[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

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

                    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.

                          ____________________