[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 127 (Monday, September 27, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8815-H8821]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2605, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the 
House, I call up the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
2605) making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the previous order of the House, 
the conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see prior proceedings of the 
House of today.)

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, this bill being called up without our 
having a chance to see it, I have no option but to oppose it and 
therefore demand the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). Under a unanimous consent

[[Page H8816]]

agreement from earlier today, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Packard) had the right to call up the bill.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I have no problem dividing the time three 
ways, if my colleague and minority ranking member would be willing to 
do that. I do not plan to take certainly more than 20 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to dividing the debate 
three ways?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Does that mean that I, in opposition, will have 20 
minutes?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Since the Chair understands that both the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky) support the Conference report; the Chair is able to 
divide the debate up three ways under the rules.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Does that mean that I will be able to control one-third?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I have no objection then.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) 
is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. 
This is a report accompanying H.R. 2605, a bill making appropriations 
for energy and water development for the fiscal year 2000. There were 
dramatic differences of priorities between the House and the Senate 
bill. It was not an easy conference to consummate; but in the final 
analysis, with the help of tremendous work by our staff and by the 
members of the subcommittees, both in the House and in the Senate, we 
were able to work out those differences of priorities and; I think we 
have produced a very good product.
  I am proud of this conference report. We have recommended a generous 
and cost-effective civil works program. We know that there were limits 
to what we could do. We were unable to fund any new projects that were 
authorized in the Water Resource Development Act of 1999. We agreed 
also to only fund projects that were within the scope of the House and 
the Senate recommendations. In short, we agreed to finish what we have 
started and look forward to expanding the benefits of civil works 
programs next year and in the future.
  I want to thank my Senate counterpart, Senator Pete Domenici, the 
chairman of the Senate committee, and his ranking minority member, 
Senator Harry Reid, for their cooperation and hard work in the 
conference. I would like to express my sincere and deep appreciation 
for my colleagues on the House subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development. They devoted untold time and effort to make this 
conference report possible.
  I am especially grateful to my good friend and the ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for his tremendous 
effort on behalf of this conference report and that of his staff. I 
believe this was a bipartisan effort, and I think in the final analysis 
we have a very good product.
  I cannot say enough about the hard-working staff that helped us 
accomplish this task, both our committee staff and our personal staffs, 
for the work that they did. They worked day and night for the last 2 
weeks in preparing this conference report for its adoption. I believe 
the conference agreement is balanced and fair and would urge all 
Members of the House to support its adoption. We think we have worked 
out any problems that the President expressed in terms of a veto 
threat. We think that the President will be glad to sign this bill. It 
is good for the Members. It is good for the country, and I urge Members 
to adopt it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 2605, a bill making appropriations for energy and water 
development for fiscal year 2000.
  At the outset, I would like to briefly state how pleased I am that 
the conference committee was able to work out the dramatic differences 
between the House and Senate bills so amicably and to such positive 
effect. Given the great divide over House and Senate priorities, many 
concluded that we would never be able to resolve our differences. Not 
only did we resolve those differences, we did so in such a way that the 
critical priorities of the House and Senate were carefully protected.
  I am proud of the agreement struck between the House and Senate on 
energy and water programs. It was a difficult and arduous negotiation, 
but the product of our deliberations is a package that will help 
strengthen our defense, rebuild our critical infrastructure and 
increase our scientific knowledge.
  I am especially pleased with the civil works program that the 
conference report recommends for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At 
$4.14 billion, the recommended funding is slightly highly than last 
year's level and $247 million higher than the Administration's 
inadequate request. Moreover, we have been able to preserve funding for 
water development projects across the country that are of the utmost 
importance to our colleagues.
  We have recommended a generous, efficient and cost-effective civil 
works program. But, of course, there are limits to what we could do. 
The conferees did agree to fund no new projects recently authorized by 
the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, and we agreed to fund only 
those projects within the scope of the House and Senate 
recommendations. In short, we agreed to finish what we've started, and 
we look forward to expanding the benefits of the civil works program 
next year and in the future.
  I want to thank my Senate counterpart, Chairman Pete Domenici, and 
his Ranking Minority Member, Senator Harry Reid, for their cooperation 
and hard work. Moreover, I would like to express my appreciation to my 
colleagues on the House Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, 
whose devoted efforts made this conference report possible. I am 
especially grateful to my good friend and the Ranking Minority Member 
of the House subcommittee, the Honorable Pete Visclosky, for his 
tremendous efforts on behalf of this conference report. The spirit of 
bipartisanship that enveloped the conference negotiations provides a 
model that other committees would be well advised to emulate.
  I believe the conference agreement is balanced and fair, and I would 
urge the unanimous support of the House for its adoption. I would hope 
we could quickly conclude action on this conference report so that we 
can get this bill to the White House before the fiscal year expires.

[[Page H8817]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27SE99.071



[[Page H8818]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27SE99.072



[[Page H8819]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in a quarter of a century in this House I have known of 
no situation in which the chairman or ranking member of an authorizing 
committee informed the leadership that they would have an objection to 
a unanimous consent request and subsequently had that ignored and 
indeed had a unanimous consent request made in their absence, in effect 
snuck past them, without giving them an opportunity to exercise their 
rights. I believe this is disgraceful. I am stunned. I cannot believe, 
when I walked on this floor, to learn that after we had clearly 
communicated to the leadership that we would have a unanimous consent 
objection that we were not informed and given the right to be here to 
protect our rights. But if that is the way the Republican leadership 
wants to run this House, then that is their decision. It is certainly 
not my decision and I cannot find the words to adequately express my 
dismay at the way this House is being managed.
  Now having said that, I want to emphasize that I have absolutely no 
quarrel whatsoever with the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), 
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. Indeed, he did his work 
as his legislation passed through this House. Indeed, I voted for his 
appropriation bill when it passed through this House, and in spite of 
some of the things that we do not like about it, I assumed that I would 
be prepared to vote for it, for the conference report, when it came 
back; but there is one little problem. That is, we have not seen the 
conference report. We have not been able to read the conference report. 
It might be an excellent conference report, and it might be one which 
we can support. We simply do not know that because we have not had the 
opportunity to see it and to study it and to read it.
  This problem takes on particular significance because of the 
experience we have had in the past in dealing with matters such as 
this. Let me remind the House that when the omnibus bill came through 
here last year, not only did we not have a chance to see it but we 
accepted it on faith and indeed we only discovered later that a point 
of order, which was part of the law in T-21, the transportation bill, 
had been changed without our knowledge in the last moments before that 
omnibus bill came to the floor, and we never knew it was in there.
  That is not the end of the story. Indeed, as previous legislation 
came to the floor with regard to the aviation bill, the House in the 
aviation bill last year provided that a 30 percent funding of the total 
funding would come from the general fund.
  The Senate, in the bill as it worked its way through the Senate, 
provided that 30 percent of the total funding would come from the 
general fund. We were assured that that is what obviously would come 
back to the House in a conference report since that is what both the 
House bill said and what the Senate bill said, but in the dead of 
night, despite those assurances we received, the general fund 
percentage was cut to 15 percent. Nobody knew it. We did not know it. 
Not only did we not know it, we were lied to. We were lied to, and I 
choose that word carefully because we were assured that it would be 30 
percent funded.
  So with that kind of a background, with that kind of experience in 
the past, how can we in good conscience take the assurance that this 
bill, which I indeed voted for when it came through the House, that 
this bill is as it is purported to be?
  There is an old saying, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, 
shame on me. Well, I suppose fool me thrice, and it really would make a 
fool of us all.
  So I regret, I regret, that our right was not protected to object to 
the unanimous consent request. I regret that we have not had an 
opportunity to see this conference report, which once we study it may 
well be acceptable.
  I regret that we were misled last year in the omnibus bill. I regret 
that we were misled, yes lied to, with regard to the aviation general 
funding in last year's bill. So for all of those reasons, I must oppose 
this conference report, express my deep regret and urge all my 
colleagues who care about following the proper procedure of this House 
and knowing what is in legislation urge them all to oppose this 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), all of the 
Members on both sides of the aisle of the subcommittee, for their 
diligent work. I would also want to thank all of the members of the 
staff.
  I would suggest to the membership this is a good bill and I would 
encourage them to vote for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise to compliment the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), 
and the ranking Democratic member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), for their hard and bipartisan efforts on this bill.
  A lot of times this bill is below the radar screen for many Members 
of this House and members of the general public, but the fact is that 
there are some key infrastructure programs in this legislation that is 
essential to the future economic development of America: flood control 
projects to save our cities and families from massive floods that we 
have witnessed throughout the country; navigation projects that are so 
terribly important for commerce in America; vital university research 
programs; perhaps those things that do not have an overnight payoff but 
investment in the brightest minds in America that help make life better 
for all American families; and finally, something that we do not talk 
enough about on the floor of this House and that is the threat of 
nuclear proliferation in the world.
  This subcommittee, under the leadership of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard), plays a very key role in trying to limit the 
proliferation of nuclear arms, a threat that could virtually touch 
every family in America, if not every family in the world.
  I wish we had had more funds to work with on this subcommittee, but 
given the allocation that the chairman and ranking member had, I think 
they did an excellent job truly working on a bipartisan, fair basis to 
fund these terribly important programs.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, relative to the legislation, I would like to point out 
that important changes have happened since our House approved this 
legislation on July 27. Additional funding was added to the original 
House bill, a total of $1.2 billion. As a result, important water-
related infrastructure projects not funded in the Senate's version of 
the bill were retained in the final conference agreement. I am pleased 
that we were able to assist so many Members with important water-
related projects in their individual congressional district.
  On the matter of national policy, I would point out that two 
legislative provisions in Title I of the bill were modified by the 
conference committee late last week during intense negotiations. 
Specifically, legislative language had been included in the conference 
report creating in statutory language a new administrative appeal 
system in the Corps of Engineers related to jurisdictional 
determinations for wetlands.
  Again, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, there are a number of 
other very worthwhile provisions in this legislation, and I would 
encourage my colleagues to support the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a minute to commend both the 
chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for the work they 
have

[[Page H8820]]

done, particularly as it relates to the Simms Bayou project in my 
district that I share with the 18th District, which is an ongoing 
project about halfway through, the Brazoria Bayou project which is in 
my district and that I share with the 22nd district of Texas. These are 
important flood control projects that affect tens of thousands of 
homeowners in the greater Houston area, and also for the Houston 
Galveston Navigational Channel project and the funding that runs 
through part of my district and the language addressing that and the 
barge traffic.
  I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a 
member of the subcommittee, for the hard work he did on all of these 
projects even though they are far from his district in central Texas, 
but he understands the importance that they are to the greater Houston 
area.
  Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he might 
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Chairman Shuster) for yielding. I rise in support of the chairman's 
profound concern and I would say controlled outrage at the treatment 
that the senior Member of the House has been accorded in this matter. 
It is a matter of simple courtesy when concern has been expressed by 
the committee chairman, a senior Member of the House and a committee 
chairman, that comity directs that these concerns be addressed. The 
chairman was not fairly treated. Our committee has not been fairly 
treated. I join with the chairman in expressing that concern.
  I make no observation about the substance, as the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) expressed, of this bill. We have not 
seen it. We do not know what has been in it, what has been included or 
excluded. But we do have a basic principle of fairness. When a senior 
Member expresses reservations, they ought to be at least given the 
opportunity to express those concerns at the appropriate time in the 
parliamentary proceeding. I will join my chairman in expressing that at 
the appropriate time when we come to a vote on this bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) and again emphasize that my concern, while very serious about 
the fairness issue here, which he has outlined, goes beyond that to the 
very real experience we had last year when we were misled about the 
contents of the omnibus bill. Indeed, it is for that reason that our 
concern here is not theoretical about what might be in the bill. Our 
concern is grounded in our experience of having been misled previously.
  It is for that reason that we believe we should have the right and 
the opportunity to read and study the bill before we vote on it, a bill 
which I voted for when it worked its way through the House, but a 
conference report which I must oppose for those two fundamental 
reasons.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly believe that there is absolutely nothing in 
this bill that will surprise any of the Members. We feel it is a very 
good bill, and we hope all of the Members will support it.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I support this conference report.
  This is an important bill for our country. It is especially important 
for Colorado because it provides the funding for continuing work on the 
critical task of cleaning up Rocky Flats, the former atomic-weapons 
facility.
  Rocky Flats sits near the heart of the Denver-Boulder metropolitan 
area, which is home to more than two million people. It has extensive 
amounts of hazardous materials. For all Coloradans it's a matter of 
highest priority to have Rocky Flats cleaned up efficiently, safely, 
and promptly.
  In 1997, DOE designated Rocky Flats as a pilot site for accelerated 
cleanup and closure, and is working to finish cleaning it up in time 
for closure in 2006. I strongly support this effort, as does the entire 
Colorado delegation here in the House and in the other body as well.
  So, I am very glad that the conference report maintains the needed 
funding for the Rocky Flats closure fund. I want to thank Chairmen 
Packard and Young, Ranking members Visclosky and Obey, and the other 
conferees for their leadership and for recognizing the importance of 
this undertaking for Colorado and the nation. I am particularly pleased 
that the conference report says in the future DOE should request 
adequate funds to keep Rocky Flats and the other closure projects on a 
schedule for closure by 2006 or earlier.
  I also appreciate the inclusion in this conference report of $24.5 
million for the work of DOE's Office of Worker and Community 
Transition. While this is less than was the Senate's bill, it is more 
than in the original bill passed by the House earlier this year. The 
activities of this office, which implements the so-called ``3161'' 
program, are essential if we are to truly keep faith with the Cold-war 
warriors who have worked at Rocky Flats and at the other sites in DOE's 
nuclear-weapons complex.
  In addition, funding through this office is very important to assist 
the local communities as they work to adjust to ongoing changes now 
underway at Rocky Flats and those that will come after cleanup and 
closure are achieved.
  I do regret that the conference report does not include more funding 
for solar and renewable energy programs. I think this is a serious 
shortcoming in this measure--and, if it were not for the other 
important programs such as those I have mentioned, I would oppose the 
conference report because of this defect. However, I will continue to 
work to provide more funds for these important purposes in the future.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for 
the conference report accompanying H.R. 2605, the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000. This legislation 
contains $21,279,000,000 ($21 billion $279 million $969 thousand 
dollars) in new federal funding for programs of the Department of 
Energy, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, Power 
Marketing Administrations, NRC, FERC, and the Appalachian Regional 
Commission.
  This funding level is $210 million over the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy 
and Water Development conference report funding level of 
$21,069,000,000 billion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year 1999
        The bill includes:           Fiscal year 2000    (In millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I (Corps)...................     $4,142,250,000     $4,097,233,000
                                                                  [+$45]
Title II (BOR)....................       $808,722,000    $824,596,000 [-
                                                                    $15]
Title III (DOE)...................    $16,670,246,000    $16,423,000,000
                                                                 [+$247]
Title IV (Ind Agncs)..............       $129,000,000    $175,700,000 [-
                                                                    $47]
Rescissions.......................        $20,749,000        $0.0 [-$20]
(Scorekeeping adjustments           .................  .................
 $450,000,000)....................
    Grand total:..................    $21,279,000,000    $21,069,000,000
                                                                 [+$210]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important 
appropriations conference report. Let me first thank Chairman Ron 
Packard and Ranking Member Pete Visclosky for their support and hard 
work. I also want to thank my colleague and friend, Congressman Chet 
Edwards for his dedication, hard work, and I especially appreciate his 
advice. Because of their efforts, the Houston-Galveston Navigation 
project has been appropriated the full $60 million needed to maintain 
the construction schedule of the deepening and widening of the Houston 
Ship Channel.
  This subcommittee has had the foresight to maintaining the optimal 
construction schedule. By providing the necessary funds now, this 
project's return on investment will save taxpayers an estimated $63.5 
million in increased construction costs. Also, the Port of Houston 
generates $300 million annually in customs fees and $213 annually in 
state and local taxes, which demonstrates that the Houston-Galveston 
Navigation Project will more than pay for itself.
  The continued expansion of the Port of Houston is important on many 
levels. More than 7,000 vessels navigate the ship channel each year. 
The port provides $5.5 billion in annual business revenues and creates 
directly or indirectly 196,000 jobs. It is anticipated that the number 
and size of vessels will only increase. Completing the widening and 
deepening of the ship channel in a timely manner will increase safety 
and the economic viability of the port and the City of Houston.
  The citizens of Houston appreciate your confidence in this project, 
and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as the representative from Wisconsin's Third 
Congressional District and a co-chair of the Upper Mississippi

[[Page H8821]]

River Task Force, I rise in support of the Energy and Water conference 
report for fiscal year 2000.
  I am pleased that the conference report includes $18.955 million for 
the Environmental Management Program (EMP), a cooperative effort among 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Biological Service and 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to ``ensure the coordinated 
development and enhancement of the Upper Mississippi River System.'' 
The EMP is designed to evaluate, restore and enhance riverine and 
wetland habitat along a 1,200 mile stretch of the Upper Mississippi and 
Illinois Rivers.
  This appropriation will allow the state operated EMP field stations 
to remain open and continue to fulfill their mission by collecting 
essential data on the rivers. This funding along with the recent 
passage of the Water Resource Development Act of 1999 highlights the 
EMP's importance to the Upper Mississippi River Basin's economic and 
environmental well being.
  In addition, I am especially grateful that the fiscal year 2000 
Energy and Water Appropriations conference report, provides $3 million 
in funding for the Kickapoo Valley Reserve Project in western 
Wisconsin. This money will be used for remediation of past 
contamination, completion of site safety modifications, and the 
continuation of the work on satisfying the authorized highway 
relocation requirements.
  In 1962, Congress first authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to 
construct a flood control dam at La Farge, Wisconsin. This dam project, 
however, was abandoned in 1973 due to environmental and economic 
concerns. Since the decision to abandon the project, more than 8,600 
acres of land have been held in a state of limbo. Recently through the 
dedicated efforts of many concerned citizens in western Wisconsin, this 
area is finally being restored for recreation and agriculture uses. 
Passage of the fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water conference report will 
help advance this much needed project toward its completion.
  While the conference report contains these two excellent projects, I 
am gravely disappointed that an anti-environment provision that would 
curtail the Federal Government's efforts to reduce global air pollution 
is included. Such unnecessary language will hamper global efforts to 
preserve our environment for future generations.
  Though I am opposed to including the Knollenberg provision, because 
of the importance of these two projects for Wisconsin and other 
important Energy and Water projects which are included in this 
conference report, I will vote for final passage.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of 
the conference report for H.R. 2605, the Fiscal Year 2000 Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations bill. This annual appropriation bill 
includes full funding for the West Columbus Floodwall, an important 
project located in my district. Each year, as the appropriations 
process unfolds in Congress, I have made budget requests for the 
Floodwall Project, and have closely monitored the process to ensure 
that it receives the funding it needs. I remain committed toward 
achieving this goal. The $16 million included in this conference report 
will allow this project to proceed on-schedule and on-budget and sends 
a strong message that Congress intends to fulfill its existing 
commitments to the people of Columbus. I would like to express my 
sincere gratitude to Chairman Packard (CA), Vice-Chairman Visclosky 
(IN), and the House and Senate conferees for the inclusion of $16 
million for the West Columbus Floodwall Project.
  The threat of a major flood disaster continues to loom in Columbus 
and Central Ohio. In 1913, 1937, and 1959, melting snow and heavy rains 
caused the Scioto River to overflow its banks. The resulting 
catastrophic floods caused the loss of many lives, destroyed homes and 
businesses, and damaged millions of dollars worth of residential and 
commercial property. Until the Floodwall Project is completed, the 
potential for a major flood disaster will continue to threaten 
citizens, homes, and businesses located in the very heart of downtown 
Columbus that borders the Scioto River. Today, approximately 17,000 
residents continue to be placed at risk of life, injury, and hardship. 
Should a 100-year frequency flood occur prior to completion of the 
project, the damages are estimated at $365 million and should a 500-
year flood occur, the damages are estimated to exceed $455 million.
  While risk to human life and safety is of paramount concern, 
completion of the Floodwall will also permit important new development 
along the Scioto riverfront. Columbus is now the largest city in Ohio 
and the fifteenth largest city in the United States. Its economy is 
strong and the city is experiencing rapid growth. New construction in 
the downtown riverfront area, however, will not be able to proceed 
until the Floodwall construction is completed. Without the important 
protection of the Floodwall, this looming risk will deter future 
business and housing development, economic growth, infrastructure 
improvements, and recreational opportunities in the city. Currently, 
flood plain zoning restrictions continue to remain in place for 5,520 
residences and 650 non-residential structures, as well as the future 
development of 2,800 acres. It is, therefore, imperative to the city's 
growth and economic health that the Floodwall Project continue on 
schedule. Therefore, it is not only the safety of Columbus residents 
and businesses, but also the future growth of the city's downtown which 
depends on the timely completion of this important project.
  On behalf of those that continue to live with the threat of a major 
disaster in Columbus and Central Ohio, let me again thank all the 
Members for their assistance on this very important project.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend you for your efforts 
to include language and funding in this Conference agreement to address 
so many of the urgent needs of our constituents in Louisiana, in 
particular two critically important projects. As you know, Mr. 
Chairman, flood control is a major issue in Louisiana with so many low-
lying areas susceptible to high waters and flooding, especially during 
the hurricane season. The Southeast Louisiana (SELA) flood control 
project is an aggressive effort by federal, state and local officials 
to protect thousands of Louisianians from the loss of life and property 
through the construction of extensive flood control mechanisms in the 
most vulnerable areas of our state. Your willingness to include $47 
million for this project together with language to reinstate the Corps' 
current authority to expedite construction for this project and to 
proceed with continuing contracts for construction is deeply 
appreciated.
  Furthermore, with regard to the SELA project, it is my understanding 
that the conference report language and the current authorization for 
this project, specifically Section 533(d) of the 1996 Water Resources 
and Development Act, allows the Corps to proceed with expedited funding 
of construction contracts above the current authorization level as long 
as the projects provided for by these contracts are determined by the 
Corps to be ``technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and 
economic as applicable.''
  Secondly, I applaud you and the conferees for including $15.9 million 
in the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) budget for the Inner Harbor 
Navigational Canal (IHNC) Lock Replacement Project in New Orleans and 
inserting language in the Conference Report that would expedite the 
community mitigation plan associated with that project.
  Finally, regarding the IHNC lock replacement project, I believe that 
the Corps is directed to work in good faith to arrive at an equitable 
solution to value the properties that it acquires from the Port of New 
Orleans to complete this project. Accordingly, under such direction, 
the Port's property and facilities require valuation at the full 
replacement cost in the same manner that the Corps is employing in its 
acquisition of certain Coast Guard property to be acquired by the Corps 
for this project.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on adoption of 
the conference report will be postponed.

                          ____________________