implement the Reach 1 backfill contract, flood control
features of Istokpoga basin (Contract 6, a large tributary
within Reach 1) will need to be addressed. If the Istokpoga
works is delayed, the Corps will go to condemnation, tie-up
resources, cause additional delays, and Reach 1 Backfill
cannot be initiated.
The balance of FY 1999 will be used to prepare P&S which
will be shelved until funds become available.
If House Budget is Adopted ($3,500,000 allocation)
In addition to the above, Contract 14A (to remove 1M CY of
material) will not be awarded in FY98. As noted above, all of
Contract 14 needs to be completed before implementation of
the lower basin works. None of the primary restoration
benefits will be obtained in FY 99.

critical projects

If Senate Budget is Adopted ($10,000,000 allocation)
With a funding level of 10 million, NEPA, and design
development could not be initiated on 4 projects for which
letter reports have been developed; Seminole Tribe Big
Cypress, Loxahatchee Slough, L-31E and Melalueca Quarantine
Facility. In addition, the South Dade County Agriculture and
Rural Area Retention and South Biscayne Bay Watershed
Management Plan studies could not be initiated. Since WRDA 96
requires that the Critical Projects be initiated by 30
September 1999, all projects listed above could not be
implemented under this authority.
If House Budget is Adopted ($3,000,000 allocation)
With a funding level of 3 million, NEPA, and design
development will not be initiated on 9 projects for which
letter reports have been developed; Golden Gate Estates,
Tamiami Trail Culverts, Lake Okeechobee Water Retention/
Phosphous Removal, Ten Mile Creek, Lake Trafford, Southern
Crew, Seminole Tribe Big Cypress, Loxahatchee Slough, L-31E,
and Melalueca Quarantine Facility. In addition, the South
Dade County Agriculture and Rural Area Retention and South
Biscayne Bay Watershed Management Plan studies could not be
initiated. Since WRDA 96 requires that the Critical Projects
be initiated by 30 September 1999, all projects listed above
could not be implemented under this authority.

CRITICAL PROJECT RANK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rank/cummulative cost Project/sponsor Project summary (cost in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1--$2.3 mil...................... East Canal Structures/SFWMD. Increase water to Pennsucco wetlands, reduce
seepage using gated control structures ($2.3
mil).

[[Page H4922]]

2--$6.6 mil...................... Tamiami Trail Culverts/SFWMD Install culvert structures to improve sheetflow
of surface water within the watersheds of Ten
Thousands Islands National refuge, Southern
Golden Gates Estates, Fakahatchee Strand State
Preserve, Big Cypress National Preserve, and
Everglades National Park ($4.3 mil).
3--$17 mil....................... Melaleucca Eradication Improve existing quarantine facility @
Project and other Exotic Gainesville, construct new facility, implement
Plants/SFWMD. biological controls ($10.4 mil).
4--$23 mil....................... Florida Keys Carrying Develop information database, decision-making
Capacity/Florida Department tool for infrastructure development,
of Community Affairs. investment ($6 mil).
5--$36.5 mil..................... Western C-11 Water Quality Develop measures to ensure water released into
Treatment Project/SFWMD. Everglades meets yet to be established
standards. Best management practices, water
quality measurements, water retention areas
($13.5 mil).
6--$81.5 mil..................... Seminole Tribe Big Cypress Water conservation pan includes construction of
Reservation Water conveyance systems, canal bypass, irrigation
Conservation Plan/Seminole storage cells in Basins 1, 2, 3, and 4 which
Tribe. compose the western portion of the Big Cypress
Reservation. This project is designed to meet
50 pph, phosphorus, which is the current
performance level designed to be achieved by
the Everglades Construction Project. Should
design performance level for phosphorous
become more stringent, this project is
designed to be able to incorporate additional
technology ($45 mil).
7--$97.1 mil..................... Southern Golden Gate Estates Land acquisition, spreader canals, canal plugs,
Hydrologic Restoration/ pump stations to provide redistribution of
SFWMD. flows to restore area overdrained which has
resulted in reduction of aquifer storage,
reduction of wetland functions, invasion of
upland vegetation, increased frequency of
forest fires and increased fresh water
discharges to the estuary. Variations of
freshwater discharges at large amplitudes have
resulted in large fluctuations of salinity
level and eliminated or displaced a high
proportion of the benthic, midwater and fish
plankton communities in the Ten Thousand
Island Estuary ($15.6 mil).
8--$104.6 mil.................... South Dade Agriculture & Provide database for development of land use
Rural Land Use & Water plan with focus on rural and agriculture.
Management Plan/ Retention. Water management focuses on storm
Metropolitan Dade County. water management ($7.5 mil).
9--$135.6 mil.................... Southern Crew Project Land acquisition totaling 4,670 acres removal
Addition/Imperial River of canal berms, single family homes, debris,
Flowways/SFWMD. till material and agricultural canal and berms
and installation of equalizer culverts, and
replacement of undersized culverts and bridges
that impede flows (31 mil).
10--$147.6 mil................... Lake Okeechobee Water Reduce number of drained wetlands in the
Retention/Phosphorus northern watershed of Lake O, as well as
Removal/SFWMD. create new ones, remove ditch connections.
Isolate phosphorous loaded wetlands and
provide peak flow attenuation of water to the
lake, resulting in a more gradual rise in lake
stage during heavy rainfall periods and a
slower drop in lake stage during drought.
Result in fewer freshwater discharges to tide
from Caloossahatchee and St Lucie Canals as
dictated by Lake O, regulation schedule ($12
mil).
11--$175.5 mil................... Ten-Mile Creek Water Land acquisition totaling 1200 to 2000 acres in
Preserve Area/SFWMD. eastern portion of basin and construction of
an above ground impoundment for stormwater
detention purposes. Infrastructures includes
pump stations to develop impoundments for
stormwater and redesign and reconstruction of
adjacent tidal discharge control structure and
perhaps constructed wetland or flow-through
marsh for water quality improvement purposes
($30 mil).
12--$175.5 mil................... L-28 Modification Report/ Restore more natural bydrologic conditions in
SFWMD. the Big Cypress National Reserve. Restore
hydropatterns within Big Cypress,
modifications to L-28, Tamiami Trail and Loop
Rd will be evaluated (MOVED TO RESTUDY
EFFORT).
13--$185.6 mil................... Loxahatchee Slough Ecosystem Water control structure at C-18 to reflood
Restoration/SFWMD. slough ($8 mil).
14--$187.6 mil................... Geodetic Vertical Control 1250 miles of second-order, Class 1 Surveys for
Surveys/Florida Department improved accuracy of natural systems data,
of Environmental Protection. analysis ($2 mil).
15--$203.6 mil................... Lake Trafford Restoration/ Lake restoration project consists of the
Florida Department of removal of 7 million cubic yards of
Environmental Protection. unconsolidated sediments with upland disposal
($16 mil).
16--$204.8 mil................... L-31E Flow Redistribution Spreader canals, eliminate point discharges
Project/SFWMD. ($1.2 mil).
17--$207.2 mil................... Henderson Creek Belle Meade Land acquisition of approximately 125 acres,
Restoration/Florida installation of culverts, filling ditches,
Department of Environmental roadbed removal, exotic removal, berm creation
Protection. and development of filter marsh water
management system to return a portion of the
historic timing, duration, and volume of
freshwater inflow, as well as providing much
needed treatment of stormwater, into Rookery
Bay ($2.4 mil).
18--$211.1 mil................... Lake Okeechobee Tributary Dredge phosphorous rich sediments from primary,
Sediment Dredging/SFWMD. tertiary canals and field ditches leading into
lake. These sediments are mobilized during
high flows ($3.8 mil).
19--$228.7 mil................... Develop & Implement Development, and implementation of the latest
Agricultural BMP's in C111 technologies to fruit, vegetable, landscape,
Basin/Florida Department of and ornamental growers and urban homeowners in
Agriculture and Consumer the eastern C-111 Basin to minimize ground and
Affairs. surface pollution, advance water use
efficiency, manage plant diseases, insects,
and weeds largely by biological based
technologies, and reduce the vulnerability of
crops to persistently high water table. BMP's
implementation will protect the Biscayne
aquifer and prevent introduction of toxicants
and undesirable levels of nutrients into
fragile marine and terrestrial ecosystems
($17.7 mil).
20--$229.2 mil................... North Fork New River This portion of the river is only remaining
Restoration/Florida section left in its natural state.
Department of Environmental Contamination from nearby septic tanks and
Protection. sewage lines has degraded water quality,
habitat. Plans to restore include spot
dredging, and improvement of water
circulation, a feasibility study, revegetation
with native species, identification of
contaminants, and promoting urban infill
development ($0.52 mil).
21--$232.4 mil................... L-8 Canal-Water Catchment Dredge L-8 and add pump capacity to take water
Area--Loxahatchee Slough from L-8 and route to West Palm to catchment
Infrastructure Improvements/ area ($3.2 mil).
West Palm Beach County.
22--$237.4 mil................... Florida Keys Tidal Creek Relocating culverts to restore flow to tidal
Restoration/Florida creeds at Tarpon Creek just south of Mile
Department of Environmental Marker 54 on Fat Deer Key, an unnamed creek
Protection. between Fat Deer Key, and Long Point Key south
of Mile Marker 56. Adequate culverting will
improve circulation, flushing, water quality
and habitat which have been degraded from
accumulation of organic material in these
creeks (approx $5 mil).
23--$239.4 mil................... Lake Worth Restoration...... Remove organically enriched sediments ($2 mil).
24--$251.9 mil................... Wetlands-Based Water Water reclamation project that recharges
Reclamation Project/West aquifer, reduces discharges to tide and
Palm Beach County. dependence on Lake O for drinking water
purposes and creates and restores 2,000 acres
of environmentally sensitive wetlands ($12.5
mil).
25--$257.4 mil................... Lake Okeechobee Project Water from Lake O injected into aquifer for
Aquifer Storage and later retrieval ($5.5 mil).
Recovery/SFWMD.
26--$282.4 mil................... Miccosukee Water Management Installation of pump station, spreader canals
Area/Miccosukee Tribe. control structures and levees. (approx $25
mil).
27--$283.5 mil................... Six Permanent Water Real time hydrological, and meteorlogical data
Monitoring and for trend analysis ($1.1 mil).
Meteorological Stations/
Florida Department of
Environmental Protection.
28--$285.1 mil................... Nutrient Removal and Dosing Development of water quality standards,
Studies for ENP/SFWMD. phosphorous thresholds ($1.6 mil).
29--$293.1 mil................... WCA 3B Seepage Reduction/ Installation of underground seepage barriers
SFWMD. using grant technology. The barrier would be
located between S-334 and S-335. Project would
reduce losses flowing out of WCA-38B ($8 mil).
30--$299.1 mil................... Hillsboro Pilot Aquifer This project will implement a regional storage
Storage and Recovery and recovery demonstration project in the
Project/SFWMD. Hillsboro canal region to capture and store
excess flows that are currently released to
tide for use during dry periods. Recovery of
the water will be utilized to recharge local
utility wellfields helping to prevent further
inland migration of the saline interface ($6
mil).
31--$304.1 mil................... Lakes Park Restoration Construction of a 40 acre marsh/flowway in an
Project/Florida Department abandoned rock mine to improve present habitat
of Environmental Protection. conditions and water quality trends
discharging to Hendry Creek and Estero Bay.
The project will include removal of exotic
vegetation, and planting of native vegetation
of 11 acres of uplands and 9 acres of littoral
zone ($5 mil).
32--$304.2 mil................... Town of Ft Myers Beach/ Identification of stormwater hotspots, reducing
Florida Department of non-stormwater discharges through one or more
Environmental Protection. retrofit projects. Goal is to reduce pollutant
loading into Estero Bay ($0.120 mil).
33............................... Palm Beach CO Water Develop 175 acre parcel of purposes of wetland
Utilities Department construction. Reclamation of 10mgd of water,
Winsberg Farms Constructed recharge local groundwater, recharge area
Wetland/Palm Beach County. canal network.
34............................... Spring Creek Reconnection ...............................................
and Rehydration project/
SFWMD.
35............................... Restoration of Pineland & Restore South Florida slash pine and hardwood
Hardwood Hammocks on hammock species on a 200 ft wide strip on each
Previously Rock Plowed Land side of the two miles of SR 9336 from the C-11
in C-111 Basin Dade County/ canal to the L-31W canal. Project will
University of Florida demonstrate the techniques required to re-
Critprol. establish native conifer and hardwood forests
on land that has been rock plowed ($0.80 mil).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to echo the remarks of my
colleagues with respect to the chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), and the ranking member, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio), on the work they have done on this bill and on
the work they have done in Congress.

{time} 1800

I had the opportunity not too long ago to be associate staff to the
House Committee on Appropriations, and they were giants at that time.
And now I had the opportunity to come back as a Member and go and ask
them for help on this bill, and they have certainly provided it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4060. In particular, I
want to mention what they have done to continue the funding for the
Sims Bayou project by putting in what the Corps of Engineers requested,
the Brays Bayou project, both of which run through my district, as well
as fully funding the Corps' request for the Port of Houston deepening
and widening project which is critical to our area's economy.
Mr. Chairman, finally I would like to say that both the chairman and
the ranking member had the wisdom and the foresight to stand up to the
Office of Management and Budget and to the administration on how they
were going to fund construction projects, and to say we could do it
within the Balanced Budget Act with no new starts, but to do it on an
incremental basis rather than fully fund and assure that we continue to
meet the needs of our Nation.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Chairman McDade) for yielding me this time.

[[Page H4923]]

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman may know, Assateague Island National
Seashore is in my district. This coastal barrier island has been home
to feral ponies for more than 300 years, habitat for a number of
endangered species, and protects homes on the mainland from the full
force of Atlantic hurricanes.
When the Ocean City Inlet was blown through by hurricanes in the
1930s, a jetty was constructed to protect the inlet from closing so the
business enterprises could be protected. However, the flow of sand that
naturally replenished Assateague was cut off and the island has been
eroding every since.
The Assateague restoration project is currently authorized at about
$16.9 billion, of which we need in the near future about $4 million.
Severe storms in January and February of this year caused a wash-over
along 7 miles of the island and, as a result, the island is now under
imminent threat of breach.
Without the support of this Congress, it would be difficult to
continue the project that is necessary to protect the island and
mitigate the problems of the homes behind the barrier island.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that the gentleman from
Maryland, my able friend, has brought this very forcefully to my
attention. We know what a treasure those barrier islands are. I want to
assure the gentleman that he will have my full effort as this bill
moves through conference.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman for his help on this. I also want to wish the gentleman
Godspeed and a great retirement.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), who if reelected is likely to
be the ranking member of this subcommittee in the next Congress.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. Fazio) for yielding me this time.
First of all, I rise in strong support of the legislation before the
House. Secondly, I rise to thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Fazio) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman McDade) for
continuing the bipartisan tradition of this subcommittee.
As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) had mentioned earlier, we
have two individuals before us who, while Republican and Democrat,
always put the public's interest before their party's. They have always
put the public's interest before their own, and have continued this
subcommittee on a bipartisan track and have provided the House today
with a quality piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, on a personal note I would say to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio), I will miss him. This House will miss him. He
is a good friend. He is a leader of our party and of this Nation. He is
one of the most competent legislators I have ever known and is
possessed of a kind heart. I really, really have appreciated the time I
have been able to spend with the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I would also say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. McDade) that he too is a friend and is imbued with a great deal of
integrity. As I said on an earlier occasion a couple of weeks ago, the
most precious thing any of us have to give any other individual is our
time, because that is the one thing we all possess in our lives that is
limited. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has been selfless in the time
that he has given me. He has given me his expertise. He has give me his
wisdom. He has given me good advice. Unfortunately, sometimes I do not
always want to hear that advice. But more times than not, I followed it
to my benefit.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman too has been a great friend. We all will
miss him. And from the bottom of my heart, I deeply appreciate
everything he has done for me.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
McDade) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I have just one simple question I would like to ask
with regard to whether it is the committee's intent that the solar and
renewable energy funds be targeted to projects developed by
nongovernmental organizations that produce the greatest reductions in
CO2 on a metric ton basis within the project's life cycle, that have an
existing private funding component, that have a high potential of
becoming totally privately financed in the shortest period of time, and
are not dependent on the development of new technologies or operational
systems in order to be successful.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say to the gentleman that he is
correct. It is the committee's intent to fund only those projects which
produce results.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for yielding and would join my colleagues in thanking him for the
tremendous service that he has given this subcommittee, the full
committee, the Congress, and our Nation. We wish him well in
retirement.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me add my accolades for
the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) for being an American hero
and one that has provided great service to this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Chairman McDade) ``thank you so very much'' for the collaborative
effort and leadership on these important issues. These are bread and
butter issues.
Mr. Chairman, I thank both of my colleagues on behalf of the 759
homes of constituents of mine in 1994 who suffered the flooding of the
Sims Bayou. We are gratified for the $18 million in total and the $8.5
million, which is an increase of what we would have gotten, to work
with the Army Corps of Engineers.
We are particularly delighted as well for the full funding of the
Port of Houston, a very vital aspect of the economy of Houston. We know
it was the collaborative work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Chairman McDade) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) who
brought this about, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards)
and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Parker).
Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the Army Corps of Engineers. We
would hope that as it moves to extend to the Martin Luther King and
Airport Boulevard and Cullen Boulevard, that we can get it finished
much earlier than the year 2006, for I would not like to see those 759
homes flooded again.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot thank these gentlemen enough. I look forward
to working with this committee in the future. I say to both of my
colleagues as they retire: Godspeed.
I rise in support of H.R. 4060, the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999. I support this bill mainly because
it provides $413 million which is (39%) more for the Army Corps of
Engineers construction programs than requested by the Administration.
The Administration originally requested $9.4 million for the
continued construction of the Sims Bayou Project in Houston, Texas. The
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development specifically earmarked an
additional $8.5 Million Above the Administration's original request,
which brings the total funding for the project to $18 Million.
Mr. Chairman, the Sims Bayou Project is a project that stretches
through my district. Over the course of recent years, the Sims Bayou
has seen massive amounts of flooding. Citizens in my congressional
district, have been flooded out of their homes, and their lives have
been disrupted.
In 1994, 759 homes were flooded as a result of the overflow from the
Sims Bayou. That is 759 families that were forced to leave their homes.
I mainly support the conference report, Mr. Chairman, because the
subcommittee has earmarked in this bill $18 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
$8.5 million for the construction of this Sims Bayou project

[[Page H4924]]

and it remains in this conference report. I am quite certain, Mr.
Chairman, that this project would not have been able to go forward if
this additional money would not have been granted by the Subcommittee.
For that I have to thank Chairman McDade, Ranking Member Fazio, and
my friends and colleagues Chet Edwards, and Mike Parker who sit on the
Appropriations Committee.
However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call on the Army Corps of
Engineers to do everything that they can to accelerate the completion
of this project. The project will now extend to Martin Luther King and
Airport Boulevards, and Mykaw to Cullen Boulevard.
This is flooding that can be remedied and the project must be
completed before the expected date of 2006. While I applaud the Army
Corps of Engineers for their cooperation, this is unacceptable for the
people in my congressional district who are suffering.
They need relief and I know that they 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.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) deserves credit for sustaining Federal
renewable energy RD&D. I would like to clarify the intent of the report
language as it pertains to the solar energy research and development
programs.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that we have made every effort
to try to fund the renewable energy RD&D account. And we intend that
the committee language not prohibit legitimate research cost sharing
with U.S. industry in solar R&D programs.
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank
the gentleman for a good job. I would like to clarify that the intent
of the committee was not to prevent the Federal solar programs from
cost sharing. I congratulate the gentleman on a well-earned retirement.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, for working people, the most important
asset that they have is their job. It supports their home, their
family, their children, their hopes, their life. This bill will save
and increase good-paying American jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
McDade) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) for crafting a
bill that, in a time of fiscal belt-tighening and hard choices, makes
the right choice to keep American jobs as the top priority.
The Port of New York and New Jersey, a good part of it, is in my
district. It is the economic lifeline for the northeast region. Mr.
Chairman, 180,000 jobs and $20 billion in economic activity is
generated though the port. If my colleagues live in the Northeast,
there is a good chance that the things that they buy are coming from
the port or that they are dependent upon other goods, products, or
machinery coming through the port.
Mr. Chairman, to keep those goods coming here on the increasingly
large industrial ships, we need deeper channels and modern port
facilities. If we do not modernize, the larger ships will go elsewhere
and goods may start coming into Canada instead of our harbor.
That hurts everyone in this country and the national impact could be
enormous. That is not acceptable.
This bill sends a message that we will not stand by and let American
jobs go elsewhere. To our friends up north in Canada, let the message
from this House be clear. We are committed to shipping commerce. We are
committed to these ports.
I understand that deepening and dredging our harbor is not glamorous
work. Other pet projects sound better and are easier to publicize. But
modernizing our ports means not just saving but creating hundreds of
thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in commerce in the years to
come. It is the long-sided view. It is the view this bill takes.
Finally, I want to congratulate both the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Chairman McDADE) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) on
their many years of dedicated service. These are the kind of people we
need in public service; people who put the needs of their constituents
and the Nation above all else. We will miss them and I know that both
gentlemen will find new ways to serve their fellow countrymen and women
like they have done so well in the people's House.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).
Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the Subcommittee
on Energy and Water Development, particularly the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Chairman McDade) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Fazio), ranking member, on their fine work with the 1999 energy and
water development appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, there is one issue that is of particular concern to me,
and I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, a program particularly important to my constituents in
Utah, the geothermal research and development, is cut in this bill from
$29.5 million in fiscal 1998 to $27.5 million in fiscal 1999. I realize
the Senate approved a version that indicates geothermal R&D would be
about $31.25 million.
I want to point out that geothermal energy means jobs. Some 30,000
U.S. workers are employed through geothermal electric revenues.
Geothermal energy means royalty and production payments, more than $41
million is returned annually to the U.S. Treasury. And it also means a
cleaner environment. Sixteen million tons of carbon dioxide, 20,000
tons of sulfur dioxide, 41,000 tons of nitrogen oxide, and 1,300 tons
of particulate matter are avoided each year by geothermal energy
productions.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's consideration of this
concern, and I would urge the committee to address the geothermal R&D
funding shortfall in its conference with the Senate so that
geothermal's important national benefits can continue to accrue in the
future.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COOK. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Cook) for bringing this to the attention of the committee. As the
gentleman knows, we had a very severe and constrained budget. As we
work our way through conference, we will be looking forward to working
with the gentleman further.
Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that very
much, and I again wish the gentleman congratulations on his wonderful
work.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
In further response to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook), I would
like to thank him for his remarks and I thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) for his attention to this very important
energy efficiency program supported in this bill.
As many of my colleagues know, I have been a longtime advocate of
solar and renewable energy programs. Programs that support energy
efficiency are critical to our economy, national energy security, and
the environment.
Mr. Chairman, we have the responsibility to future generations to
address environmental and economic concerns linked to historical energy
technologies. We must support efforts to bring new, cleaner energy-
efficient technologies to market.
If programs deriving energy from such diverse sources as the sun,
wind, and biomass are to be successfully competitive in the coming
years, they must undoubtedly have the support of Congress. I would have
liked the number for solar renewable programs to have included some of
the increases submitted in the administration's budget request.
But, unfortunately, this year the allocation for the energy and water
bill, and perhaps all 13 of our spending bills, did not permit such
increases in many very important programs. Although the bill we are
considering today provides an increase of $5.1 million over

[[Page H4925]]

last year's appropriation for solar and renewable energy programs, I
agree with the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook) that it is unfortunate
that the very important geothermal R&D program received a cut.
But let me point out with regard to the total amount of funding this
bill provides for renewable energy programs, that committee was able to
draft a bill that in many ways was considerably higher than the
renewable levels in the Senate before Mr. Jeffords' amendment.
I believe the original amended Senate numbers for solar and renewable
energy programs were $345.5 million, compared with the House bill which
provided $351.4 million for these programs.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to point out that the Senate bill is
a total of $21.7 billion, whereas the House total is only $20.6. This
is particularly important in the context of the Jeffords amendment,
which added $70 million in solar and renewable energy programs by
taking a 1.6 percent across-the-board cut of domestic DOE programs.

{time} 1815

At $l.l billion below the Senate bill, this amendment would have been
particularly difficult to achieve here in the House, as it would have
cut even further into other important programs that this bill is
committed to funding. I support energy efficient technologies, and I
will work with our distinguished chairman and the Senate to address
funding for geothermal R&D programs in addition to other solar and
renewable programs in the House conference with the Senate.
We certainly have done well, given the context of this total bill.
I rise in support of H.R. 4060, the Energy and Water Appropriations
Bill for FY '99. I've enjoyed working with Joe McDade. Our job was made
significantly tougher by the Administration's budget submission this
year.
Although we've improved our position with the budget allocation, we
have still not been able to make up what is truly needed after two El
Nino seasons.
If you are wondering why Joe McDade and I are retiring, it's because,
despite adding more than $700 million to the President's budget request
for the water projects that are so important to our colleagues, the
bill is still $200 million below last year's level. This whole question
of the budget agreement of last year, and Republican efforts to make
additional budget cuts in this year's budget resolution is one worth
examining, especially for our bill which is usually so popular with
members.
My colleagues have seen this chart during consideration of the budget
resolution, showing the effects of these budget cuts on all non-defense
discretionary programs. The comparison to level funding, taking
inflation into account, leaves spending at 18% below current services
by the year 2003. But now let's see the effect of these kinds of cuts
on just one popular program--the Army Corps of Engineers civil works
program--which is responsible for operations and maintenance of our
ports and waterways, as well as flood control projects across the
nation.
Based only on the budget caps agreed to by Congress and the President
last year, you can see that we have a significant divergence beginning
this year between what the Corps could do--its capability--and what the
Corps will be able to do with the level of funding we are providing in
this bill and are likely to provide in the years to come based on that
budget agreement.
Adoption of the Republican budget plan would make these lines diverge
even more greatly. But it is also something to consider as we take up
these other pieces of legislation which encroach on the non-defense
discretionary programs.
Whether it is BESTEA or a new agricultural research program, other
deserving needs that are keys to the American economy can only be
adversely affected as a result.
Realize these are authorized projects we are talking about--not
counting the new authorizations that may stem from a Water Resources
Development Act to come this year.
So take a good look, because these are the outcomes of our decisions,
and they will continue to affect us for many years to come.
So there has been a fair amount of pain to be administered this year,
but I commend Joe McDade for adopting the common-sense decision-rules
that are reflected in this bill, and for being evenhanded in
administering them without regard to party.
For those who think that subcommittee members have been spared from
our budget constraints, I would point out that our subcommittee has
recommended only $75 million for a California initiative supported by
45 members of the California delegation--$10 million below last year's
number and $45 million below the $120 million that our subcommittee
recommended last year.
And the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund--a fund that derives
from assessments on water and power users was not spared.
Due to budget constraints and because this fund is subject to
appropriation, we have held it to $33 million--$16 million below the
budget request--and I hope we can do something at conference if at all
possible to ensure that the collections from these users don't exceed
what we are able to appropriate.
On the Energy side of the equation, we faced similar budget
constraints. We had to balance new priorities, like the Spallaton
Neutron Source, while sustaining numerous other DOE programs that are
essential to the nation.

While I would like to see an increase in the number for solar and
renewable energy programs, I am pleased that this account did not
sustain any cuts, given the difficult environment in which the
committee was forced to work.
I understand the reasoning behind the committee report's words of
caution to the Administration pertaining to policy decisions and sound
science with regard to global climate change, but I would like to
reiterate that the energy efficiency programs funded in this bill are
programs that our nation has been investing in for years, long before
the debate over global climate change.
I believe that any debate relating to climate change and the Kyoto
Protocol should be conducted independently of this bill.
The Committee was able to provide an increase to fusion energy
programs above the Administration's request.
I am pleased that the Committee has also provided generous increases
in basic science research and development in the science account, in
areas such as high energy physics.
This bill continues to support the crucial effort of our nation to
maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile through the National Ignition
Facility and the ASCI program.
Because of the tight allocation, there are shortfalls in some areas
like the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D)
Fund, and I would like to be able to address this and other shortfalls
in conference if at all possible.
I would also like to see some money added back to the cuts sustained
by Departmental Administration. I believe the Department, under new
leadership in many program areas, is committed to reducing excess
administrative costs and striving to operate more efficiently.
In short, I commend Joe McDade for doing a good job in a tough year.
I believe we have done the best job possible under the
circumstances--we will certainly try to do even better in conference if
at all possible--but I believe this is still a bill that should be
supported by our colleagues.
This is the last time I'll help bring an E&W bill to this committee--
19 of my 20 years in the House have been on the Appropriations
Committee and on the Energy and Water Subcommittee.
In one sense, not much has changed--when I got there, Tom Bevill and
John Myers were the senior members for each party, and until last year,
that was still the case.
But I can think of significant changes that have affected our process
over the years, especially on the side of water projects.
Not so many years ago, we had significant carry-overs in the Corps'
budget from year to year--as high as $800 million.
Some carry-over is good--it gives the Corps flexibility to keep
construction projects on an optimum construction schedule, and it means
we don't have to appropriate every dime to get a project underway
successfully.

However, budget constraints have virtually eliminated that carryover
over the last few years, creating anxieties for local communities who
hold on to appropriated funds tighter and tighter, even when they can't
be spent immediately. There have been a number of other significant
changes in the way the Corps does business:
(1) Projects that are being constructed are smaller, greener and have
a higher non-federal cost-share.
(2) The Corps has shaved the time it takes to complete the study
phase of a project and initiate construction.
(3) The federal cost-share has gone down and the non-federal sponsors
of water resource projects are less interested in the Corps doing a
project than the Corps becoming a partner with local, state and even
non-profit entities to complete a project.
(4) The non-federal sponsors are more and more interested in gaining
a greater voice in all phases of a project, from the planning phase to
the engineering work to the actual construction.
(5) In many instances non-federal sponsors are seeking out the
opportunity to expedite their projects by paying for them up front.
With non-federal dollars, and gaining the opportunity--not the
guarantee--to get reimbursed by some future Congress for the federal
share

[[Page H4926]]

of a project. This lets the non-federal sponsor exert greater control
over the project and frequently construct it faster and, sometimes,
even at less cost than the traditional way. Many of the nation's large
communities would like this to become the new norm for the way water
resource projects are constructed in this country.
(6) Communities are looking more and more at the Corps as an agency
with engineering expertise that can help them solve a wide variety of
engineering problems, not just water resource problems. Communities
want the Corps to help them do site assessments and even some
remediation for lightly contaminated brownfield sites that stand as an
impediment to redevelopment of our inner city corridors. Communities
are asking the Corps to help them develop cost-effective engineering
solutions to their urban water resource needs--from deficiencies in
their combined stormwater and wastewater systems to restoring stream
banks in urban creeks and rivers. And, communities in my state are
asking the Corps to help them develop plans to make their water systems
more reliable in the event of a major earthquake. The Corps is
responding and is doing a good job in these new areas. And, the future
will certainly see more reliance on the Corps for its capacity to solve
complex engineering problems of all kinds.
(7) And finally, to its credit, the Corps has resisted becoming a
granting agency such as some of its sister agencies, like EPA, nor
should it be. But the Corps does need to equip itself with the tools
that will make it more effective in the new role of federal water
resource partner. Certainly, contracting more work out, obtaining the
authority to enter into cooperative agreements and issue grants for
certain types of work, are all critical to the Corps' success in the
years ahead.
In summary, the years have flown by, but I believe this subcommittee
has served the needs of our country well, and has balanced strongly
competing interests very well.
It has not always been an easy task but with partners like Joe
McDade, Tom Bevill, and John Myers, it is a committee that has gotten
the job done in a bipartisan spirit.
I ask for the support of my colleagues for H.R. 4060, another bill
which is presented in this same spirit.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Buyer.
(Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record my statement in
support of the fiscal year 1999 energy and water appropriations, and
thank both of the gentlemen for their contributions to this bill and
their service to our country.
I would like to thank Chairman McDade and Ranking Member Fazio for
their bi-partisan and expedient work in bringing this measure to the
House Floor.
Included in this Energy and Water Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year
1999, is a continuation of funds for the Army Corps of Engineers
Feasibility Study for the Kankakee River Basin in Indiana and Illinois.
The support for this project spans both political parties in Indiana
and Illinois. I appreciate the cooperation of the numerous Members who
have offered their support and assistance for this vitally important
project.
For years, Indiana and Illinois were caught up in the court system
because of flooding disputes. With a joint Congressional effort, the
suits were stopped and efforts were instead focused upon finding a
resolution through a basin wide Army Corps of Engineers study.
The reconnaissance study has been completed and the feasibility study
is beginning. The $940,000 funding that is provided in this bill for
the continuation of the feasibility study will provide for a long-term
solution to this problem which the residents of Northwest Indiana and
Northeast Illinois deserve.
Indiana is interested in participating as a local sponsor for the
Indiana portion of the Kankakee River Basin feasibility study as
indicated in the follow-on letter from the Indiana Department of
Natural Resources.
Indiana Department of

Natural Resources,

Indianapolis, IN, May 15, 1998.
Mr. Paul Mohrbardt,
Acting Chief of Planning Division, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Chicago District, Chicago, IL.
Dear Mr. Mohrbardt: The Indiana Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) is interested in participating as a local
sponsor for the Indiana portion of the Kankakee River Basin
feasibility study. As a state agency, we are willing and able
to participate in this study. We have reviewed the expedited
reconnaissance analysis, preliminary project study plan, and
model feasibility cost share agreement and understand our
role and responsibilities as a local sponsor for this
project. While the DNR will be the source of the required
funds for this study, the DNR will be joint sponsors with the
Kankakee River Basin Commission (KRBC) for the State of
Indiana.
The DNR is aware of the non-federal cost sharing
requirements for this project. It is our understanding that
the initial estimates for the feasibility study require a
cash and in-kind contribution of just under $800,000 from the
Indiana joint sponsors (DNR and KRBC). It is our
understanding that up to 50 percent of the contribution can
be appropriate in-kind services and that the remaining
balance must be cash. It is our further understanding that
our contribution is not required in full during the first
year, but will be spread over the study term as mutually
agreed upon.
The DNR understands that this letter is an expression of
intent. Execution of a feasibility cost share agreement with
the US Army Corps of Engineers will be dependent on the
availability of funds. However, at this time the DNR looks
forward to jointly developing the feasibility study scope of
work and a cost sharing agreement with the Corps.
Sincerely,
Lori F. Kaplan,
Deputy Director.

Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration's fiscal year
1999 budget request included $25 million for a new, unauthorized
program, the Challenge 21 Riverine Ecosystem Restoration and Flood
Mitigation program. Knowing that this program has not been authorized
by Congress and that the gentleman's committee has not appropriated any
funds for the program, am I correct in understanding that any Federal
spending on the Challenge 21 program would constitute an illegal use of
Federal funds?
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. As usual, the gentlewoman from Missouri is absolutely
correct.
Mrs. EMERSON. I thank the gentleman for clarifying this matter.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown).
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this very
fine appropriations bill.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise to thank the gentleman very much for the funding provided in
this bill for helping to solve major flood control and water supply
problems in the El Paso-Juarez area. These resources will allow our
local and State officials to move forward with environmental
improvements on the border.
There is, however, one request that I would urge the gentleman to
consider during the House-Senate conference on this bill. The Senate
bill includes $1 million for the El Paso wastewater reclamation program
which is not in the House bill. The wastewater reclamation program is
our top water resource priority in the El Paso area. I urge my
colleagues to accept the Senate level for this program.
Knowing that the budget is tight, I would offer a recommendation or
suggestion for a budget offset that would make the $1 million increase
budget neutral. The El Paso area flood control project is provided with
$5 million in the bill which is needed and generous. However, I believe
that we can stage the work on the flood control project so that this
amount could be reduced to $4 million in fiscal year 1999, with a
reduced amount of $1 million shifted to the wastewater reclamation
program, again, our top priority.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman for his kind assistance on any
help that he can provide in adjusting the funding to meet our El Paso
priority. I also want to echo the comments of my colleagues in thanking
both him and the ranking member for all their years of service. My only
regret is that I did not have longer to serve with both of them.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REYES. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing

[[Page H4927]]

this to the attention of the committee and assure him that as this bill
moves along we will give it all the consideration we can. I appreciate
his bringing to it our attention.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard).
(Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of this bill.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I am particularly pleased that the
committee has included report language regarding the Caddo Lake
Wetlands. I want to clarify that the committee has included this
language for the purpose of directing the Bureau of Reclamation to use
funds appropriated in fiscal year 1997 to continue the Caddo Lake
Wetlands project.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDLIN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's statement is correct.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I also want to clarify that of the
$630,000 provided in fiscal year 1997, the Bureau of Reclamation
provided $200,000 for the Caddo Lake Scholars program and that the
remaining balance of funds should be committed to the Cypress Valley
Alliance.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is accurate again. The
committee directs the Bureau of Reclamation to use the balance of
previously appropriated funds for other wetland development components
of the Caddo Lake Wetlands project as previously dictated.
Mr. SANDLIN. I thank the distinguished chairman for this
clarification, and thank him for his long service to the House, and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) for his service. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity
to do a colloquy.
First, if I may, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio)
for all their years of service to this House. They have always
conducted themselves in a bipartisan manner. That is why we see a bill
such as the energy and water appropriations bill each and every year
coming forward with very bipartisan support to be passed without much
argument on the floor.
On and off the floor they have conducted themselves in a very genteel
manner, and they are a great example for young Members like myself. For
those who argue for term limits, I do not think they recognize or they
fail certainly to recognize the attributes that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio)
bring to this honorable institution. They know when their term limits
are. I thank the people in Pennsylvania and California for bringing
these two gentlemen to the service of their country and thank them for
their years of service.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. McDade) in a colloquy about the Cedar River Harbor project in my
district, if I may. As my friend from Pennsylvania is aware, last year
the subcommittee was extremely helpful by including an appropriation
for the repair of the east breakwater at Cedar River Harbor.
During the implementation of this project, however, the Army Corps of
Engineers found that the current was different than expected. In order
to protect the harbor, repairs are also needed and are also necessary
to the west breakwater. The Corps has the necessary funds to complete
repairs on the west breakwater left over, as leftover money from the
fiscal year 1998 appropriations. This is not a new authorization. It is
merely a clarification for the Army Corps of Engineers. They simply
need to be able to use these funds for repair of the west breakwater in
addition to the east breakwater.
The appropriated amount last year was $2.377 million. The Corps has
already contracted for the east breakwater at $1.2 million for the
repair. That would leave us $1.177 to repair the west breakwater.
Without the ability to repair the west breakwater, I am afraid our
efforts to protect this harbor would be futile.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my thanks to the
gentleman and that of the committee for his diligence in bringing this
issue to our attention. I want to assure him that it seems as though
the equities are with him and that we will continue to work this
problem as we go through conference.
Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for his clarification, and thank
him and appreciate the opportunity to work with him in the future as
this moves on to conference.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4060,
which provides invaluable Federal assistance for flood control shore
protection and navigation projects in my home State of New Jersey.
I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), the
gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) and all the members of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for their leadership in
preparing this bill, including my colleague, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), who has worked so hard on these projects.
I wanted to say one thing: I greatly appreciate the committee's
continued commitment to water infrastructure projects, and in
particular the committee's continued rejection of efforts on behalf of
the administration to eliminate the traditional role of the Army Corps
of Engineers in shore protection projects in particular.
Let me just say two things to my retiring colleagues here. For the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), he has always been a person
that I could go to on a bipartisan basis and ask for help. I will
definitely remember that for a long time.
With regard to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), he is
someone that I have asked for advice on a number of occasions for a
number of things, and in many ways I really model myself after him in
terms of my congressional career. We will have other opportunities to
thank these individuals over the course of the year, but I do want to
thank them today.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Redmond).
Mr. REDMOND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4060, and I
would like to thank the chairman for entering into a colloquy with me.
I support H.R. 4060. However, I have one concern in regard to the $8
million dollars for the waste isolation pilot project for the Santa Fe
bypass relief route. The relief route is overdue for construction. The
amount was removed during committee.
I respectfully ask that it be reinstated in conference to the Senate
bill, if at all possible. I want to thank the chairman for working with
us on this particular bill.
This is very important so that we can get the nuclear waste away from
Los Alamos National Lab, also Rocky Flats, Colorado, and also in Idaho.
It needs to bypass the city of Santa Fe.
Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, it has been great working with the
gentleman, and I wish him the best, especially in his retirement, that
he gets to play with his 8-year-old son.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REDMOND. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing the
matter to our attention. We expect to work with him diligently as we go
through conference.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I join all of my colleagues in
congratulating and really saying thanks to the chairman and the ranking
member who have

[[Page H4928]]

done more for this country, really, than few other Members.
To the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), personally, if I have
had literally one key mentor in Congress, it has been him.
I would join many of my colleagues today to say that as good as this
bill is, our hope from a Florida perspective is that the legislation
could have gone a little bit further towards the President's request in
terms of Everglades restoration projects.
I am planning on introducing for the Record an Army Corps of
Engineers analysis which talks about the specifics of programs, if this
is the ultimate budget, that will not be funded. Congress has made an
incredible commitment in the 6 years I have been here towards this.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal
1998 year 1999 Senate House
project Budget markup markup
allocations request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C&SF........................................................... $21,833 $40,800 $25,000 $20,900
Kissimmee...................................................... 2,817 27,300 10,000 3,500
Critical projects.............................................. 4,009 20,000 10,000 3,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CENTRAL & SOUTHERN FLORIDA

All assumptions are made with the understanding that
funding will only be delayed for one year and required
funding will be available in the following year.
If Senate Budget is Adopted ($25,000,000 allocation):
West Palm Beach (C-51): Delay in funding for relocations
may not impact the overall project schedule. Delay in funding
S-360, G-312, and levees (components of Stormwater Treatment
Area 1 East) would not significantly impact the project. The
project would likely still be completed within the overall
completion schedule.
South Dade (C-111): Delay in funding for S-332A, B, and C
pumping plants, and Levees and the Canal work will not
significantly impact the overall project completion. Recent
requirements for a new GRR supplement have caused this delay
to be necessary regardless of funding.
Upper St. Johns: Delays in funding L74N and S-96E will
increase the overall project completion time.
If House Budget is Adopted ($20,900,000 allocation):
West Palm Beach (C-51): Delay in funding for relocations
may not impact the overall project schedule. Delay in funding
S-360, G-312, and levees (components of Stormwater Treatment
Area 1 East) would not significantly impact the project.
However, the additional cuts would delay completion of pump
Station S-362 (Stormwater Treatment Area 1 East outflow pump
station) which would delay the overall project completion.
The time could not be made up regardless of the follow-on
funding.
Comprehensive Restudy: The additional cuts will adversely
impact work on the Restudy. A delay in funding will result in
completion beyond the mandatory completion dates.
South Dade (C-111): Delay in funding for S-332A, B, and C
pumping plants, and Levees and Canal work will not
significantly impact the overall project completion. Recent
requirements for a new GRR supplement have caused this delay
to be necessary regardless of funding.
Upper St. Johns: Delays in funding L74N and S-96E will
increase the overall project completion time.

KISSIMMEE RIVER RESTORATION

If Senate Budget is Adopted ($10,000,000 allocation):
Contract 3(S-65 Modification), CNT 4C (local levee
removal), and Contract 2 (Canal widening for C-35 & 36) can
be completed.
Contract 14A (to remove 1M CY of material) can be
completed. Contract 14B (to remove 5M CY of material) will
not be awarded in FY 99. The entire 6M CY of material of
Contract 14A & B must be removed before any work in the lower
basin is initiated.
Majority of the environmental restoration benefits are
claimed in the lower basin. However, if the request is
reduced to 10 million, the initial environmental component
Contract 7 (Reach 1 Backfill of canal C-38) will definitely
not be awarded in FY 99. A prior commitment was made to
initiate Reach 1 Backfill by 30 March 1999. This commitment
will not be met. The remaining three reaches will also be
delayed, and the corresponding environmental benefits will
not be obtained. Engineering efforts in preparing P&S for
future contracts will be downscaled because of limited funds
and no A-E contract awards in 1999.
To implement the Reach 1 backfill contract, flood control
features of Istokpoga basin (Contract 6, a large tributary
within Reach 1) will need to be addressed. If the Istokpoga
works is delayed, the Corps will go to condemnation, tie-up
resources, cause additional delays, and Reach 1 Backfill
cannot be initiated.
The balance of FY 1999 will be used to prepare P&S which
will be shelved until funds become available.
If House Budget is Adopted ($3,500,000 allocation):
In addition to the above, Contract 14A (to remove 1M CY of
material) will not be awarded in FY98. As noted above, all of
Contract 14 needs to be completed before implementation of
the lower basin works. None of the primary restoration
benefits will be obtained in FY 99.

CRITICAL PROJECTS:

If Senate Budget is Adopted ($10,000,000 allocation):
With a funding level of 10 million, NEPA, and design
development could not be initiated on 4 projects for which
letter reports have been developed; Seminole Tribe Big
Cypress, Loxahatchee Slough, L-31E and Melalueca Quarantine
Facility. In addition, the South Dade County Agriculture and
Rural Area Retention and South Biscayne Bay Watershed
Management Plan studies could not be initiated. Since WRDA 96
requires that the Critical Projects be initiated by 30
September 1999, all projects listed above could not be
implemented under this authority.
If House Budget is Adopted ($3,000,000 allocation):
With a funding level of 3 million, NEPA, and design
development will not be initiated on 9 projects for which
letter reports have been developed: Golden Gate Estates,
Tamiami Trail Culverts, Lake Okeechobee Water Retention/
Phosphous Removal, Ten Mile Creek, Lake Trafford, Southern
Crew, Seminole Tribe Big Cypress, Loxahatchee Slough, L-31E,
and Melalueca Quarantine Facility. In addition, the South
Dade County Agriculture and Rural Area Retention and South
Biscayne Bay Watershed Management Plan studies could not be
initiated. Since WRDA 96 requires that the Critical Projects
be initiated by 30 September 1999, all projects listed above
could not be implemented under this authority.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I would like to join with him in thanking the committee for what they
have put in this particular bill with the shore protection, as the
gentleman from New Jersey just was speaking to, but most particularly I
think to really impress upon the committee that it is most important on
these Everglades projects to move at least substantially towards the
Senate markup document at this time, knowing that there is not going to
be enough money to get back to the President's budget.
But these are very important projects. The Kissimmee River going back
to the natural flow into Lake Okeechobee and then south through the
Sharks Slough to the Florida Bay, this is tremendously important to the
Everglades and should be of utmost importance to this committee and
this Congress.
I would also like to point out that one of the facilities that would
be lost if we do not at least go towards the Senate would be the
Melalueca Quarantine Facility, which is tremendously important.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) has 1
minute remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I have been fortunate to serve on this subcommittee for 19 years, and
I must say I have always enjoyed the bipartisan atmosphere in which the
work has been conducted. Tom Bevill and John Myers were the senior
members of each party for almost all the time that I have served on
this committee, but my years with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
McDade) have been particularly gratifying and enjoyable.
He is the wonderful guy we have heard him described as by so many
colleagues today. We obviously have a very tough bill. This is not a
bill we have enjoyed bringing to the floor, because it is significantly
below what we would like to spend in light of what we spent in the last
year.

{time} 1830

What I mean by that is there are many, many worthy projects that have
not been funded in this bill because we simply have not been given the
allocation.
We all understand that that will be the case for the future. I hope
to, in a few minutes, using some charts, point out the degree to which
discretionary spending has been reduced across the spectrum.
We have also seen the end of the carryovers. There was a time when
this committee carried over $800 million in unexpended Corps
appropriations that gave great flexibility so that those communities
that were not immediately capable of spending money could make it
available to others.

[[Page H4929]]

Those days have ended as well. Communities are holding on to their
bucks, making it harder and harder for the Corps to put the money where
it can do the most good.
So the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) and I leave the
Congress a little bit concerned about what we leave this bill to in the
future, knowing that there are good and worthy people who take our
place, but knowing as well that the credible demands, particularly on
the water side of this bill, after two El Nino winters make it very
difficult for this Congress to be in a position to respond legitimately
to the concerns that are brought about, not just from economic
development interests, not just from public safety and flood protection
interests, not just from environmental interests, but from the whole
spectrum of our local and State governmental bodies that are adding
increasingly large amounts of their own money to match those that we
provide for the Corps.
But I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I think this committee has done a
worthy job this year, as it has during the last 19 I have served on
this committee. We do the best we can, and we know that Members will
understand and support us as I hope they will tonight unanimously.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me. I wanted to thank the chairman for his distinguished leadership on
this subcommittee for all of these years, and thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio) and all the members of the subcommittee.
I rise today in support of the bill as the cochairman of the Upper
Mississippi River Task Force, which is a bipartisan group of Members
who work together to protect this historical natural resource.
The EMP, the Environmental Management Program was something that was
started a number of years ago and really has been a model of success.
The EMP program forces commercial concerns, environmental concerns, and
those with recreational concerns to work together to protect the
Mississippi River.
The House has approved $19 million for this program as part of its
fiscal year 1999 budget. I would point out that this is more than the
President has requested. But I would also say that this has been
something that the House has done a better job over the last several
years of funding than has been requested by the administration.
But this is a classy example of a win-win situation where
environmental concerns, recreational concerns, commercial concerns are
all brought together, people work together to create a better
Mississippi River, a better environment, and frankly I think this is a
model program for the rest of the country. I thank the chairman and the
ranking member and members of the committee for funding it this year.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, today the House is debating the
appropriations for the Energy and Water budget. I would like to bring
to your attention the funding for the U.S. Department of Energy's
program ``Hydrogen from Renewable Resources.'' This very successful
program conducts research into the renewable production and storage of
hydrogen. At the University of Hawaii, the program has been so
successful that it was rated as a ``U.S. DOE Center of Excellence in
Hydrogen Research and Education.''
Last year, with a total budget of $16 million, approximately $6.9
million was allocated to core research and development for the hydrogen
research program. This year, the House Appropriations Committee
proposes to increase the funding to $18 million while the Senate has
pursued a budget of $29 million. However, despite the Administration's
$10 million request for research funding, the House Appropriations
Committee has reduced the research budget to $3 million.
Reduction of core research and development to only $3 million would
be damaging to critical research programs at universities, within the
national DOE laboratories, and to the University of Hawaii Center of
Excellence.
As we move forward with this appropriation process, I strongly urge
that sufficient funding will be dedicated to this renewable energy
resource.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern for
funding the management of the depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6)
currently stored at the facilities in Piketon, Ohio and Paducah,
Kentucky and
Depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) is hazardous and extremely
corrosive. These materials are known as ``tails'' and are the result of
years of enriching uranium for nuclear fuel in commercial power plants.
Atmospheric releases of DUF6, if they occurred, would pose a
significant threat to workers at the sites and communities surrounding
those sites.
The United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) was established in
the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to assume responsibility for the
Department of Energy's (DOE) uranium enrichment program. Currently,
USEC has accrued approximately $400 million from the private sector
which is supposed to be utilized to clean up the ``tails'' it has
generated. The 1992 Energy Policy Act not only transferred the
Department's uranium enrichment program to USEC, but it also included a
requirement that USEC prepare a strategic plan to privatize the
corporation, and today, that privatization plan is near completion. The
$400 million specifically earmarked for cleaning up the ``tails'' will
be transferred to the General Fund of the Treasury upon completion of
privatization. I am anxious to see that these funds accrued by USEC for
cleaning up the ``tails'' are used to meet that need after
privatization.
I have been greatly disturbed to learn that the plans for
privatization call for job losses totaling between 600 and 1700 workers
at the Ohio and Kentucky facilities. Ensuring that the $400 million is
spent to dispose of USEC's DUF6 at both of the Gaseous Diffusion plants
would certainly help to mitigate the workforce reductions by employing
the displaced workers.
It would make sense to ensure that the $400 million currently accrued
by USEC to fund the management and disposition of the USEC ``tails''
continue to be earmarked for cleaning up the ``tails'' rather than
diverted to some purpose for which it was not intended. I will continue
to work to ensure that a solution is reached before the final sale of
USEC.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, while I will be voting for the Energy and
Water Appropriations bill at this early point in the legislative
process, I want my colleagues to know that the funding in this measure
for several important water projects in North Dakota are not adequate
and must be improved in conference committee.
I am particularly disappointed that the Subcommittee appears to be
relying on the Senates' funding commitments for the Devils Lake outlet,
the Buford-Trenton irrigation district flowage easements, and the
Garrison Diversion MR and I projects to avoid committing appropriate
and required funding levels in the House.
I will be working closely with the House conferees to obtain a fair
result for North Dakota in the conference committee and regret the
House bill in its present forum falls so far short of the mark.
I am voting for the bill to move us to the next step in the process--
conference committee--because I believe this will be the fastest way to
make the needed improvements to this bill.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the
Chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, Mr. McDade and Mr.
Fazio, the ranking Member, for their hard work to bring this bill
forward in a difficult year. As the ranking Member of the Science
Committee, my particular concern rests with the civilian research and
development accounts at the Department of Energy.
In what is a difficult year for funding choices, I believe the
Subcommittee has done a fairly good job. Overall, the civilian research
accounts are up 2.5% compared to FY 1998 leaving energy activities
holding their own when measured against inflation. Compared to the
administration's request, or my personal preferences, this result is
somewhat disappointing. The administration asked for $288 million more
than the Committee has provided and those funds would have gone to very
worthy, very important projects.
As disappointing as this outcome may be for some, I must warn my
colleagues and my friends in the research community, that this may be
as good as it gets. The House-passed budget would impose devastating
cuts on the Function 270 accounts in the fiscal years 2000 through 2003
and those cuts, if we agree to take that budget proposal seriously,
would fall primarily on energy programs in this bill and the Interior
Appropriations bill.
I must mention some specific concerns with the bill as it stands and
I hope that my friends from the Subcommittee will work with me to
address these issues as we move to Conference.

[[Page H4930]]

external regulation at lawrence berkeley lab

Section 508 of this bill removes DOEs authority to self-regulate the
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and calls for a report to be submitted
that would detail the transition from DOE regulation of environment,
safety and health to NRC and OSHA regulation.
I support the goal of external regulation of DOE facilities because I
believe that cost-savings will result, but more importantly, because I
believe that there is an inherent conflict of interest in having the
people who are responsible for environment and worker health and safety
be the same people who are responsible for personnel.
However, I do not support the external regulation language in this
bill. The language legislates on an appropriations bill, bypassing the
authorizing Committees who have jurisdiction over this issue. The
Science Committee has had a long interest and involvement in the issue
of how and whether DOE facilities should be externally regulated. Last
month, two Science Subcommittees held a joint hearing on this matter in
which Betsy Moler, the Deputy Secretary of Energy, agreed to work with
us in developing a process by which the DOE would move to an externally
regulated system.
I further object to this language because I believe that it does not
adequately address the complexity of the many issues that external
regulation of DOE facilities must resolve. For instance, the language
implies that the NRC will have to clean up and decommission the
Bevatron, a mothballed facility at Lawrence Berkeley. That could cost
$200 million. Moreover, the language provides no guidance about key
issues such as whether NRC should license or certify the facility, or
whether the NRC is intended to regulate medical accelerators which are
currently State-regulated. I note that the administration has indicated
that OSHA and the State of California lack legal authority to regulate
at a Department of Energy lab, which raises the specter of a lab
lacking health and safety standards; an unintended consequence of this
legislative language, but one which may put workers and community lives
at risk.
I look forward to working with the Appropriations Committee to
clarify and improve the guidance for this first step at externally
regulating DOE facilities.

next generation internet in h.r. 4060

The Appropriations Committee report on H.R. 4060 sets the
appropriations level for the Department of Energy's Computational and
Technology Research program at $22 million below the Administration's
request. This reduction is explicitly designated as zeroing the DOE's
requested funding for the Next Generation Internet initiative. The
report language goes on to suggest that the NGI initiative had not been
adequately justified. I believe the position the Appropriations
Committee has taken is incorrect and will impede research that would
provide significant benefits for the nation.
When the NGI was first proposed in the spring of 1997, as part of the
President's fiscal year 1998 budget request, the rationale and plan for
the initiative were incomplete. As a result, the Science Committee did
not authorize appropriations for the program in its fiscal year 1998
DOE authorization bill nor in its authorization bills last year for the
other agencies participating in NGI. However, later in 1997, a detailed
NGI implementation plan was released, and the Science Committee held
hearings last fall to examine the program.
On the basis of the Committee's findings from that review, an
authorization bill, H.R. 3332, was written for the NGI initiative. The
Science Committee reported the bill in May, including an authorization
of appropriations at the level of the Administration's request. We
expected that DOE would be a major participant in the NGI initiative,
and I am disappointed to find that the appropriations bill now under
consideration by the House withholds appropriations for DOE.
The NGI is an important research initiative that is designed to
increase the capacity, extend the capabilities, and improve the
reliability of the Internet and related data networks. It is an
outgrowth of collaborative R&D efforts among government, industry and
academia to advance the capabilities of high performance computer
networks. These past R&D efforts, initiated under the High Performance
Computing Act of 1991, have shown that such collaboration spurs
technological advances by creating a critical mass of talent, spreading
risk, and leveraging resources.
The basic idea of the NGI initiative is to accelerate the
capabilities of the Internet to support demanding multimedia and
interactive applications. The future network capabilities envisioned
are necessary for research, educational uses, and commercial uses that
will require levels of service that are not now available. The approach
taken by NGI will continue the successful, close collaboration among
the government, industry and academia that led to the creation and
early development of the existing Internet.
Research results from NGI will be rapidly transferred to the
commercial Internet, and consequently, made available for all Internet
users, because commercial network providers will be participants in the
NGI initiative. This research is needed to ensure that the future
capabilities of the Internet will effectively support its growing role
in commerce, research, and education. In summary, the activities
planned under NGI will help maintain the nation's predominant position
in computer networking technology.
Prohibiting the Department of Energy from participating in NGI will
damage the multi-agency program, with its interdependent R&D
components. Adequate justifications for support for NGI are provided by
the February 1998 implementation plan released by the National
Coordination Office for Computing, Information, and Communications and
by the testimony presented to the Science Committee. Also, the Science
Committee, which is the principal committee of jurisdiction, has
reported an authorization bill for the overall NGI program.
The companion bill to H.R. 4060 reported in the other body includes
NGI funding for DOE. I strongly urge the Appropriations Committee to
reconsider the position taken by the House report and, during the
conference on H.R. 4060, to provide for DOE's participation in NGI.

solar and renewables funding in h.r. 4060

Mr. Speaker, I also want to state my concern that H.R. 4060 fails to
fund the increase in renewable energy funding requested by the
Administration. I recognize that money is quite tight and that
difficult choices need to be made. Nevertheless, I am concerned that
the Committee may have chosen to eliminate this funding on the unsound
belief that such funding would somehow constitute ``back-door''
implementation of the Kyoto agreement on climate change.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that many of my colleagues have reservations
about the Kyoto agreement. The Administration itself has said that it
is incomplete, and that therefore it will not submit it for Senate
ratification until we have secured meaningful participation from key
developing countries. The Administration has also repeatedly said that
it will not attempt to implement the Kyoto agreement without Senate
ratification.
Despite these assurances, a number of Members are attacking elements
of the President's budget which serve critical national goals but also
have the ancillary benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Such
is the President's request for the ``Climate Change Technology
Initiative,'' which proposes $2.7 billion in additional research and
development spending at several federal agencies. This increased
funding would largely expand existing research programs which have
served us well for many years.
In this bill, for example, the Department of Energy's solar and
renewable research programs have made dramatic progress in improving
the performance of solar and renewable energy while lowering its cost.
This is precisely the type of long-range, risk-taking research that
properly should be carried out by the Federal government. By its
nature, not everything DOE does will succeed; but past performance
leads us to hope that DOE can help develop solar and renewable energy
sources to become more competitive with other energy sources in the
future.
It should be in our interest to encourage the development of a
diverse energy portfolio--one that does not rely predominantly on
limited, non-renewable and polluting fossil fuels. It should also be in
our interest to encourage energy security, instead of relying--as we
do--on increasing amounts of imported foreign oil to meet our energy
demands.
And, finely, solar and renewable energy provide us with a cheap
insurance policy against climate change. I understand that many Members
are unconvinced that that climate change is already occurring, and are
waiting to see stronger proof. I also understand, as I stated before,
that many Members have reservations about the provisions of the Kyoto
protocol. But we cannot wait for a smoking gun or the perfect treaty to
make a start now on developing the technologies that we may well need
ten or fifteen or even twenty years from now. By cutting off this
research now, we are choking off our future options and saddling those
that follow us with harder, not easier, choices. This is an abdication
of responsibility for future generations.

[[Page H4931]]

Mr. Speaker, funding solar and renewable energy R&D is the right
thing to do. It is not a backdoor implementation of the Kyoto protocol.
There's nothing mandatory, there's nothing regulatory, about energy
research and development programs. These are win-win investments that
meet our energy needs while giving us some options for addressing the
greenhouse problem.
I certainly hope that the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water can find a way to increase the funding
for DOE's solar and renewable programs when they go to conference.

h.r. 4060 section 306 provisions on lab competition

Finally, I note Section 306 of the bill, which addresses a very
serious issue of Energy labs competing with the private sector. We
place labs in a precarious position to do work that is in the public's
interest and for which there may not be an obvious commercial interest
and simultaneously to behave in a more profit-oriented manner. It is my
understanding that Sec. 306 is intended to address a rather narrow,
though disturbing, instance of a lab hijacking technology already
developed in the private sector.
My concern with the language in the bill is that it is overly broad
and will place a horrific bureaucratic burden on the Department at the
same time that we want them to work leaner and smarter. I hope that we
can work together to improve this language at conference or find
another solution to this issue so that language of such sweeping
magnitude is unnecessary. I want to assure those concerned about this
issue that I would be happy to have the Science Committee investigate
this issue and hold hearings on it.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to convey my deepest
gratitude to two of my colleagues. Both the Chairman and Ranking
Minority of the Energy and Water Appropriations Committee, Joe McDade
and Vic Fazio, will soon leave this body and both will be deeply
missed.
I've known both of these men for the entirety of my time here in
Congress and I have been fortunate enough to work with them both on
many occasions. As a Californian, I feel especially grateful to Mr.
Fazio for his unwavering commitment to our state. He has been one of
the most dedicated Members of this House and has consistently supported
the interests of not only his constituents, but of all Californians.
As a fellow Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman, I have a deep
appreciation for the remarkable job Joe McDade does in bringing a fair,
responsible bill to this floor each year. His hard work and dedication
consistently results in legislation capable of stretching federal
dollars to respond to the many needs across the nation under the
jurisdiction of his Subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, this year is no exception. The legislation both Mr.
McDade and Mr. Fazio have brought before this House is nothing short of
exceptional. I fully support it and urge my colleagues to vote in its
favor.
Mr. Chairman, both of these men have been true leaders of this House
and true American champions. Their presence here will be missed, but
their legacies will not be soon forgotten.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Energy and
Water Appropriations Bill. Let me add my voice to those expressing
gratitude to Chairman McDade and Ranking Member Fazio for their hard
work. I would also like to personally thank my New Jersey colleague who
serves on the Subcommittee, Rodney Frelinghuysen, for his
responsiveness to my request for funding for a major economic
development project in my home city of Newark. I was pleased to have
the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee earlier this year,
as I have many times in the past, in behalf of the development of the
Joseph Minish Waterfront park and Historic Area in downtown Newark.
The $5 million included in this bill for the development of the
waterfront will allow us to continue moving forward with the project,
which has already received $10 million for construction. In recent
years, the city of Newark, the nation's third oldest major city, has
been greatly enhanced by a number of improvements and additions. We are
especially proud of our new Performing Arts Center, a world class
cultural center which has already attracted visitors from around the
world. The development of the waterfront will complement the Performing
Arts Center and provide a great attraction for both visitors and local
residents. Specifically, the funding will allow us to proceed with the
restoration of 3000 feet of riverbank and wetlands as well as the
construction of one thousand feet of bulkhead along the river.
Mr. Chairman, this funding represents a solid investment in the
future of a great city. Again, in behalf of my constituents, I thank
the Subcommittee for its support of this key economic development
initiative.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.
4060, making Appropriations for Energy and Water Development for Fiscal
Year 1999.
This bill provides funds for critical flood control and navigation
projects in Contra Costa County and the San Francisco Bay Area of
California. I appreciate the Committee's continued support for these
projects.
I am particularly pleased that the Committee's bill will assist in
the continuation of funding Federal participation in the Bay-Delta
ecosystem restoration programs authorized by the California Bay-Delta
Environmental Enhancement and Water Security Act. However, I note that
the FY 1999 appropriation for Bay-Delta is significantly less than the
requested amount, and also reflects a reduction from the FY 1998
funding level. I encourage our Conferees to restore funding for this
important program. Funding the Bay-Delta programs at the FY 1998 level
will allow us to continue critical work to restore the many components
of this huge area that have been damaged by human activity.
The Committee bill raises for the second year a problem with the
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. According to the Committee
Report, appropriations for the Restoration Fund will be severely
reduced again in FY 1999. This reduction is misguided and jeopardizes
important environmental programs.
The projects financed with the CVP Restoration Fund are broadly
supported and many are non-discretionary projects that must be
completed in a limited amount of time. I hope there will be
opportunities to reconsider the reductions to the Restoration Fund.
Language in the report for this bill directs the Bureau of
Reclamation to use its $3 million appropriation for the Animas-LaPlata
project to ``implement the modification to the project required by the
proposed amendments to the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement
Act.'' In effect, the report tells the Bureau to build a controversial
project that has not been authorized by the Congress.
The Bureau should not follow this unwise dictate since there is no
legislation authorizing the modification to the project.
I am pleased that bill includes $200,000 that the Administration
requested for the Army Corps of Engineers to initiate a feasibility
study on the removal of the underwater hazards to navigation near
Alcatraz Island. Although submerged even at low tide, these rock
outcroppings could be struck by deep draft container and especially oil
tanker vessels that frequently pass nearby, posing a substantial risk
of an oil spill.
The feasibility study will investigate environmental impacts and
mitigation, and develop project implementation alternatives and cost
estimates. I appreciate the Subcommittee's continuing support of this
important navigation project to protect both the environment and the
economy of San Francisco Bay.
I thank the Committee for its hard work on this legislation, and I
urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4060.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), the Chairman of
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), the Ranking Member
of the Subcommittee for their exceptional work in bringing this bill to
the Floor.
This Member recognizes that extremely tight budgetary constraints
made the job of the Subcommittee much more difficult this year.
Therefore, the Subcommittee is to be commended for its diligence in
creating such a fiscally responsible bill. In light of these budgetary
pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the
Subcommittee and formally recognize that the Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999 includes funding
for several water projects that are of great importance to Nebraska.
This Member greatly appreciates the $8 million funding level provided
for the four-state Missouri River Mitigation Project. This represents a
much-needed increase over the Administration's insufficient request for
this important project. The funding is needed to restore fish and
wildlife habitat lost due to the Federally sponsored channelization and
stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. The islands, wetlands,
and flat floodplains needed to support the wildlife and waterfowl that
once lived along the river are gone. An estimated 475,000 acres of
habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri and Kansas have been lost. Today's
fishery resources are estimated to be only one-fifth of those which
existed in pre-development days.
In 1986, the Congress authorized over $50 million to fund the
Missouri River Mitigation Project to restore fish and wildlife habitat
lost due to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan
plan.
In addition, this bill provides additional funding for flood-related
projects of tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's 1st
Congressional District. Mr. Chairman, flooding in 1993 temporarily
closed Interstate 80 and

[[Page H4932]]

seriously threatened the Lincoln municipal water system which is
located along the Platte River near Ashland, Nebraska. Therefore, this
Member is extremely pleased the Committee agreed to continue funding
for the Lower Platte River and Tributaries Flood Control Study. This
study should help formulate and develop feasible solutions which will
alleviate future flood problems along the Lower Platte River and
tributaries. In addition, a related study was authorized by Section
503(d)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
Mr. Chairman, additionally, the bill provides continued funding for
an ongoing floodplain study of the Antelope Creek which runs through
the heart of Nebraska's capital city, Lincoln. The purpose of the study
is to find a solution to multi-faceted problems involving the flood
control and drainage problems in Antelope Creek as well as existing
transportation and safety problems all within the context of broad land
use issues. This Member continues to have a strong interest in this
project since this Member was responsible for stimulating the City of
Lincoln, the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, and the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln to work jointly and cooperatively with
the Army Corps of Engineers to identify an effective flood control
system for Antelope Creek in the downtown of Lincoln.
Antelope Creek, which was originally a small meandering stream,
became a straightened urban drainage channel as Lincoln grew and
urbanized. Resulting erosion has deepened and widened the channel and
created an unstable situation. A ten-foot by twenty-foot (height and
width) closed underground conduit that was constructed between 1911 and
1916 now requires significant maintenance and major rehabilitation. A
dangerous flood threat to adjacent public and private facilities
exists.
The goals of the study are to anticipate and provide for the control
of flooding of Antelope Creek, map the floodway, evaluate the condition
of the underground conduit, make recommendations for any necessary
repair, suggest the appropriate limitations of neighborhood and UN-L
city campus development within current defined boundaries, eliminate
fragmentation of the city campus, minimize vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle
conflicts while providing adequate capacity, and improve bikeway and
pedestrian systems.
This Member is also pleased that the bill provides $200,000 for
operation and maintenance and $150,000 for construction of the Missouri
National Recreational River Project. This project addresses a serious
problem by protecting the river banks from the extraordinary and
excessive erosion rates caused by the sporadic and varying releases
from the Gavins Point Dam. These erosion rates are a result of previous
work on the river by the Federal Government.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member recognizes that H.R. 4060 also
provides funding for Army Corps projects in Nebraska at the following
sites: Harlan County Lake; Papillion Creek and Tributaries; Gavins
Point Dam, Lewis and Clark Lake; Salt Creek and Tributaries; and Wood
River.
Again, Mr. Chairman, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), the Chairman of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), the ranking member of the
Subcommittee for their support of projects which are important to
Nebraska and the First Congressional District, as well as to the people
living in the Missouri River Basin. Since the distinguished gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) earlier announced his intention not to
seek re-election to the House, may I most sincerely commend,
congratulate and thank the gentleman for the tremendous contributions
he has made to America by the extraordinary effort and leadership he
has demonstrated on the Appropriations Committee and through other
responsibilities he has so ably discharged in his public service while
a Member of the House. I recall as if it was only yesterday how the
gentleman gave such friendly and quality advice and assistance to this
Member when I arrived to serve on the House Small Business Committee in
1979 where the gentleman from Pennsylvania served as the ranking
minority member. Thank you, my colleague and friend and very best
wishes to you and your family during the remainder of this year and
after you leave the House.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1999, for energy and water development,
and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers--Civil

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

General Investigations

For expenses necessary for the collection and study of
basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood
control, shore protection, and related projects, restudy of
authorized projects, miscellaneous investigations, and, when
authorized by laws, surveys and detailed studies and plans
and specifications of projects prior to construction,
$162,823,000, to remain available until expended, of which
funds are provided for the following projects in the amounts
specified:
Delaware Bay Coastline, Delaware and New Jersey, $570,000;
Tampa Harbor, Alafia Channel, Florida, $200,000;
Barnegat Inlet to Little Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey,
$322,000;
Brigantine Inlet to Great Egg Harbor Inlet, New Jersey,
$313,000;
Great Egg Harbor Inlet to Townsends Inlet, New Jersey,
$300,000;
Lower Cape May Meadows--Cape May Point, New Jersey,
$100,000;
Manasquan Inlet to Barnegat Inlet, New Jersey, $400,000;
Raritan Bay to Sandy Hook Bay, New Jersey, $1,100,000;
Townsends Inlet to Cape May Inlet, New Jersey, $500,000:
Provided, That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, is directed to use $700,000 of the funds
appropriated in Public Law 102-377 for the Red River
Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana, to Daingerfield, Texas,
project for the feasibility phase of the Red River
Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, study: Provided further, That
the Secretary of the Army is directed to use $500,000 of the
funds appropriated herein to implement section 211(f)(7) of
Public Law 104-303 (110 Stat. 3684) and to reimburse the non-
Federal sponsor a portion of the Federal share of project
costs for the Hunting Bayou element of the project for flood
control, Buffalo Bayou and tributaries, Texas: Provided
further, That the Secretary of the Army is directed to use
$300,000 of the funds appropriated herein to implement
section 211(f)(8) of Public Law 104-303 (110 Stat. 3684) and
to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor a portion of the Federal
share of project costs for the project for flood control,
White Oak Bayou watershed, Texas.

Construction, General

For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control,
shore protection, and related projects authorized by laws;
and detailed studies, and plans and specifications, of
projects (including those for development with participation
or under consideration for participation by States, local
governments, or private groups) authorized or made eligible
for selection by law (but such studies shall not constitute a
commitment of the Government to construction),
$1,456,529,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such sums as are necessary for the Federal share of
construction costs for facilities under the Dredged Material
Disposal Facilities program shall be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, as authorized by Public Law 104-303;
and of which such sums as are necessary pursuant to Public
Law 99-662 shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust
Fund, for one-half of the costs of construction and
rehabilitation of inland waterways projects, including
rehabilitation costs for the Lock and Dam 25, Mississippi
River, Illinois and Missouri; Lock and Dam 14, Mississippi
River, Iowa; Lock and Dam 24, Part 1, Mississippi River,
Illinois and Missouri; and Lock and Dam 3, Mississippi River,
Minnesota, projects, and of which funds are provided for the
following projects in the amounts specified:
Norco Bluffs, California, $4,400,000;
Tybee Island, Georgia, $1,200,000;
Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana, $4,000,000;
Indiana Shoreline Erosion, Indiana, $700,000;
Ohio River Flood Protection, Indiana, $1,700,000;
Harlan/Clover Fork, Williamsburg, Middlesboro, Martin
County, Pike County, and Town of Martin elements of the
Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper
Cumberland River, Kentucky, $26,730,000;
Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky, $4,000,000;

[[Page H4933]]

Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity (Hurricane Protection),
Louisiana, $18,000,000;
Lake Pontchartrain (Jefferson Parish) Stormwater Discharge,
Louisiana, $3,000,000;
Southeast Louisiana, Louisiana, $85,200,000;
Jackson County, Mississippi, $7,000,000;
Passaic River Streambank Restoration, New Jersey,
$5,000,000;
Lackawanna River, Olyphant, Pennsylvania, $14,400,000;
Lackawanna River, Scranton, Pennsylvania, $43,551,000;
South Central Pennsylvania Environment Improvement
Program, $45,000,000, of which $15,000,000 shall be available
only for water-related environmental infrastructure and
resource protection and development projects in Lackawanna,
Lycoming, Susquehanna, Wyoming, Pike, and Monroe counties in
Pennsylvania in accordance with the purposes of subsection
(a) and requirements of subsections (b) through (e) of
section 313 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992,
as amended;
Wallisville Lake, Texas, $5,500,000;
Virginia Beach, Virginia (Hurricane Protection),
$13,000,000;
West Virginia and Pennsylvania Flood Control, West
Virginia and Pennsylvania, $750,000: Provided, That the
Secretary of the Army is directed to incorporate the economic
analyses for the Green Ridge and Plot sections of the
Lackawanna River, Scranton, Pennsylvania, project with the
economic analysis for the Albright Street section of the
project, and to cost-share and implement these combined
sections as a single project with no separable elements,
except that each section may be undertaken individually when
the non-Federal sponsor provides the applicable local
cooperation requirements; Provided further, That any funds
heretofore appropriated and made available in Public Law 103-
126 for projects associated with the restoration of the
Lackawanna River Basin Greenway Corridor, Pennsylvania, may
be utilized by the Secretary of the Army in carrying out
other projects and activities on the Lackawanna River in
Pennsylvania; Provided further, That the Secretary of the
Army is directed to use $6,000,000 of the funds appropriated
herein to implement section 211(f)(6) of Public Law 104-303
(110 Stat. 3683) and to reimburse the non-Federal sponsor a
portion of the Federal share of project construction costs
for the flood control components comprising the Brays Bayou
element of the project for flood control, Buffalo Bayou and
tributaries, Texas.

Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I think there has been a lot of very legitimate
discussion on this bill and on the rule leading up to it about what has
been presented to us by the administration in their Corps budget this
year.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) and I worked very, very
hard to get back to a figure which is $200 million below what we should
be spending this year. We came from $900 million down. The
administration's budget was terribly troubling to all of us, but I
think we have got to put this in a larger context, and that is the
declining nondefense discretionary programs.
As we can see, the funding freeze, which is essentially what we are
learning to live with, based on the agreement made last year between
the two parties, is trending downward. Republicans have talked about
reductions of an even greater amount.
Current services are going, in effect, off the chart. The demand for
the Corps' program vastly exceeds what any of us envision being able to
provide. If I could see the next chart, I would like to point out that
the Corps itself is telling us that the legitimate requests made of it,
program needs, are far beyond what is going to be available under the
spending caps that we just agreed to.
My purpose is not to make a partisan speech on the quintessential
nonpartisan bill of the year. My point is simply to say, yes, the
administration's budget was too deeply cut, but so will others in the
future be if we keep on the trend line we have been on on nondefense
discretionary spending.
I am very concerned about this because the Corps' construction budget
is being augmented by a tremendous infusion of State and local funding.
We have, as I said earlier, done away with those carryover balances
that this committee used to utilize very effectively, at one time as
much as $800 million. That is gone. We have lost that flexibility.
All I am saying is that none of us can be critical of budgets that
will be presented to this Congress in the future by any administration
of either party when we have this kind of nondefense discretionary
future out there ahead of us.
The Corps' programs are good and worthy. They are legitimate. They
need to be funded. As we view not only the highway bill this year or
the authorization for the research in the Agriculture Department, as we
look at all of the proposed budget resolutions still to be resolved out
there ahead of us, we see, I think, a recipe for disaster in the Corps
budget. I hope we can, frankly, all get beyond the partisanship and
understand that the future for the things that our constituents demand
of us in this area is bleak.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), the chairman. First, I would
like to say how much I appreciated working with the gentleman and the
ranking member during these past 2 years. Both of them have worked
closely with us to make sure that critical nuclear cleanup efforts are
fully funded and effectively managed. I wish the both of them the very
best.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise an issue for the Committee's
consideration as this bill moves into conference. As the gentleman
knows, research into the field of medical isotopes has moved forward at
a record pace over the past several years. In one recent clinical
trial, medical isotope therapy demonstrated a 75 to 80 percent success
rate against non-Hodgkins lymphoma patients diagnosed as terminal. New
research into alpha-emitting isotopes appears to be even more
promising. Yet, today more than 90 percent of our research and
treatment isotopes are imported. A recent strike at a Canadian reactor
threatened to undermine diagnostic medical treatments nationwide.
A state-of-the-art facility in my district, the Fast Flux Test
Facility, is now under consideration for production of these valuable
cancer fighting tools. In addition, the facility could serve as an
interim or backup source of tritium, at a savings of billions of
dollars over other alternatives.
As the chairman knows, the House fully funded the President's request
but transferred that request into the Department's environmental
management account. The Senate, on the other hand, cut $4 million from
the program, but placed it into the energy research account as
requested.
Although the $31 million provided for the program is inadequate to
fund either start-up or shutdown, I understand that the administration
is working to correct this situation.
I wonder if the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) might be
willing to work with us on these two issues.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the distinguished gentleman yield to
me?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I am happy to yield to yield to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I want to say how grateful we are to the
gentleman for bringing this forcefully to our attention. It is our
intention to work with him to ensure the program is appropriately
funded and in the accurate place.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Good. I thank the gentleman. If the
gentleman would continue into a colloquy, I have one more inquiry.
During a June 10 hearing in the Committee on Resources, witnesses
from the National Park Service testified that the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is not properly complying with the implementing regulations
of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990,
or NAGPRA. These witnesses indicated that errors on the part of the
Corps have resulted in a lawsuit against the Federal Government for
mishandling cultural resources found on land owned by the Corps.
Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to offer an amendment to set aside
$10,000 to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers overhead account to pay for
a study on the Corps' compliance with NAGPRA. However, after
discussions with the committee staff, I believe that the Corps could be
persuaded to review this issue without amending the bill before us
today.
Would the gentleman from Pennsylvania be willing to join me in a
letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requesting a review of its
compliance with this law?

[[Page H4934]]

Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, may I say to my friend, I would be
delighted to join in such a letter. The subcommittee is deeply
interested in the issue. We will be happy to work with the gentleman.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Good. I appreciate the gentleman's
assistance with us on this matter.
Once again, I add my congratulations to the gentleman for a
successful tenure here and success in getting this bill through the
House tonight.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to join in the shameless piling on of
compliments and bouquets being thrown at the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio)
who are gentlemen, I think, that really set the standard for mutual
respect, good working relationships, good humor, basic decency, care
for the institution, and all manner of good things.
I was going to say I will miss you, but I will be gone next year,
too. If I had the foresight to pattern my career after the gentleman
from California (Mr. Fazio), I would have gotten a lot further, but I
did not think of doing it early enough. Anyway, my respects and high
regard to both of the gentlemen.
I wanted to thank the subcommittee and its good staff in particular
for the provisions that are included in the bill with regard to nuclear
weapons plant cleanup. I think the very farsighted provision for
funding the Rocky Flats closure fund even somewhat higher than the
President's request, really will enable progress to be made there
toward the hope for a closure by the year 2006, and in the process
saving the taxpayers something on the order of $1 billion. So I really
appreciate the help there.
There is, however, one provision in the Senate bill that may
complicate life for us with regard to both the Rocky Flats situation
and elsewhere, and I would like to engage the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) briefly in a discussion about that.
Section 306 of the Senate bill would apparently prohibit any steps to
decrease radioactive concentration of wastes in order to meet the
criteria for wastes that can be shipped to the Waste Isolation Pilot
Project in New Mexico.

{time} 1845

I do not know what the rationale for this provision may be, but I am
informed that it could make it much less likely that wastes from Rocky
Flats could be sent to WIPP in accordance with the current timetable.
In fact, it could mean that the Department of Energy would have to use
money that could go for cleanup instead to build a new facility at
Rocky Flats to store wastes that otherwise could be sooner sent to
WIPP. Estimates are that this might cost $20 million to $40 million for
construction, and another $10 million a year to operate.
I am sure the chairman, at least I hope the chairman agrees that this
would be an undesirable result, and I hope he will work to resolve this
matter in conference and eliminate whatever confusion this Senate bill
provision may have sown into this matter.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. May I say to him that
one of the highlights of my service in the Congress was the opportunity
to serve with him as a member of the Committee on Appropriations for
more decades than we probably both want to admit. He will be missed. I
hope to continue our relationship in life on the outside of the
Capitol.
Let me say that we have no higher priority than concluding the
cleanup site at Rocky Flats. We believe it is working well, we have put
a lot of money on that effort, and we do not intend to back off it. I
am not sure where that provision came from, but I want to assure the
gentleman, it has our attention and we appreciate him bringing this to
our attention again.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much. I just in
closing wanted to note two other provisions. As the chairman is aware,
the bill provides somewhat less funds than were requested for the
section 3161 program, the transition support for workers that are being
phased out of these weapons plants around the country. I am fully aware
of the difficult budget circumstances but just wanted to flag that item
in hopes that both we can replenish some of the funding and also be at
least open to the possibility that there will be out-year needs beyond
the cutoff date currently included in the bill.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to join my colleagues also in
extending my congratulations to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
McDade) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) for their hard
work on this bill. Both their time here, their commitment and service
to America is certainly and greatly appreciated by me as well as the
entire Congress.
Mr. Chairman, the reason I am here is to discuss the ability of the
State of Nevada and all affected local governments to carry out their
oversight authority on the proposed Yucca Mountain project in Nevada.
This oversight authority was granted to them in the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982. Currently the Department of Energy is conducting
tests to determine if the Yucca Mountain site will be a permanent
repository for nuclear waste.
When the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 was created, Members of
this body felt that it was imperative for the State of Nevada and all
affected local governments to have sufficient resources to carry out
their own oversight. These necessary funds are used to properly oversee
tests the Department of Energy is carrying out to determine whether or
not Yucca Mountain is suitable or not suitable as a permanent nuclear
waste site.
This was a very critical part of the 1982 act, because it allowed
Nevada, and particularly the citizens and residents of that State, to
have confidence in the scientific studies and especially the validity
of those tests that the Department of Energy has been conducting. These
resources will allow for State and local governments to continue to
perform their own independent validation tests to ensure the best
science is used to determine site suitability.
It has been my experience that these local and State scientists have
been unbiased in their work and as such have produced needed assurances
that only the best scientific data is used to determine the hydrologic
and geologic character of Yucca Mountain.
Mr. Chairman, we have over 1.8 million people in Nevada, and their
safety and quality of life in this debate should not be ignored, making
it imperative that we provide the financial resources to ensure the
State of Nevada and affected local governments are able to monitor and
report on this activity.
Therefore, I would ask that the House conferees work with me to get
$4.875 million for the State of Nevada and $5.54 million for affected
local governments included in this appropriation. These appropriation
amounts are consistent with the moneys appropriated in the Senate
fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
As the Federal Government moves to designate Yucca Mountain as a
permanent nuclear waste repository, it becomes imperative that we
address the scientific and safety concerns of the citizens of Nevada.
Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
McDade) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) for their work on
this bill. I would appreciate their willingness to work with me on this
very important issue.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly want to stop, too, as a member of the
Committee on Appropriations and pay my respects to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
McDade). In my 2 years, a short term on the committee, I have just
thoroughly enjoyed the working relationship that I have with these two
men and am constantly amazed at how much they know about the work that
they do. Sometimes in this institution Members do not follow in the
level of detail what these two gentlemen do day in and day out on the

[[Page H4935]]

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, knowing every single
program area, the funding amounts, the priorities, somehow keeping it
all in perspective and serving this institution so well. I could not be
more unhappy that two people are leaving this body at the same time as
the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Pennsylvania. They
have served our country with such distinction. They will be sorely
missed.
Mr. Chairman, as they know, I have been an advocate for the
environmental cleanup efforts in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Following the
successful Manhattan Project and winning the Cold War and our nuclear
buildup, now we have got the responsibility of cleaning it up. They
also know that of the three gaseous diffusion plants in this country,
one of them is in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Energy Policy Act of 1992
very specifically told the Congress to fund the cleanup at these sites
in the future. We had those funding requests made for this fiscal year.
Unfortunately at a time which they have articulated so well of
declining discretionary accounts, we did not have the funding to fully
fund the President's request for this coming year for the
decontamination and decommissioning of these gaseous diffusion plants.
The President asked for $277 million. The Senate marked up a $200
million level at the committee, and then reduced it by $3 million on
the Senate floor last week. So the Senate is at $197 million. The
President's request was at $277 million. The House did add money back
in and brought us to a $225 million level.
I just appeal to the conferees as we come to the floor today to clear
what I hope to be unanimous certification of our Energy and Water bill
here today, and they deserve a unanimous vote from the full House, I
want the conferees to know that the $225 million even that the House
Committee on Appropriations passed is still not sufficient. We need
really $15 million more to get to a level of $240 million in order to
not miss a stride in the environmental cleanup which is so important to
all three gaseous diffusion sites, but particularly in the State of
Tennessee where we constantly wrestle with the State of Tennessee on
meeting our compliance levels and meeting our timing on the
environmental cleanup as called for in the Energy Policy Act which we
all know was a comprehensive piece of legislation affecting all of the
nuclear sites in America.
I appeal to the conferees with much gratitude that the House
appropriators saw fit to increase the level from the Senate mark to
$225 million, I just appeal that we find $15 million more somehow as we
approach the final Energy and Water conference report for fiscal year
1999, trying to get us to the $240 million level so that this important
cleanup can continue.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, some Members might remember the rather confusing battle
of the Fazio-DeFazio amendments last year. Unfortunately we will be
deprived of that confusion in the future with the retirement of the
gentleman from California. But the issue over which we disagreed will
be before the Congress in future years. I have concerns in the way it
is presented in the report language here. I decided to forgo an
amendment this year since we are in limbo on the Animas-La Plata
project; that is, it is not determined how or if it will go forward and
in what form, so I decided not to come to the floor this year with an
amendment to delete the funds. But what we find in the bill is language
that says they should go ahead post haste with an alternative, whatever
that might be, which of course is not authorized by law. Perhaps it
would be the alternative advocated by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
McInnis) who represents that district who has a bill, H.R. 3478, which
has not even yet had a hearing. I think it would be most unusual and
probably illegal for the Bureau of Reclamation to begin a project which
has not even had a hearing in Congress, let alone being authorized. I
would suggest that that language in the report should be, and probably
will be, ignored by the administration.
The point here, this project was not justifiable, the massive amount
of money. It was being sold as settling the legitimate claims of the
Ute Indian tribe. However, it was much, much more than that, many
hundreds of millions of dollars more, and it was not going to deliver
water to that tribe. So some alternatives have been proposed. No one
has as of yet authorized any of those alternatives. One called Animas-
La Plata Lite is favored by the gentleman who represents the district,
but it has not been heard, it has not been voted on, it is not law, and
you cannot lawfully spend money on that project.
There are other alternatives that have been proposed. At some point,
the committee of jurisdiction on which I sit, the authorizing
committee, is going to have to hold hearings, puzzle through the
potential alternatives, and come up with a solution which settles the
legitimate claims of that tribe and protects the taxpayers at the same
time. I do not believe we quite have that formula before us.
Mr. Chairman, I am rising just to point out this language in the
report. Since the language would order the Bureau to do something which
is illegal, I assume that the language will not be quite worth the
paper it is printed on. I look forward to future discussion of this
issue in committee and on the floor of the House as we move forward to
authorizing a fair and just settlement but something which also
protects the Federal Treasury.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today not to complain a bit about the work of
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) or the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio) in terms of the subcommittee report that is
before us, but rather to say that a very interesting experience has
been mine in recent weeks as I have observed these two gentlemen
approaching today, for as has been said many a time before today, they
both are contemplating leaving the House at the end of this session.
In beautiful northern California, in spite of the fact that there is
a propensity even in that great State for people surrounding the State
capital to often point a finger at elected officials and wonder what
they are all about, in the last several weeks, suddenly out of the
woodwork all kinds of people are saying, ``Oh my God, what are we going
to do? Vic Fazio is not going to be there to represent us anymore.''
Suddenly citizens are beginning to realize that, unnoticed in many
ways, almost never has there been quite the contribution to their
community that has been made by their Congressman from Sacramento and
regions that surround.
In beautiful downtown Scranton, Pennsylvania, a similar occurrence of
people for years and years and years have been pointing around at what
local officials in one location or another have not quite done to their
satisfaction, and they too in the last many weeks have begun to say,
``Oh my God, what are we going to do without Joe McDade to take care of
our problems'' that we ask about always at the last moment.
Mr. Chairman, it is important for us to note that in public affairs,
most problems have absolutely very little to do with partisan politics.
If there are two gentlemen who serve this House well who recognize that
more than these two, I do not know who they are. Both the gentleman
from Pennsylvania and the gentleman from California have been a great
tribute to the House of Representatives. It has been my privilege to
know them as human beings and as personal friends, but most important
to have the opportunity to rise and say that I am proud just to be
their colleague.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say how
much I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and want
him to know that in the future when people come to me and ask how we
are going to accomplish this or that, I am going to simply refer them
to him, because I know his interest in the region personally and in our
State generally will motivate him to take up any unfulfilled task. I do
appreciate him very much.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to simply for the record indicate that the
committee

[[Page H4936]]

has taken no position on Animas-La Plata this year. The money in the
bill was the administration's budget request to fund ongoing activities
of the Romer-Schoettler process, which is the Governor and Lieutenant
Governor trying to find a solution to this problem at Animas-La Plata.
Included in that request of the administration is funding for data
collection, analysis of endangered species issues and other
environmental, cultural and hydrological issues. It is obviously our
understanding that the Colorado delegation is pursuing this project
through the normal authorization process.

{time} 1900

The proposed project has been reduced from a price tag that was
originally about $750 million to currently an estimate of around $250
million. The proposal by environmental groups to give the Utes a cash
settlement has been rejected by both the Tribal Council of the Ute and
the Mountain Ute Nations.
This is a subject that has been debated for 30 years, and I know the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) joins me in hoping that we are
about to see a successful conclusion to this controversy brought about
in terms of fulfilling our responsibilities to both the Indian tribes.
I certainly hope that we can at least stay the course with this issue
so that the process of accommodation that is underway in Colorado can
be completed.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

For expenses necessary for prosecuting work of flood
control, and rescue work, repair, restoration, or maintenance
of flood control projects threatened or destroyed by flood,
as authorized by law (33 U.S.C. 702a, 702g-1), $312,077,000,
to remain available until expended.

Operation and Maintenance, General

For expenses necessary for the preservation, operation,
maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood
control, and related works, including such sums as may be
necessary for the maintenance of harbor channels provided by
a State, municipality or other public agency, outside of
harbor lines, and serving essential needs of general commerce
and navigation; surveys and charting of northern and
northwestern lakes and connecting waters; clearing and
straightening channels; and removal of obstructions to
navigation, $1,637,719,000, to remain available until
expended, of which such sums as become available in the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662,
may be derived from that Fund, and of which such sums as
become available from the special account established by the
Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16
U.S.C. 460l), may be derived from that Fund for construction,
operation, and maintenance of outdoor recreation facilities,
and of which $4,200,000 is provided for repair of Chickamauga
Lock, Tennessee, subject to authorization.

Regulatory Program

For expenses necessary for administration of laws
pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands,
$110,000,000, to remain available until expended.

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

For expenses necessary to clean up contaminated sites
throughout the United States where work was performed as part
of the Nation's early atomic energy program, $140,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

General Expenses

For expenses necessary for general administration and
related functions in the Office of the Chief of Engineers and
offices of the Division Engineers; activities of the Coastal
Engineering Research Board, the Humphreys Engineer Center
Support Activity, the Water Resources Support Center, and
headquarters support functions at the USACE Finance Center;
$148,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no part of any other appropriation provided in title I
of this Act shall be available to fund the activities of the
Office of the Chief of Engineers or the executive direction
and management activities of the division offices: Provided
further, That none of these funds shall be available to
support an office of congressional affairs within the
executive office of the Chief of Engineers.

Administrative Provision

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

TITLE II

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Central Utah Project

central utah project completion account

For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, and for activities related to the
Uintah and Upalco Units authorized by 43 U.S.C. 620,
$39,665,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$15,476,000 shall be deposited into the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Account: Provided, That of the
amounts deposited into that account, $5,000,000 shall be
considered the Federal contribution authorized by paragraph
402(b)(2) of the Central Utah Project Completion Act and
$10,476,000 shall be available to the Utah Reclamation
Mitigation and Conservation Commission to carry out
activities authorized under that Act.
In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying
out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the
Interior, $1,283,000, to remain available until expended.

Bureau of Reclamation

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

water and related resources

(including transfer of funds)

For management, development, and restoration of water and
related natural resources and for related activities,
including the operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of
reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling
related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and
related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with,
State and local governments, Indian Tribes, and others,
$622,054,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$1,873,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper
Colorado River Basin Fund and $49,908,000 shall be available
for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development
Fund, and of which such amounts as may be necessary may be
advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund: Provided, That such
transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall
appropriation under this heading: Provided further, That of
the total appropriated, the amount for program activities
that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund or the Bureau of
Reclamation special fee account established by 16 U.S.C.
460l6a(i) shall be derived from that Fund or account:
Provided further, That funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395
are available until expended for the purposes for which
contributed: Provided further, That funds advanced under 43
U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to this account and are
available until expended for the same purposes as the sums
appropriated under this heading: Provided further, That of
the total appropriated, $25,800,000 shall be derived by
transfer of unexpended balances from the Bureau of
Reclamation Working Capital Fund.

bureau of reclamation loan program account

For the cost of direct loans and/or grants, $12,000,000, to
remain available until expended, as authorized by the Small
Reclamation Projects Act of August 6, 1956, as amended (43
U.S.C. 422a-422l): Provided, That such costs, including the
cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided
further, That these funds are available to subsidize gross
obligations for the principal amount of direct loans not to
exceed $38,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to
carry out the program for direct loans and/or grants,
$425,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That
of the total sums appropriated, the amount of program
activities that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund shall
be derived from that Fund.

central valley project restoration fund

For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, and habitat
restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $33,130,000, to be
derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d),
3404(c)(3), 3405(f), and 3406(c)(1) of Public Law 102-575, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau of
Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount
of the additional mitigation and restoration payments
authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575.

california bay-delta ecosystem restoration

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior
and other participating Federal agencies in carrying out the
California Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement and Water
Security Act consistent with plans to be approved by the
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with such Federal
agencies, $75,000,000, to remain available until expended, of
which such amounts as may be necessary to conform with such
plans shall be transferred to appropriate accounts of such
Federal agencies: Provided, That such funds may be obligated
only as non-Federal sources provide their share in accordance
with the cost-sharing agreement required under section 102(d)
of such Act: Provided further, That such funds may be
obligated prior to the completion of a final programmatic
environmental impact statement only if: (1) consistent with
40 CFR 1506.1(c); and (2) used

[[Page H4937]]

for purposes that the Secretary finds are of sufficiently
high priority to warrant such an expenditure.

policy and administration

For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and
related functions in the office of the Commissioner, the
Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau
of Reclamation, to remain available until expended,
$46,000,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be
nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That
no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be
available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and
administration expenses.

administrative provision

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

TITLE III

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ENERGY PROGRAMS

Energy Supply

For expenses of the Department of Energy activities
including the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant
and capital equipment and other expenses necessary for energy
supply, and uranium supply and enrichment activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion; and the purchase of not to exceed 22 passenger
motor vehicles for replacement only, $882,834,000, of which
not to exceed $3,000 may be used for official reception and
representation expenses for transparency activities.

Mr. McDADE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the bill through page 15, line 25, be considered as read,
printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Foley

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Foley:
Page 15, line 23, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 20 minutes and that
the time be equally divided.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) will control 10
minutes.
Is there an opponent?
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. As the opponent of the amendment, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
McDade) for his fine work and particularly for all he has done for the
Everglades and so many Florida projects which our entire State and
Nation have benefited from.
And I hate to spoil the parade. I do have an amendment today on his
bill that would strike $5 million in funding for the Department of
Energy's newly proposed Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, also known
as NERI, and I am not opposed, Mr. Chairman, to nuclear power or its
research. In fact, I have a reactor in my district and I fully support
its continued existence, but I will not allow taxpayers to pay for
research that benefits an industry that had $141 billion in revenue
last year alone.
Mr. Chairman, everything but the kitchen sink seems to be fair game
for this program. They want R&D funds to focus on their competitiveness
including operations, maintenance and fuel costs. This program contains
large elements of the Nuclear Energy Security program that Congress
choose not to fund last year. NES and NERI both would fund efforts to
examine reactor aging issues, fuel economics and advanced
instrumentation and controls. Some of this same research is already
performed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The proponents of this program claim it is independently peer
reviewed, but the reviewers are from universities, national labs and
industry, the very same people who will receive the funds. Where
exactly is the independence in that?
Our constituent tax dollars should not be spent on new and
questionable Department of Energy programs for an already mature
industry, yet this is exactly what the DOE is suggesting we do in the
newly-proposed and unauthorized Nuclear Energy Research Initiative.
This program is clear-cut corporate welfare. While it benefits a whole
industry, it nevertheless benefits them with taxpayers' money, and that
is wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask my colleagues to support
the Foley-Miller-Markey-Kucinich-Sanders amendment. Our amendment would
strike the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative. It is a $5 million
subsidy that props up the commercial nuclear power industry and may
keep open aging and potentially dangerous plants beyond the initial
term of their licenses.
There are two powerful reasons to support our amendment:
First, giving more money to the nuclear industry is throwing good
money after bad. Since 1950 taxpayers have handed the nuclear industry
$47 billion in subsidies. In addition to the billions in Federal
subsidies, nukes have cost American consumers a bundle. According to
Komanoff Energy Associates, nuclear power has cost ratepayers a premium
of $160 billion for electricity between 1968 and 1990. After all these
billions we have already spent propping up the nuclear industry, there
is no good reason for throwing away more taxpayer money.
Second, subsidizing nuclear power is bad environmental policy.
Nuclear power poisons the environment with radiation emissions and
creates tons of radioactive waste. Far from being clean, nuclear power
is toxic. If there is something to spend money on, it would be on how
to deal safely with the waste the nukes have already created.
Right now we do not have a policy to safely move the waste, we do not
have a policy to safely store the waste. This policy here only creates
more of it. It is time we put an end to it.
Support the Foley-Miller-Markey-Kucinich-Sanders amendment. Join all
the other interest groups from all over the country who are concerned
about good neighborhoods, safe neighborhoods, and are concerned about
utility ratepayers. Support this amendment.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. My good friend
from Florida, as usual, does his homework very well and presents a good
case, but unfortunately I believe it is the wrong case.
This Nation depends on nuclear power for about 20 percent of its
electricity generation. Within the umbrella of energy resources in this
bill there was appropriated $880 million for energy supply research
activities, and this $5 million sum is included in the bill for
scientific research.
Now it seems to me that is a reasonable course for the committee to
pursue. It is reasonable, I think, for us to put out that amount of
money to make sure that the 20 percent we are talking about, and who
knows what tomorrow may bring, will have scientific research behind it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the moves that the gentlemen are taking
here. It is good to cut spending. Spending is an excess that we could,
of course, look at in a number of areas but, very honestly, not at the
heart of something like this.
The NERI program is designed to reinvigorate the Department of
Energy's

[[Page H4938]]

nuclear energy R&D based on competitive, and I will explain that in
just a moment, competitive and peer-reviewed applications concerning
such issues as more efficient reactor designs, lower costs, improved
safety, better onsite storage techniques and proliferation-resistant
reactors.
Now PCAST, the President's Committee of Advisers on Science and
Technology panel, recommended further nuclear energy research and
development to ensure our Nation's nuclear energy program is strong and
growing. Specifically they encouraged R&D in the areas of nuclear
waste, nonproliferation and nuclear safety. They also expressed a
concern about whether nuclear energy is economically viable. With the
NERI program we will conduct research that will address these concerns
and pave the way for nuclear energy to emerge as a more prominent
energy source for the United States.
There is no shortage of funding for the other areas of energy supply
research. The chairman alluded to that. Last year we appropriated $296
million for solar and renewables R&D. This year we recommended $351
million, and the Senate has over $4 million assigned to solar and
renewables. This includes $70 million for photovoltaics, $33 million
for wind energy and $101 million for biomass/biofuels research, and
fossil energy R&D last year received $362 million and will likely
receive a similar amount this year.
In contrast, last year nuclear energy received only, the research end
of it, only $7 million. This bill has increased the funding level for
nuclear energy research to a total of $17 million, $5 million for NERI
and $12 million for the university research programs which I also
support.
Now the gentlemen have talked about some of the money that has been
spent in nuclear research. A lot of that was weapons research. Let me
tell my colleagues since 1976 we have spent $1.45 billion on solar and
renewable energy sources, which generates below 1 percent of this
country's electricity supply. Alternatively, since 1973 we have spent
$1 billion on nuclear R&D, and nuclear energy plants produced nearly 20
percent of the Nation's electricity, let me remind my colleagues of
this, and they produced 40 percent of all new electricity generation
since 1973.
This year let us make sure we get an appropriate level of funding for
nuclear R&D for this year. As I have already stated, it is the safe,
clean and reliable energy source to carry us into the future.
The NERI program is set up with competitive peer-reviewed research
that will be a coordinated effort between the national laboratories,
universities and industry. Now what does that mean, competitive peer-
reviewed research? What it means is we will get the best science
available with no favoritism toward any specific university, Federal
laboratory, company or industry. Instead they will have to compete for
the research grant, which will ensure we get the best science
available, perhaps to a university in one of my colleague's States.
There are some who might claim this is corporate welfare. This is
simply untrue, and those who are claiming that ought to study the solar
and renewable energy research and development which is rife with
technology transfer programs and commercialization, and very little, if
any, that is peer-reviewed science. To the contrary, the NERI program
will be competitive, peer-reviewed research that is basic research to
continue this safe, clean, low-emission energy source.
The Clinton administration has requested $24 million for this
program. I support a higher level of funding. I am glad to see we
provide some funding for this important program.
Another good reason to support nuclear R&D such as the NERI program
is as follows:
As many of my colleagues might know, I and some others had the
opportunity to attend the global climate change meeting in Kyoto back
in December. That is where the administration signed on to an agreement
to reduce the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990
levels by the years 2008 through 2012. I have been quite critical about
the U.S. supporting a treaty which places the U.S. and other industrial
nations at a competitive disadvantage to the 132 nations which have no
reduction requirements.
In Kyoto, Japan was a strong proponent for placing strict reductions
on greenhouse gas emissions on the industrial nations. However, they
also have an existing plan for reaching their reduction requirement.
With 44 existing commercial nuclear power plants already, they have a
construction plan to build at least 20 more. Since nuclear power emits
no greenhouse gas emissions, this alone will allow them to reach their
reduction target. In the U.S. there appears to be no similar plan to
use new commercial nuclear energy plants to reduce the U.S.'s
greenhouse gas emissions, and in fact in a deregulated electricity
market we may see some of our older plants shut down.
We have a great opportunity, I believe, to bring America back to the
option of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy such as they have in Europe
and Japan and elsewhere has provided safe, reliable energy, a source
that does not emit greenhouse gases. Support the NERI program. Make
sure the best nuclear minds in the world are right here in the U.S.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

{time} 1915

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a great amendment. Do you remember
the old horror movie, The Night of the Living Dead, where the dead came
back from their graves to stalk the Earth again? Well, that is what
this program is, it is a dead government program.
We killed almost the identical program last year, but Adam Smith
spins in his grave as we stand out here trying to figure out how to
give subsidies to Westinghouse and General Electric and other Fortune
500 companies, for them to figure out how to develop nuclear energy
electrical generating capacity, when they have been in that business
for 50 years.
It would be one thing if they are starving. They are the wealthiest
companies in the United States. The electric utility industry is the
wealthiest industry in the United States. Over a 50-year period, we
here on the floor of Congress have given this industry $47 billion in
subsidies.
What is the net result? We are now debating here in Congress, and in
every State legislature in the country, something called stranded
investments in electrical restructuring. What does stranded investments
mean? Well, it is a euphemism for the word nuclear power plant, meaning
how do we get this off of our books? How do we have ratepayers
subsidize this boondoggle?
In the marketplace, oil is cheaper in generating electricity, gas is
cheaper in generating electricity, coal is cheaper in generating
electricity and wind is cheaper in generating electricity, but we are
supposed to subsidize Fortune 500 companies in a technology that is
more expensive?
Mr. Chairman, no electric utility has purchased one of these since
1973. If they think it is such a great idea, why do they not build them
themselves? They have got more money than the Federal Government, if
they want to invest in it. But asking the taxpayers to have themselves
tipped upside down and shake another 5 or 10 million bucks out of them
for an industry that has not been able to figure out in 50 years how to
make this technology effective in the marketplace, is just a complete
and total waste of money.
Mr. Chairman, the Foley amendment, on a bipartisan basis, Democrat
and Republican, is something that each one of us should be able to back
tonight to prove that we are faithful to the taxpayers' message to us
that we should stop squandering their money, handing it over to the
private sector, investing in programs that would not work in the real
world marketplace.
Vote ``yes'' on the Foley amendment.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), the able ranking member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and want to state
unequivocally the administration's opposition to it as well. This is
not the nuclear energy security program that I

[[Page H4939]]

think some of the critics of NERI are attacking today. This program is
not a program that has risen from the dead. It is a new program which
has within it the potential of bringing together universities, the
National Laboratories and the private sector to spend a very, very
small amount of the Department of Energy's research funding, less than
one-half of 1 percent of their total DOE research funding, as a matter
of fact. One-fifth of the amount in this bill is what is left of the
administration's request, which was far greater, a $50 million request
made by the President's science and technology advisors, transformed to
a $24 million request by OMB, and all we provided for was $5 million, a
very small contribution to keep a seat at the table in the ongoing
international discussions over nuclear energy technology.
Mr. Chairman, I think it would be foolish for this Congress to zero
out this very modest funding for an area of energy supply that still
presents 20 percent of the total electrical generation in this country,
and, regrettably, I am sure, from the perspective of a number of those
who have cosponsored this amendment, continues to be not only
internationally on the offensive, an increasingly large provision of
electrical generation in Europe and Japan, but also, as the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has said, potentially a major
contribution to the issues of global climate change. I know we have had
some controversy around that issue.
Mr. Chairman, for us to turn down this very small sum of money at
this point in our history, I think, would be very foolish.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter to the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development from William D.
Magwood, IV, the acting director of the Office of Nuclear Energy,
Science and Technology.

Department of Energy,

Washington, DC, June 22, 1998.
Hon. Joseph M. McDade,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We understand that when the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations bill comes to the floor for
consideration by the full House, an amendment will be offered
to strike funding for the Department of Energy's Nuclear
Energy Research Initiative (NERI). Opponents of this research
program characterize it as a ``corporate welfare'' program
that is simply a repackaging of the unfunded Nuclear Energy
Security program the Department proposed for FY 1998. These
characterizations are inaccurate, and the Department urges
you to oppose any amendment to remove funding for this
important initiative.
Since the end of fiscal year 1997, the Departmental has
engaged experts from U.S. universities, the national
laboratories, and industry to help develop a new approach to
nuclear energy research and development. In particular, we
have heeded the recommendations of the President's Committee
of Advisors on Science and Technology on nuclear energy
research and development. As a result, our fiscal year 1999
proposals represent a significant departure from past nuclear
research and development programs.
Our proposed NERI program, if funded, will help the United
States maintain its scientific and technological leadership
by sponsoring research to address the complex, long-term
problems associated with nuclear energy--such as
proliferation, waste, economics, and safety. The program will
apply independent, National Science Foundation-style peer
review to competitively select the best research proposals
from among a wide range of sources including national
laboratories, academia, and industry.
In addition, the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative will
benefit from the advice of the Nuclear Energy Research
Advisory Committee which is being formed to help guide these
and other Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
programs. The advisory committee will include both proponents
and critics of nuclear power, and will allow the Department
to more effectively engage the academic community, national
laboratories, and other interested parties in the planning
and execution of our programs.
In contrast, the Nuclear Energy Security program proposed
for FY 1998 was a narrowly focused program designed to
address specific technical issues. The program was to be
directed by Department of Energy staff with little
opportunity for input from industry, academia, or critics of
nuclear technology and without the benefit of an independent
advisory committee. Also unlike NERI, the Nuclear Energy
Security program was focused on working with commercial
utilities in the near-term to relicense existing nuclear
power plants. NERI, on the other hand, will support research
that goes far beyond that envisioned under the Nuclear Energy
Security program. The technologies to be investigated under
NERI could provide long-term benefits that transcend simple
economics and help address important national issues such as
nuclear waste generation and proliferation.
The $5 million in the House bill for NERI represents one-
fifth of the amount proposed by the Department and less than
one-half of one percent of the total DOE energy research
funding in the House bill, while nuclear power provides over
20 percent of the electricity produced in the United States.
While a very modest investment, this funding will enable the
United States to join other advanced countries in conducting
long-term, advanced research into nuclear technology. In
doing so, the United States can explore new technologies that
may be vital in the future, reassert its leadership role in
nuclear technology, and maintain its endangered ``seat at the
table'' in the on-going international discussion over nuclear
energy technologies and issues.
We believe that the proposed program will help maintain the
continued viability of nuclear power in the United States,
and the Department asks you to oppose any amendment to strike
funding for this program.
Sincerely,

William D. Magwood, IV

Acting Director,
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which cuts
the remaining $5 million from the nuclear energy research initiative to
zero, and that is precisely where this appropriation should be. I want
to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), the gentleman
from California (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich)
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for their strong
efforts in this area.
Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to continue our investment in
nuclear energy. It is time to put increased Federal resources into
renewable sources of energy, including solar and wind research and
other sustainable and potentially inexpensive sources of energy.
This Nation has poured $47 billion into the nuclear industry since
1950 and, frankly, that is enough. Renewable sources of energy did not
even receive support until 1974, and since then these clean energy
sources have been funded at far lower levels than nuclear energy.
Mr. Chairman, the fact is that nuclear energy produces radioactive
waste that must go somewhere, and that waste will pollute the
environment for thousands of years. I have heard some reference to the
fact that nuclear energy is clean energy. If those Members think it is
so clean, they may want to stand up and volunteer to be the recipients
of the nuclear waste that is being produced all over this country. But
I am not so sure they are prepared to accept that ``clean waste.''
After all of the discussion, after all of the billions of dollars, the
fact is, we simply today still do not know how to get rid of nuclear
waste.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. It is supported and endorsed
by the Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters, Public
Citizen, Safe Energy Communication Council, the Sierra Club, the U.S.
Public Interest Research Group, and the Natural Resources Defense
Counsel. Let us save the taxpayers money. Let us not pour another $5
million into corporate welfare. Let us support this amendment.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Crapo).
(Mr. CRAPO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I want to underline to the House that the
money contained in this bill is for science, pure science. There is no
money going to the Fortune 500 that my friend referred to. It is going
to be peer-reviewed science, in order that we as a Nation may be
assured that we are getting the best science in a very complicated
area.
Let me just indicate to the House three possible areas that are on
the

[[Page H4940]]

table to be peer-reviewed and to which money will be allocated at some
point.
Number one, proliferation-resistant reactor and fuel technologies.
Proliferation-resistant fuels, one of the great issues that exists in
our country. If we went to Russia we would find material floating all
over the country that is capable of being converted to weapons grade
compounds.
Secondly, nuclear safety and risk analysis. If we look at that issue,
you can find units all over the world that are modeled on Chernobyl
that need science, and that is another issue this program addresses.
Let me just point out the third one: new technologies for nuclear
wastes. There is no more vexing problem in this country than the
cleanup problem that is needed to bring our country back to where it
was in the era before the creation of atomic weaponry. Nobody has a
solution to it. It is costing us a fortune. This science will be used
to try to find a solution.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McDADE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, just for 5 seconds, everyone should come
over here and defeat this amendment. This amendment is a disaster. I
thank the gentleman for his comments. I concur with them.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me suggest to Members that
when we had debate in the committee on this very issue, we asked Mr.
Magwood who would be responsible for the implementation of the
language. Is there any possibility of major advanced reactor programs
which had been terminated by Congress being funded by this program? He
said, ``I guess from the legal perspective, it is not precluded, so
clearly this could open up the door.''
Mr. Chairman, this is a $20 billion bill: $2.4 billion for research
for high-energy nuclear physics, basic energy services; $232 for fusion
energy R&D; $228 million for nuclear energy programs. We are not asking
to cut a lot of money. We are asking for $5 million of savings on a $20
billion bill.
The program is ill-defined. It does not provide any guidelines that I
think we can successfully track. Congress last year cut the funding for
these programs. So I would suggest to my colleagues, in the interests
of fairness, to support our amendment and save the government $5
million.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Non-Defense Environmental Management

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for non-defense environmental
management activities in carrying out the purposes of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction or expansion, $466,700,000, to
remain available until expended.

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment
facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial
actions and other activities of title II of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 and title X, subtitle A of the Energy Policy Act
of 1992, $225,000,000, to be derived from the Fund, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That $30,000,000 of
amounts derived from the Fund for such expenses shall be
available in accordance with title X, subtitle A, of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992.

Science

For expenses of the Department of Energy activities
including the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant
and capital equipment and other expenses necessary for
science activities in carrying out the purposes of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or facility or for plant or facility acquisition,
construction, or expansion, and purchase of not to exceed 5
passenger motor vehicles for replacement only,
$2,399,500,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That in addition, $7,600,000 of the unobligated balances
originally available for Superconducting Super Collider
termination activities shall be made available for other
activities under this heading.

Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund

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

Departmental Administration

For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy
necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and official reception and representation expenses
(not to exceed $5,000), $175,365,000, to remain available
until expended, plus such additional amounts as necessary to
cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for
others notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency
Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That such increases
in cost of work are offset by revenue increases of the same
or greater amount, to remain available until expended:
Provided further, That moneys received by the Department for
miscellaneous revenues estimated to total $136,530,000 in
fiscal year 1999 may be retained and used for operating
expenses within this account, and may remain available until
expended, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238,
notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by
the amount of miscellaneous revenues received during fiscal
year 1999 so as to result in a final fiscal year 1999
appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more
than $38,835,000.

Office of the Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $14,500,000, to remain
available until expended.

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Weapons Activities

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy
defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion; the purchase of not
to exceed one fixed wing aircraft; and the purchase of
passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 32 for replacement
only, and one bus), $4,142,100,000, to remain available until
expended.

Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense
environmental restoration and waste management activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion; and the purchase of passenger motor vehicles
(not to exceed 3 new sedans and 6 for replacement only, of
which 3 are sedans, 2 are buses, and 1 is an ambulance),
$4,358,554,000, to remain available until expended.

Defense Facilities Closure Projects

For expenses of the Department of Energy to accelerate the
closure of defense environmental management sites, including
the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant and
capital equipment and other necessary expenses,
$1,038,240,000, to remain available until expended.

Defense Environmental Management Privatization

For Department of Energy expenses for privatization
projects necessary for atomic energy defense environmental
management activities authorized by the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et seq.), $286,857,000, to
remain available until expended.

Other Defense Activities

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and

[[Page H4941]]

other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense, other
defense activities, in carrying out the purposes of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101, et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,761,260,000, to
remain available until expended.

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

Bonneville Power Administration Fund

Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund,
established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $1,500.
During fiscal year 1999, no new direct loan obligations may
be made.

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the
Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the
southeastern power area, $8,500,000, to remain available
until expended; in addition, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302,
not to exceed $28,000,000 in reimbursements, of which
$20,000,000 is for transmission wheeling and ancillary
services and $8,000,000 is for power purchases at the Richard
B. Russell Project, to remain available until expended.

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy, and for construction and acquisition of
transmission lines, substations and appurtenant facilities,
and for administrative expenses, including official reception
and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500
in carrying out the provisions of section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the
southwestern power area, $24,710,000, to remain available
until expended; in addition, notwithstanding the provisions
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, not to exceed $4,200,000 in
reimbursements, to remain available until expended.

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

For carrying out the functions authorized by title III,
section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7152), and other related activities including conservation
and renewable resources programs as authorized, including
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $1,500, $205,000,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $195,787,000 shall be derived from the
Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That
of the amount herein appropriated, $5,036,000 is for deposit
into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account
pursuant to title IV of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992.

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

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

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and
representation expenses (not to exceed $3,000), $166,500,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed
$166,500,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and
other services and collections in fiscal year 1999 shall be
retained and used for necessary expenses in this account, and
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
the sum herein appropriated from the General Fund shall be
reduced as revenues are received during fiscal year 1999 so
as to result in a final fiscal year 1999 appropriation from
the General Fund estimated at not more than $0.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Sec. 301. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act or
any prior appropriations Act may be used to award a
management and operating contract unless such contract is
awarded using competitive procedures or the Secretary of
Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for
such a deviation. The Secretary may not delegate the
authority to grant such a waiver.
(b) At least 60 days before a contract award, amendment, or
modification for which the Secretary intends to grant such a
waiver, the Secretary shall submit to the Subcommittees on
Energy and Water Development of the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
a report notifying the subcommittees of the waiver and
setting forth the reasons for the waiver.
Sec. 302. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act or
any prior appropriations Act may be used to award, amend, or
modify a contract in a manner that deviates from the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, unless the Secretary of Energy
grants, on a case-by-case basis, a waiver to allow for such a
deviation. The Secretary may not delegate the authority to
grant such a waiver.
(b) At least 60 days before a contract award, amendment, or
modification for which the Secretary intends to grant such a
waiver, the Secretary shall submit to the Subcommittees on
Energy and Water Development of the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
a report notifying the subcommittees of the waiver and
setting forth the reasons for the waiver.
Sec. 303. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any
prior appropriations Act may be used to--
(1) develop or implement a workforce restructuring plan
that covers employees of the Department of Energy; or
(2) provide enhanced severance payments or other benefits
for employees of the Department of Energy; under section 3161
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1993 (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2644; 42 U.S.C. 7274h).
Sec. 304. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any
prior appropriations Act may be used to augment the
$29,800,000 made available for obligation by this Act for
severance payments and other benefits and community
assistance grants under section 3161 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484;
106 Stat. 2644; 42 U.S.C. 7274h).
Sec. 305. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any
prior appropriations Act may be used to prepare or initiate
Requests For Proposals (RFPs) for a program if the program
has not been funded by Congress.
Sec. 306. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of
the funds appropriated by this Act or any prior
appropriations Act may be used by any program, project, or
activity of the Department of Energy to produce or provide
articles or services for the purpose of selling the articles
or services to a person outside the Federal Government,
unless the Secretary of Energy determines that the articles
or services are not available from a commercial source in the
United States.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to the transmission and
sale of electricity by any Federal power marketing
administration.

(transfers of unexpended balances)

Sec. 307. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations
provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to
appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred may be merged
with funds in the applicable established accounts and
thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time
period as originally enacted.

Mr. McDADE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the bill through page 28, line 2, be considered as read,
printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Dan Schaefer of Colorado

Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Dan Schaefer of Colorado:
Page 28, insert after line 2 the following:

WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT LAND WITHDRAWAL ACT

Sec. 308. None of the funds appropriated by this Act or any
prior appropriations Act may be used to provide economic
assistance or miscellaneous payments under section 15 of the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act (Public Law
102-579, 106 Stat. 4777) until the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant commences disposal operations.

Mr. McDADE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.

{time} 1930

Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, may I say to my distinguished friend, the
gentleman from Colorado, and the distinguished chairman of one of the
most important committees of the Congress, he has kept us totally
informed. We are

[[Page H4942]]

in support of his amendment, and we accept it.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the
concern that moves the gentleman to bring this amendment. I am sure we
will examine this issue further as we prepare for conference.
Mr. DAN SCHAEFER of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank both gentlemen,
and I particularly thank both gentlemen for their long service here in
the Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Dan Schaefer).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?
Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through page 37, line 13, be considered as read, printed in
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the bill through page 37, line 13, is as
follows:

TITLE IV

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized
by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as
amended, notwithstanding section 405 of said Act, for
necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman and the
alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission, for payment
of the Federal share of the administrative expenses of the
Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, $65,900,000, to
remain available until expended.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456,
section 1441, $16,500,000, to remain available until
expended.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out
the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as
amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
including official representation expenses (not to exceed
$5,000); $462,700,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That of the amount appropriated herein, $14,800,000
shall be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided
further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection
services, and other services and collections estimated at
$444,700,000 in fiscal year 1999 shall be retained and used
for necessary salaries and expenses in this account,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available
until expended: Provided further, That $3,200,000 of the
funds herein appropriated for regulatory reviews and other
assistance provided to the Department of Energy and other
Federal agencies shall be excluded from license fee revenues,
notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 2214: Provided further, That the
sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of
revenues received during fiscal year 1999 so as to result in
a final fiscal year 1999 appropriation estimated at not more
than $18,000,000.

Office of Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, $4,800,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That the sum herein appropriated shall be
reduced by the amount of revenues received during fiscal year
1999 so as to result in a final fiscal year 1999
appropriation estimated at not more than $0.

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section
5051, $2,600,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund,
and to remain available until expended.

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence
congressional action on any legislation or appropriation
matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to
Members of Congress as described in section 1913 of title 18,
United States Code.
Sec. 502. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the
greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products
purchased with funds made available in this Act should be
American-made.
(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance
to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using
funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal
agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to
such entity a notice describing the statement made in
subsection (a) by the Congress.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 503. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to determine the final
point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis
Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and
the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the
water quality standards of the State of California as
approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis
drainage waters.
(b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program
and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program
shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as
reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully
repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program--Alternative
Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP--Alternative Repayment
Plan'' described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report,
Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley
Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future
obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or
providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the
San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit
beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal
Reclamation law.
Sec. 504. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act may be used to restart the High Flux Beam Reactor.
Sec. 505. Section 6101(a)(3) of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, (42 U.S.C.
2214(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 1998'' and
inserting ``September 30, 1999''.
Sec. 506. (a) Funds appropriated for ``Nuclear Regulatory
Commission--Salaries and Expenses'' shall be available to the
Commission for the following additional purposes:
(1) Employment of aliens.
(2) Services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United
States Code.
(3) Publication and dissemination of atomic information.
(4) Purchase, repair, and cleaning of uniforms.
(5) Reimbursements to the General Services Administration
for security guard services.
(6) Hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft.
(7) Transfers of funds to other agencies of the Federal
Government for the performance of the work for which such
funds are appropriated, and such transferred funds may be
merged with the appropriations to which they are transferred.
(8) Transfers to the Office of Inspector General of the
Commission, not to exceed an additional amount equal to 5
percent of the amount otherwise appropriated to the Office
for the fiscal year. Notice of such transfers shall be
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations.
(b) Funds appropriated for ``Nuclear Regulatory
Commission--Office of Inspector General'' shall be available
to the Office for the additional purposes described in
paragraphs (2) and (7) of subsection (a).
(c) Moneys received by the Commission for the cooperative
nuclear research program, services rendered to State
governments, foreign governments, and international
organizations, and the material and information access
authorization programs, including criminal history checks
under section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C.
2169) may be retained and used for salaries and expenses
associated with those activities, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C.
3302, and shall remain available until expended.
(d) This section shall apply to fiscal year 1999 and each
succeeding fiscal year.
Sec. 507. Sec. 505 of Public Law 102-377, the Fiscal Year
1993 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, and
section 208 of Public Law 99-349, the Urgent Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1986, are repealed.

implementation of external regulation

Sec. 508. (a) Transfer of Authority.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, no later than March 31, 1999, the
Department of Energy shall not implement and enforce its own
regulatory system, through rules, regulations, orders, or
standards, with regard to the Ernest Orlando Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory for environment, safety, and
health, but shall be regulated by

[[Page H4943]]

the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies as
provided by the applicable Federal, State, and local laws and
regulations: Provided, That for this facility, the Department
shall be deemed to be a ``person'' under the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended.
(b) Department of Energy Reporting Requirement.--By October
31, 1998, the Secretary of Energy shall transmit to the
Congress a plan for termination of its authority to regulate
its contractors and to self-regulate its own operations in
the areas of environment, safety, and health at the facility
named in section (a). The report shall include--
(1) A detailed transition plan, giving the schedule for
termination of self-regulation authority as outlined in
section (a), including the activities to be coordinated with
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA);
(2) A description of any issues remaining to be resolved
with the NRC and OSHA or other external regulators, and a
timetable for resolving such issues before March 31, 1999;
and
(3) An estimate of the current annual cost of administering
and implementing self-regulation of environment, safety, and
health activities at all Department of Energy facilities, and
an estimate of the number of Federal and contractor employees
currently administering and implementing self-regulation of
environment, safety and health activities at each of the
facilities. For the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
there should also be an estimate of the cost of the external
regulators based on the pilot project of simulated NRC
regulation which has already been conducted; an estimate of
the cost and number of Federal and contractor employees
currently administering and implementing self-regulation of
environment, safety and health activities at the Laboratory;
and an estimate of the extent and schedule by which the
Department and Laboratory staffs will be reduced as a result
of implementation of section (a).
(c) Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reporting Requirement.--
By January 30, 1999, the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission shall submit to Congress a plan for regulating
accelerator-produced radioactive material, and ionizing
radiation generating machines at Department of Energy
facilities. The report shall:
(1) Recommend what statutory changes, if any, would be
needed to provide the Commission with the authority to
regulate accelerator use at Department of Energy facilities;
(2) Identify what additional Commission resources would be
needed to accomplish such regulation; and
(3) Identify any existing technical or regulatory obstacles
to the Commission regulation of accelerator use.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Foley

The CHAIRMAN. If not, the pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Foley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by a voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 147,
noes 261, not voting 25, as follows:

[Roll No. 252]

AYES--147

Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bilbray
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Brown (OH)
Campbell
Capps
Chabot
Christensen
Clay
Coble
Coburn
Conyers
Cox
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doggett
Duncan
Engel
English
Ensign
Evans
Farr
Foley
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hooley
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Inglis
Jackson (IL)
Kasich
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Markey
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McInnis
McIntosh
McKinney
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Morella
Neal
Neumann
Ney
Oberstar
Olver
Pallone
Pappas
Paul
Paxon
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Ramstad
Rivers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Smith (NJ)
Smith, Adam
Snowbarger
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stokes
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Tierney
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Woolsey
Yates

NOES--261

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Baesler
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
DeGette
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Ryun
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Scott
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--25

Ackerman
Baker
Becerra
Cannon
Carson
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Livingston
Maloney (NY)
McNulty
Meehan
Miller (CA)
Nadler
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Portman
Poshard
Rangel
Rush
Schumer
Torres
Towns
Weldon (FL)

{time} 1952

Mrs. NORTHUP and Messrs. RODRIGUEZ, SPRATT, GOSS, WELLER, DAVIS of
Virginia, EHLERS, HOSTETTLER and EHRLICH changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. DeLAURO, Ms. KILPATRICK, and Messrs. BACHUS, LEWIS of Georgia,
DEAL of Georgia, and BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the final lines of the bill.
The Clerk read as follows:

This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 1999''.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaTourette) having assumed the chair, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.

[[Page H4944]]

4060) making appropriations for energy and water development for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, pursuant
to House Resolution 478, he reported the bill back to the House with an
amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Without objection, the proceedings on H.R. 4059 will resume
immediately after this vote, and the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the
minimum time for any electronic vote on the passage of H.R. 4059.
There was no objection.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 405,
nays 4, not voting 24, as follows:

[Roll No. 253]

YEAS--405

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Capps
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
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
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Packard
Pallone
Pappas
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Reyes
Riggs
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Snyder
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--4

Ensign
Gibbons
Paul
Sensenbrenner

NOT VOTING--24

Ackerman
Baker
Becerra
Cannon
Carson
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Maloney (NY)
McNulty
Meehan
Miller (CA)
Nadler
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Portman
Poshard
Rangel
Rush
Schumer
Torres
Towns
Weldon (FL)

{time} 2010

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________