[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 27, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H5211-H5238]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 532 and rule
[[Page H5212]]
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4733.
{time} 1520
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. 4733) making appropriations for energy and water development for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, 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 California (Mr. Packard) and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard).
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to present to the Committee of
the Whole for its consideration the bill, H.R. 4733, making
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001.
Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide array of
Federal Government programs which include such diverse matters as
national security, environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced
scientific research, navigation, alternative energy sources, nuclear
power regulations.
Programs funded by this bill affect multiple aspects of American life
having significant implications for domestic security, commercial
competitiveness, and the advance of science. I am proud of this bill as
reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and I believe it merits
the support of every Member of this body.
Total funding for H.R. 4733 is $21.7 billion. This is over $500
million more than the fiscal year 2000 for energy and water development
programs, but almost a billion dollars below the President's budget
request.
We were presented with an additional constraint in fiscal year 2001
because our 302(b) allocation consisted of two distinct parts: defense
and nondefense. While the defense allocation in the bill is $12.9
billion, and that is about $755 million over the fiscal year 2000 and
$191 million below the budget request, the nondefense portion of the
allocation is significantly less. For the nondefense portion of our
bill we received $8.8 billion, which is about $210 million below the
last fiscal year.
Despite the bill's constrained funding levels for nondefense
programs, it provides adequate funding for the continuation of high-
priority programs, promising the greatest return on the investment of
taxpayer dollars.
Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works program of
the Corps of Engineers. This includes, of course, projects for flood
control, navigation, shoreline protection, and a variety of other
things. The bill acknowledges the importance of water infrastructure by
funding the civil works program at the same level as last year, a
little over $4 billion.
Within the amount appropriated for the Corps of Engineers, $153
million is for general investigations and $1.38 billion is for the
construction program, and about $1.8 billion for the operation and
maintenance.
Mr. Chairman, funding for title II, most of which is for the Bureau
of Reclamation, totals $770 million, a reduction of $35 million from
last year's fiscal level. The bill also includes no funding for the
CALFED Bay-Delta restoration program, a project which I have been
greatly interested, in California. The reason for this is because we
did not fund any unauthorized projects and the authorization for CALFED
expired this year. Therefore, it was not funded, to my regret. But to
be consistent with all of the Members, we followed that rule.
There are reductions in title III of the bill, which includes the
budget of the Department of Energy, particularly the nondefense
programs. Despite constrained funding levels, most DOE nondefense
programs are funded at last year's level or slightly below. One
exception to that policy is the Yucca Mountain program to site a
permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel, high-level
nuclear fuel. This program was increased about $413 million to maintain
its schedule which calls for the Department of Energy to issue a site
recommendation during the fiscal year 2001. We wanted to keep that on
schedule, and thus we funded it accordingly.
We sought to maintain the level of funding for science programs, and
we increased that area over fiscal year 2000. We also recognized that
there are delays in some ongoing projects such as the Spallation
Neutron Source, and we were unable to fund several new science
initiatives as proposed in the fiscal year 2001.
Funding for the energy supply programs of the Department totals $576
million. This includes about $350 million for research and development
of renewable energy technologies. We recognize that this is a little
bit short of what the administration requested, and we wished that we
had the funds to beef that up; but we feel that it is adequate to fund
the renewable research effort.
The bill provides $301 million for uranium facilities maintenance and
remediation, a new account established to consolidate uranium programs
that were spread through many other accounts.
The largest spending category for the Energy and Water bill is that
of environmental restoration and waste management of the Department of
Energy. Funding for cleanup activities at the variety of sites in title
III of the bill exceeds $6.4 billion for defense and nondefense
programs.
The bill also includes $6.1 billion for new National Nuclear Security
Administration, a semiautonomous agency within the Department of
Energy. Title IV of the bill provides $107 million reduction of $21
million in fiscal year 2000 for certain independent agencies of the
Federal Government, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
Mr. Chairman, I owe a great deal of gratitude to the hard-working
members of my Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. They have
labored with difficult fiscal constraints to produce a bill that I
think is fair and balanced. I particularly want to thank the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey),
the chairman and ranking member of the full Committee on
Appropriations, who helped us and cooperated with us in crafting the
bill.
Perhaps more importantly than any, I thank the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Visclosky), the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. It
has been a joy to work with him. He has been extremely helpful in
crafting the bill. And then I certainly want to pay tribute to our
staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in constructing an
excellent bill.
Mr. Chairman, I have been pleased to hear during the debate in the
Committee on Rules the willingness of virtually, well, not virtually,
every Member that spoke of a willingness to support this bill. I would
hope that every Member of the House would support this bill. We feel it
is an excellent bill within the constraints that we had to live with,
and I would encourage every Member to support it.
It is my privilege to present to the Committee of the Whole for its
consideration H.R. 4733, making appropriations for energy and water
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. Mr.
Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide array of Federal
government programs which include such diverse matters as national
security, environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced scientific
research, navigation, alternative energy sources, and nuclear power
regulation. Programs funded by this bill affect multiple aspects of
American life, having significant implications for domestic security,
commercial competitiveness, and the advance of science. I am proud of
the bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and I believe it
merits the support of the entire membership of this body.
Total funding for H.R. 4733 is $21.7 billion. This is $546 million
more than fiscal year 2000 for energy and water development programs,
but $951.8 million below the President's budget request.
We were presented with an additional constraint in fiscal year 2001
because our 302b allocation consisted of two distinct parts: defense
and non-defense. While the defense allocation in the bill is $12.893
billion which is
[[Page H5213]]
$755.5 million over fiscal year 2000 and $191 million below the budget
request, the non-defense portion of the allocation is significantly
less. For the non-defense portion of our bill, we received $8.85
billion which is $209.5 million below fiscal year 2000 and $760.7
million below the budget request. This was a severe constraint on our
ability to provide funding for many programs in this bill.
Despite the bill's constrained funding levels for non-defense
programs, it provides adequate funding for the continuation of high-
priority programs promising the greatest return on the investment of
taxpayer dollars.
Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works program of
the Corps of Engineers. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development is unanimous in its belief that this program is among the
most valuable within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. The national
benefits of projects for flood control, navigation and shoreline
protection demonstrably exceed project costs. The bill acknowledges the
importance of water infrastructure by funding the civil works programs
at $4.1 billion, an increase of $59.9 million over the amount requested
by the Administration, and level with fiscal year 2000.
Within the amount appropriated to the Corps of Engineers, $153.3
million is for general investigations, $1.38 billion is for the
construction program, and $1.85 billion is for operation and
maintenance. In addition, the bill includes $323.4 million for Flood
Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, project. The bill also
fully funds the budget request of the regulatory program and the
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.
Mr. Chairman, funding for Title II, most of which is for the Bureau
of Reclamation, totals $770.5 million--a reduction of $35.3 million
from the fiscal year 2000 level. The bill includes no funding for the
CALFED Bay-Delta restoration program whose authorization expires in
fiscal year 2000 and fully funds the budget request of $38.4 million
for the Central Valley Project restoration fund.
There are reductions in Title III of the bill which includes the
budget of the Department of Energy, particularly in the non-defense
programs. Despite constrained funding levels, most DOE non-defense
programs are funded at last year's level or slightly below. The one
exception is the Yucca Mountain program to site a permanent geologic
repository for spent nuclear fuel. This program was increased to $413
million to maintain its schedule which calls for the Department of
Energy to issue a site recommendation in fiscal year 2001.
We sought to maintain level funding for science programs and provided
$2.83 billion, an increase of $43.3 million over fiscal year 2000.
However, there are delays in some on-going projects such as the
Spallation Neutron Source, and we were unable to fund several new
science initiatives proposed in fiscal year 2001.
Funding for energy supply programs of the Department totals $576.5
million. This includes $350.5 million for research and development on
renewable energy technologies. Although this falls short of the
Administration's unrealistic budget request, it is a substantial and
credible level of funding. The energy supply account also includes
$231.8 million nuclear energy programs. The bill provides $22.5 million
for the nuclear energy research initiative and $5 million, the full
amount of the budget request, for the nuclear energy plant optimization
program.
The bill provides $301.4 million for uranium facilities maintenance
and remediation, a new account established to consolidate uranium
programs that were spread throughout other accounts. These programs
were merged to enhance coordination and eliminate duplication in the
environmental remediation work performed at the uranium enrichment
facilities in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio.
The largest spending category in the Energy and Water Bill is that of
environmental restoration and waste management at Department of Energy
sites. Funding for cleanup activities in title III of the bill exceeds
$6.4 billion for defense and non-defense programs. The Committee is
dedicated to the environmental restoration of areas that participated
in the development and maintenance of our nuclear security complex.
This bill reflects the Committee's continued efforts to promote actual,
physical site cleanups and to accelerate the completion of remediation
work at DOE sites. Accordingly, the Committee has provided $1.08
billion, the full amount of the budget request, for defense facilities
closure projects. This account concentrates funding on discrete sites
that are on schedule for cleanup completion by the year 2006. The
Committee has also directed the Department to establish a cleanup
program for those sites and projects that can be completed by 2010.
The bill includes $6.16 billion for the new National Nuclear Security
Administration, a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of
Energy. The bill provides $4.6 billion for stewardship of the Nation's
nuclear weapons stockpile, $861.5 million for defense nuclear
nonproliferation programs, and $677.6 million for the naval reactors
program.
Title IV of the bill provides $107.5 million, a reduction of $21
million from fiscal year 2000, for certain independent agencies of the
Federal Government, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the
Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
Mr. Chairman, I owe a debt of gratitude to the hard-working and
dedicated Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
They have labored under difficult fiscal constraints to produce a bill
that is balanced and fair. I am especially grateful to the Ranking
Minority Member, the Honorable Pete Visclosky. It is in large part due
to his efforts that we present a bill that merits the support of all
Members of the House.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support H.R. 4733 as reported by
the Committee on Appropriations, and I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H5214]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN00.001
[[Page H5215]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN00.002
[[Page H5216]]
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would begin by also commending the gentleman from
California (Chairman Packard) and would point out to every Member of
the body in this institution that this will be the last Energy and
Water bill that the gentleman will bring to the House floor during his
tenure as a Member of Congress, given the fact that he will now retire
after the 106th Congress.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California is a very decent man. He
is a God-fearing man whose family is the most important thing in his
life, his wife, Jean, as well as his seven children. Clearly as
important to him is his country. And whether it was his service in
defense of this country as a member of the United States Navy; whether
it was his service as a member of a school board ensuring that the
youth of his community receive the best education possible for their
future; whether it be as the mayor and chief executive of his local
community or his years of service in this Congress, I certainly respect
the gentleman's three great passions in life.
{time} 1530
But I would be remiss, as I would have been remiss in full committee,
Mr. Chairman, if I did not mention for one moment the other great
passion in life of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and
that is golf. For those who do not yet know the good work, the foursome
of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) did win the recent Bob
Michael's, Founder, Golf Tournament with the lowest team score.
I salute the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). He has been a
gentleman, a friend, and we will all miss him.
I also want to add my thanks, my deepest thanks as a former staff
member myself, to all of the staff involved on both sides of the aisle,
whether they be professional committee staff, detailees, or associate
staff.
But today, because this is the last bill of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Packard), I would also point out to the House, this is
John McNutt's last bill. He is my associate staff member and has been
for the last 7 years 6 months and 27 days, not that we are counting.
But as I pointed out in my previous remarks before the full
committee, Mr. McNutt is moving on with his life. He is going to be
attending the University of Virginia Law School and made the wise
choice, from an academic consideration, when he had the option of going
to either UVA or the University of Notre Dame, that he chose Virginia.
I do wish him well in his endeavor.
I would advise all of the Members that I do support this bill. I do
believe that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has done the
best job humanly possible with this bill given the allocations the
subcommittee had.
But I would note that I for one did not vote for the budget
resolution adopted by this institution, and I did not vote for the
allocations adopted by the committee and have not agreed with the
allocation we were given.
On the civilian side particularly of the legislation, it gives us
great trouble. The fact is we are $210 million today under a freeze
level for civilian purposes. Let me note for the Members of this
Chamber several problems that it causes.
In the area of water projects, and there is hardly a Member in this
institution who does not have a problem one way or the other with water
in their district, the spending this year, while $60 million over the
President's request, is $6 million under a freeze. Given the fact that
the Corps today has responsibilities of over 400 multipurpose
reservoirs, 12,000 miles of navigation channels, hundreds of ports, and
11.6 million acres of land, we fall woefully short.
It is anticipated just to fully fund authorized active construction
projects, those projects that this Congress has authorized, that are
economically justified, and are supported by a non-Federal entity, we
would need an additional $30 billion.
It is further anticipated that if the shadows of the future are not
unaltered, the backlog for critically deferred maintenance this coming
fiscal year will amount to $450 million.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army, Mr. Westphal, has indicated
that, to ensure that projects proceed on the most efficient schedule
possible, we should probably be spending almost $700 million more a
year.
People have noted in the past that there has been mission creep by
the Corps, that, first, it is flood control projects, then it is
navigation, then it is hydropower, shoreline protection, and
recreation.
But I would point out to the body that those are all responsibilities
we collectively have given to the Corps. We have also seen fit, both
the legislative branch and the executive branch, to give them
additional responsibilities as far as environmental restoration, water
treatment facilities, sewer treatment facilities, and the clean up of
contaminated sites.
Within the last couple of weeks, we had a very controversial debate
and vote relative to trade with China. I would point out that global
commerce is projected to double over the next 20 years, and the harbors
and inland waterways that lead to them will have to be expanded and
maintained for us to stay competitive, and that nearly half of the
inland waterway locks and dams today are over 50 years old.
To put it in another perspective, in 1999 constant dollars, in the
1960s, we were spending nearly $5 billion on water construction
projects. Today for inflation adjusted dollars, we are spending about
$1.7 billion.
There is no money in the bill for a new recreation facility
modernization initiative by the administration. There is no money for
the Challenge 21 Riverine Restoration Program to move towards more
nonstructural solutions to many of our flooding and water problems.
They would also be looking to have greater coordination with
environmental restoration. Given the fact that we have at least a two
to one cost benefit ratio, I think it is a mistake not to further fund
these programs.
In the arena of science, I would mention renewables. There was a
debate during the rule about gas prices going up. Whether one blames
OPEC, the oil companies, EPA, ethanol, the fact is they have gone up.
Funding in this bill currently as we debate it has gone down $12
million from last year's level. It is my anticipation and I appreciate
the fact that it would appear that later today that figure will go up.
Finally, I would point to an initiative that the administration asks
for in the area of nanoscience and nanotechnology. In 1959, Richard
Feynman delivered a famous lecture; and in it he challenged his
audience to envision a time when materials could be manipulated and
controlled on the smallest of scales. He said then in 1959 that, when
they looked back at this age, they will wonder why it was not until
1960 that anybody began seriously to move in this direction, and here
we are 40 years later.
Nanoscale science and synthesis would result in a number of benefits:
significant improvements in solar energy conservation, more energy
efficient lighting, stronger, lighter materials that would improve
efficiency in transportation, greatly improved chemical and biological
sensing, and others. Again, a new science initiative would not be
funded.
I would simply close again by assuring Members that, within the
allocations provided, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has
done a very good job. I do support the bills, but I would have been
remiss in my remark for not pointing out the deficiencies given the
allocations that we were given that I did not support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, yield such time she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for purposes of a colloquy.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into the colloquy with the
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the Subcommittee
on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California knows, I had intended
to offer an amendment today on an issue of great importance to my
district. I am not going to offer this amendment, however, with the
understanding that the gentleman from California is willing to work
with me on this matter.
[[Page H5217]]
I wish to bring to the gentleman's attention some serious concerns I
have regarding the Indian Point 2 nuclear power facility in my
district.
This plant was shut down in February after a steam generator started
leaking radioactive material into the atmosphere. It goes without
saying that this was a distressing situation for my community. What
merits mentioning, and what brings me to the floor today, however, are
the string of revelations in the months following this incident which
have fundamentally undermined the community's confidence in the safety
of the plant.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself admitted in March that
previous inspections of the plant were ``weak and incomplete.''
The NRC determined in May that operational deficiencies at the plant
were serious enough to place it on the agency's watch list.
Then we learned that the conduct of the NRC staff responsible for
plant safety is now the subject of an investigation by the Inspector
General. Despite my repeated requests, the NRC will not postpone their
decision on the restart of this plant at least until the investigation
is complete, as they would have us believe that it is somehow
irrelevant.
Just last week, an internal memo from the plant's operator was
discovered revealing serious problems which occurred at the plant on
the night of the leak. Mr. Chairman, it appears that the NRC saw this
document only after stories were written about it in local newspapers.
Mr. Chairman, there is a problem here. These are legitimate concerns,
and it is reasonable for me and my constituents to expect for them to
be given full and fair deliberation before that plant is restarted. I
would like to make it clear on this floor that this is not the case,
that this issue is not being dealt with reasonably, and it is
unsettling my community.
Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly that the NRC should postpone a decision
on restart of Indian Point 2 until the serious and legitimate concerns
that have arisen on this issue are addressed. At the very least, it
would seem prudent to postpone the NRC's decision on restarting the
plant until the final investigation report of the Inspector General's
office is released and carefully reviewed by the NRC officials to
ensure that the outstanding issues are identified and corrected.
Would the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) agree to work with
me in ensuring that the committee continue to provide strict oversight
of this serious matter?
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard).
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentlewoman
from New York bringing this serious matter to the attention of the
House, and I share her concerns over the serious nature of the problem
at Indian Point 2 nuclear facility, and agree that the NRC inspector
general should provide to the NRC all relevant information that its
investigation developed prior to the decision and restart. Let me say
to the gentlewoman that I will work closely with her to see that this
issue is provided with continued congressional attention in the coming
months.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
his attention to this matter. I hope that this matter will be resolved
in the interest of my constituents.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking
minority member.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise, not so much to comment on the content
of the legislation, as to take note, as has the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Visclosky) that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is
bringing this bill to the floor for the last time.
Without getting into the merits of the bill, which are considerably
constricted because of the budget resolution, which I find to be ill-
advised, I simply, Mr. Chairman, wanted to say that I think that the
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is one of the people who have
added to the decency of this institution.
In the years that he has been on the committee, I think he has been
an extremely genial Member. I think he has been extremely fair-minded
as chairman. I think he has worked very hard to try to produce a
rational set of priorities in an irrational situation. I for one want
to say that it has been a distinct pleasure for me to share our service
in this institution.
What I admire about the gentleman from California most of all is that
he does not, he is not one of those Members who is prone to cheapshot
the institution. He recognizes that this institution is a precious
asset to the American people and tries to remind others of that fact in
virtually everything he does.
I simply want to congratulate him for the service he has provided to
his district, to the country, to his State, to his party, and to this
institution, and wish him good luck in whatever he does after he leaves
this place.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Gilman) on the same issue that the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Kelly) addressed.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from
California (Mr. Packard) in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, for more than 25 years, along with my colleagues in my
area, I have been working with the communities throughout our Hudson
Valley region to ensure the safety of the Indian Point 2 nuclear power
plant in Buchanan, New York. Over the past year, that plant has had to
be shut down on two separate occasions. Prior thereto, over the past 25
years, this nuclear plant has had to be shut down on a number of
occasions due to the failure of the plant's outmoded steam generators,
insufficient emergency preparedness, and questions about the integrity
of the nuclear plant.
The facility has been plagued with safety problems over the years. It
is the only nuclear power reactor in the entire country which is still
operating with the outmoded Westinghouse Model 44 steam generators.
Nevertheless, the NRC is presently considering an application by
Consolidated Edison to restart the plant.
During a recent public meeting, I joined with Senator Schumer, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), and the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Lowey), and the citizens of our Hudson Valley region in
requesting that the application for restarting this plant not be
approved until the existing steam generators have been replaced and
emergency and safety deficiencies outlined in the NRC's inspection
team's report are remedied.
Mr. Chairman, this nuclear facility is located only 35 miles from New
York City and in the heart of our heavily populated Hudson Valley
region. It is obvious that the replacement of these outmoded steam
generators and the remediation of emergency and safety procedures at
Indian Point 2 is vital to the safety and welfare of millions of our
citizens.
{time} 1545
Will the chairman be able to assist us in assuring the future safety
of this nuclear facility?
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. I advise the gentleman from New York that I would be
pleased to offer any assistance that I may be able to in monitoring
this situation at Indian Point 2 and work with the gentleman to resolve
the situation.
Mr. GILMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank our
distinguished chairman for his time and attention on this pressing
matter.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding
me this time. I also wish to thank our chairman, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Packard), as well as our ranking member, the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their support, and the whole
committee's hard work, both the full committee and the subcommittee. I
also want to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards), for his dedication and hard work and especially
for his advice.
[[Page H5218]]
Because of the committee's efforts, the Houston-Galveston Navigation
Project is appropriated the full $53.5 million needed to maintain the
optimal construction schedule for the deepening and widening of the
Houston Ship Channel. This subcommittee had the foresight to maintain
this construction schedule. By providing the necessary funds now, this
project's return on investment will save taxpayers many millions of
dollars in increased construction costs.
Also, the Port of Houston generates $300 million annual customs fees
and $213 million annually in State and local taxes, which demonstrates
that the Houston-Galveston Navigation Project will more than pay for
itself in the long run, both for the local taxpayers but also for the
Federal taxpayers of the United States.
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 and 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 the safety and economic viability of the
port and of the City of Houston.
In addition to the Houston Ship Channel, there are several flood
control projects that the Corps of Engineers, in partnership with our
Harris County Flood Control District, have undertaken. Hunting Bayou
Flood Control Project, $337,000 in this bill. This project will affect
29 square miles of the Hunting Bayou watershed and benefit over 7,000
homes and businesses located within that watershed. The environmental
evaluation and the General Reevaluation Report should be completed on
that and submitted to the Corps by November of this year.
Another project of importance is the Greens Bayou Flood Control
Project. This 213 square miles of watershed will provide important
protection for hundreds of homes that are currently extremely
vulnerable to flooding.
Mr. Chairman, I again thank the committee for their hard work.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for the purpose of colloquy.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for yielding to
me.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, the Office of River
Protection at the Hanford site in my district is currently engaged in
the world's largest and most pressing environmental cleanup project.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the privatization
account at Hanford was $450 million. However, due to recent
developments, privatization is no longer a viable option at this time.
In light of these developments, the Department of Energy has
identified a new path forward to ensure the timely cleanup of the
waste. As a result of this new path forward, the Department identified
an updated funding requirement of $370 million instead of the $450
million for FY 2001 to fully fund the necessary design and long-lead
procurement to keep the project on schedule.
I would like to ask the gentleman if he will insist that the
necessary $300 million of design and long-lead procurement needs for
this project will be preserved during the conference with the other
body.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman by
saying, absolutely, we will continue to press for that figure and do
all we can to make sure the amount of money is available for fiscal
year 2001.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for that commitment. The gentleman's assurance certainly
gives me and my constituents in central Washington, and for that matter
all of us in the Pacific Northwest, confidence that the final
legislation will contain the full funding that has been identified for
the work that is required this year.
Finally, I wish to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard)
personally for all the efforts the gentleman has given on behalf of me
and my constituents in my district. I want to associate myself with the
remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and wish the
gentleman the very best in his retirement.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a valuable member of the subcommittee.
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time, and I rise in support of our energy and water
appropriation bill. I also wish to thank our chairman, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Packard), and ranking member, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their bipartisan approach to our bill.
Unfortunately, this is our chairman's last year in Congress and his
last energy and water bill. The gentleman from California has achieved
many things during his tenure as chairman. He has been the driving
force for reform of the Department of Energy. He has made sure that we
honor our commitment to a balanced Federal budget and that we focus our
scarce resources where they really need to go. I will miss the
gentleman from California, as I am sure all of us will; and I want to
thank him personally for his leadership, his friendship, and his very
good nature.
I want to also say a word to the staff of the Subcommittee on Energy
and Water Development for their tireless work on all our behalf.
Mr. Chairman, our bill addresses important national priorities at the
same time it honors our commitment to a balanced Federal budget. As the
chairman can attest, there are always more requests for funding than
our budget allocation can provide for. The no new-start policy
contained in this bill is difficult but necessary. We need to focus our
dollars on ongoing projects that are on schedule and on budget. And
even with this strict requirement, our bill provides funding for
projects that will benefit virtually every congressional district in
our Nation.
This is in stark contrast to the President's budget request for the
Army Corps of Engineers, which was wholly inadequate. It is a poor
reflection on the White House that each and every year this committee
must add funds for our Nation's waterways and coastal areas.
This is particularly true for my home State of New Jersey, where we
have 137 miles of ocean coast that we need to protect. In addition, New
Jersey has experienced severe and devastating floods, and the only
long-term solution is effective flood mitigation. Our State is also
committed to the preservation of wetlands. All of these important
priorities were shortchanged in the President's budget.
For over 170 years, the Army Corps of Engineers has provided
solutions to flooding, dredging and environmental problems, as well as
shore and beach protection. Our bill also maintains funding for flood
safety, coastal protection, dredging, and environmental restoration. It
restores funds for these vital projects in order to protect lives and
property.
Our bill also provides funding for the Department of Energy. Most
importantly, we have increased our commitment to scientific research,
providing $2.8 billion for the Office of Science, a $43 million
increase. With this funding, important scientific research will
continue in the area of high energy and nuclear physics, technology,
basic energy sciences, biological and environmental research.
I especially want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Packard), for his support of $255 million for fusion
research and $25 million for laser research. While I would have
preferred more funding for this, we did increase fusion research above
the current level. Fusion energy has the potential to be an unlimited
and ultraclean source of energy for the world. And after a number of
years of declining budgets for this program, and with the chairman's
help, this is the second year of increased funding for fusion research.
[[Page H5219]]
The committee has also provided $19.6 million for the decommissioning
of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton University. This
decommissioning must stay on schedule and on budget, and this funding
will allow us to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the bill. I thank the chairman,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and the ranking member,
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their support.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr), a member of the committee.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
I want to have a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the
committee, but I just noticed that both the chairman of the Whole House
and the chairman of the subcommittee are both retiring this year, and I
have to express my own personal regrets that they are retiring. They
are both very distinguished gentlemen, and I have enjoyed serving with
them.
I have really enjoyed serving with the chairman of the subcommittee,
not only as a fellow Californian; but we have been engaged together in
issues for the State, and I remember when I was in the State
legislature his work with the supercollider, where I really got to know
him well; and I have appreciated his leadership here in the Congress.
I want to thank him for the opportunity to discuss with him the
funding for a critical project in my district, which is the central
part of California. This is the second year I have sought
appropriations to carry out a preconstruction engineering design of a
flood control measure on the Pajaro River, which runs right through the
City of Watsonville, California, as well as funding for the Pajaro
River Basin Study. This is an area in my district with substantial
flood control problems, which threatens homes and businesses in Santa
Cruz and Monterey Counties. I have worked extensively with officials in
both of these counties and the Corps of Engineers to resolve this
problem in order to provide safety for the residents there.
I recognize that the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development is
under significant budgetary constraints this fiscal year and has thus
adopted a policy to fund investigations at a level no higher than
requested by the administration. The administration's request for
investigations on the Pajaro River was $600,000, with an additional
$50,000 request for the basin study. However, this request was prepared
prior to the agreement between the Corps and the local sponsors, which
subsequently set a higher level of funding for the project.
The Corps has revised their earlier estimates, and has developed a
new work plan and budget that calls for a total of $1.95 million in
fiscal year 2001. They have submitted a revised estimate on their
ability to spend which reflects this new higher amount. I would like to
request that my good friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy
and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations, amend the
amount as we go along to allocate to the investigations on the Pajaro
River to reflect this agreement with the Corps and the new estimate of
their ability to pay.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for
yielding, and I want to state that I recognize the importance to his
constituents to improve flood control on the Pajaro River. The Corps
has demonstrated their ability to spend $1.95 million on the
investigations of these two projects.
Given the revision of the Corps's estimates since the submission of
the President's budget, I pledge to do everything I can to help the
gentleman receive additional monies from the Corps for purposes of
implementing these worthy projects.
Mr. FARR of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman for working on this matter; and I look forward to working
with him in the future.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire what time is remaining on
each side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) has
15 minutes remaining.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), for the purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I hope I can do it in 2 minutes.
Before I engage in a colloquy, I do want to associate myself quickly
with all the outstanding comments that have been made about the
brilliant political career, the public service, and especially the
attitude of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). People from
one end of this place to the other really appreciate the spirit of the
gentleman from California. The gentleman from California has done a
great job and brought so much to public service in this country. And I
hope the gentleman enjoys the game of golf from this point on, because
the gentleman deserves his retirement.
Mr. Chairman, the Spallation Neutron Source is one of the most
important science initiatives of our generation and represents a $1.4
billion major construction project supported by the Department of
Energy's Office of Science to build the world's's most powerful source
of pulsed beams for scientific research and development.
{time} 1600
With its advanced accelerator technology and world-class instrument
design, SNS will be more than 12 times as powerful as the world's
current leading neutron source in the U.K. and offer unprecedented
research opportunities for up to 2,000 scientists each year. This
research is crucial to supporting advances in biology, polymers,
magnetic materials, superconductivity, and materials research that will
continue to keep the U.S. economy strong and keep us at the forefront
of scientific endeavors around the globe.
SNS has been subject to many technical and management reviews in the
past 4 years, including review by the DOE, several external independent
review teams, the GAO, and the House Committee on Science. These
reviews have shown conclusively that the technical basis of the SNS is
sound and that the SNS management is on a solid path to complete the
project within budget by 2006 as planned. All conditions prescribed in
the committee report on last year's Energy and Water appropriations
bill have been satisfied, and the House Committee on Science has
recommended full funding of the SNS in fiscal year 2001.
The SNS will fully obligate $190 million in this fiscal year,
including the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $100 million in
construction funds and $17.9 in R&D, plus the fiscal year 1999 balances
brought forward of about $71.4 million. Significant design and
construction activity has taken place in the last year, with most title
I design completed, approximately $75 million in procurements being
awarded and major excavation and grading of the 100-acre site well
underway.
Fully funding the fiscal year 2000 requested level is essential to
maintain the current schedule to complete SNS in 2006 within the total
project cost of $1.4 billion.
I know how hard the chairman and his staff have worked to get this
project to where we are today, and I appreciate that. I acknowledge the
budget constraints that we are currently under and that so far we have
not been able to provide the necessary funding that this project needs
to meet the necessary milestones over the next 12 months.
I am asking the commitment of the chairman that, as we work together
during conference, we will do everything possible to significantly
increase the funding for the Spallation Neutron Source.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard)
for his response.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the request of the gentleman.
I will certainly work in conference to adequately fund the Spallation
Neutron Source and, of course, additional funds if that will help.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards) a member of the
[[Page H5220]]
committee, as well as the subcommittee.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from California
(Mr. Packard) in a short colloquy.
As the gentleman knows, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now has
before it certain legal issues relating to the off-site disposal of
FUSRAP material.
My question to the chairman is, will the gentleman confirm that the
Committee on Appropriations does not wish to influence the judgment of
the Commission on those issues?
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. If any committee
of Congress wishes to take action regarding the off-site disposal issue
the Commission is now considering, it ought to be the relevant
authorization committee of the House that does it.
I would have no objections to the authorizers of this body taking up
such issues. But the Committee on Appropriations, appropriately, has
chosen not to do so.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, even more importantly, I want to thank the gentleman
from California (Mr. Packard) for a lifetime of service to his Nation.
He served this country with great distinction in military uniform. And
much like my mentor in politics, the late Olin E. ``Tiger'' Teague, who
served this country in such a distinguished way for so many years, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) continued to serve his country
after he took off the uniform and put on the civilian uniform of public
servant.
As someone who worked with the chairman both when he was chairman of
the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on
Appropriations, now the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, I want to say
it was an honor to work with him, to work under him, and to know him.
He gives the name ``public service'' the very best of meaning because
of his lifetime of service to our country. And there are military
families living in better housing today, there are people in
communities that are less prone to flood control today, there are
millions of American citizens who, whether they know the name of the
gentleman or not, are living a better life today and for many years to
come for their families because of the service of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Packard) to our country.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those kind
remarks, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me
the time, and I rise in very, very strong support of this bill.
I wish good luck to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). He
has done a great job here. We salute him.
If the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) is still about, we
salute him. And the staff has done a remarkable job, as well.
The fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water appropriations bill is a
balanced piece of legislation balancing the Corps of Engineers, the
Department of Energy, along with important portions of the Department
of Interior and other agencies. This is a good and fiscally responsible
bill, with the non-defense portion of it being some $200 million below
last area.
The Nation's energy policy is a prime focus of this bill. We have the
opportunity here to improve what we can all agree is a lacking and
flawed energy policy on the part of the Clinton-Gore administration.
The bill provides for a variety of important education funding for
our universities, as well as research and development at our national
labs which are related to the energy supply. This includes nuclear
energy research under NERI, under NEPO, and under the NEER programs
along with investment in the future energy source called fusion and the
Advanced Scientific Computing Research initiative that will bridge the
software gap, thereby substantially improving our scientific research
capacity.
This bill also contains some fantastic work, I believe, on nuclear
fuel supply, from the beginning of the fuel cycle involving mining,
conversion and enrichment, to the end of the fuel cycle involving Yucca
Mountain.
A new potential cancer cure is advanced in this bill.
One of the most successful on-time, on-budget programs at the
Department of Energy is the fusion energy program. Fusion energy is
treated fairly.
The cleanup, finally, of our World War II legacy, our nuclear waste
sites, is another important priority in this bill. It contains some
excellent work that will refocus the Department of Energy on its
responsibilities with a new priority on accomplishments by 2010.
We have all the various interests of the American people at heart
when we all have programs we hope will be strongly supported. If we
have more money at some future time, I cannot say at that time or at
this time that we will, but I am confident we will have an even better
bill.
I urge support of this bill.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill. I thank the distinguished chairman for
recognizing the need for two flood projects in my area, the Elmsford
Saw Mill River area and the Ramapo River area, and for providing
adequate funding for these projects. We thank the distinguished
chairman for his good work.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4733, the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations bill, 2001 and want to thank the
distinguished Committee chairman, the gentleman from California, Mr.
Packard for his diligent work on producing this important bill.
The Energy and Water Appropriations bill provides funding for the
Army Corps of Engineers to provide necessary flood control protection
against the devastating impact of flooding on lives and property.
My constituents in Elmsford and Suffern, New York have and continue
to suffer from the flooding of the Saw Mill River, as evidenced in
1999, when Hurricane Floyd dropped over 11 inches of rain on my
congressional district, creating a devastating impact on human life and
property. Included in Floyd's destruction were constituents who were
faced with flood waters from both the Saw Mill River and the Ramapo
River in southwestern N.Y.--destroying homes, businesses and creating
severe financial stress. After witnessing the destruction in my
district first-hand, I contacted the U.S. Army Corps and Chairman
Packard for assistance.
Accordingly, Chairman Packard has provided the Army Corps with
adequate funding to begin the phases necessary to prevent such
destruction in the future.
I look forward to continuing my work with Chairman Packard as the
flood control work proceeds in both Elmsford and Suffern.
I thank Chairman Packard for his efforts and I urge my colleagues to
support this important measure.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very, very much. I
rise today in support of this very excellent bill under tight budget
constraints.
I would like to also extend my thanks to the chairman. This is my
first term on this subcommittee, and he has done an outstanding job,
being actually new to the subcommittee himself. But the learning curve
that I have had on this committee has been quite steep; and, with his
leadership, it has made it much easier.
And also, anyone who knows the chairman, much has been said about the
golf, but he attacks his work the same way that he attacks the golf
course and never stopping, and we have to be on our toes all the time.
I just want to say how much I appreciate his friendship and really the
honor of serving here with him.
This bill is something under the tight budget constraints, like I
said before, with no new starts as far as projects. The chairman is
very well aware, and I think the Congress is, that there are
[[Page H5221]]
scores of billions of dollars that are authorized in projects which are
waiting to be started; and because of the tight constraints that we
have, it was impossible to have any new starts.
I also want to emphasize how important this bill is for the upper
Midwest, for the State of Iowa, as far as the Army Corps of Engineers,
the projects that they have to deal with in my district as far as
navigation on the rivers, and what an excellent job I think that they
do and the constraints that we have.
If I have a disappointment in the bill, it is in the area of
renewable energy and as far as biorenewable energy research that I
think is so very, very important for the future.
Just in closing, again, I want to thank the chairman and extend my
gratitude for the great job that he has done.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, let me add my words of praise to the gentleman from
California (Chairman Packard) for his great service to this county. He
is a great man and a friend. I am sure not only his constituents
appreciate his service, but all his colleagues here and people of this
great country.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for giving me the
opportunity to discuss a dredging project that is vital to the Port of
New York and New Jersey. As the gentleman knows, the Arthur Kill
channel serves the Howland Hook Marine Terminal on Staten Island, one
of the United States Army's strategic seaports of embarkation. The
present 35-foot depth of the Arthur Kill serves as a considerable
obstacle to large commercial and military vessels that may forestall
any future growth or endanger the existence of these seaport
facilities.
The Port of New York and New Jersey, the Eastern Seaboard's largest,
is an economic engine for the region and the entire Nation. Locally,
Port commerce serves as a consumer market of 18 million Americans and
is estimated to provide 165,000 jobs and $20 billion in economic
activity.
As a result of its location, goods that enter the United States
through the Port can reach the homes of 110 million Americans within 24
hours. The New York site of the Arthur Kill was for years an eyesore,
however, vacant of any real activity.
Today, I am happy to note, that the New York-side is a vibrant and
expanding area bursting at the seams with almost 1,000 good paying jobs
and adding $20 million to the existing tax base. This new activity can
all be predicated on the responsible measure to deepen the Arthur Kill
channel, which will not only maintain the current business but will
attract new businesses to the entire region, including New Jersey.
The modernization and dredging efforts of the Arthur Kill is one of
the most important economic issues for the New York and New Jersey
region, as well as the entire Eastern Seaboard.
In addition to the new jobs that will come with the adequate
dredging, the completion of this project will help to ensure that the
United States does not continue to lose more shipping business to
Canadian shipping competitors in Halifax.
Last year, the two largest shippers on the New York City side nearly
relocated their operations to Halifax and have indicated they will do
so unless considerable harbor improvements are completed by the year
2009.
The chairman and the committee have done an excellent job in putting
this bill together and crafting what I think is a fiscally responsible
bill and has taken the key step in recognizing the importance of the
Port of New York and New Jersey by providing funding to dredge the Kill
Van Kull in Newark Bay. This is welcome news, Mr. Chairman, but it does
not go far enough to ensure that the Port maintains its position to
provide millions of consumers with low-cost goods in a timely fashion.
The Arthur Kill is a natural waterway and tributary to the Kill Van
Kull. It is not only vital but common sense to begin construction to
dredge the waterway since the Kill Van Kull is already being dredged
today.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 authorized the deepening
of the Arthur Kill channel from 35 to 41 feet. This is prudent.
Construction to deepen the channel has been included in the President's
fiscal year 2001 budget for $5 million.
The Army Corps and the Port Authority, which is the local partner in
this project, estimate that they will be ready to begin construction in
November. We have been waiting for years for this opportunity, and I
think it would be a big mistake not to take action now.
The chairman has been a terrific leader in all of this, and I would
like to thank him for allowing me, again, this opportunity to discuss
with him this important project vital to my district.
I respectfully request that the gentleman from California (Mr.
Packard), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and other members
of the Committee on Appropriations help to make this project a reality.
{time} 1615
Before I hear from the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), I
respectfully yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, first let me join in the encomiums to the
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his great work over the
years and the decades, and we will miss him.
Let me say that it is true that part of the port of New York is now
bustling again and part of it still needs major development. The
channels we are talking about are in the district of the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Fossella), and I appreciate his leadership on this
project.
I rise on this because I believe this project is vital not only to
the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) but to the
entire port region of New York and New Jersey.
The Kill Van Kull is the boundary between Staten Island on the south
and Bayonne on the north and leads from New York Harbor to New York
Bay, and we are presently dredging that to achieve a depth of 45 feet,
blasting through solid rock to get to 45 feet.
If achieved or when achieved, I should say, this will open up access
to the ports of Newark and Elizabeth. The Arthur Kill is an extension
of the Kill Van Kull where the shore of Staten Island turns a little
south, and that has to be part of the same project. That will afford
access to Howland Hook and Staten Island.
Without that part of it, the Kill Van Kull project helps New Jersey
but does not help New York.
With that part, the Kill Van Kull project helps both States.
It was always anticipated and intended that the ports of New York and
New Jersey would be for the benefit of both States, and the little
added piece of the Arthur Kill is critical to enabling the New York as
well as the New Jersey side of the port to be accessed by the existing
Kill Van Kull project.
So this project has to be looked at as a unified whole, and the
Arthur Kill as an extension of the existing Kill Van Kull project. When
completed, the project together will afford the ability of bigger ships
to get to New York, Elizabeth, and Howland Hook and will give us a leg
up on retaining our port business in the United States as against the
port of Halifax, Nova Scotia, which is not in the United States,
obviously.
So I appreciate the cooperation of the gentleman in helping us to
achieve this dual nature project.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOSSELLA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Fossella), and I would like to say that I can see how a
reasonable person would conclude that the Arthur Kill is an extension
of the Kill Van Kull. I understand how the completion in totality of
this project will benefit both New York and New Jersey.
I thank the gentleman much for his efforts to ensure that this
project moves expeditiously forward. I will do what I can in conference
to find the funds to fund the project.
[[Page H5222]]
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to
thank Chairman Packard and the Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky, and the
Members of the Committee, for their support of Sacramento flood control
projects included in the FY 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
Flooding remains the single greatest threat to the public safety of the
Sacramento community, posing a constant risk to the lives of my
constituents and to the regional economy. Thanks to your efforts and
the efforts of this Committee, Sacramento can continue to work toward
improved flood protection.
With a mere 85-year level of protection, Sacramento remains the
metropolitan area in this nation most at risk to flooding. More than
400,000 people and $37 billion in property reside within the Sacramento
flood plain, posing catastrophic consequences in the event of a flood.
While Congress will continue to consider the best long-term solution to
this threat, funding in this bill will provide much needed improvements
to the existing flood control facilities throughout the region.
Specifically, this legislation will allow for the continuation of
levee improvements and bank stabilization projects along the lower
American and Sacramento Rivers, increasing levee reliability and
stemming bank erosion. Additionally, I greatly appreciate the
Committee's willingness to provide funding for projects--including the
Strong Ranch and Chicken Ranch Sloughs, and Magpie Creek--aimed at
preventing flooding from a series of smaller rivers and streams that
present substantial threats separate from those posed by the major
rivers in the region. Importantly, the Committee's willingness to
include funding for the American River Comprehensive Plan will allow
for ongoing Corps of Engineers general investigation work on all area
flood control needs, including a permanent long-term solution.
As this legislation moves to a House and Senate conference committee,
I also would like to ask conferees to support two ``new start''
projects of critical importance to the long-term safety of the
Sacramento region that were included in the 1999 Water Resources
Development Act. The first would make modifications to the outlet works
on Folsom Dam, improving its flood control efficiency. The second would
begin construction on the South Sacramento Streams, which will provide
a 500-year level of protection for a portion of south Sacramento that
has long been vulnerable to rising flood waters.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I have concerns about the impact of
language in the House Energy and Water bill that requires competition
for aspects of the Department of Energy's (DOE) nonproliferation
programs. DOE serves a unique role in our nation's nonproliferation
efforts, and these efforts could be threatened by micro-management that
forces a piecemeal approach to nonproliferation. The DOE laboratories
fulfill an essential role in developing and integrating advanced
scientific techniques and equipment into large-scale prototype systems
which are critically necessary for our nonproliferation efforts. Unlike
the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Defense
(DOD), the DOE selects lead laboratories to serve as overall
coordinators to facilitate these large-scale development projects. The
laboratories rely on universities and industry to provide their unique
expertise to make these efforts successful. Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) out-sources approximately 20 percent of the funds it
receives to universities and industry as appropriate with the sensitive
nature of these projects. Many aspects of these projects are very
sensitive and/or classified. Success requires a knowledge and focus on
customer requirements, which may also be classified. They require a
multi-disciplinary approach to accomplish deliverables to the
intelligence and defense communities. DOE needs to maintain its
flexibility in using universities and laboratories to meet its critical
needs in this arena. This work is far too important to experiment with.
Furthermore, we need to expeditiously pursue all possible advances to
protect this nation against weapons of mass destruction. We need to
empower the new National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
Administrator, General John Gordon, and give him the necessary
flexibility and the resources to strengthen our atomic energy defense
and nonproliferation activities. We must give General Gordon the
freedom to make the decisions he needs to make.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong concerns about
a provision inserted in House Report 106-693, the report to accompany
H.R. 4733, the Fiscal Year Energy and Water Development Appropriations
bill. This provision, which relates to the Army Corps of Engineers'
hopper dredge fleet, was not in the report considered by the House
Appropriations Committee and was inserted at the last minute without
any public debate.
Although I plan to vote in favor of H.R. 4733, I am concerned about
the Committee's statement of support for placing the hopper dredge
McFarland in ready reserve, which was included in House Report 106-693.
Placing the McFarland in ready reserve would be bad public policy and
likely mean higher costs to taxpayers.
The Committee justifies its support for placing the McFarland in
ready reserve on a report recently issued by the Corps touting the
success of placing another hopper dredge, the Wheeler, home-ported in
Louisiana, in ready reserve in 1996. However, I am dubious about the
validity of this report. An earlier draft of the report, prepared at
the working level in the New Orleans District, directly contradicts the
final report, revised at Corps headquarters, by recommending that the
Wheeler be put back in active status and that no other hopper dredge be
placed in ready reserve.
The draft Wheeler report, authored by the New Orleans District office
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers states, ``Based on the findings of
this report, there is no other logical recommendation, except for the
Secretary [of the Army] to report to Congress that the Dredge Wheeler
is needed to be returned to active status and that no other Federal
hopper dredges should be placed in ready reserve at this time.'' This
is a compelling statement.
The earlier, more substantive draft, found that keeping the Wheeler
in ready reserve resulted in insufficient response times to meet port
dredging needs and higher costs to taxpayers because of a lack of
capacity and competitive bids. The final draft makes no mention of any
of these problems and makes conclusions and assertions without
supplying any supporting data or analysis.
The final Corps report is seriously undermined by the substantive
conclusions of the draft report. This raises serious questions that
need to be fully investigated. The House Committee report should not
rely on this final report as a basis for making further changes to the
hopper dredge fleet.
To remain competitive in world markets, to meet domestic
transportation needs, and to serve the fishing industry, Northwest
ports and their customers rely on hopper dredges for low-cost and
timely completion of dredging projects. Without the McFarland to do
needed work on the East Coast, the Northwest dredges might be obligated
to meet needs outside the region.
Timely availability of dredges to perform both planned and emergency
dredging work remains a concern in the Pacific Northwest. Sufficient
capacity must be available to conduct the necessary annual dredging at
numerous ports during the short dredging season. In addition, emergency
dredging is often needed to restore the federal navigation channel to
allow commerce to pass. Shoaling can occur rapidly with potentially
dangerous impact on export shipping and the sport and commercial
fishing fleet. Shippers and ports cannot afford to wait several weeks
or even months for dredging while private contractors are engaged and
move their dredges to the site of the work, often from long distances.
Trade commitments and vessel safety are at risk. At this time, it does
not appear that the private dredge industry has sufficient capacity to
conduct all the needed dredging work in the Pacific Northwest.
Even with expanded capacity, I am also concerned that the low number
of private industry bids for work in the Northwest could force dredging
costs higher without the availability of the federal dredges. In 1996,
an Army's Audit Agency report raised serious questions about private
dredge company bidding practices.
In 1997, the Corps itself released a study outlining eight options
for the future of its hopper dredge fleet. Of these options, the one
that showed the lowest cost to the U.S. taxpayers required full active
status of the Corps hopper dredge fleet. All the other options, while
providing more work for the private industry, meant higher costs to the
taxpayer.
The federal dredges designed specifically for Corps navigation
projects, are uniquely capable of performing the required maintenance
dredging work at Northwest coastal ports. The experience of these ports
is that when the private dredges have been contracted by the Corps,
they have often not performed the work in a manner consistent with the
navigation and operational needs of the local port authorities and port
users. From reports that reach me from the field, the quality of the
dredging work performed by the private dredges is not equal to the
level of the federal dredges, resulting in disruption to navigation and
port operations. In short, the private dredges have not shown that they
can perform the work presently being performed by the federal dredges
in the Northwest.
For these reasons, it would be imprudent to make changes in the
operation of the Corps minimum dredge fleet at this time. I hope that
the provisions in the House Report will not be endorsed in the final
product of this Congress.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the
committee for providing $5 million for the Brevard County Beach
Renourishment Project. This $5 million, when combined with the $5
million we approved last
[[Page H5223]]
year and the 37 percent local match will provide a total of $14 million
in renourishment funding this year. Beginning in October, just a few
short months from now, the contractor will move into place and begin
placing sand on these beaches. This is a great accomplishment and
everyone who has worked on this effort should be commended.
This $5 million appropriation matches last year's earmark of $5
million and moves the project forward. Last year's Water Resources and
Development Act (WRDA) authorized more than 150 new projects; however,
the bill before us does not provide funding for any of those new
starts. This clearly demonstrates the difficulty in securing an
appropriation for a new Corps project. We were successful in securing
funding in the fiscal year 2000 budget and this additional funding
builds on that success.
This will help us make significant progress on the north reach of the
renourishment project. This 9.4 mile stretch reaches from Patrick Air
Force Base north to Canaveral Inlet.
Clearly, a considerable amount of the erosion along Brevard's beaches
south of Canaveral Inlet is due to the federal navigation inlet which
has disrupted the natural southward flow of the sand. Corps studies as
far back as the early 1960s have documented the severe loss of sand
along Brevard's beaches. More recently, and with more years of measured
losses available, the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers
concluded, in June 1989, that ``the net loss of littoral material from
the shore line to the south of the harbor is estimated to be between
335,000 and 410,000 cubic yards a year.''
Consistent with Section 227(A)(2) of WRDA '96, this Project should
receive preference based on the mitigation of damages attributable to
the Federal Navigation Project. The bill before us recognizes this
preference. Over the 40 year history of the inlet, we have lost
approximately 18 million cubic yards of sand along Brevard's beaches,
primarily as a result of the federal navigation channel. Houses that
once stood great distances from the shore now literally have waves at
their doorstep. This funding will help us take some significant steps
toward addressing this concern and will add another 75 to 100 feet of
beach along Brevard's coast.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the chairman of
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), 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 2001 includes funding
for several water projects that are of great importance to Nebraska.
This Member greatly appreciates the $12 million funding level
provided for the four-state Missouri River Mitigation 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 predevelopment
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 seriously threatened the Lincoln municipal
water system which is located along the Platte River near Ashland, NE.
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.
This Member is also particularly pleased that this bill includes
$220,000 for the planning, engineering and design phase of the Sand
Creek Watershed project in Saunders County, NE.
Mr. Chairman, additionally, the bill provides $275,000 for the
ongoing flood control project for Antelope Creek which runs through the
heart of Nebraska's capital city, Lincoln. The funding is to be used
for preconstruction engineering and design work. The purpose of the
project is to implement solutions 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 the project since he 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 downtown Lincoln.
Antelope Creek, which was originally a small meandering stream,
became a straightened urban drainage channel as the city of 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. The current situation represents a dangerous flood
threat to adjacent public and private facilities.
The goals of the project are to construct a flood overflow conveyance
channel which would narrow the flood plain from up to seven blocks wide
to the 150-foot wide channel. The project will include trails and
bridges and improve bikeway and pedestrian systems.
Finally, this Member is also pleased that the bill provides funding
for 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.
Again Mr. Chairman, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman
from California (Mr. Packard), the chairman of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the
subcommittee for their support of projects which are important to
Nebraska and the 1st Congressional District, as well as to the people
living in the Missouri River Basin.
To Chairman Packard, who is retiring from Congress at the end of this
term, this Member wants you to know what your courteous and
conscientious contact with this Member and all of our colleagues is
very widely recognized. You and your contributions to the public
interest through your service in the House will be greatly missed.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY 2001
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
Once again, under the leadership of the chairman and the ranking
member, we have before us a relatively well-balanced and bipartisan
bill despite the restrictive allocations. I want to thank both of them
for all of their hard work and time they have invested in this bill. I
understand that they have not had an easy job, but they were able to do
very well with what little they had. I also want to congratulate
Chairman Packard for his years of public service and his leadership at
the helm of the subcommittee during this Congress.
These budgetary constraints, as my colleague from Indiana has pointed
out before, does not keep pace with the growing water infrastructure
needs of this nation. The Army Corps of Engineers has tremendous
responsibilities across this nation, and this funding bill shortchanges
a number of Corps water projects when money is needed the most.
In my district, the Corps has a number of ongoing flood control
projects. Unfortunately, this bill does not fully fund these important
priorities. Ongoing flood control projects at Stoney Creek and Natalie
Creek could provide meaningful and substantive protection from flooding
to thousands of my constituents and save the communities from millions
of dollars of potential damages. I believe that it is critical to
ensure that these flood control projects proceed without unnecessary
delays, and I will continue to work with the Corps of Engineers to make
sure this happens.
I hope that as this bill goes to conference, we can all work toward a
final bill that will more accurately reflect the funding needs for our
nation's water infrastructure and fully fund the important Corps water
projects in my district.
Again, I want to salute the chairman and ranking member for their
dedication and hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. I look
forward to working with them when this bill goes to conference.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4733, the FY
2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I would first like to thank
Chairman Packard and Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard work on
this important legislation. I would also like to thank my good friend
from Texas, Mr. Edwards, for
[[Page H5224]]
all the help he and his office have provided me.
I strongly support the decision of the Subcommittee on Energy & Water
to ensure the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers receives adequate funding to
continue their vital work in the areas of flood control and
navigational improvement. I would also like to compliment the
administration for their decision to fully fund the Corps' budget. This
funding level recognizes the critical economic and public safety
initiatives contained within the legislation. Because many flood and
navigation projects located in my district are on accelerated
construction schedules, full funding by the administration and the
subcommittee will ensure the expedited completion at great savings to
the taxpayers.
I am very pleased by the support this legislation provides for
addressing the chronic flooding problems of Harris County, TX. H.R.
4733, includes vital funding for several flood control projects in the
Houston area. These projects include Brays, Sims, Buffalo, Hunting, and
White Oaks bayous.
I am most gratified that the subcommittee, for the second consecutive
year, decided to fully fund the Brays Bayou project at $6 million for
FY 2001. This project is necessary to improve flooding protection for
an extensively developed residential area along Brays Bayou in
southwest Harris County. The project consists of 3 miles of channel
improvements, three flood detention basins, and 7 miles of stream
diversion and will provide a 25-year level of flood protection. The
project was originally authorized in the Water Resources Development
Act of 1990, as part of a $400 million federal/local flood control
project.
Subsequently, the Brays project as reauthorized was one of the
original sites for a demonstration project for a new federal
reimbursement program, as part of the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) of 1996 based upon legislation drafted by Mr. DeLay and myself.
This unique program has strengthened and enhanced the Corps/Local
Sponsor role by giving the local sponsor a lead role and providing for
reimbursement by the Federal Government to the local sponsor for the
traditional Federal portion of work accomplished. Recently, the local
sponsor, the Harris County Commissioners Court approved of the Brays
redesign per WRDA '96 and now this project was moved forward with
strong public support.
I am also gratified that the subcommittee decided to fund the Sims
Bayou project at $11.8 million, the level requested by the
administration. This project is necessary to improve flood protection
for an extensively developed urban area along Sims Bayou in southern
Harris County. This project, authorized as part of the 1988 WRDA bill,
consists of 19.3 miles of channel enlargement, rectification, and
erosion control beginning at the mouth of the bayou at the Houston Ship
Channel and will provide a 25-year level of flood protection. This
ongoing project is scheduled to be completed 2 years ahead of schedule
in 2004.
Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that this legislation provides $53.5
million to fully fund continuing construction on the Houston Ship
Channel expansion project. Upon completion, this project will likely
generate tremendous economic and environmental benefits to the Nation
and will enhance one of our region's most important trade and economic
centers.
The Houston Ship Channel, one of the world's most heavily trafficked
ports, desperately needs expansion to meet the challenges of expanding
global trade and to maintain its competitive edge as a major
international port. Currently, the Port of Houston is the second
largest port in the United States in total tonnage, and is a catalyst
for the southeast Texas economy, contributing more than $5 billion
annually and providing 200,000 jobs.
The Houston Ship Channel expansion project calls for deepening the
channel from 40 to 45 feet and widening it from 400 to 530 feet. The
ship channel modernization, considered the largest dredging project
since the construction of the Panama Canal, will preserve the Port of
Houston's status as one of the premier deep-channel gulf ports and one
of the top transit points for cargo in the world.
Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that H.R. 4733 also reauthorizes the
operation and utilization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through
the end of FY 2001 and restores the President's authority to release
oil from the reserve. In light of today's rising oil prices, it is
imperative that the President has the power to access oil reserves paid
for with taxpayer dollars.
Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their support and
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have no other requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time under
general debate, and I yield back the balance of my time.
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.
The amendment printed in House Report 106-701 may be offered only by
a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in
the reading of the bill, shall be considered read, shall be debatable
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
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:
H.R. 4733
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, 2001, 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,
$153,327,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That in conducting the Southwest Valley Flood Damage
Reduction, Albuquerque, New Mexico, study, the Secretary of
the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall
include an evaluation of flood damage reduction measures that
would otherwise be excluded from feasibility analysis based
on restrictive policies regarding the frequency of flooding,
the drainage area, and the amount of runoff.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hulshof
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Hulshof:
In title I of the bill, under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE--CIVIL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY--General
Investigations'' insert after the first dollar amount
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
In title I of the bill, under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE--CIVIL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, General Expenses''
insert after the first dollar amount ``(decreased by
$2,000,000)''.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, let me commence by also commending the
chairman of the appropriations subcommittee and add my kudos to those
that have been mentioned previously and wish him well as he begins his
next chapter.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to increase the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers' general investigations account by $2 million.
Funding for this amendment would be offset by a $2 million decrease in
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' general expense account.
The intent of this amendment is to provide the Corps with adequate
funding to begin its initial study of the Upper Mississippi River
Comprehensive Plan.
Now, Mr. Chairman, many Members who served this body back in 1993 and
through 1995 remember the great flood, as we called it in the Midwest.
The great flood of 1993 took 47 lives, left roughly 74,000 individuals
homeless, and caused between $15 billion and $20 billion in damages.
While existing flood control measures at the time did prevent nearly
$19 billion in potential
[[Page H5225]]
damages along the Upper Mississippi River Basin, an integrated flood
control policy could have prevented further loss of life and property.
The Upper Mississippi and Illinois River Valleys currently lack a
coordinated approach to address navigation, flood control and
environmental restoration. I would announce to the Chair that the
comprehensive plan was authorized by section 459 of the Water Resources
Development Act, otherwise known as WRDA 1999, and it would be the
first to focus on developing and implementing a system for integrated
river management.
Specifically, the comprehensive plan will call for systemic flood
control and flood damage reduction; continued maintenance and
improvement of navigation; improved management of nutrients and
sediment, including bank erosion; environmental stewardship and
increased recreation opportunities in the Upper Mississippi and
Illinois River Basins.
The plan will be a collaborative effort among three core districts,
specifically the St. Paul, Rock Island and Saint Louis Army Corps
district offices; other Federal agencies, including the States of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, and of course my home State of
Missouri, and a host of other non-Federal organizations. A task force
will be created to guide and coordinate development of the plan. The
plan will identify future management actions and make recommendations
for systemic improvement of the river basin again to provide multiple
benefits.
Mr. Chairman, to comply with House rules, I again want to reiterate
that the $2 million increase in the Corps' general investigations
account should be used to fund this comprehensive plan. Recognizing
that we were not trying to legislate on an appropriations bill, we
crafted it such. It is my understanding that within the general
investigations account that $2 million for the comprehensive plan
should be designated under the Illinois subheading on page 13 of the
committee report.
One other point I would like for this body to consider is that WRDA
1999 gave the Army Corps of Engineers 3 years from its enactment to
submit a project study on the comprehensive plan, and to the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. Chairman, WRDA 1999 was signed into law last August without
adopting this amendment, this bipartisan amendment, I might add,
cosponsored by my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), and
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), with support from the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). Without adopting this amendment,
the Corps will not have the financial resources to do as required by
law.
To conclude, I do want to remind my colleagues that the comprehensive
plan enjoys bipartisan support. This is not the locks and dams study,
as some have asked. This is completely offset. I, along with the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the co-chair of the Mississippi
River Caucus, proposed this amendment along with the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
The Mississippi River Caucus was formed back in 1997 with the
expectation that those Members whose districts include and depend on
the Mississippi River could work together in a bipartisan manner to
help the Corps and those river stakeholders improve the Mississippi
River system as a whole. This is exactly what the comprehensive plan
would do, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hulshof amendment to the
energy and water appropriations bill. The amendment provides $2 million
to the Corps of Engineers so they can begin implementation of The
Comprehensive Plan for the Upper Mississippi River Basin. This is
something that was already authorized in WRDA 1999; but it has received
no funding, so the implementation has yet to take place.
The plan calls for the Corps to develop a coordinated basin-wide
approach to flood control and flood damage reduction, and as a co-chair
of the Upper Mississippi River Task Force, I have consistently worked
to develop bipartisan support for Corps plans and projects that take a
comprehensive and basin-wide approach and that support the vision of
the Mississippi River as a complex, multiple-use resource. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for the Corps to investigate the fullest range
of flood control and damage reduction measures, including nonstructural
approaches to flood control, management plans to reduce runoff from
farm fields and city streets, and habitat restoration programs.
These nontraditional approaches to flood control are particularly
beneficial and cost effective. They protect farmers and city dwellers
from floods at the same time that they improve water quality and
restore the aquatic wetland and floodplain habitats that are so highly
valued by fisherman, hunters, and recreationalists. The comprehensive
plan embodies an approach to planning that I think should become the
norm for the Corps of Engineers in future years.
I would also like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and to the ranking
member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for the work in
increasing the funding levels for the Upper Mississippi River
Environmental Management Program. The EMP is a cooperative effort among
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the U.S. Geological Service and five Upper Mississippi River Basin
States to ensure the coordinated development and enhancement of the
Upper Mississippi River system.
The program widely cited as a model for inner-agency and interstate
cooperation is designed to evaluate, restore and enhance riverine and
wetland habitat along a 1,200 mile stretch of the Upper Mississippi and
Illinois Rivers.
In WRDA 1999, the EMP received permanent reauthorization at an
increased funding level of $33.2 million, and while the Upper
Mississippi River Task Force had requested $25 million for the EMP for
this fiscal year, I recognize that the House's inadequate 302(b)
allocations impose considerable restraints on the subcommittee and that
the $3 million increase over the administration's request represents a
significant, if still insufficient, increase in funding.
Maintaining a proper balance between the economic growth and the
environmental protection is essential to maintain the health of the
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers and the communities within its
watershed.
Achieving this balance requires the innovative and cooperative
efforts of the Federal, State, local interests. The comprehensive plan
and the EMP program are core programs that embody this spirit. It is
important for this Congress to show our support for programs that will
work proactively and cooperatively to reduce flood damage, maintain an
appropriate navigation infrastructure, and enhance the environmental
qualities of the Mississippi River system for generations to come.
Mr. Chairman, I for too long now have felt that the Mississippi
River, America's river, has been the great natural resource cutting
right through the heart of our country that has gone neglected as a
national priority in this Congress. And working within the task force
in a bipartisan fashion, we have been trying to coordinate our efforts
between the north and south ends of the river to develop programs and
to offer the support and resources we need to protect this very
important natural resource.
Why is this important? It is important because it is North America's
largest migratory route. It is also the primary drinking source for 22
million Americans, and for the Upper Mississippi region alone it has a
$1.6 billion recreation impact as well as a $6.6 billion tourism impact
for local communities. In fact, we have more visitors that come every
year to visit the Upper Mississippi Wildlife Refuge than who visit the
entire Yellowstone National Park system. So this is a very valuable
resource that we need to do, as a body, a better job of providing
resources.
The comprehensive plan that my friend, the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Hulshof), is trying to fund with this amendment is a step in the
right direction, along with other efforts that we have taken on the
task force to draw more attention to programs that affect the
Mississippi River Basin.
[[Page H5226]]
So I would call upon my colleagues to look at this amendment and
support it. I think the offset is something that is reasonable in
working with the Corps of Engineers coming out of administrative
expenses, and this is a step, a very important step, to developing the
comprehensive plan on a basin-wide approach which is long overdue for
the Mississippi River.
I thank the gentleman again for offering the amendment.
{time} 1630
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, it is with great reluctance that I rise to
oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). I
have no problem with the project. In fact, if we would have had the
funds, we would have liked to have funded the request of the gentleman,
but because of a lack of funds, we treated every person's project
equally in the bill.
There were literally hundreds of projects that were authorized in
WRDA 1999; and if we open up one project to funding, then we have to
give equal treatment to all applicants for funding as a result of WRDA
1999 authorizations, and it is for that reason, and that reason only,
that I oppose the amendment.
In fact, if the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) would withdraw
his amendment, I will commit to do all I can to help find the funds as
we go to conference. There is a hope that we might get additional funds
before we go to conference, and if we do, we are hoping that we can
fund some of the new starts.
We have not even funded all of the ongoing projects in the bill this
year, those that are already under construction and to fund a new
project and not have the funds to complete existing projects, I think
would be irresponsible.
With that in mind, I would sincerely ask the gentleman to withdraw
the amendment, with the assurance that I will do all I can to find the
funds for him as we go to conference, otherwise I would have to oppose
the amendment.
Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. HULSHOF. Again, with all the great respect for the gentleman from
California (Mr. Packard), I consider him just that, a gentleman, in
this body, were it not for the time limit on the authorization, and
that is the clock is running on this authorized project and the fact
that the Corps of Engineers is expected to report back in about a year
and a half, I would accept the invitation of the gentleman, otherwise,
I am afraid I am going to have to insist on my amendment.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, if I can reclaim my time, I would simply
like to ask Members then under the circumstances to vote against the
amendment. Certainly it is at the expense of all other WRDA 1999
authorized projects, if we fund one. It would not be fair to the rest
of the Members of Congress that have asked for funding for authorized
projects in WRDA 1999. I think it is imperative that we are fair to all
Members.
Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Hulshof amendment. In fact, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and I have worked very closely
with him on a number of things, and my good friend from Missouri, my
neighbor, my good friend from Illinois, just across the river,
``kattywompus'' as we say down our way, has a lot of concerns.
I would say to the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard), we
respect the gentleman's work on this very, very much, but this is not
really a project in the sense that we think of projects. This involves
the Mississippi. This involves the Illinois. This involves a great
expanse, involving much more than any of us would have in an individual
project, and our joint interest in this is for a number of reasons.
We have worked very hard to get folks along the river to realize what
a great resource it is in many, many ways. I think that the gentleman
from California (Chairman Packard) recognizes and appreciates that. I
have no doubt about that, but there is a lot of interest groups out
there that have different opinions.
Part of our process with our Mississippi River Caucus that the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) and I have cosponsored is to
bring those folks together to see if we cannot work out how to take
care of the navigation needs, the commerce needs, the things to do with
recreation, the environment and so on, and we feel like we are making
some progress.
We feel good about it. Now, this plan is needed so we can proceed, so
we can go forth. It has been authorized by WRDA, and we would like now
to put the resource with it to make this happen. In fact, I say to the
gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) this very respectfully, we
had hoped that if this would pass today that the gentleman would carry
forth with the enthusiasm to conference to maybe restore that offset to
keep things going.
We would not want to put an idea in the gentleman's mind, but I will
take that opportunity. So thanks so much for listening, but different
things have been said about how people depend on that river for
commerce. They depend on the river for recreation. They are concerned
about preserving the environment and all these things, and we are, too.
We are going forward with the premise with this study and what would
bring to bear that we can put those kinds of folks together in the same
room, so to speak, and we can work these things out. That is really
what we are trying to do. It is not a project for me. It is not a
project for the gentleman from Missouri (Congressman Hulshof) or the
gentleman from Illinois (Congressman Shimkus) or anybody else, it is
for the entire resource of the Mississippi and the Illinois. I think
actually it will go on to be even beyond that.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, did the rule provide for a rolling of the
votes to a later date if a vote is called for on any amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has the authority to postpone requests for
recorded votes.
Mr. PACKARD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, with reluctance I come to the floor also
making an appeal to the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) to
be supportive of this amendment, I do that with great respect to my
friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), myself, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind)
who just spoke earlier.
In our short 4 years of being Members of Congress, we have tried to
marry the interests of a great diverse group of people who want to
preserve this great national asset that we have, which is the
Mississippi River, and preserve it for a lot of activities, a lot of
things, from the transportation needs of our agricultural sector to get
our goods south to take advantage of the world markets, to
environmental stewardship of some of the greatest hunting and fishing
locations in the country.
In fact, in my district, Pike County, Illinois has the largest white
tail deer population; and hunters come from all over which helps the
farmers meet their ends in low commodity prices. We know of the problem
in the Gulf of Mexico, and having a good plan to address the runoff
issues is a good way to be environment stewards, increased recreational
activities on the Mississippi.
A lot of these groups that we have been dealing with for 4 years
would not like to see any other group exist, but if we work with a
plan, if we go in a manner to bring people at the table and work on a
plan for the stewardship of this great national resource, then we have
something that we cannot only benefit from, but that we can pass down
to our families and our grandchildren.
The Mississippi River Caucus' members stretch from Minnesota all the
way down to Louisiana. We are concerned about the river. I think that
the Hulshof amendment, which takes funds from just the core staffing to
focus on the time-sensitive issue of getting this plan developed, is to
be commended.
[[Page H5227]]
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues who are concerned about our
ability to compete in the world market, the agricultural sector of the
world, environmental stewardship and creating recreational
opportunities up and down the Mississippi to be in support of this
amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is attempting to do
with his amendment. I appreciate the need, and I also appreciate the
comments of the Members who spoke before me. I would associate myself
with the remarks of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and
rise in opposition to the Hulshof amendment for three key reasons.
One is we have worked very hard to wisely spend every penny of water
money available in as fair a fashion as possible, and in making that
money go as far as possible, we did not, in this bill, fund any new
starts, any new reimbursements, any new studies. That is an arbitrary
decision, but it is one that both sides have stuck to with a great deal
of scrupulous care. I think at this late moment, understanding the
need, coming from a Great Lakes State myself and the intercontinental
United States, I would oppose, first of all, for that reason.
Secondly, I am concerned that because we are taking money from one
Army Corps account and moving it to another, we are simply obligating
the Corps with an additional responsibility that we are not paying for
with new money. The fact is, the account that the gentleman is taking
the money from is at current level, there is no increase. It is $2\1/2\
million below the administration's request, and we would cut it by an
additional $2 million.
Finally, the obvious point, and that is that this would also then
require a reduction in force at the very time when we are asking the
Corps to assume greater responsibilities than ever before across the
Nation.
Again, it is out of no disrespect for the Member or the need of the
constituents he represents or the other speakers, but I am adamantly
opposed to his amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PACKARD. 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 532, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof)
will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilchrest
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest:
Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount insert
``(decreased by $100,000)''.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the Corps of
Engineer's General Investigation Account by $100,000, the amount
provided to continue the study to deepen the C&D Canal in my district.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform the Members that this is a
project that has been ongoing for most of the 1990s. And in 1996, in a
meeting I had at the Corps of Engineers headquarters in Washington,
with the Philadelphia Corps in my district in Chestertown, Maryland, we
went over all of the numbers, the math and came to a very, very clear
determination that the benefit-to-cost ration on this particular
project in Maryland did not meet the threshold in order to be funded by
the Federal Government because there was no benefit to the taxpayers.
It is 4 years later. Every year since 1996, the Philadelphia district
has come up with a benefit-to-cost ratio. Under scrutiny from the
headquarters in Washington, it has always failed muster. We are not
going to close the C&D Canal, there will be no decrease in commerce,
but there is two things that we have seen very clearly, that to
continue studying this issue that the Corps of Engineers has not been
able to justify for most of the 1990s is a waste of the taxpayers
dollars, so therefore we would like to cut $100,000 from any more study
in this particular area.
It does not reduce commerce in the C&D Canal. I want to make that
very clear, that is in the Corps' own document. The Corps says if we
deepen it, there will be no increase in commerce to the Port of
Baltimore. The Port of Baltimore has a 50-foot deep channel right now
to the Port down the Bay out into the ocean. It is not a matter of not
being able to accommodate the number of ships that are necessary.
In these studies, if we looked at it from an environmental
perspective, deepening the canal will bring in more salty, polluted
water from the Delaware River, into the sensitive spawning areas in the
upper Chesapeake Bay.
{time} 1645
But even more interesting than that, the environmental study has not
been concluded. Even though the Washington Corps asked it to go along
with the feasibility study, the Philadelphia district did not do that.
But there is something that we found out just a few months ago, which
was rather astounding, in the study to determine whether there was
going to be a change of water flow from the Delaware River or from the
Chesapeake Bay.
There is an organization in the Corps in Mississippi called the Water
Environmental Studies, or WES. WES gave to the State of Delaware an
environmental water flow study that showed the water flowing from
Delaware to Maryland, and then WES gave a study to Maryland showing
that the water, as a result of the deepening, would go from the
Chesapeake Bay to the Delaware River. When we confronted them with this
rather minor conflict, they said, well, we have to redo the study.
Mr. Chairman, one other comment about the environmental aspect of
this. The northern route, which is not necessary to increase commerce
by deepening it, if it is deepened, will result in 18 million cubic
yards of dredge material being dumped overboard into the Chesapeake
Bay. Now, to use the Corps' own words, what does that mean as far as
nutrients are concerned, and nutrients is really another word for
pollution. By dumping 18 million cubic yards of dredge material
directly into the Chesapeake Bay, a stone's throw north of the
Chesapeake Bay Bridge, it means the equivalent of adding a sewage
treatment plant the size of the City of Annapolis, dumping in an
uncontrolled amount of 2 million pounds of ammonia, some people call
that nitrogen, they are the same thing, and 700,000 pounds of
phosphorous.
Now, the average farmer in my congressional district is taking great
pains to reduce the amount of silt or nutrients that they let into the
Chesapeake Bay or its tributaries. A homeowner, if he wants to build a
driveway has to put up a silt fence. The whole State of Maryland is
going to great lengths to try to figure out how they can reduce the
number of nutrients going into the Chesapeake Bay. All we want to do
with this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is because the Corps has not been
able to, in the decade of the 1990s, financially justify to the
taxpayers of the United States this project and time and time and time
again, every time it came up for scrutiny, the project was not
justified, we want to save the taxpayers' dollars and cut $100,000 from
this study.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I first heard about this amendment about 4 hours ago.
Let me first put this in context for the Members. I believe that five
Members of the Maryland delegation will rise in strong opposition to
this amendment. Furthermore, while I have great respect for my
colleague, we all adjoin the Chesapeake Bay, as a number of other
districts adjoin parts of other waterways. We are talking about the
waterways of Maryland. No particular one of us owns the waterways; they
are common to all of us.
The gentleman says this has been a controversy in the 1990s and that
throughout the decade of the 1990s, the Corps has been unable to
justify the costs of this project. Now, the gentleman has another
amendment and we will be talking about it as well; but I want to call
to the attention of the House of Representatives, my colleagues, a
letter dated April 30, 1996. That letter was sent to the gentleman
[[Page H5228]]
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. In it, the Maryland delegation, all
eight Members, all 4 Republicans and all 4 Democrats, wrote to the
committee stating: ``We write to ask your committee's favorable
consideration of 3 important channel dredging projects affecting the
welfare of the Port of Baltimore and the State of Maryland.''
We went on to say in the next paragraph, ``We cannot stress enough
the importance of these projects in maintaining the vitality of the
port. In fact, the competitive position of the port could turn, in
large measure, on their implementation.''
That letter was signed by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin),
the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich), the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Wynn), myself, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Why? Because we felt this was a vital project to our State and to the
economic viability of our port on which thousands of persons rely. Now,
my two colleagues from Baltimore will speak, I think, more pointedly to
that.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). The deepening of the C&D Canal is absolutely
essential for the viability of Maryland's port. The Port of Baltimore
operates in an increasingly competitive environment. Anybody who
represents a port knows that to be the case. The C&D Canal is a major
access route between the Port of Baltimore and the North Atlantic coast
ports. Use of the canal saves shipping lines time and money, which
means competitive positions. The size of ships entering North Atlantic
coast ports, including Baltimore, are already outgrowing the depth of
the C&D Canal.
That is why this study is being conducted, and this $100,000 is
absolutely essential to complete this study before this project can
proceed. As container vessels outgrow their ability to safely use the
C&D Canal because of sailing draft constraints, they will be forced to
sale substantially greater distances, via Cape Henry between the Port
of Baltimore and North Atlantic coast ports, or use another port. That
is why we wrote this letter. All eight Members of the Maryland
delegation signed this letter.
The transfer of cargo jobs and taxes to other States will have an
absolutely deleterious effect on the citizens of the State of Maryland.
Moreover, although vessel services and cargo may be lost due to a
failure to maintain competitive access channel depth, the substantial
fixed costs of the port do not change for the smaller volume of
remaining cargo. This will result in reduced port efficiency, increased
Corps' costs of port improvements for the remaining users and,
therefore, put us in an increasingly uncompetitive status.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Packard) that I would hope that he and the ranking member would oppose
this amendment. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and I have
talked about this amendment; the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky)
and I have talked about this amendment.
I understand the gentleman's concern. The gentleman's concern is the
dredging and where we put the spoil. That is a very significant issue
that all of us are engaged in trying to figure out so that we do that
correctly. But I would urge this body to reject this amendment, which
stops the study. This does not deal with the dredging. The gentleman is
correct, if we go ahead with a project, at some point in time we have
to figure out where to put the spoil. I understand the gentleman's
concern. Perhaps he did not have that concern in 1996 when he signed
this letter.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the argument as to where to dump the spoil
will have to be debated at some point in time. I would suggest to my
friend, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that now is not the
time to join it. I know the gentleman wants to stop this project and
other projects; the gentleman has had, presumably, a change of heart
since the 1996 letter, but we have moved ahead as a united delegation
on this. I cannot speak for our two colleagues in the Senate, but I
know they support this project as well.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues in the Congress to reject
this amendment and not stop the study from being completed. We will
argue the issue of dredging at some later time.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gilchrest
amendment. I hate to see time limited on a discussion of this very
important amendment. I am supporting the amendment because I think the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) has made a compelling case in
support of his amendment. This is his congressional district. I do not
think there is anyone in this Chamber that knows more about this
project than the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear more from him about the amendment,
so I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) at this time.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We do many things up here as Members of Congress that cause us to
take awhile to begin to investigate and look deeper into a particular
process. I certainly would like to continue the work in harmony with
the Maryland delegation on numerous other projects. However, having
spent literally years looking into the details of this particular
issue, I have come full circle in realizing that not only is this
project bad environmentally, not only because of the dredge material
and where it is going to be disposed of, but because of the ground
water and the aquifers when we deepen this canal and the problems that
that will cause.
Also, the reason the cost-benefit analysis, the reason we are here
today, and the feasibility study did not go through in December of 1996
was because we are spending money, Federal taxpayers' dollars, and we
are getting no benefit. The argument that the Port of Baltimore
desperately needs this goes counter to the records of the Corps of
Engineers' evaluation that there will be no increase in commerce as a
result of the deepening. Not only will there be no increase in
commerce, there has been a steady decline of container cargo moving
through the canal over the past 4 or 5 or 6 years.
Mr. Chairman, most of the ships, 60 percent of the ships that can use
the C&D Canal right now choose not to use it. Why do they choose not to
use the C&D Canal if it is available to them right now? Well, number
one, it saves them no time. Going through the canal saves no time as
opposed to going around Cape Henry and up the Chesapeake Bay. Number
two, it costs more to use the C&D Canal as opposed to going around
through the Chesapeake Bay where there is a 50-foot deep channel. It
costs more because of the pilotage fees. The third reason many captains
on board these ships choose not to use the C&D Canal, whether it is
deeper or not, is that it is a narrow channel and they simply prefer
the wide expanse of the Chesapeake Bay than moving through the narrow
channel.
Now, I want to urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment because
the Port of Baltimore is not at risk. No one will lose any jobs as a
result of this measure. We are not closing the C&D Canal; it will
remain open. Marsk and Sealand, if that issue comes up with their huge
ships, could never, under any circumstances, no matter how deep it is,
use the C&D Canal.
The C&D Canal is a vital link for commerce. It is used by ships that
have roll-on, roll-off trucks and tractors; it is used by bulk cargo;
it is used by any one of a number of ships. The deepening of the C&D
Canal is simply not necessary.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal responsibility.
Here is the interesting thing: this project, since it has been turned
down by Corps' headquarters time after time because it does not meet
the cost-benefit analysis, this project is probably never going to be
approved by the Corps of
[[Page H5229]]
Engineers through their own process, so there is no need to spend
$100,000 again for a new study.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague
for that explanation. As usual, he has done his homework, and he
presents compelling evidence to support his position.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague from the Eastern Shore might represent the
area around the C&D Canal, whereas I represent, along with the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) and the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Cummings), the Port of Baltimore. Although none of us can judge
what the Army Corps will or will not do in their studies, we all
acknowledge, those of us who represent the Port of Baltimore, how
important it is to maintain and strengthen the entry into the Baltimore
port.
{time} 1700
The Baltimore port is unique. It is more inland than the East Coast
ports, but because of that, it takes more time to get to the Port of
Baltimore. The fact that we have two days to enter and exit the port is
one of the key advantages to the Port of Baltimore.
The maintenance of the C&D Canal is absolutely essential to the
health of the Port of Baltimore. The Port of Baltimore represents
18,000 direct jobs, 87,000 port-related jobs, 69,000 indirect jobs in
our region, and $1.3 billion annually to Maryland. Business revenues
are affected by the Port of Baltimore, $40 million in U.S. custom
receipts.
So, Mr. Chairman, the majority of our delegation, the overwhelming
majority of our delegation, is going to ask this body to reject the
Gilchrest amendment because it could jeopardize very much the health of
the Port of Baltimore.
As my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) pointed out, we
authorized this project several years ago by unanimous support within
our delegation. Democrats, Republicans, support the maintenance of our
channels.
My colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) mentioned
the environmental issues, the Chesapeake Bay. We are all working very
hard on the Chesapeake Bay, Mr. Chairman. I am proud of the work that
my constituents are doing on the streams that lead into the Bay. We
have worked very hard at the State level and the national level to deal
with the Bay.
But to raise the issue of maintaining decent entry or exits to our
ports as compromising the Bay is an insult to the Army Corps, an insult
to those of us who worked very hard on this issue.
The Army Corps is going to release its report, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is absolutely correct. My colleague is more
concerned, I think, about where the dredge materials are being placed
than the actual dredging within the C&D Canal. All of us in our
delegation strongly support the independence of the Army Corps in
reaching the right decision as to the environmental risks involved.
We also believe it is the Army Corps' responsibility to go through
the economics of it and come out with the right conclusion. We set up
the Army Corps as our agents in this matter, and now the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) is saying we cannot trust the Army Corps. Let
us at least let the process move forward.
This is not a local project that affects one congressional district
in this country, this is a project that affects the health of our
region. That is why we are going to find that the overwhelming
majority, Democrats and Republicans, in our region, in our State, are
going to oppose the Gilchrest amendment.
We ask Members to respect our delegation's point of view, respect the
fact that we need to maintain a healthy and competitive and safe port.
Safety is very much at issue here. We will do nothing to compromise our
environment. We are all committed to it. I urge my colleagues to reject
the amendment.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment, and I yield to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding to
me.
Mr. Chairman, there are two other Republican Members in the Maryland
delegation at this time that, as a result of new information, also now
oppose this particular amendment.
I would like to say that this entire project is in my congressional
district, which gives me plenty of time when I go home to look into the
details of the process. I am not about to insult the Corps of
Engineers, I am not about to insult anybody. But we as Members of
Congress have the responsibility of oversight of all Federal agencies.
When we see some peculiar numbers in Federal agencies that are not
correct, we investigate. That is what we have done.
So the cost-benefit analysis in 1996, no; it was redone in 1997 and
it was turned down; it was redone in 1998 and turned down by the
Washington Corps; and it was redone in 1999 and also turned down. That
is one of the oversight responsibilities that we have.
We are not stopping maintenance of these channels to the Port of
Baltimore. None of the maintenance will be stopped. The Corps says, and
other agencies, but the Corps, who we are talking about here now, their
numbers show, and we have checked them out, that there will be no jobs
lost in the Port of Baltimore if we do not deepen the C&D Canal because
there will be no commerce lost in the C&D Canal if it is not deepened
because more than half, 60 to 70 percent of the ships that use that
canal right now, with plenty of draft, choose not to use it.
Mr. Chairman, let us go back to the Corps of Engineers. Why should we
have oversight of the Corps of Engineers? One of my colleagues
mentioned that I was concerned about where the dredge material is
dumped. Yes, I am concerned about where the dredge material is dumped,
because there is a little community in Cecil County, in the northern
part of my district. No one in that community, no one in that town, can
drink their water now. They all have wells and they cannot drink the
water because the Maryland Department of the Environment says the
dredge disposal site is leaching acid into the groundwater so they
cannot drink their water.
What does the Corps of Engineers say after the Maryland Department of
the Environment says that any elementary school child that looked at
the analysis of that dredge disposal site would say, yes, that is
causing acidity in the ground water, so those people cannot drink their
water?
What does the Corps say to that? ``It is not our fault. We do not
think that dredge disposal site is causing that problem.'' So what did
the Maryland Department of the Environment say to the Corps of
Engineers? You cannot dump that material here anymore. Should we have
oversight of what the Corps does? Absolutely, yes.
Now, there is another dredge disposal site a little further up the
C&D Canal that we investigated, and we have found that the Corps did
not put enough lime in the layers of that disposal site, either, so
that is leaching acidity into the water of the C&D Canal, which has an
impact on the fish.
The other thing, the Corps, when they finally finished with that
dredge disposal site, they put material on the top of that from sewage
treatment plants. Well, there is some question about that. But if we
deal with that correctly, and when we dump sludge from sewage treatment
plants, there are a lot of heavy metals in that sludge.
We found out that after they dumped the sludge on that dredge
disposal site, they did not do anything to it. Half of the heavy metals
from that sludge dumping leached into the C&D Canal where my
constituents catch and eat fish. If we look on the Delaware side,
Delaware has said, do not eat any fish in the C&D Canal.
So is it our responsibility to have oversight over the Corps of
Engineers and uncover some of these things. Whether they are innocent
mistakes, whether it is incompetence, it is our responsibility as
elected officials to conduct that oversight.
One other thing with the Corps of Engineers. We have great respect
for the
[[Page H5230]]
Corps of Engineers because they do good work. But when there is a
problem, I think we should deal with that problem. When they deepened
the canal the last time more than 25 years ago, they cut the line, the
sewer line.
If we look at the C&D Canal, there is a little town there called
Chesapeake City. Chesapeake City is divided by the C&D Canal. When they
deepened the project the last time, Chesapeake City had one sewage
treatment plant and one drinking water plant. Well, they cut those
lines. Now, almost 30 years later, the Corps has never compensated that
little town. That little town had to build another sewage treatment
system. The people in that little town pay high rent for that.
I urge support for the amendment.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as I sit here and I listen to the discussion, it just
reminds me of why we need to study. My good friend, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), who I have the utmost respect for, and I know
that this is a major, major issue for him, has stated a number of
things just now. I do respect what he has said.
He has talked quite extensively about the Corps of Engineers. But one
of the things that he said just a moment ago is that the Corps does a
good job. It is one of the last things he said. The fact is that the
Corps should be allowed to continue its work with regard to this
matter.
I think the gentlemen from Maryland, Mr. Cardin and Mr. Hoyer, laid
it out quite succinctly. While this may be an issue, and the issue
arises out of the district of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Gilchrest), it affects all of us in one way or another. That is why we
all joined together not very long ago asking for the study, so we could
move forward in a way that was very careful, in a way that we felt was
prudent.
Of course, our good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Gilchrest), joined us on that occasion. We want to thank him for doing
that. But there is something that is very important to all of us. That
is, and we agree with the gentleman on the point that we want our tax
dollars to be spent in a cost-efficient and effective manner, a cost-
efficient and effective manner. We are talking about $100,000 here. We
are talking about a study. We are not talking about the end result, we
are talking about a study.
We have been going back and forth here about what the study may show.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) just spent the majority of
the time that he just spent talking about the end result as far as the
sludge material, where it would go. We are not at that point right now.
I just think, in fairness to all of us from the State of Maryland, that
we should be allowed to proceed with the study that all of us asked
for.
Some people may have changed their minds since then, Mr. Chairman,
but the fact is that we have asked for this. I think we should proceed
so that whatever we do, it is based upon some good, sound knowledge.
I do not think that one day the Corps of Engineers are some of the
worst people in the world and the next day they do good work. The fact
is that I think we have all depended on them throughout these United
States, and we have relied on them extensively. I would hope that we
would let this study proceed.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and in respect to my
colleagues from Maryland, who will be the experts in dealing with the
Maryland problem, but I rise in support of the principle that we all
have an obligation and responsibility to defend the interests of our
own district. I have great respect for my friend, the gentleman from
Maryland, who is doing that I think very eloquently.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to
me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland
(Mr. Cummings), made some good comments about the importance of
research and study. But I feel there is a point at which the study
finally does come to an end, because it cannot be proven.
For example, the cost-benefit analysis which justifies the Corps
continuing the project must show that there is a benefit to the
taxpayers of the United States. It did not show that in 1996. The cost-
benefit analysis failed the Corps' own scrutiny in 1996. It failed the
Corps' scrutiny in 1997. It failed again in 1998. It failed again in
the spring of 1999.
The Corps has spent hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars
studying this issue. When do we say, there is no benefit to the
taxpayers, no benefit to the Port of Baltimore, and the study comes to
an end? I would say that that point of time is now.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we do not have a dog in this fight. This is a squabble
within the Maryland delegation. However, generally we as a committee
like to finish projects that have been started.
The project does meet the cost-sharing responsibilities. That is
economically favorable. It has been authorized. Under those conditions,
we generally like to see the project funded. It is funded at the level
that the administration has requested. I would hope that the debate can
conclude and that we can move on and have a vote on this.
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, real briefly, with great respect to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the author of the amendment, and our personal
friendship, I am going to have a lot to say about the gentleman's next
amendment, but for present purposes I will adopt the comments given by
my colleagues, the gentlemen from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Cardin, and
Mr. Cummings.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EHRLICH. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate his comments.
Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues, in listening to the
debate of my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), what
he is particularly animated about and what we all share his concern
about is pollution, not only in the Chesapeake Bay but in its
tributaries as well, that obviously run to and from the Bay,
irrespective of studies that tell me it is running both ways.
{time} 1715
That is a little perverse, and I share the gentleman's skepticism at
this finding. But he is very concerned. And he has talked about the
pollution in Chesapeake City, the pollution in other areas, the results
of dredging, the results of spoil. That is the gentleman's issue. The
issue is he does not want dredging. I understand that.
Now, the gentleman has offered very frankly some comments about the
studies: that the studies that he believes were done in 1997 and 1998
are not accurate; that the Corps has asked for new studies, and that
they are trying to complete this study.
The gentleman wants to, in effect, preliminarily cut the head off of
this item. And his staffer is shaking his head very vigorously, yes.
That is what the gentleman wants to do. He wants to kill this project.
I understand that.
He did not want to kill it in 1996, when he signed a MD delegation
support letter. Now, why do we have a joint letter? We had a delegation
letter because we thought it was a State issue and all eight of us
signed the letter. All eight of us, including the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) whose district does not touch the Chesapeake
Bay, although his district does touch on the Potomac River, which does
come into the Chesapeake Bay, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella), whose district touches the Potomac River which connects to
the Chesapeake Bay; myself and every other Member in the delegation
signed the letter.
The gentleman's concern is well understood in the delegation. He is
very well-schooled on this and works hard on it, and I have the utmost
respect for
[[Page H5231]]
the work that he does and the work he expresses. But as the gentleman
from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cardin), pointed out, we are all
concerned about that. All of us are very concerned about this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I frankly will tell the gentleman that I have been
involved in trying to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and support
Chesapeake Bay cleanup programs since long before he was in office,
when I was in the State Senate, as has the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin). The fact of the matter is that he is concerned about that.
Now, we should allow the Army Corps of Engineers to complete this
study. Then we can have the debate, because it will take money to
dredge. Then we can have the debate. At this point in time I would
assure my colleagues that this is a State issue, not a local issue.
This is a State issue.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Baltimore County, Maryland
(Mr. Ehrlich), who represents parts around Baltimore City, County and
Anne Arundel County as well and Hartford County that all border the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries who himself has an interest in the
Port of Baltimore, for yielding me this time.
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would state that we
pay these folks to do a job. If we do not trust them, we should not
hire them. We should let them finish their job.
However, I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) puts it very
succinctly. Our respected colleague has a different view. In the
interest of fairness, I will yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I am not only concerned about the Chesapeake Bay; I
want to get involved in doing something about the Chesapeake Bay. Just
speaking words does not have an impact on the ground.
And as far as that letter was concerned, once we evaluated the
process after we supported it in the beginning, we saw some oversight
problems.
I would rather be right than be consistent. And Abraham Lincoln said,
``The foolish and the dead alone never change their mind.''
Now, we all have disagreements on this, and I respect those
disagreements. But not only is my issue dredging, and not only is my
issue where to dispose of it and the environmental vulnerability of the
Chesapeake Bay and its estuaries, but I am also concerned about jobs;
and I would do nothing that would eliminate jobs in the City of
Baltimore.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest)
will be postponed.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, I have closely monitored the progress of the Alabama-
Coosa-Tallapoosa, or ACT, and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint, or
ACF, Tri-State Water Compact negotiations over the last 3 years. I am
most concerned with a proposal that has recently and repeatedly
surfaced concerning a major interbasin transfer of water from Lake
Allatoona in northwest Georgia in the ACT river basin to Lake Lanier,
which is in a completely different river basin, the ACF. The proposal
calls for an authorization of up to 200 million gallons per day
transfer of water from Lake Allatoona to Lake Lanier.
Not only is this a strong point of contention in negotiations between
Alabama and Georgia, but it is also causing a great deal of concern
among Federal stakeholders and the many elected officials, local
governments, water authorities, and other stakeholders within the ACT,
and in particular the Coosa and Tallapoosa regions.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose any consideration of an interbasin
transfer. It would seem, though, at a minimum, before such a proposal
would be even considered as an option, this proposal should be both
reviewed and studied by the authorizing and appropriations committees
and subcommittees in the Congress.
An interbasin transfer would have a major detrimental effect on the
environment and the economic growth of Northwest Georgia.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me,
and I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia for
bringing this issue to the attention of the committee.
I understand the idea of an interbasin transfer has been discussed in
Northwest Georgia, and I assure the gentleman from Georgia the
subcommittee understands the serious nature of any interbasin transfer
of this magnitude and would be very concerned should such proposals be
considered precipitously or without full and exhaustive public study,
consistent with all the Federal and State laws and regulations.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time only to thank
the gentleman from California.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ehlers
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers:
Page 2, line 18, after ``$153,327,000'' insert ``(increased
by $100,000)''.
Page 5, line 11, after ``$323,350,000'' insert ``(reduced
by $100,000)''.
Mr. EHLERS (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
Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, last year we passed the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999, which included a provision directing the Corps
of Engineers to inventory and report to Congress on the existing
information base for the Great Lakes biohydrological system. The intent
of this provision is that the Corps compile the information existing
within the Federal Government, including other agencies, which is
relevant to sustainable water use management.
This information will be needed to make decisions about the
appropriate sustainable use of Great Lakes waters. Building a
comprehensive database, and identifying gaps in our knowledge, is
especially critical at this time when the binational community in the
Great Lakes Basin is taking a close look at water diversions and other
consumptive use.
And on that latter point, I also have legislation pending which would
deal with the issue of diversions of water from the Great Lakes, not
just within the 48 States, but also international diversions. I think
everyone is aware that we had a situation last year where a ship was
initially granted permission to load on water for transport to a
faraway country to be used as fresh water supply there. In an effort to
prevent those diversions, we need studies and the legislation I am
preparing.
This particular amendment would allocate $100,000, with an
appropriate offset, to allow the Corps to begin what is authorized in
the legislation we passed last year, that is, to provide an information
base for the Great Lakes biohydrological system.
This has been brought to the fore by an announcement just made
yesterday that the Great Lakes governors have allocated from the Great
Lakes Protection Fund $745,000 for the Great Lakes Commission to study
and improve the amount and quality of information available to
decision-makers and the general public regarding water resources of the
Great Lakes. That program fits in directly with what we have asked the
Corps to do.
Now I do regret and apologize to the gentleman from California
(Chairman Packard) for rushing to the floor at the last moment with
this amendment, but it is because we have just received the information
that the Great Lakes
[[Page H5232]]
governors have released this funding. I would like to pursue the
amendment; but out of consideration for the gentleman, I am quite
willing to withdraw it if he can give me assurances that he will seek
to address this funding matter in conference.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, we certainly do wish and we hope that we
could take care of the gentleman's problem in conference, and I assure
him that we will make every effort to do so. The $100,000 is not a
great deal of money; and if we get additional funds, we may be able to
take care of it.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his reassurances.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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),
$1,378,430,000, 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 12, Mississippi
River, Iowa; Lock and Dam 24, Mississippi River, Illinois and
Missouri; Lock and Dam 3, Mississippi River, Minnesota; and
London Locks and Dam, and Kanawha River, West Virginia,
projects; and of which funds are provided for the following
projects in the amounts specified:
San Timoteo Creek (Santa Ana River Mainstem), California,
$5,000,000;
Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana, $7,000,000;
Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky, $4,000,000;
Clover Fork, Middlesboro, Town of Martin, Pike County
(including Levisa Fork and Tug Fork Tributaries), Bell
County, Martin County, and Harlan County, Kentucky, elements
of the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper
Cumberland River, Kentucky, $19,000,000: Provided, That the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
is directed to proceed with planning, engineering, design and
construction of the Town of Martin, Kentucky, element, in
accordance with Plan A as set forth in the preliminary draft
Detailed Project Report, Appendix T of the General Plan of
the Huntington District Commander: Provided further, That
using $900,000 of the funds appropriated herein, the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
is directed to undertake the Bowie County Levee project,
which is defined as Alternative B Local Sponsor Option, in
the Corps of Engineers document entitled Bowie County Local
Flood Protection, Red River, Texas, Project Design Memorandum
No. 1, Bowie County Levee, dated April 1997.
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 and 702g-1),
$323,350,000, 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, $1,854,000,000, 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 account for
construction, operation, and maintenance of outdoor
recreation facilities.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilchrest
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest:
Page 5, line 22, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $6,801,000)''.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would decrease the Corps of
Engineers' operations and maintenance account by $6,801,000 for the
Tolchester S-turn straightening project in my district.
Mr. Chairman, similar to the amendment that we debated just a few
minutes ago, this particular project, this straightening of a natural
channel, would cost the taxpayers $13 million. Now, as the Corps has
run through its process to analyze the cost benefit to the taxpayers in
this country, this particular project in the First Congressional
District of Maryland dealing with the Tolchester Channel does not meet
the Corps' own justification to do. The Corps of Engineers has not met
the threshold to benefit the taxpayers in the United States.
So my colleagues have come to Congress to get this project, I guess I
would say, pushed through. This project, the Tolchester S-turn, does
not meet the cost-benefit analysis to benefit the taxpayers anywhere,
including Baltimore City. The project, therefore, is not necessary.
Let us take a look at the environmental impact of this particular
project. The channel right now is a natural channel. It is the old
Susquehanna Riverbed that flows from Pennsylvania out to the Chesapeake
Bay. This is a natural-flowing channel. There is a natural scouring in
this particular area, so very little dredging is necessary. If we
straighten the Tolchester Channel, the likelihood of an increased cost
for dredging is there.
Now, when the channel is straightened, it will change the direction
of the flow of water. And when the direction of the flow of water is
changed, great damage will be done to one of the largest oyster bars in
the Chesapeake Bay. This oyster bar just off Tolchester is 300 acres,
and it is a very active site.
{time} 1730
When one changes the flow of the water, one will slow the water down
over the oyster bed. That means it will silt up. Now, if one
straightens the channel and ships can flow faster through this channel,
which they will do, one will increase the wake. When one increases the
wake, one will do several things.
One, it will cause more erosion on the shore. It has already caused
significant damage to people's property, whether it is a garage, cars,
docks, you name it. But the third thing, which is really a safety
hazard, the wake will increase the danger of children playing on the
beach that have already found it difficult to play on the beach. When
one of the ships goes by, these young people could be washed into the
Chesapeake Bay and potentially drown.
Now, the question will arise that we are dredging this new channel
for safety purposes that has been asked for by the Coast Guard, the
Corps of Engineers. When that issue comes up, let me say this, I had a
direct face-to-face conversation with the Corps of Engineers, the
District Engineer in the City of Baltimore. I asked them that question:
Does this rise to the threshold of a safety hazard for shipping through
the Tolchester Channel. The answer, Mr. Chairman, was no, it does not
rise to a safety hazard through the Tolchester Channel.
The only reason we are dredging the Tolchester Channel is because we
are dredging the whole northern route, the Brewerton Extension, the
Tolchester Channel, the C&D Canal.
We have already talked about the C&D Canal, and we know that is not
necessary to dredge. So if it is not necessary to dredge the northern
route, if it is not a safety hazard, which the Corps of Engineers in
Baltimore said it is not a safety hazard, and the Coast Guard if you
ask them direct, the Coast Guard will say that the Tolchester S-turn,
since over 6,000 ships have passed through there in the last 6 years
with no incident, that the Tolchester S-turn does not rise to the level
of a safety hazard with their office.
[[Page H5233]]
Now, can one make it safer? Sure. Can one dredge the Tolchester S-
turn and make it a straight channel? Sure. Would it be safer if it were
straight? Sure. But what damage will be done if one does that if it is
not a safety hazard? The damage that will be done as a result of that
S-turn is great.
I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, very quickly, this is about dredging. It is contrary to
the letter that all of us signed receiving it as a State project in
1986. No doubt about it. This was not perceived by any of the
delegation to be a local project. It was a Statewide project, which is
why all eight Members of the delegation signed.
In the letter that I reference, we also strongly supported and urged
the inclusion of the straightening of the S-turn, the Tolchester
Channel. Why did we do that? July 14, 1998, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Gilchrest) says he has talked to the Coast Guard. Now, with all
due respect to the gentleman, until 4 hours ago, I did not know of any
of this. My office was not talked to. I got no information. I did not
know about his conversations with the Coast Guard. I do not think the
committee knew about his conversations with the Coast Guard. Maybe they
did.
But at any event, let me read a letter, 26 August 1994, signed by
Rear Admiral Eckart of the United States Coast Guard, Commander of the
Fifth Coast Guard District. I quote a part of that, Mr. Chairman. ``The
S-turn in Tolchester Channel presents one of the most difficult
navigational challenges to a large ship within the Fifth Coast Guard
District, not just within Maryland, not just within the Chesapeake Bay,
but within the entire district.'' Yes safety is going to be raised.
Now, July 14, 1998, some 2 years later, this is a Vice Admiral,
United States Coast Guard, then Commander, I am not sure whether he is
still Commander of the Fifth Coast Guard District. A letter referring
to the Tolchester Channel. ``With increases to vessel size, the
severity of the turns have caused difficulty with maneuvering. The
Coast Guard would prefer to be proactive in preventing any potential
serious mishaps. The removal of the S-curve in the Tolchester Channel
would be a significant step.''
Now, I do not have a subsequent letter from the Coast Guard saying,
no, we did not mean that. Apparently they have had a personal
conversation with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) who
claims this is in his district. Technically I suppose, if one surrounds
waterways, they are in one's district, but the fact of the matter is I
would again reiterate this is perceived by the State legislature, by
the governor, and by the majority of our delegation as an issue of our
State and of our port.
Mr. Chairman, the 1996 water bill directs the Corps to expedite
review of potential straightening of the channel, Tolchester Channel S-
turn. It came out of a committee of which the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Gilchrest) was a member.
If determined to be feasible and necessary for safe and efficient
navigation, and I have just read my colleagues two letters of the Coast
Guard that indicated it was necessary for the safe and efficient
movement of vessels through this channel, to implement such
straightening as part of the project maintenance.
Now, earlier the gentleman said he was not opposed to maintenance
dredging. Now, I am not sure what maintenance dredging he refers to,
but the fact of the matter is he tried by saying that, if we had ships
going through, then children were going to drown. I do not know that
any children had drowned, and that would be a serious problem we would
have to protect against, apparently in anticipation of the safety
argument that somehow making the water flow faster could be dangerous.
I have not heard the oyster problem before, but we ought to look at
that problem as well.
But the fact of the matter is this is essential. In two letters from
the Coast Guard, I do not have a more recent letter telling me they
were wrong, the 1994 and 1998 letters say it is a safety issue. It is a
problem. It is not only a problem, it is the worst problem in the Fifth
Coast Guard District. That is why they believe this project is
absolutely critical.
I know the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) is going to speak on
this. We have a bipartisan position on this issue, I think. In fact,
the committee has included this money at the request of the
administration, this is not an add-on project, this has been a planned
project that is moving ahead to provide for safer navigation. It is
essential.
We would ask our colleagues to reject this amendment which, again, is
designed to stop dredging. I understand that that is the objective of
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). I agree with him to stop
dredging if it is entirely harmful. But until that finding is made,
then we need to proceed to make sure, A, the economic viability of the
port and, B, directly related to that the safety of the vessels using
the channels that access and egresses the port of Baltimore.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and I would like to ask him a
question, and then I would like to have him expound a little bit more
on that.
I ask the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), is there an
environmental impact statement on this project, because that is
something that should concern us all.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest)
for a response to that question.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Boehlert) for yielding to me.
There has been no environmental impact statement done on this
particular project. I have talked to the Corps of Engineers from
Baltimore City, along with the Coast Guard, along with numerous other
people involved in this in Chestertown, Maryland once again, and the
Corps cannot tell us how high the wake will be when it hits the shore
except that it is going to be higher.
The Corps cannot tell us whether or not that slow down in the current
will have an impact on those oysters because they have not done the
study.
I would like to, if I may, just respond to some of my colleague's
comments. This is not a maintenance project. We do maintain the
Tolchester Channel. The Tolchester Channel is maintained on a regular
basis. This amendment has no impact on normal maintenance of the
Tolchester Channel. This is considered new work.
Now, the Corps of Engineers has stated that this is not appropriate
nor proper when considering it as a safety project. Because since 1994,
there has been 6,700 ships pass through the Tolchester S-turn without
an incident. There has been some groundings north of the Tolchester S-
turn and there has been some groundings south of the Tolchester S-turn,
but there has been no groundings in the Tolchester S-turn.
Now, as far as the Coast Guard saying that this is the biggest
navigation challenge in this particular Coast Guard district, well,
that is correct. This is a challenge. But apparently the pilots and the
captains have met that challenge, and they have not had an incident in
the Tolchester S-turn.
So since they have not had an incident, a safety hazard incident in
the Tolchester S-turn, what are we talking about here? We are talking
about straightening the channel where there has been no incidents of
safety problems reported.
Then we are creating a safety hazard for people on the banks that are
less than 1,000 feet from these huge ships that pass by that cause
major wakes and potential problems with young children on the shore.
Plus the fact we are then going to increase the cost to homeowners'
property. Remembering now there is no safety hazard in the S-turn,
there is a challenge to the pilots, they pass through there all the
time. But a safety hazard, has it risen to the legality of a safety
hazard by the Coast Guard or Corps of Engineers? The answer is no in
their documents.
So I would urge the Members of this House to think two ways, to think
fiscally, conservative, as to why we do not want to throw good money
down a sink hole when a project is not necessary; and when a project is
not necessary, why do we do it to create another safety hazard and
another environmental hazard?
So I would urge my colleagues in the House to vote for this
amendment.
[[Page H5234]]
Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, again, with great deference and respect to the
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Speaker, countries probably watching,
tuning in today are saying ``S-turn, what S-turn?''
This S-turn is important in Tolchester Channel because it is part of
the approach to the Canal, the C&D Canal. Ships change course five
times within 3 miles, often beginning a new turn sometimes in the
opposite direction before completing the previous turn. With ships
approaching 1,000 feet in length, it is becoming increasingly difficult
to navigate the channel, especially in winter, especially in poor
weather with the wind and tide conditions.
The gentleman from Maryland talked about pilots and the pilots
association. Well, the pilots association is on record. It has urged
for a number of years that this channel S-turn be modified as soon as
possible to avoid potential ship groundings.
As my friend from southern Maryland has stated on numerous occasions
in this year's Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, Congress
appropriated $6 million for the S-turn.
The project was also authorized in 1999 as part of the operations and
maintenance program. In order to complete the job, we need $6.8 million
dollars. The project is totally 100 percent Federally funded.
Now, we have talked about safety, and that is the primary reason to
get this job done. We can reduce the likelihood of an accident. But the
project also produces economic benefits, many economic benefits.
The economic consequences of a serious accident, for instance, were
one to occur, would be significant, something we certainly do not want
to visit. Accordingly, the avoidance of such an accident, while not
easily quantifiable, contains economic benefits.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, since this project was approved by the Corps
and authorized by this Congress, the Corps has reserved the
environmental assessment. In fact, the Corps is finishing the
environmental assessment for the project. It will be circulated in July
and approved in settlement or October at or near the beginning of
fiscal year 2001.
{time} 1745
My friend and colleague from Maryland is someone for whom I have
great respect on these issues. We disagree from time to time when it
comes to dredging issues. But the majority of the Maryland delegation
is letting this House know that this is an important project for the
economic engine, which is the Port of Baltimore, the economic engine
that drives the State of Maryland.
Congress recognized this fact by appropriating these funds last year,
and all we are asking this House to do is to complete the job.
Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the Gilchrest
amendment.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EHRLICH. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a map here, and the gentleman
represents, am I correct, Baltimore County?
Mr. EHRLICH. That is correct.
Mr. HOYER. And the Tolchester Channel is essentially southeast of the
gentleman's congressional district and northeast of the district of the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest)?
Mr. EHRLICH. That is correct.
Mr. HOYER. Whose district is it in? It is in the middle of the water;
is that correct?
Mr. EHRLICH. That is correct.
Mr. HOYER. So because it borders the district of the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) and it borders his district, both gentleman can
equally claim it; am I correct?
Mr. EHRLICH. I certainly claim economic benefits to be derived from
this project.
Mr. HOYER. I just wanted to make sure that we understood.
Mr. EHRLICH. In fact, the map is up.
Mr. HOYER. Good. We have all got maps.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. QUINN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding. I just wanted to make a couple of points very quickly, if I
can.
The last comment: Whose district is the Tolchester Channel in? I do
not think it really makes a difference whose district the Tolchester
Channel is in. It happens to be in my district, though, and I will show
my colleagues on the map. Not the district of the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) and not the district of the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
If my colleagues will look at this map, it is a little busy, a little
hard to see, but if we look at the map, the C&D Canal channel comes
down the eastern side of the Chesapeake Bay along the Eastern Shore,
and the area we are talking about is Kent County on the Eastern Shore.
Following this line coming down here, we can see the C&D Canal approach
the channel. Down in this area, what do we have right here, less than a
thousand feet off the shores of Kent County, in a pretty little place
called Tolchester? The Tolchester Channel.
Now, in the Tolchester Channel is the Tolchester S-turn, which we
have already concluded is not classified as a hazard but a challenge.
So just a quick clarification. The Tolchester Channel, the Tolchester
S-turn is contained within the first congressional district.
Now, since we are reading letters, I want to read something from the
report of the Corps of Engineers that was recently put out about the
Tolchester S-turn. Here is what it says. ``The benefit for
straightening the Tolchester S-turn is based solely on transit time
savings.'' It might be a challenge to get through the Tolchester S-
turn, but well over 6,000 ships have done it since 1994 without one
incident in the Tolchester S-turn.
What are the hazards for straightening the Tolchester S-turn? As we
can see right along here, the shores of Kent County in the first
congressional district, the hazards apply to the people on the shore.
The hazards apply to those watermen who want to catch the few remaining
oysters in the Chesapeake Bay that will be silted over, which is about
the largest oyster bar in the Chesapeake Bay, well over 300 acres.
One last comment. The only reason they would straighten the
Tolchester Channel, the Corps of Engineers, is if it was a benefit to
the taxpayers; and they have concluded that it is not a benefit to the
taxpayers. There is no financial justification for it. And the other
one, is it really a safety hazard? And we have concluded that it is a
challenge. The safety hazard lies with those residents on the
shoreline.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate
time on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 10
minutes, equally divided.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, is that 10 minutes per side, proponents
and opponents? Mr. Chairman, there was 20 minutes total on this
amendment.
Mr. PACKARD. I adjust the unanimous consent request to 10 minutes
each side.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) each will control 10 minutes.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, who controls the time in support of the
amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition?
Mr. CARDIN. I seek time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
[[Page H5235]]
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, first let me say to my friend, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), if we get a ship that is moving through the
S-turn that happens to go aground and starts spilling oil, I think then
all of us are going to say why did we let this happen.
I am thinking about what I can say to my colleagues who are listening
to this debate to try to impress upon them why they should reject this
amendment. Sure, I can go through the safety considerations, and we
have gone through that. I can read to them a letter signed by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) that says the Tolchester
project involves safety-related modifications of the existing channel
which makes five course changes within 3 miles. The Corps of Engineers
is completing a safety-related study of the project. We request that
the committee indicate support for the execution of the project as a
safety improvement using operation and maintenance funding authority.
This was signed by our entire delegation, including the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
I could tell my colleagues that this does meet the standards to be
funded, otherwise the distinguished chairman and ranking member would
not have included it in the bill they brought forward. The
administration would not have included it in its funding. This is not
an add-on. This is authorized funding and has met all of the standards.
I could talk about the need, about the pilots, the bay pilots that
have been in my office that tell us of the safety hazards and the time
delays that are caused because of the S-turn and how this change should
be made from the point of view of the efficiency and safety of our
port.
I could tell my colleagues about the environmental issues; that all
of us are very concerned about the environment and we have worked very
hard. Our entire delegation will stand by the Army Corps' findings. And
if this is not consistent with the environmental standards, that we are
not going to support any type of activity that jeopardizes the progress
that we have made in the last 25 years for the Port of Baltimore.
I could tell my colleagues all these things, but let me just maybe
make one point. This has followed the orderly process. And if my
colleagues believe there should be a process in approving these
projects, reject the gentleman's amendment. We have four Members of our
delegation on the floor that represent this area, two Democrats, one
Republican, opposing the gentleman's amendment.
We all are concerned about the area; but we recognize that in order
to make progress, in order for safety, in order for the efficiency of
this port and in order for the environment of our area, we must reject
the gentleman's amendment. As well intended as it is, the gentleman is
opposed to dredging. He is opposed to any new dump sites. I understand
his position, but it is not the orderly process that we followed.
We have complied with all of the requests that have been asked of us.
Allow the study to go forward. Let the Army Corps reach its judgment.
We are all satisfied to be controlled by how the Army Corps reaches
that decision.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just make some comments. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin) said we stand by the Corps' findings. The Corps found that the
benefit for the straightening is based solely upon time saving. It is
not economically justified. And the Corps' findings go on to say,
``Based on our information, general funding for this purpose,''
straightening the Tolchester S-turn, ``is not considered feasible or
appropriate.'' That is what the Corps of Engineers said.
Now, the gentleman is saying that we did not follow an orderly
process. Well, we did follow an orderly process. The orderly process
rejected the widening and the straightening of the Tolchester S-turn by
the Corps of Engineers. What we are doing here is interrupting, we are
bypassing, we are leapfrogging the orderly process with this
appropriation of $6 million for what the Corps of Engineers said was
not a necessary project.
Now, at this point I would like to wax a little bit philosophical
with Justice Felix Frankfurter's statement, which goes and I quote, and
this has to do with the letter that I signed approving this project
some years ago. And after some investigation and a closer look at the
project, I would like to quote Justice Felix Frankfurter. Here is what
he said: ``Wisdom so often never comes. When it does, we ought not to
reject it merely because it's late.'' And in this particular situation,
I think that is appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), my colleague from Baltimore.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I rise to strongly oppose the gentleman's
amendment to strike the funding to straighten the S-turn in the
Tolchester Channel leading to the Port of Baltimore.
The straightening of the Tolchester S-turn is critical to maintaining
navigational safety and economic viability of the Port of Baltimore.
Nearly 8,000 Baltimore City residents are directly employed by port
businesses and as many as 30,000 additional city residents have jobs
related to port activities.
The S-turn poses a serious problem with regard to safety risks, as my
colleagues on this side stated a little bit earlier. Ships often have
to change course five times within 3 miles to navigate the turn. With
vessels nearly a thousand feet in length, it is difficult to safely
navigate the channel, particularly in poor weather conditions.
The straightening of the turn has been recommended and supported by
the State of Maryland, the Maryland Port Administration, the Fifth U.S.
Coast Guard District, and the Maryland Pilots Association.
And speaking of the Maryland Pilots Association, in a letter dated
April 26, 2000, written by Captain Michael Watson to Colonel Berwick of
the Army Corps of Engineers, and I quote this because this is a very
interesting statement and it goes to that whole issue of safety, and we
are talking about the pilots who are out there every day, it says:
``Tolchester Channel was originally designed to utilize deep water in
order to minimize dredging costs and allow for increases in vessel
loads. This resulted in the creation of the S-turn at the northern end
of the channel. As vessel size has increased, the S-turn has become
more difficult and groundings have resulted. Subsequent modifications
and additional buoys have addressed the problem, but only in part.
Pilots,'' and I emphasize pilots, ``continue to report close calls and
near misses, especially during periods of reduced visibility during
winter ice. A straightened channel will have many advantages,
increasing navigational safety, reducing the protection for maritime
accidents, and thereby helping to protect the Chesapeake Bay
environment.''
With that, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
{time} 1800
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair tell me how much time I
have remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) has 8
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) has the
right to close.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment about the S-turn and the
pilots. The S-turn was not made to accommodate ship traffic. The S-turn
is a natural channel, as the old Susquehanna River bed that is a
natural channel. It is naturally deep.
Now, when we straighten out that S-turn, we are going to do a number
of things, one of which is to increase the cost of dredging because
many of those areas will be filled in.
Now, we are talking about $6 million, $13 million dollars, to
complete a project that we asked the Corps to look
[[Page H5236]]
into. When the Corps looked into this project, their answer to do this
project was no. It is written down no. I have talked to Colonel Berwick
that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) has referred to, and
Colonel Berwick, from the Baltimore district, said, number one, it does
not rise to a safety hazard, it is a challenge to get through there,
but it is not a safety hazard for ships to pass through and this
particular channel is an environmental problem if we dredge this
channel.
So the Corps of Engineers said no. So what does Congress say if this
amendment fails? The Corps of Engineers, through their study that we
say we ought to trust, we hold on to their study, the Corps says no,
for sound fundamental reasons. Congress says yes.
I strongly urge my colleagues in the House to be fiscally
responsible, environmentally smart, and consider the safety hazard of
the people on the shore because of the increasing wake that will result
from these bigger ships that will go faster through this straightened
Tolchester channel.
One other quick comment. There is at this point in time no
Environmental Impact Statement that has been concluded by the Corps of
Engineers on this project.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will my friend, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Gilchrest), yield on that issue?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know
he has mentioned that a couple of times.
As I think he knows, that is not a unique situation of this project,
but that statement is applicable to a number of the safety-related
projects in this bill as well as previous bills.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I will close
with this comment, the other problem with this, it is a much broader
issue than the Sandy Canal or a safety concern for the Tolchester area.
The whole northern route that would be dredged by my colleagues would
involve 18 million cubic yards of dredge material being dumped
overboard in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay just north of the
Chesapeake Bay Bridge.
I guess we could get into a dispute whether or not that is actually
in my district or in the district of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings) or anybody else's district. It does not matter. That 18
million cubic yards is 2 million pounds of ammonia, 700,000 pounds of
phosphorus. It is the equivalent of putting a sewage treatment plant
the size of the city of Annapolis right there in the middle of the
Chesapeake Bay, and I do not think that is what we want to do.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Packard), the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the Gilchrest amendment seeks to zero out
funding for the Baltimore Channel and Channels navigation channel
maintenance and straightening project. This is an ongoing project which
was funded in the current fiscal year, and the proposed funding is to
complete the project in fiscal year 2001.
The committee included report language to address the apparent
concerns of the gentleman which involves environmental analysis and
effects of proposed dredged-material disposal sites.
On this point, we have stated in our report our expectation that the
Corps of Engineers will comprehensively consider alternative disposal
sites in its ongoing Environmental Impact Statement which is to be
released as a revised document later this year.
It is inappropriate to pre-judge the outcome of that analysis as
being unsatisfactory; and, therefore, I reluctantly oppose the
amendment of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Maryland for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to join most of my Maryland colleagues
certainly in strongly opposing this amendment. We have looked at this
issue thoroughly and, as has been indicated through today's testimony,
we are near unanimous agreement that this amendment is inappropriate.
We have here fundamental safety issues with respect to Tolchester,
and we ought to acknowledge that fact and then act upon it and not
implement this amendment, which would, in effect, overturn a lot of the
work that has already been done.
This is a channel that has many shifts and turns in order to
accommodate the traffic and, also, to accommodate safety concerns.
Straightening the channel is a desirable objective. That is an
objective that we are pursuing through, I say, the majority of the
Maryland delegation. We have studied this issue thoroughly. As was
indicated, Environmental Impact Studies are underway and we certainly
cannot pre-judge them to be in the negative.
Under the circumstances, I think it is both prudent and sound that we
proceed with the position that the delegation has taken and reject this
amendment. I would urge the membership to do so.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this project was approved by Congress even though the
Corps said in their analysis it did not rise to the cost benefit
analysis that was necessary to do a project like this. But,
nevertheless, this has been approved by Congress. But we have not
started this project. We continue the maintenance of the Tolchester
Channel, but we have not started this new work project which I am so
adamantly opposed to.
Now, I do want to sincerely thank the chairman of this committee, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), for working with me on this
issue and many other dredging issues in the past dealing with the
Chesapeake Bay.
I wish the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) a long,
successful, joyous retirement. And at this particular point, I am
thinking about that myself. So if I am ever out in San Diego, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to do a little kayaking in the Pacific Ocean out
there. But I do want to thank the chairman for being a gentleman with
all these various issues.
Now, as far as the delegation is concerned, the delegation is not
united on this. There is no unanimous agreement on this particular
issue. The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), and myself are all opposed to this particular
project. We are going forward with the maintenance of the Tolchester
Channel, but we do not want to deal at this point, because all the
evidence points against it, with the widening of the Tolchester S-turn;
and we do not want to do that because there is no need to dredge the
northern route at this point because it is not a safety hazard, it is
not necessary for increasing commerce, it has nothing to do with jobs
in the city of Baltimore.
This has everything to do with spending the taxpayers' dollars
unwisely. This has everything to do with an environmental project that
is not wise to do and all the environmental groups are opposed to it.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me say that I ask my colleagues to support the
chairman of the subcommittee, to support the majority of the Maryland
delegation, and to support common sense and fair play and allow this
project to move forward and reject the Gilchrest amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the dean of the Maryland delegation.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue on which Maryland is not
divided. The Governor of Maryland opposes this amendment. The State
Legislature opposes this amendment, not because they voted on this
particular amendment, but because they support the Tolchester Channel
straightening.
Why? Because it is a safety issue.
The pilots have been lobbying this very heavily. The Coast Guard, in
two letters I read to my colleagues, said this is a significant safety
issue, it needs to be resolved.
The gentleman says we have not had any accidents. Well, the Exxon
Valdez
[[Page H5237]]
had an accident where there had been no accident. Very frankly, we have
a pipeline down on the Patuxent River which for 40 years carried oil
without an accident. But there is going to be an accident here, and the
consequences may be very significant.
The chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee
have heard this issue, they have gone the regular process, and they
have approved this project. The majority of the Maryland delegation
opposes the amendment of the gentleman.
One of our former colleagues has worked very hard on this issue,
Helen Bentley, a Republican; and I, as a Democrat, have worked hard on
this issue. I share absolutely the concern of the gentleman about the
environmental impact of dredging. We ought not to dredge if we cannot
do so environmentally safely, period. That is a given.
But we ought not to by this amendment with, and I reiterate, 4 hours'
notice to the Maryland delegation that this amendment was going to be
offered, defeat this project, which has been worked on since 1996,
actually before that, with the participation of the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Now he has changed his mind. Let us not change our minds. Oppose the
Gilchrest amendment. Support the Maryland delegation, the bipartisan
Maryland delegation.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, in our closing comments, when we look at each issue of
dredging or straightening or deepening one at a time, it is not an
environmental problem. When we take the cumulative impact of all of
these projects throughout the Chesapeake Bay, it is an environmental
problem.
And, no, there are many people throughout the State of Maryland that
oppose this particular issue. Every environmental group in the State of
Maryland opposes this widening. My constituents, especially those that
have property on the shoreline, oppose this widening and straightening
of the Tolchester S-turn. And, believe it or not, my colleagues, the
Corps of Engineers opposes this straightening with their cost benefit
analysis because it does not rise to the threshold necessary to benefit
taxpayers.
The Environmental Impact Statement is not complete and there are many
environmental hazards that we are considering.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) mentioned the problem with
the oil tanker, the Exxon Valdez. 6,700 ships have passed through here
in the last 6 years without one incident. And there are no rocks here.
One of the reasons the Corps of Engineers said it was not necessary and
one of the reasons the Coast Guard says it is a challenge but it is not
a safety hazard is because there is nothing but sand here, nothing but
sand and mud.
If anything runs aground, and they have not, they will slowly move
into the sand bar and it is probably because the tide is down and when
the tide comes up, they will move along.
This is not about safety, my colleagues. This is about convenience.
This is about convenience.
The Corps of Engineers, in their statement, said this is about time
saving. And so, we have not paid enough attention as Members of
Congress, as our oversight responsibility, to some of these issues.
So I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal responsibility, to vote
for an environmentally sound amendment, and to vote for the average
constituent that needs a voice in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1815
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest)
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Regulatory Program
For expenses necessary for administration of laws
pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands,
$125,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, is directed to use funds appropriated herein to:
(1) by March 1, 2001, revise the report, Cost Analysis For
the 1999 Proposal to Issue and Modify Nationwide Permits, to
reflect the Nationwide Permits actually issued on March 9,
2000, including changes in the acreage limits,
preconstruction notification requirements and general
conditions between the proposed rule and the rule promulgated
and published in the Federal Register; (2) by September 30,
2001, prepare, submit to Congress and publish in the Federal
Register a Permit Processing Management Plan by which the
Corps of Engineers will handle the additional work associated
with all projected increases in the number of individual
permit applications and preconstruction notifications related
to the new and replacement permits and general conditions so
that within two years the number of pending individual
permits shall not be greater than the number of said permits
pending at the end of fiscal year 1999. The Permit Processing
Management Plan shall include specific objective criteria by
which the Corps of Engineers progress towards reducing any
permit backlog can be measured; (3) beginning on December 31,
2001, and at the end of each quarter thereafter, report to
Congress and publish in the Federal Register, an analysis of
the performance of its program as measured against the
criteria set out in the Permit Processing Management Plan;
(4) implement a one-year pilot program to publish quarterly
on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's Regulatory Program
website all Regulatory Analysis and Management Systems (RAMS)
data for the South Pacific Division beginning within 30 days
of enactment of this Act; and (5) publish in Division Office
websites all findings, rulings, and decisions rendered under
the administrative appeals process for the Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Program as established in Public Law 106-60:
Provided further, That Corps shall allow any appellant to
keep a verbatim record of the proceedings of the appeals
conference under the aforementioned administrative appeals
process: Provided further, That within 30 days of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, shall require all U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Divisions and Districts to record the date on which
a Section 404 individual permit application or nationwide
permit notification is filed with the Corps of Engineers:
Provided further, That ``filed'' shall mean the date an
applicant first submits its application or notification to
the Corps and not the date the application or notification is
deemed complete.
[[Page H5238]]
____________________