[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 27, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3646-H3679]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 180 and rule
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. 2311.
{time} 1352
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. 2311) making appropriations for energy and water development for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Simpson 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 Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to bring before the body today the
fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill for energy and water needs facing
this country. We have tried desperately to work with all the Members on
both sides of the aisle to bring before you today a fair bill, a bill
that has addressed most of the concerns of the Members who have
contacted us. Mr. Chairman, there have been extensive contacts with us.
In our deliberations we have come forward with a bill that I think
provides the administration with ample funds for energy and water and
reclamation needs in this country.
The bill agrees with President Bush that we should constrain
government growth. I am happy to report that this bill constrains
government growth because it is only increased about a one-half of 1
percent over the FY year 2001 level of funding.
The total funding in H.R. 2311 is $23.7 billion. This is $147
million, as I said, less than one-half of 1 percent, more than fiscal
year 2001, for energy and water development programs.
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 these programs are among
the most valuable within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. The national
benefits of projects for flood control, for navigation and shoreline
protection substantially exceed project costs. The bill acknowledges
the importance of water infrastructure by funding the civil works
program at $4.47 billion, an increase of only $568 million over last
year's appropriation.
Within the amount appropriated to the Corps of Engineers, $163
million is for general investigations, $1.67 billion is for the
construction program, and $1.86 billion is for operations and
maintenance. In addition, the bill includes $347 million for the flood
control, Mississippi River and Tributaries project. The bill also funds
the budget request for the regulatory program and the Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program.
In title II, which is for the Bureau of Reclamation, we spend $842
million, an increase of only $26 million over fiscal year 2001.
Title III provides $18 billion for the Department of Energy, an
increase of $444 million over fiscal year 2001.
So in all three areas of jurisdiction the bill is within the
suggested constraints that President Bush has submitted to us, whereby
we control excessive government growth spending. We are very pleased to
have done that.
We sought to maintain level funding for basic research in science
programs;
[[Page H3647]]
and we provided $3.17 billion, an increase of $6.5 million over the
budget request. Funding of $276.3 million has been provided for
construction of the Spallation Neutron Source, the same as the budget
request. We have sought to respond to all of the needs, and we visited
some of the projects throughout the country in trying to determine
where our priorities ought to be.
I think if there is anything, Mr. Chairman, that pleases me, it is
the way we have been able to work in a bipartisan fashion with the
minority. We have been able to respond, as I said earlier, to most
every legitimate need, we feel, that has been brought before us for our
consideration. I am happy to have the support of so many Members of
Congress in helping us draft this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I owe a debt of gratitude to the hard work of the
dedicated members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
They have labored under difficult constraints to produce a bill that is
balanced and fair. I am especially grateful to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), our ranking minority member. 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. 2311 as reported by
the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following charts for the Record.
[[Page H3648]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN01.001
[[Page H3649]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN01.002
[[Page H3650]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would encourage at the outset of my remarks all of
the Members of the body to support the energy and water appropriation
bill. I would also at the outset note that the long-standing Alabama
and Indiana connection, as they call it, that was established many
years ago by Mr. Bevill from Alabama and Mr. Myers from Indiana, has
now been reestablished on that particular subcommittee.
I want to very sincerely thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman
Callahan) for his leadership on the subcommittee. He has been a leader.
He has been trusting of all of us on this subcommittee. He has been
open, he has been fair, and he has been decisive. He has put together a
very good work product in a bipartisan fashion, and I strongly support
it.
I also do want to thank all of the members of the subcommittee, who
have worked so hard also to put this legislation together.
Last, I want to especially thank those who have done the work, the
staff: Bob Schmidt, Jeanne Wilson, Kevin Cook, Tracy LaTurner, Paul
Tumminello; the personal staff of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan), Mike Sharp and Nancy Tippins; and our side of the aisle,
David Killian, Richard Kaelin, and Jennifer Watkins, a former staffer.
I do appreciate the work that the staff has done.
The President asked for $1 billion worth of cuts for the programs
represented by this legislation; and under the leadership of this
subcommittee, those cuts have essentially been restored.
{time} 1400
We are $187 million over the current year level, that is less than a
1 percent increase, but this bill does meet critical demands faced in
the infrastructure and energy arena by our Nation. I am particularly
happy that as far as water infrastructure, there is a $591 million
plus-up in this bill, and some of the other attributes I would mention
is the increase in environmental funding over the administration
request. This funding increase is essential to achieving long-planned
program milestones, assuring compliance with the law, and avoiding
unnecessary stretch-outs that could simply lead to higher costs.
I am also very happy that in the nonproliferation accounts, we have
increased the amount over the President's request by $71 million, and
the current bill now has $774 million contained therein. I also think
it is important for all of my colleagues to understand that the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) indicated during markup that he
plans to conduct a hearing in July relative to this issue and all of
the needs as far as our concern over the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction and the materials thereto. I look forward to joining
him to ensure that these critical programs get the scrutiny and the
attention that they deserve, and I also wish to commend especially the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for his leadership on this issue.
The bill also provides $733 million for renewable energy resources,
and that, again, is an increase of $100 million over the
administration's request.
This is a very good bill, but at the conclusion of my remarks, I
would just make a couple of points about our underinvestment in
infrastructure in this Nation. I do regret, through no fault of anyone
on the subcommittee, that I believe we are still $10 million short as
far as the Army Corps of Engineers regulatory budget, as far as making
sure that the Corps can efficiently and without delay proceed with
their regulatory burden. I regret that we were not fully able to fund
that account, but we have included it at the administration's request.
Additionally, it should be understood that the Corps asked for $6
billion because they felt that was, in fact, the national need.
As far as water, we have $4.468 billion contained in the bill. At
this rate, unfortunately, authorized projects by this Congress will
increase, that have not been started, from $38 billion this year to $40
billion in the next fiscal year. We will see the Corps' backlog of
critical maintenance increase from $450 million this year to $864
million next year. However, I would point out in the supplemental, the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Young) did agree to plus up critical maintenance as far as dams
under the Army Corps critical control by $23.7 million last week. They
certainly recognized the need.
The Corps last year in testimony before the subcommittee also
indicated that to proceed as efficiently as possible and in as
economical fashion as possible, they really needed about another $700
million a year for those existing authorized projects that we are
already providing funding for, and, clearly, there is a shortfall.
The last category I would touch on is water infrastructure, primarily
sewers. This body, the other body and the administration combined over
the last several years have authorized 202 sewer programs, only 44 of
which are actually funded, 22 percent. The needs and requests are about
$2.5 billion, and, again, I do think we have a shortfall in this
country. The American Society of Civil Engineers and the U.S. EPA would
indicate that to simply bring up existing infrastructure for clean
drinking water, we would have to expend an additional $11 billion for
wastewater, $12 billion. Clearly, the resources as far as the
allocations do not exist.
Mr. Chairman, the chairman has done an exceptional job with the
resources we were given. This is a very good bill. However, I do think
the administration and the Congress someday, whether it is water or
other economic infrastructure, has to face the fact that we need to
invest more money.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full
committee, and the gentleman who is responsible for marshalling all 13
of these appropriation bills through this body and through the
conference.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to congratulate the
chairman of this subcommittee. He and the ranking member have done an
outstanding job in bringing disagreements together to agreements. They
have a good bill. There will be some differences that we will be
discussing here later this afternoon, but they have done a really good
job. They have worked together very well in a good bipartisan fashion,
and they have produced a bill of which both the chairman as well as the
ranking member can be very proud. The staff of the subcommittee, too,
have done yeoman's work.
I take this little extra time, Mr. Chairman, to say that one of the
conversations that we will probably have this afternoon will have to do
with energy. We have enough problems with energy because of our heavy
reliance on foreign sources. We have problems with those foreign
sources on occasion. We cannot afford to have any energy wars here at
home with each other. So we need to be careful how we approach all of
these issues so that we do not get into a battle with ourselves over
energy.
A major industrial Nation like the United States, which is a large
consumer of energy, must also understand the importance of producing
energy, because if we totally rely on energy sources from abroad, we
will find ourselves in real tight spots on occasion, which we do on
occasion.
So when we get to those issues later today, let us understand that we
are all on the same team, and that we are not going to start any energy
wars between one section of the country and another; that we are going
to work together to work out what is right and best for the people of
the United States of America, who are energy consumers.
But again, I wanted to say that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan), the chairman of the subcommittee, has done a beautiful job
with this bill with the help of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky), and it deserves the support of the Members of the House. I
hope that we can do that expeditiously and move on to other matters.
Mr. Chairman, we will be filing the Agriculture Bill this afternoon
and hopefully will have it on the floor tomorrow. The subcommittees
have marked up two more appropriations
[[Page H3651]]
bills this morning, so we really are moving quickly. We got off to a
late start because we received our specific numbers and budget
justifications late, but we are catching up, and we are catching up
pretty effectively.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), a valued member of
the subcommittee.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging
in a colloquy with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) on the
subject of security procedures at the Department of Energy
headquarters.
Members of this House were appalled when they learned about the
incident involving our colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu),
at the Department of Energy headquarters a few weeks ago. The gentleman
from California had been invited by DOE to be a guest speaker at a
celebration honoring the contributions of Asian Pacific Islander
Americans to this country. But when he arrived at DOE headquarters, he
was refused admittance and asked three different times whether he was
an American citizen, even after producing an official card identifying
him as a Member of Congress.
An Asian American aide accompanying the gentleman from California
(Mr. Wu) was also refused admittance, despite producing a congressional
identification card.
As the representative of the 33rd Congressional District of
California, I am proud to represent an active community of Asian
Pacific Islander Americans in Los Angeles. Understandably, we were very
upset at this incident and the implication of discrimination by an
official government agency.
I, therefore, want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for including language in our report
expressing the committee's concern about this incident and asking DOE
to examine its security procedures in light of it.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentlewoman's
interest in this matter, and I know that we are all concerned about
this incident. As the gentlewoman has requested, we have directed DOE
to reconsider its security procedures and to report back to us.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman for providing me with this opportunity to report to our
colleagues on how we have responded to this disturbing incident. I very
much appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with me to ensure
that DOE's security procedures are not only effective, but that they
are also in keeping with our American values against discrimination.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of our subcommittee, and a
very important member of our subcommittee.
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the energy and water
appropriations bill for this year. Let me thank first the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the subcommittee, for his
leadership on our subcommittee's work, and to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, for his bipartisan
approach to our bill, and my thanks to the subcommittee staff for their
tireless efforts in putting this bill together.
The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has produced a bill that
ensures our Nation's continued commitment to work in partnership with
our States and local communities to address such vital needs as flood
control, shore protection, environmental restoration, and improving our
Nation's many waterways. By doing so, we are helping meet our critical
economic, environmental and public safety needs in virtually every
State in the Nation, and we are doing so in keeping with our 302(b)
allocation, which means we are working within the confines of a
balanced Federal budget.
As the chairman can attest and has attested, there are many more
requests for funding than our budget allocation can provide for. The No
New Start policy contained in this bill is difficult, but very
necessary. We are focusing our limited dollars on ongoing projects that
are on schedule and on budget.
The chairman deserves special recognition for rejecting forthright
the proposition that we should change in midstream the Federal
Government's funding formula commitments to these ongoing projects. For
more than 170 years, the Federal Government has worked in partnership
with our States and local communities to provide solutions to critical
flooding, dredging and environmental problems, as well as beach and
shore protection. In my home State of New Jersey, these projects have
kept our port of New York and New Jersey open for business, and
prepared us for the future of bigger ships.
I want to thank the chairman in particular for his strong support of
dredging for our port, and with this bill we are helping to keep 127
miles of our beaches in my State open for visitors from around the
country and around the world. This is a $30 billion industry of tourism
for our State. It employs over 800,000 people.
Finally, to help protect people, their homes and businesses from the
ravages of flooding, we are helping to purchase wetlands for natural
storage areas, and we are working alongside local governments in
Somerset and Morris Counties and elsewhere to develop long-term
solutions to keep people safe and our communities whole in the event
that floods reoccur, and they will.
Let me also address part of our bill which provides funding for the
Department of Energy. Here we have focused our critical dollars on the
central programs where the Federal Government can truly make a
difference. I especially want to thank the chairman for his support of
$248 billion for the fusion program and $25 million for laser research.
In the President's national energy plan, fusion energy was actually
highlighted as having the potential to serve as an inexhaustible and an
abundant clean source of energy. The President's energy plan suggests
that fusion should be developed as a next-generation technology, and I
agree.
Finally, let me say a word about funding for the renewable energy
resources, since they are a focus of so much public attention. Let us
be clear. Everyone supports renewables, and we fund these programs at
$376 million. In fact, in the 7 years I have served on this
subcommittee, we have invested over $2.2 billion in renewable energy.
This year's added funding maintains our commitment to renewables.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply follow up on the colloquy
that the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from Alabama had
and would note that the committee directs the Secretary to report back
by September 1 of this year in anticipation of the conference. So I do
appreciate the chairman's cooperation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for including in the
bill a $4 million increase for transmission reliability and to direct
the Department of Energy to initiate field-testing of advanced
composite conductors. I just want to clarify that these additional
funds will be used explicitly for Aluminum Matrix Composite conductors;
is that correct?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
{time} 1415
Mr. CALLAHAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) is correct.
Mr. SABO. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for
his response.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to
inquire about a provision in the Committee Report. In title III,
describing the Committee's funding priorities for the Department of
Energy's Energy, Biomass,
[[Page H3652]]
Biofuels and Energy Systems program, the report states ``$1 million to
support a cost-shared agricultural waste methane power generation
facility in California.''
With regard to this California project, I ask the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) is it the same effort proposed by the Inland
Empire Utilities Agency in cooperation with the dairies located in the
Chino Dairy Preserve?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. The gentleman from California is correct.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a member of the Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important
legislation, and I would like to speak about both its process and its
product.
Regarding the process in developing this bill, I want to commend the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), who is not new to a position of
being chair in this House, he is not new to the subcommittee; but this
is his first term as a chairman of this subcommittee. Through his
leadership, working with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky),
the ranking member, this was truly put together on a fair and
bipartisan basis with the intention of what is good for the country in
different regions of the country, not what is good for one party or
another.
Mr. Chairman, I regret sometimes that the amount of press attention
to legislation in Washington is inversely proportional to the
importance of that legislation and how well it is handled. There may
not be a lot of coverage of this today in many parts of the country,
because it was done on a bipartisan basis without squabbling and
infighting.
In terms of the product of this bill, I rise to speak about it
because many people in this House and throughout the country do not pay
a great deal of attention to the work of this subcommittee, especially
because much of its work is designed for prevention, flood prevention
and nuclear proliferation prevention.
If this committee does its work well, people never know how important
the work of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water has actually been to
their lives.
Mr. Chairman, let me pay special tribute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for his strong leadership efforts supported
by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) in seeing that at a time
of great flooding, in the wake of Tropical Storm Allison, we did not
cut the funding for the Army Corps of Engineers flood control projects
as had been originally proposed.
In an area of which I have great personal interest, the area of
nuclear nonproliferation, I think most Americans would be surprised to
know that in Russia today, there is enough nuclear grade plutonium and
enriched uranium to build 80,000 nuclear bombs.
This subcommittee's work is to try to help Russia to get control of
that nuclear material so that, God forbid, we do not wake up some day,
weeks or months or years from now and read about a major American city
having lost millions of its citizens because of the terrorists getting
their hands on some nuclear material from the former Soviet Union, not
putting it on the tip of a nuclear missile, but putting it in a
backpack and parking it in a pickup truck in a major American city.
The gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) especially deserves
the appreciation of American families for saying that we must make an
increased investment to ensure that that nuclear material should not
get into the hands of terrorists throughout the world.
We may never know how much of a debt of gratitude we owe the
gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), as his partner in fighting to increase that
funding. But I thank the gentleman from Alabama personally as a Member
of Congress and as a father for the effort in that particular area, as
well as the important work of this subcommittee and flood control and
energy renewable research.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. It was
handled well. The product is a good one.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from
Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky), the ranking minority member, for the leadership they have
provided in putting this legislation together to fund the important
programs of the Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers. I
support the fiscal year 2002 energy and water development appropriation
measure.
Mr. Chairman, I genuinely appreciate the subcommittee's continued
support of the Kentucky Lock Addition and Olmsted Locks, which help
transport waterborne commerce to more than 23 States and for
reinstating funding for the annual dredge work at Kentucky's only port
on the Mississippi River, the Elvis Star Harbor in Hickman, Kentucky.
In particular, I want to thank the subcommittee for agreeing to our
request to increase funding for environmental cleanup at the Paducah
Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The $10 million increase the subcommittee
provided is desperately needed to help combat the myriad of
environmental programs and problems stemming from over 50 years of
enriched uranium production at that site.
These funds, along with the monies the subcommittee has provided for
cylinder maintenance and the construction of an on-site low-level waste
disposal cell, will keep us on a steady path towards a safer workplace
and a safer community.
Mr. Chairman, the employees at the plant and the citizens living and
working in the area adjacent to the plant deserve no less.
On one separate issue, I understand that with the constraint of
money, obviously, that the bill recommends a slight reduction in the
DOE's Office of Environmental Safety and Health. To the extent that
this reduction might impact the very important medical monitoring
program at Paducah for current and former workers, I hope that the
gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) might consider restoring
those funds, if it is possible, as the bill moves forward.
The monitoring program is a key component of the newly established
DOE workers compensation program, which has just now been implemented
Nationwide.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman
Callahan), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking
minority member, for their leadership; and I look forward to the
passage of this legislation.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to congratulate
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member on the subcommittee, for
the fine work they have done in bringing this bipartisan bill forward.
I also would like to thank both of the gentleman for the projects
which are funded in this bill. The Rio Salado project has been funded
for the construction of the Rio Salado, and those of us who live in
Mericopa County are very appreciative of it.
We also want to thank the subcommittee for funding the various flood
control studies and habitat restoration of the various tributaries of
the Salt River. Also, those of us who represent Tucson are very
thankful, because, in this bill, we fund many projects that deal with
habitat restoration and flood control in southern Arizona.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky),
the ranking member, to deal with the issue of the Nogales Wash and to
see how we can fund that flood control project; but I would urge my
colleagues to support this bill, it is bipartisan.
[[Page H3653]]
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the staff who have worked
very hard on this bill.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy
with the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan).
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for their
action to restore over $30 million in funds which were eliminated from
the fiscal year 2002 budget for the U.S. Department of Energy's Office
of Science and Technology within the Environmental Management program.
The Office of Science and Technology has a very important mission in
developing and implementing means to clean up contaminated Federal
property around the country, and it deserves the continued and strong
support of the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the continuation of the important
work of DOE's Western Environmental Technology Office, or WETO, located
in Butte, Montana. At this facility, the National Energy Technology
Laboratory provides critical support to DOE's Office of Science and
Technology. Their activities help facilitate DOE's demonstration,
evaluation, and implementation of technologies that promise to provide
much needed solutions to the environmental cleanup challenges at
various DOE sites.
DOE's Research and Development contract for the Western Environmental
Technology Office, originally awarded in fiscal year 1997, has been
extended through the end of fiscal year 2003. That contract extension
provided that DOE would fund WETO at the following levels: $6 million
in fiscal year 2001, $6 million in fiscal year 2002, and $4 million in
fiscal year 2003. Consistent with this contract and schedule, the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001
provided $6.5 million for WETO to carry out its important functions.
It is critically important to preserve this commitment to WETO and
continued funding as scheduled. I would add, Mr. Chairman, that the
operations and activities of WETO are very important to the economy in
Montana. Many professionals have chosen western Montana as their home
while they serve our Nation's challenge to clean contaminated DOE's
sites.
I ask the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) if he would agree
that it is the committee's intent that DOE's agreement with WETO be
honored and funded to the maximum extent possible?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REHBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Absolutely, I would agree with the gentleman from
Montana. If the Department of Energy has signed a contract with the
facility, then it should be honored to the maximum extent possible.
Mr. REHBERG. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his
consideration of this very important program.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
(Mr. Crowley asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky) for yielding me such time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the energy and water bill
before us today. I want to thank and congratulate the gentleman from
Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky), the ranking member, for their great work in crafting a
solid bipartisan bill that will meet some of the important energy and
infrastructure needs of our Nation over the next year.
In particular, I want to thank the committee for including $4.4
million in this bill for the cleanup of Flushing Bay and Creek in my
congressional district in Queens.
This funding will be used for the badly needed dredging of parts of
this water body to clean up old sediment and other debris that has
built up in the bay and creek which has hampered economic development
and the free flow of commerce, as well as trapped pollution and
pollutants and other contaminants in that body of water.
The pollution build-up in Flushing Creek Bay and creek has resulted
in foul odors and water discoloration, making this body of water a
blight on our community, but this investment by the committee in the
cleanup will make Flushing Bay and its creek the envy of Queens County.
Mr. Chairman, once again, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama
(Chairman Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the
ranking member, for their hard work and support of this project for the
people of my district in Queens, New York.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Graves).
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to commend the gentleman from
Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for his work on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this bill,
specifically the language included to prohibit the Corps of Engineers
from using funds to implement a spring rise in the Missouri River.
The National Fish and Wildlife Service recommends implementing higher
water levels in the spring and lower levels in the fall. While this
artificial spring rise may help improve the breeding habitat of three
species, lest tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon, the higher
spring water level increases the risk for flooding in towns and on
valuable farmland.
The spring rise would devastate communities in my district and all
along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. When water is released from
upstream dams in the Dakotas and Montana, it takes 12 days to reach St.
Louis, where the Missouri meets the Mississippi. Once water is
released, it cannot be retrieved. Any rains during that 12-day period
would make it impossible to control the amount of flooding that would
occur.
As we saw earlier this month, the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers
often flood naturally; we do not need any additional government-imposed
floods. Unless you have been in one of those communities where a flood
has hit, you cannot appreciate how devastating a flood can be.
This is not a new proposal, Mr. Chairman. Similar language has been
included in the last five energy and water appropriation bills. I urge
my colleagues to put the needs of the people living and working along
the river above the needs of the piping plover and/or the lest tern.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today first to commend
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, for their consistent
leadership in addressing the Nation's water infrastructure needs.
Mr. Chairman, I support this bill, and I appreciate their support of
the request that I submitted. I am pleased that $5.5 million of this
year's appropriation bill will go towards the West Basin Municipal
Water District located in my district, and these funds will assist in
the development of The Harbor/South Bay Water Recycling Project in Los
Angeles County. The Harbor/South Bay Water Recycling Project will yield
clear and measurable long-term returns from this short-term investment.
{time} 1430
This project will result in both economic and environmental benefits
to my district and to the region in California. The promise of a
reliable water supply even from times of drought helps to build an
economic climate that will correctly enhance our ability to attract
businesses, create new opportunities, and retain jobs in my district.
The project will annually develop up to 48,000 acre-feet of recycled
water for municipal, industrial, and environmental purposes in the Los
Angeles area.
Beneficiaries of this particular project will include my
constituents, businesses and local governments, including the cities of
Carson, Culver
[[Page H3654]]
City, Torrance and Lomita. Furthermore, the overall West Basin water
recycling program will annually develop 70,000 acre-feet of alternative
water resources, in addition to reducing the amount of effluent
discharge into the Santa Monica Bay, which is a national marine
estuary.
I would like to also acknowledge those Members who are California-
based on this committee who actively advocated on my behalf, and I
thank them very much and thank the ranking member and the chairman.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and commend the
subcommittee leadership on their very timely and efficient work on this
important piece of legislation.
I was especially happy to see the committee's recognition of better
preserving and protecting the Mississippi River Basin. As co-chair of
the bipartisan Mississippi River Task Force, I was happy to see them
increase funding by a few million dollars to the important
Environmental Management Program above what the Administration
requested in their budget.
This is a five-State collaboration program that also involves USGS,
the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, which involves
Habitat Restoration Projects along the Mississippi River and a long-
term resource monitoring scientific program to better determine what
exactly is happening in that very valuable ecosystem within the
Mississippi River Basin.
We were hoping as a task force to have the funding increased even
more, closer to the full $33 million funding that the program is
permanently authorized for right now. We are hoping, as the process
moves forward, we will be able to continue to work with the leadership
to try to increase the funding to bring the program up to scale where
it is needed.
I was, however, disappointed that there was zero funding allocated to
the Challenge 21 program of the Corps of Engineers. This is a
nonstructural approach to flood mitigation in this country. Obviously,
we have had some very terrible floods in the upper Mississippi region.
I think there are a lot of things that can be done as far as
nonstructural flood mitigation that Challenge 21 would specifically
target. We are hoping again that, as more information becomes known
about this very important program, we are going to be able to finally
get some funding to it.
Finally, I want to commend the committee for recognizing, I feel, the
bipartisan support that exists in Congress for the important
investments that need to be made in alternative and renewable energy
sources. I believe everyone here recognizes that any realistic,
comprehensive, long-term energy plan has to involve the important role
of alternative and renewable energy sources in order to meet our long-
term energy needs and sustain growth in this country.
So I commend the committee for their work. Obviously, I believe that
there are some things that we need to stay focused on and continue
working hard to try to accomplish.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Fossella).
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for
yielding me this time. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to
discuss an issue that is important to people I represent. I also would
like to thank him for his commitment to this bill to harbor projects in
the New York/New Jersey area.
The dredging of the Port of New York and New Jersey is vital to the
continued economic competitiveness of the Port as we begin the 21st
century. Dredging is necessary, as we all know, to allow for shipping
to continue and allow for new generations of ships to have access to
the port. However, I also understand and share the environmental
concerns regarding dredging. In short, dredging and the disposal of
dredge materials can only be conducted in such a manner that does not
adversely impact Staten Island or its surrounding waterways.
Over the past years, I have expressed to the Army Corps of Engineers
my serious concerns regarding proposals calling for the establishment
of containment islands and borrow pits. I have also met with citizens
and groups who have expressed similar concerns.
Containment islands, Mr. Chairman, are not appropriate. In the draft,
Dredged Material Management Plan, the Army Corps of Engineers found
containment islands to be too costly and claimed they were not going to
be considered as a viable option. In fact, according to the Corps, pits
located directly off Coney Island, the East Bank Pits, and Staten
Island, for example, the CAC Pit, that were identified by citizen
groups as being designated for near-term disposal activity have been
studied extensively and are no longer being considered for any action.
However, I want to ensure that the Corps has held to these statements
and these options are officially removed from consideration.
We have a responsibility to protect our waterways and marine life
from potentially harmful pollutants. The use of emerging technologies
and innovative ideas, such as using dredged material for abandoned coal
mine reclamation, as well as upland disposal options must be fully
explored. The economic benefits of dredging and protecting the
environment, I believe, are not mutually exclusive.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with you as this moves
to conference with the Senate to address this important issue.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOSSELLA. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
New York for bringing this matter to our attention. I want to pledge to
him to work with him and the Army Corps of Engineers to address this as
this bill moves further along. I will do all that I can to help him. I
know of his passion to protect the waterways off the coast of Staten
Island, and I want to pledge to do everything I can to help him protect
those waterways.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his
leadership.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the majority has no
further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment that we worked very hard to get
this bill to the position it is in today. This is just the first of
several steps in the process as we all know. It has to go to the Senate
after today, and then it has to go through a conference committee after
that. I want the Members to know that we are going to do everything we
can to protect what we have in this bill and that I am sure my
colleagues have the same commitment from the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Visclosky).
But I echo in Mr. Visclosky's earlier statement and would like to
thank the staff members that have formulated and drafted this bill. It
is a very complicated bill, and it requires a lot of talent. Bob
Schmidt and Jeanne Wilson and Kevin Cook, Paul Tumminello and Tracey
LaTurner, along with my staff, Nancy Tippins and Mike Sharp, have done
a tremendous job in writing and drafting this very complicated piece of
legislation.
But we are happy to have received the support we have received from
all Members of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of our subcommittee.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to rise today to speak to section 106 of the
bill before us. Section 106 would prevent the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers from revising the Missouri River Master Water Control manual
that includes anything that includes a so-called spring rise. Mr.
Chairman, I have to express my
[[Page H3655]]
strong objection to that particular provision.
For most of my colleagues here in the House, this debate may not be
familiar. It is primarily a regional issue with divisions that break
along regional lines, but its significance is much broader than that.
For more than a decade, the Corps has been working toward a revision
of the master manual that would change the flow and possibly the
priorities of the river. The process has been complicated and
contentious, but we are nearing a resolution.
I appreciate the concerns that the proponents of section 106 have
regarding downstream flooding and the continued viability of
navigation. However, I believe there is a way to address upstream and
downstream concerns as we modify the master manual to account for those
competing priorities.
I believe we can forge a balanced approach to the operation of the
river. We must consider all of the impacts and do this in a way that
balances the needs of all the States concerned.
In addition to recreation flood control navigation, we must consider
the impacts changes would have on hydropower generation, water supply,
and environmental and cultural resources.
The Corps has been working diligently to account for all of these
concerns, but there are strong and vocal views on all sides of any
solution that they produce. As a result, Mr. Chairman, I would like
Congress to look for a new way to deal with this problem that involves
consensus building among the various stakeholders.
In the past, the Missouri River Basin Association, a group made up of
representatives of the governors of each of the eight basin States and
representatives of the Indian tribes has had success in finding common
interest among the disparate views of the upstream and downstream
States.
As a result, I would like to know if the chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama, would be willing to work with
me to consider a solution that would help bring consensus to this
issue?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LATHAM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Dakota
(Mr. Thune) for his interest in this issue. I am well familiar with
this issue through previous conversations that we have had throughout
the years, and I know of the great importance it is to him and his
State.
I appreciate his concerns and would welcome any solution and input
that he may have. I would also encourage him to work with his colleague
and neighbor, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), in order to reach a
result.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Iowa will further
yield, I thank the chairman for his commitment and for remaining open
to working with me on this and as well as for his support of a number
of South Dakota priorities that are included in this energy and water
appropriation bill.
I also appreciate his suggestion that I work with the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Latham) on this solution.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the interest of the gentleman
from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) in this issue and his willingness to
consider some middle ground on this divisive matter.
Our States have so much in common, yet there clearly are differences
on this issue. Nonetheless, I do think it is worth considering those
areas of the master manual debate where we do agree and work together
toward an answer that would satisfy the concerns of upper and lower
basin States.
I do not expect this to be an easy task as we all know but would
welcome the gentleman's input in the process, and I am willing to work
with him to consider various options.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for their cooperation.
As I stated earlier, while I am disappointed this provision likely will
be approved by the House today, I am encouraged by the willingness of
my colleagues to work with me on a balanced consensus-based approach to
revise the Missouri River Master manual.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a member of our subcommittee, and I might
tell my colleagues a very knowledgeable member on all of the issues
that come before our committee.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, let me say that it is an honor and a
privilege and a joy to work on this subcommittee with the gentleman
from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and also the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Visclosky), our ranking minority member. I appreciate their hard
work and cooperation in producing this bipartisan piece of legislation.
I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman
Callahan) for crafting a bill which recognizes the benefits of making
needed investments today in order to save money tomorrow.
Let me just give the committee two examples of this. One excellent
example is the substantial increase in funding for the environmental
management cleanup activities at our Nation's nuclear laboratories and
facilities. H.R. 2311 provides over $7 billion for the purpose of this
cleanup. This is an increase of over a quarter of $1 billion over last
year's amount. This increase will allow cleanup timetables to stay on
schedule and save unnecessary future costs.
I am also pleased that this bill reflects the importance of our
Nation's water infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's waters do not
recognize State lines as we all know. Over 40 percent of the Nation's
water flows by the borders of my home State of Mississippi. Flood
control and maintaining navigable waterways are national issues. By
making the necessary investments in these activities, we will avoid the
greater cost in the future that we would have if we were not having the
proposed spending today.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge the support from all of my colleagues for
this bipartisan bill which fund our Nation's priorities and, of course,
within the context of a balanced budget.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Everett).
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, the cities of Dothan, Enterprise, Ozark,
Daleville and the U.S. Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker, Alabama
have formed a partnership in support of a regional reservoir to meet
their water supply needs.
The Geological Survey of Alabama has a 3-year study to locate a
reservoir to serve these areas experiencing water, severe water supply
shortages and is currently working with the Corps of Engineers on a
needs assessment which should be completed in a few months.
Does the Chairman understand the importance of this project to the
cities mentioned and to the Army Aviation Training Center and that this
is not a new project?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
Mr. EVERETT. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I do understand these communities are
suffering water shortages primarily because the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Everett) tells me about it every night. Every time we get in a 5-
minute lull he expresses to me his serious concerns about these
problems, which I think will worsen in the near future, and that the
corporation of the Corps is needed as soon as possible.
{time} 1445
I pledge to work with the gentleman and find an appropriate
resolution to this situation as this process moves forward, probably in
conference.
Mr. EVERETT. I appreciate the chairman's comments.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to advise my colleagues that I do not have any further speakers. But,
once again, let me remind the Members that this is the first stage of
this process and that we have been fairly generous, I think, in
recognizing all of the demands of all the Members on both sides of the
aisle. I pledge, along with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky),
to try to protect all the projects we have in here as it goes through
the process.
As my colleagues well know, the process could involve removal of some
[[Page H3656]]
of these projects in the Senate, it could include removal of some of
these projects in conference, but I am going to do everything I can to
make absolutely certain that the Members who support this bill
especially, that their projects are preserved.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Callahan and
Ranking Member Visclosky, and the Members of the Subcommittee for their
support of Sacramento flood control projects included in the Fiscal
Year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. As this body knows,
with a mere 85-year level of protection, Sacramento has been identified
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as having the least amount of flood
protection of any major metropolitan area in the nation. At risk are
roughly half-a-million people and $40 billion in economic value. This
includes 1,200 public facilities, 130 schools, 26 nursing home
facilities, 7 major hospitals, major interstates and highways, and the
Capitol to the world's sixth largest economy.
Thankfully, this subcommittee has again generously funded numerous
project requests in my Sacramento district essential to the ongoing
flood work necessary to address this dire situation. Specifically, I
thank the subcommittee for the $8 million allocation for continued
construction modifications to Folsom Dam These flood outlet
modifications represent the linchpin to Sacramento's flood control
system, providing a doubling of Sacramento's flood protection and
giving to the flood plain its first major improvements to flood control
in more than 40 years. I also am grateful for the $15 million included
for the American River Watershed Common Elements which will provide
much needed improvements to more than 36 miles of Sacramento's levees,
the last line of defense against catastrophic flooding. I also would
like to thank the Members for their efforts in securing additional
funding for a series of smaller, yet no less critical, regional flood
control projects. This includes projects for Sacramento River bank
protection, work on the Lower Strong and Chicken Ranch Slough, Magpie
Creek, and funds to allow for ongoing studies for American River
Watershed flood control.
It is my hope that as this legislation continues to move through the
legislative process, serious consideration is given to funding ``new
starts'' construction projects. The South Sacramento Streams project
will provide protection to more than 100,000 people and 41,000
structures from a network of creeks and small rivers in the region.
This project was authorized in the 1999 Water Resources Development Act
and is now ready for construction. Although I recognize the extremely
tight budgetary constraints confronting this subcommittee, the perilous
situation that these streams pose to the South Sacramento region makes
initial construction funding essential. I ask for your support in
providing funding for this critical new start project in the conference
committee.
Again, on behalf of my Sacramento constituents, I remain grateful for
your past and continuing support of these vital, life-saving projects.
Thank you for your efforts in supporting essential federal assistance
to the most pressing public safety issue confronting the region.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Calahan), 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 measure. 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 2002 includes funding
for several water projects that are of great importance to Nebraska.
This Member greatly appreciates the $11 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. This islands, wetlands, and flat floodplains needed to
support the wildlife and waterfowl that once lived along the river are
gone. An estimated 475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri
and Kansas have been lost. Today's fishery resources are estimated to
be only one-fifth of those which existed in pre-development days.
In 1986, the Congress authorized over $50 million to fund the
Missouri River Mitigation project to restore fish and wildlife habitat
lost due to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan
plan.
In addition, this measure 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,
Nebraska. Therefore, this member is extremely pleased that H.R. 2311
continues funding in the amount of $350,000 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 pleases that this bill includes $100,000 in
funding requested by this member for the feasibility phase of a Section
206 wetlands restoration project in Butler County, Nebraska. The key
element of the plan is the incorporation of a wetlands restoration
project northwest of David City, Nebraska. This restoration was
supported by a Natural Resources Conservation Service preliminary
determination of wetlands potential for a 160-acre tract northwest of
David City, Nebraska. Under the proposed project, storm water that
currently travels northwest of David City will be diverted west before
reaching the city, and then channeled south along a county road before
being detained in the proposed wetlands area. The storm water will then
slowly be released from the wetlands area so that there are no negative
impacts to downstream landowners.
It is also important to note that this legislation includes $200,000
requested by this Member which would be implemented through the Lower
Platte South Natural Resources District on behalf of the Lower Platte
River Corridor Alliance. This amount represents the 50% Federal share
under Section 503 of the Water Resources Development of 1996, to assess
and plan for water quality infrastructure and improvements in the Lower
Platte River Watershed concentrating on dire drinking water and
wastewater needs within the Lower Platte River Corridor, between and
including the communities of Ashland and Louisville, in Saunders and
Cass counties, Nebraska.
This Member is also pleased that H.R. 2311 includes $1,800,000 for
the Missouri National Recreational River, which could be used for
projects such as the Missouri River Research and Education Center at
Ponca State Park in Nebraska. This center is located at the terminus of
the last stretch of natural (unchannelized) river below the mainstem
reservoirs and a 59-mile stretch of the Missouri River, which was
designated as a Recreational River in 1978 under the Wild and Scenic
River Act. It is one of the few stretches of the Missouri River that is
like the beautiful untamed river seen by Lewis and Clark.
The Missouri River is one of the most historic, scenic and
biologically diverse rivers in North America. The proposed research and
education center will serve as a ``working'' interpretive center for
the river and include interactive displays and exhibits. It will
provide a timeline for the vast riverine ecosystem as well as an
upstream view of the beginning of the Missouri National Recreation
River. When completed the center will also include a classroom/
conference room facility.
This Member recognizes that this bill includes $656,000 for the Sand
Creek Watershed project in Saunders County, Nebraska, and $400,000 for
the Antelope Creek project in Lincoln, Nebraska. However, this funding
is to be used for preconstruction engineering and design work. This
Member believes that it is critically important that the final version
of the FY2002 Energy and Water Development appropriations legislation
include some funding for construction of these projects.
Funding for these projects is particularly urgent. There is a
cooperative effort in Nebraska between the state highway agency and
water development agencies which makes this project more cost-effective
and feasible. Specifically, the dam for this small reservoir is to be a
structure that the Nebraska Department of Roads would construct instead
of a bridge as part of the new state expressway in the immediate
vicinity of Wahoo, Nebraska. Immediate funding would help ensure that
this coordinated effort could continue.
Construction funding is also needed for the Antelope Creek project.
It would be a significant setback to the project timetable if the Corps
does not receive construction funding the project in FY2002. Delays in
other components of the project would also likely result.
Finally, this Member is also pleased that H.R. 2311 provides $275,000
in 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 Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the Chairman of the
[[Page H3657]]
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.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, as we consider the Energy and Water bill
today here in Washington, California and the West are in the throes of
an energy crisis. Now is the time to strengthen and increase the
federal commitment to new, clean energy sources. Instead, the Bush
Administration proposed deep cuts in federal renewable energy programs,
slashing core renewable energy research and development programs by
50%.
The Appropriations Committee chose to fund renewable energy programs
at $377 million, $100 more than the President's proposal. However, $377
million gives us only $1 million more than we have in the current year
for these important programs. We should increase our commitment to
renewable energy resources and technologies, including wind, solar, and
biomass. For this reason, I will vote for the Hinchey amendment to
increase funding for renewable energy by $50 million, which would
provide funding for programs to deploy promising new technologies more
rapidly.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, 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 107-114
is adopted.
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 Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2311
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, 2002, 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,
$163,260,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, is directed to use $1,000,000 of the funds
appropriated herein to continue preconstruction engineering
and design of the Murrieta Creek, California, flood
protection and environmental enhancement project and is
further directed to proceed with the project in accordance
with cost sharing established for the Murrieta Creek project
in Public Law 106-377: Provided further, That the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is
directed to use the feasibility report prepared under the
authority of section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as
amended, as the basis for the Rock Creek-Keefer Slough Flood
Control Project, Butte County, California, and is further
directed to use $200,000 of the funds appropriated herein for
preconstruction engineering and design of the project:
Provided further, That in conducting the Southwest Valley
Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque, New Mexico, the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief Engineers,
shall include an evaluation of flood damage reduction
measures that would otherwise be excluded from the
feasibility analysis based on policies regarding the
frequency of flooding, the drainage areas, and the amount of
runoff.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo:
Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $9,900,000)''.
Page 18, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $8,900,000)''.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering this amendment to the
Energy and Water Appropriations Bill that will increase funding to the
Department of Energy's Renewable Energy Research Program by $9.9
million with a corresponding offset for the Army of Corps of Engineers'
General Investigations Account. That account, by the way, is currently
receiving about a $33 million increase above the President's budget
request.
Recent electricity and gas shortages in California and other western
States, along with an expanding recognition of environmental issues,
have highlighted the need for clean renewable power. Concentrating
solar power technologies offers a near-term opportunity for large-scale
and cost-effective production of renewable energy.
An addition to these accounts would also allow the concentrated solar
power program to continue its core long-term research and development
activities that will help advance the next-generation trough and dish
technologies. The focus would include identifying and implementing
advanced converter options for modular dish systems. In fiscal year
2000, the CSP program began working with the National Renewable Energy
Lab's high-efficiency photovoltaic team on the development of a high-
efficiency concentrating photovoltaic converter as an alternative to
the Stirling engine converter historically supported by the CSP
program.
A $5 million increase in the Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems line
item would launch a collaborative effort that integrates advances in
computational science and bioinformatics developed by the national labs
and universities to develop a biorefinery simulation model that enables
virtual testing and prototyping of biorefinery systems and components.
The simulation model will provide a useful tool to test new concepts as
well as provide a basis for industry to develop future design tools for
biorefineries.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment because I think it is,
again, a matter of priorities. Certainly there is undeniable need for
an investment in alternative energy research. No one denies that.
I want to actually thank the committee for their attention to this
detail and for restoring the budget, the original budget, for NREL. The
fact is that there are these two additional needs, and it is simply a
matter of priorities.
It seems to me that with taking a part of the budget that has
received a $33 million increase above the President's request, taking a
part of that, reducing it by only approximately $9 million and putting
it into this kind of research, is the correct priority.
We will be talking certainly on the floor here about various issues
dealing with the Corps of Engineers, the integrity of the programs
operated by the Corps of Engineers, and the integrity of the reports
that they commission and are commissioned by others to do to determine
whether or not a project is necessary. There are significant problems,
to say the least, in this particular area.
Recently, for example, one of the reports that was done by the Corps
of Engineers has been criticized by the Inspector General, not only
criticized, but there is an allegation of manipulation of data, so much
so that there is a criminal investigation under way with regard to that
particular endeavor. This is an area in which we should not be
increasing the amount of appropriations; we should be decreasing it, or
at least we should be forcing the Corps of Engineers to reform itself
in a way that would reflect our concerns about the poor administrative
tactics they have employed so far.
The fact is that the committee itself added over 12 new studies that
the administration did not request. Some of these studies stretch the
boundaries of the Corps' jurisdiction. Again, we will be talking as
time goes by, I know, Mr. Chairman, about the problems that are endemic
to the Corps. Certainly I have a couple of amendments, I know other
people do, where there is a great concern out there right now about the
Corps of Engineers, about whether or not they have slipped their
mooring, whether or not they are able to actually do what we expect of
them or whether or not they have become almost a rogue agency.
The Congress of the United States takes some responsibility for that;
but for that purpose, I would ask for the support of this amendment.
[[Page H3658]]
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama insist on his point of
order?
Mr. CALLAHAN. No, sir. I withdraw my point of order, but I would like
to rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate where the gentleman is
coming from, but this appropriations process is long and involved. We
invited every Member of Congress to submit their suggestions to us as
to how we could best formulate this bill. The sponsor of this amendment
did not choose to bring this to our attention, nor did he even request
that we consider this during our regular process. But what he is doing
in his amendment is taking $9.9 million for this project specifically,
and he is taking it out of the Corps' operating budget.
We went through a long deliberative process trying to establish how
much money the Corps needed to operate, and in our deliberations we
finally decided this was the amount of money that we need. This is not
the time to accept this without any hearings or any indication as to
what is best for the Corps or what is best for its program.
Maybe he does have a good program. But we cannot go through this
process, and then everyone who has a specific project they would like
funded comes to us and says let us take it out of the hide of the Corps
of Engineers. I think the committee has done the responsible job in
determining what the needs of the Corps of Engineers are going to be in
the next fiscal year, and I would urge my colleagues to reject the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would join the chairman in opposition to the amendment. I
appreciate what the gentleman wants to do; but as I pointed out in my
opening remarks, the Chair, myself, as well as members of the
subcommittee and the full Committee on Appropriations, have added $100
million to the renewable accounts.
Secondly, while the gentleman pointed out that our figure is $33
million over the President's budget request for general investigations
for the Army Corps, I would also point out the President's request of
$600 million was under this year's funding level, and we are still $32
million under this current funding year level. The Army Corps cannot
take that hit. I am adamantly opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo)
will be postponed.
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),
$1,671,854,000, 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, 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,
$10,000,000;
Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana, $9,000,000;
Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky, $4,000,000;
Clover Fork, City of Cumberland, Town of Martin, Pike
County (including Levisa Fork and Tug Fork Tributaries), Bell
County, Floyd County, Martin County, and Harlan County,
Kentucky, elements of the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big
Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, Kentucky,
$15,450,000: Provided, That $15,000,000 of the funds
appropriated herein shall be deposited in the San Gabriel
Basin Restoration Fund established by section 110 of division
B, title I of Public Law 106-554, of which $1,000,000 shall
be for remediation in the Central Basin Municipal Water
District: Provided further, That using $1,000,000 of the
funds appropriated herein, the Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to modify the
Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky, project at full Federal expense to
provide additional water supply storage for the Upper
Kentucky River Basin: Provided further, That with $1,200,000
of the funds appropriated herein, the Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to
undertake design deficiency repairs to the Bois Brule
Drainage and Levee District, Missouri, project authorized and
constructed under the authority of the Flood Control Act of
1936 with cost sharing consistent with the original project
authorization: Provided further, That in accordance with
section 332 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999,
the Secretary of the Army is directed to increase the
authorized level of protection of the Bois Brule Drainage and
Levee District, Missouri, project from 50 years to 100 years
using $700,000 of the funds appropriated herein, and the
project costs allocated to the incremental increase in the
level of protection shall be cost shared consistent with
section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1986, notwithstanding section 202(a) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996.
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, Arkansas,
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee
For expenses necessary for prosecuting work of flood
control, 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), $347,665,000,
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, $1,864,464,000, 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: Provided, That with $1,500,000 of the
funds appropriated herein, the Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to perform
cultural resource mitigation and recreation improvements at
Waco Lake, Texas, at full Federal expense notwithstanding the
provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958: Provided further,
That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, is directed to use $2,000,000 of the funds
appropriated herein to grade the basin within the Hansen Dam
feature of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California,
project to enhance and maintain flood capacity and to provide
for future use of the basin for compatible purposes
consistent with the Master Plan including recreation and
environmental restoration: Provided further, That the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers,
is directed to use $1,000,000 of the funds appropriated
herein to fully investigate the development of an upland
disposal site recycling program on the Black Warrior and
Tombigbee Rivers project and the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee
and Flint Rivers project: Provided further, That, for the
Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey,
project, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief
of Engineers, is directed to implement the locally preferred
plan for the element in the western portion of Middlesex
Borough, New Jersey, which includes the buyout of up to 22
homes, and flood proofing of four commercial buildings along
Prospect Place and Union Avenue, and also the buyout of up to
three commercial buildings along Raritan and Lincoln Avenues,
at a total estimated cost of $15,000,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of $11,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $3,500,000.
Regulatory Program
For expenses necessary for administration of laws
pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands,
$128,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites
throughout the United
[[Page H3659]]
States resulting from work performed as part of the Nation's
early atomic energy program, $140,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
General Expenses
For expenses necessary for general administration and
related functions in the Office of the Chief of Engineers and
offices of the Division Engineers; activities of the
Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Institute for
Water Resources, and headquarters support functions at the
USACE Finance Center, $153,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That no part of any other appropriation
provided in title I of this Act shall be available to fund
the activities of the Office of the Chief of Engineers or the
executive direction and management activities of the division
offices: Provided further, That none of these funds shall be
available to support an office of congressional affairs
within the executive office of the Chief of Engineers.
Administrative Provisions
Appropriations in this title shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses (not to exceed
$5,000); and during the current fiscal year the Revolving
Fund, Corps of Engineers, shall be available for purchase
(not to exceed 100 for replacement only) and hire of
passenger motor vehicles.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Corps of Engineers--Civil
Sec. 101. Section 110(3)(B)(ii) of division B, title I of
Public Law 106-554 is amended by inserting the following
before the period: ``: Provided, That the Secretary shall
credit the San Gabriel Water Quality Authority with the value
of all prior expenditures by the non-Federal interests that
are compatible with the purposes of this Act''.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished
gentleman from Alabama about two very important water projects in my
district that I believe deserve to receive Federal funding during the
fiscal year 2002 appropriations process.
Let me begin by talking about the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District
fish screen project. This project is located at the entrance to the
Banta-Carbona Irrigation District intake channel on the San Joaquin
River.
The Banta-Carbona Irrigation District is required by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to put a fish screen facility on the San Joaquin
River to protect the delta smelt, steelhead, fall run chinook salmon,
and the splittail. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has required
the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District to facilitate the funding,
design, and construction of this fish barrier screen facility with
little or no assistance. Without the fish screen project, the Banta-
Carbona Irrigation District's agricultural water diversions could be
shut down by these Federal agencies.
During the 107th Congress, the gentleman and I talked about the
importance of providing the BCI District with the much-needed financial
assistance to help defray the construction, operation, and maintenance
costs of this fish screen facility. Unfortunately, no Federal funding
was included in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill.
After speaking with the gentleman about this request, the gentleman
very kindly informed me about the difficulties his subcommittee was up
against when it comes to appropriating funds for new start-up projects.
While I appreciate the gentleman for bringing this to my attention, I
would simply ask the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development if he would be willing to work with me to ensure that the
Banta-Carbona Irrigation District receive some form of assistance in
fiscal year 2002 to help them with the project.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding to me, and I promise to work with him as we continue through
the appropriations process. I understand the details of the project and
agree that this project certainly merits congressional support. It is
my firm intention to do all that I can to assist the gentleman from
California on this very important issue as we move forward through this
appropriation process.
{time} 1500
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman; and with regard to
the second project known as the Farmington Groundwater Recharge
Demonstration Project, let me point out that the Stockton East Water
District and its neighbors pump from a critically overdrafted
groundwater basin in my district.
The district also faces saline intrusion of up to 100 feet per year
from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. This pending environmental
disaster threatens the drinking supply of 300,000 residents and the
$1.3 billion agricultural economy of my district.
The Farmington Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project addresses
this problem. It is important for my colleagues to know that the WRDA
of 1996 authorized a study to look at converting Farmington Dam into a
storage facility for Stockton East Water District.
Further, WRDA of 1999 authorized $25 million for conjunctive use and
groundwater recharge projects within the Stockton East Water District.
This study concluded that a demonstration project should be the next
step.
I support the efforts of the Stockton East Water District, and I am
requesting the gentleman's support of up to $2.5 million in fiscal year
2002 for the project.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding, and as I mentioned before, I promise to continue working with
the gentleman from California during the conference on this matter. I
remain hopeful that we can accommodate the gentleman's concern and
allay the point on this process.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and conclude by
saying that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the ranking
member from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) deserve to be commended for
crafting a sound bill, and I want to thank them for their tireless
efforts and work on this bill.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, and
I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for working with
a very difficult budget to put this bill together. I want to commend
them for funding projects when they were facing at one point a 14
percent cut in the Corps' construction budget; yet they were able to
figure out a way to do this.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on the Budget, I offered
the amendment when we were marking up the budget resolution to restore
the Corps funds. Unfortunately, that amendment failed, but I was
hopeful that the chairman would figure out a way to do this.
I also want to thank them for figuring out a way to increase funding
for the Brays Bayou project in my district, which just saw tremendous
flooding along the Brays and the Sims and other bayous. I appreciate
what they did for the Port of Houston project, although we did not get
as much money as we would have liked. We hope that will be resolved.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman
regarding the Sims Bayou Texas project. The Sims Bayou Flood Control
Project which is currently under construction is funded at $9 million
in the committee's bill. This amount equals the President's fiscal year
2002 budget request, although it is $3 million below the amount which
the Corps of Engineers Galveston District tells us is necessary to keep
the project on schedule to be completed by 2009. As I mentioned, the
greater Houston area just suffered tremendous flooding as a result of
Tropical Storm Allison, including many of the neighborhoods along the
Sims in my congressional district, and the district of the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee); and I think it is important for the
chairman and the members of the subcommittee to know, however, where
the Federal project had been constructed and was complete, there was
not flooding where there had otherwise been flooding in previous
storms.
So the project does work and these projects do work. The chairman and
the ranking member know that, and I think the rest of the Congress
needs to know that as well.
[[Page H3660]]
I realize that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) was faced
with a very tight budget, and I appreciate the job that was done by the
chairman and the ranking member, and the other members of the
subcommittee. I would ask as this bill progresses, that the committee
consider increasing the allocation for Sims to get it up to the amount
that the Corps would like to have to have it stay on track if
additional funds become available through the appropriations process or
through a requested reprogramming from the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, we will be glad to work with the
gentleman and the victims of Tropical Storm Allison. We are happy to
work with the gentleman in that capacity to provide funding if funds
become available.
I have talked to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) about this, who
is also from the Houston area. He is concerned about it. We intend to
work with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), and the entire Texas
delegation to provide whatever assistance we can.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, the majority whip, whose area includes the
Brays, has been a very strong supporter of these projects. We have
authored legislation on this, and I appreciate the work of the chairman
and the ranking member, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. Chairman, I rise in qualified support of H.R. 2311, the FY 2002
Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
When the Budget Committee, on which I serve, considered the
President's proposal and produced a budget, I knew it was going to be
very hard for Congress to fund many important water transportation and
flood control projects. I recognize the incredibly difficult
circumstances Chairman Sonny Callahan, Ranking Member Peter Visclosky
have endured in crafting this bill. I would also like to thank my good
friend from Texas, Mr. Edwards, a distinguished Member of the
Subcommittee, for all the help and information he and his office have
provided me.
In light of the dramatic budget cuts proposed for the Corps, I
applaud the Subcommittee for funding the Brays Bayou flood control
project at the Harris County Flood Control District's capability--$5
million. When completed, the Brays Bayou project will be a national
model for local control, community participation, flood damage
reduction in a heavily populated urban watershed, and the creation of a
large, multi-use greenway/detention area on the Willow Waterhole
tributary. The Brays project is a demonstration project for a new
reimbursement program initiated by legislation I authored along with
Mr. DeLay that was included in Section 211 of WRDA 1996. The program
gives local sponsors more responsibility and flexibility, resulting in
projects more efficient implementation in tune with local concerns.
I am very encouraged that the Brays project is on track to be fully
funded at $5 million in Fiscal Year 2002, rather than $4 million, as
the Administration suggested. The project will improve flood protection
for an extensively developed urban area along Brays Bayou in southwest
Harris County including tens of thousands of residents in the flood
plain, the Texas Medical Center, and Rice University. The entire
project will provide three miles of channel improvements, three flood
detention basins, and seven miles of stream diversion resulting in a
25-year level of flood protection. Current funding is used for the
detention element of the project. Originally authorized in the Water
Resources Development Act of 1990 and reauthorized in 1996 as part of a
$400 million federal/local flood control project, over $20 million has
already been appropriated for the Brays Bayou Project.
However, besides the admirable consideration the Subcommittee has
given Brays Bayou, I believe this bill is spread too thin as a result
of the extreme position taken by the Administration on the Army Corps
of Engineers Construction account, which was slated to be cut $600
million.
Instead the Committee has wisely lowered that cut to $70 million
below the 2001 level. When I introduced an amendment to remedy this in
the mark-up of the budget, I warned that Congress would not stand for
such a large shortfall affecting public safety and navigational water
projects. I am relieved that much of the proposed cut was restored, and
I commend the Chairman and ranking member for their effort.
I appreciate that the Committee saw fit, to fully fund the
Administration's request for the Sims Bayou project. Unfortunately the
Administration did not request the full amount the Corps says is
necessary to keep the project on schedule. My constituents are
adversely affected by this cut. According to the Galveston District of
the Corps, without funding the full $12 million capability of Corps for
Sims, construction will fall behind schedule. This funding is needed
because of the great risks people have faced and will continue to face
until completion of the project in this highly populated watershed. The
need was illustrated when Tropical Storm Allison caused great damage to
thousands of homes in this watershed several weeks ago.
The project is necessary to improve flood protection in the
extensively developed urban area along Sims Bayou in southern Harris
County. The Sims Bayou project consists of 19.3 miles of channel
enlargement, rectification, and erosion control and will provide a 25-
year level of flood protection. Before the funding shortfall, the Sims
Bayou project was scheduled to be completed two years ahead of schedule
in 2009. We cannot be confident of that prediction unless Sims funding
is raised to $12 million in the Senate version and the Conference
Report.
Flood control projects are necessary for the protection of life and
property in Harris County, but improving navigation in our Port an
integral step for the rapid growth of our economy in the global
marketplace. Therefore Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that this
legislation provides only 30 out of the needed $46.8 million for
continuing construction on the Houston Ship Channel expansion project.
When completed, this project will 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. Besides the economic
and safety benefits, the dredged material from the deepening and
widening will be used to create 4,250 acres of wetland and bird habitat
on Redfish Island. I want to take this opportunity to urge those who
will be conferees on this legislation to fund the Port of Houston
project to its capability. This project is supported by local voters,
governments, chambers of commerce, and environmental groups.
I thank all the subcommittee members, Chairman, Ranking Member, and
especially Representative Edwards for their support and their work
under tough budgetary circumstances.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, as well as
the staff for doing a tremendous job in writing this bill under very,
very challenging circumstances. They have done a tremendous job.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to make mention, as the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bentsen) did, about restoring the funding for the Corps of
Engineers, which is very critical for my district, which has the
largest amount of Mississippi River frontage in the country. The work
that the Corps does with regard to flood protection is vital to many
people in my district.
I want to make mention of the excellent job that the complete staff
and our chairman did with regard to hazardous waste worker training. It
is a very vital issue. I have a lot of people who actually have worked
in the facility at Paducah, Kentucky, who have faced many challenges;
and the work that is ongoing there requires a lot of training for
protection of lives.
But my real purpose in standing here today is to talk about the
language in the bill that prevents the implementation of the egregious
plan by the Fish and Wildlife Service which would increase flood risk
and eliminate transportation on the Missouri River. I can understand
the concerns over the endangered species that this plan is designed to
protect, but I think the cost is too high. I am not willing to displace
[[Page H3661]]
thousands of farmers along the Mississippi and the Missouri Rivers. I
cannot find a good way to explain to my farmers that they have to move
because some fish upstream are not happy with their living conditions.
It is not possible for me to do that.
This plan calls for a controlled release, but one cannot control the
release and ensure that there will be no flooding. Early this month in
3 days the river rose from normal stage to flood stage from one end of
Missouri to the other. The water released from Gavins takes 5 days to
get to Kansas City and 10 days to get to St. Louis. Once released, the
water is not retrievable. The ``spring rise'' prescribed by Fish and
Wildlife would have added to the flooding experienced in Missouri
earlier this month.
The Missouri River does not flow through my district, but the
Missouri River feeds the Mississippi River and provides as much as two-
thirds of its flow during dry years. Mississippi River transportation
is not minor and is very, very important to my constituents.
I am also concerned about this plan because from an energy standpoint
we are having an obvious crisis right now with the delivery of energy,
and the Fish and Wildlife plan calls for low flows during the summer
during peak power demand, reducing the availability of clean hydropower
in the summer. Given the investment that our bill makes in renewables,
I do not believe that we should implement a plan that will hinder
hydropower production.
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources, which is an independent
agency within Missouri, and with whom I did not agree on many
occasions, as well as our Democratic Governor Bob Holden, as well as
the entire Missouri delegation, Republicans and Democrats, the Senate
and House, all reject the Fish and Wildlife Service plan, as do many
others up and down the Mississippi River and the Missouri River all of
the way down to New Orleans.
Mr. Chairman, I will listen to the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources which says that the science behind this plan is not accurate
and certainly will not do anything to help these species. Frankly, I
reject the notion that the Fish and Wildlife Service is always right
and our experts at DNR are wrong, and I clearly oppose that plan and
hope that we can reach a compromise that is in the best interest of
everyone involved.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy and
talk about the critical importance to the people of Harris County, but
before I do, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for their efforts on flood
control and drainage projects. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards) who serves on the subcommittee for his efforts over the years.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the level of funding for flood
control projects, particularly the Greens Bayou and Hunting Bayou, all
of which flow through my district in Harris County. Greens Bayou
flooded nearly half of the 30,000 homes that were damaged by Tropical
Storm Allison, while Hunting Bayou affected hundreds of homes as well.
These two bayou systems need to be considered for increased support
since the recent floods, including funding for continued improvement to
both the Greens and the Hunting Bayou systems.
Mr. Chairman, to see the estimated $4 billion-plus damage, and the
loss of 23 lives, we on this floor realize the need to continue the
Corps of Engineers projects not only in my district, but all of our
districts throughout the country. In light of the recent severe
flooding from Tropical Storm Allison, I ask the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for their
assistance to ensure that funding is restored as the bill moves through
conference.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, we are happy to work with the gentleman
and the entire Texas delegation with respect to their needs. We have
discussed this with the majority whip, and he is concerned about some
of the problems that are facing Texas. Yes, we will do everything we
can to facilitate their needs for these very important projects.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. We have
worked together, the seven Members of Congress who represent Harris
County. The Greens Bayou I share with the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Brady), and we have been out to see the devastation of our
constituents, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). I
appreciate the efforts of the gentleman.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word
for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water.
Mr. Chairman, as the chairman is aware, on September 11, 2000, an
agreement was reached between the State of Wisconsin and the Army Corps
of Engineers to transfer 17 locks along the Fox River to the State of
Wisconsin for ownership. Under the memorandum of agreement signed by
then-Governor Tommy Thompson and Assistant Secretary for the Army
Joseph Westphal, the Army Corps of Engineers is to provide the ``full
closure costs'' of $10 million to the State of Wisconsin upon the
transfer.
This bill that we are considering today has allocated $5 million to
the Army Corps for the transfer of the locks to the State of Wisconsin.
Unfortunately, without the full payment of $10 million, this transfer
and decades of negotiations will be placed in jeopardy. It is
essential, in my view, that full funding for the transfer be included
in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation bill or else the local and State
matching grants for this project will be jeopardized.
This memorandum of agreement was a promise by the Federal Government
to the State of Wisconsin, and I do not believe that we can shirk this
responsibility.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentleman that we
applaud this historic agreement that the Governor and the State of
Wisconsin have reached with the Corps of Engineers, and it is our
intention to see that this commitment of the contract is fulfilled. We
know the importance of it because when the gentleman first came to us
and explained the importance of it, we, at the gentleman's insistence,
put the first $5 million in there.
We thought it could be a two-step project; but if this is going to
interfere with the project, it is my intention to find somewhere in the
budget the additional $5 million so this project can move forward as
expeditiously as possible.
{time} 1515
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I appreciate the chairman's willingness and
commitment to make this transfer a reality. I congratulate him for the
hard work that he has done and his staff has done on this bill. I look
forward to working with him on this important project.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, my first order of business is to thank the chairman and
the ranking member of this subcommittee for their very hard and
collaborative work and to give them some good news, that is, that the
Army Corps of Engineers works, the funding on these projects works, for
even though I come from Houston which is flood worn and weary, the
areas where the Army Corps of Engineers and the funding from the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development perform their task, I am
very pleased to report unbelievably that there was no flooding. I am
very grateful for that. My constituents likewise have said the same.
That shows us that the areas that Houston did not have its work
completed are in dire need.
And so I was to offer an amendment today giving an increase in
funding to the Army Corps of Engineers of some $20.5 million, but
knowing the hard work of this committee and the tightness of the
efforts that it is making, I
[[Page H3662]]
will not offer that amendment but offer to say that we can stand some
additional assistance. Although I am gratified for the $5 million for
the Brays Bayou and the Sims Bayou which is the bayou, Mr. Chairman,
that had progress on it where it was completed to a certain point and
that area did not flood. We now have some $9 million in the budget with
a capacity for $12 million. But there are areas that did flood, the
Hunting area, the Greens Bayou area that flowed even though mostly into
my colleague's district, had an impact on some of our neighboring
districts.
I am very interested in working with this committee and asking the
chairman and the ranking member for their assistance as we provide the
potential necessary dollars to either expedite or continue working on
projects that have obviously worked.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, in addition, that the Army Corps of
Engineers was very visible during the aftermath of the flood, taking
aerial views. The general from the Dallas area who is over the whole
region came in, which shows me that this is a worthwhile investment. I
would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman to ask him to
provide us with assistance, in particular to monitor and work with us
on Sims Bayou; to monitor and work with us on Hunting Bayou, and as
well my colleagues have already mentioned the bayous in their
community, we all work as a team, but to work with us in the Houston
and Harris County area along with, of course, as the gentleman
mentioned, the majority whip who has an interest obviously in these
issues.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Yes, Mr.
Chairman, we will be happy to work with her in any capacity we can and
with the entire delegation from Texas. The gentlewoman has water needs
in Texas now, and it is our full intent to do everything we can to
assist her in those projects to make certain that, number one, we
preclude flooding in the future; and, number two, that we repair any
damage that was done during the most recent floods.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much. I would
offer to say to the ranking member that I thank him for his work. I
look forward to working with his staff.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana to comment on
these efforts. We have already worked with him and his staff. I want to
thank him. I would appreciate his assistance as well as we move through
this process with the funding for bayous that have yet been completed
or need additional assistance.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. We would be happy to continue to work closely with the
gentlewoman.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the ranking member very much.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that these dollars are
well needed, they have been well invested, we saw the impact of the
funding sources of the Army Corps of Engineers, but we are still
suffering. We look forward to working with this Congress to help us as
we try to improve those conditions.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2311, the energy And Water
appropriations bill. I commend the full committee, subcommittee ranking
member Visclosky, and especially Chairman Callahan for all their hard
work, particularly on the Tri-Rivers project. Commercial barging on the
Appalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers system is an important
issue for our region's economic infrastructure. I am pleased to see the
increased level of funding that this committee has appropriated.
Recently, I traveled to Georgia and Florida with Members of the House
and Senator Graham of Florida to observe the Tri-Rivers process
firsthand. This is a very, very intricate, sensitive area and issue,
particularly with Representatives from the three States of Alabama,
Florida and Georgia.
The ports on these rivers provide jobs and revenue, particularly for
my area of southwest Georgia. The ports of Bainbridge and Columbus
generate 548 jobs and over $15 million in wages. These jobs have a
direct impact on the economies of small river towns like Bainbridge,
Georgia. Revenue generated at both of the ports, that is, Bainbridge
and Columbus, total over $40 million and in turn contribute over $1
million in State and local taxes. The barge system has many economic
and environmental advantages that are often overlooked. Barging is
energy efficient. An inland barge can transport more materials using
far less fuel than other means of transport. A navigable river system
provides a competitive alternative that helps reduce rates for other
modes of transportation. These rivers must remain navigable if we are
to continue to see these economic rewards.
In the past, the Corps of Engineers has done an environmentally messy
job and caused a great deal of anguish in Georgia, Florida and Alabama,
particularly in the Appalachicola, Florida, area. We know now that
better management of system water levels upstream by the Corps and
better care in the disposal of the waste from dredging will help all of
us have a mutually enjoyable use of the river system. The money that is
appropriated in this bill will help ensure that dredging has a minimal
environmental impact.
It is my vision to see continued economic success for the communities
that take advantage of the Appalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint
Rivers as one of their means of transportation. I encourage my
colleagues today to support rural industry and efficient transportation
by voting yes on this energy and water appropriations bill.
I thank the chairman again; I thank the ranking member and all those
who support this bill because I think it is much needed and it is a
step forward.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 102. Except for the historic scheduled maintenance
dredging in the Delaware River, none of the funds
appropriated in this Act shall be used to operate the dredge
McFARLAND other than in active ready reserve for urgent
dredging, emergencies and in support of national defense.
Sec. 104. (a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the
Army shall convey to the Blue Township Fire District, Blue
Township, Kansas, by quitclaim deed and without
consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to a parcel of land consisting of approximately
4.35 acres located in Pottawatomie County, Tuttle Creek Lake,
Kansas.
(b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Secretary.
(c) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the
property conveyed under subsection (a) ceases to be held in
public ownership or to be used as a site for a fire station,
all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall
revert to the United States, at the option of the United
States.
Sec. 105. For those shore protection projects funded in
this Act which have Project Cooperation Agreements in place,
the Secretary of the Army is directed to proceed with those
projects in accordance with the cost sharing specified in the
Project Cooperation Agreement.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Tancredo
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
In title I, strike section 105 (relating to shore
protection projects cost sharing).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, in his budget request to Congress,
President Bush proposed reversing the cost-share ratio for beach
replenishment projects from 65 percent Federal share/35 percent local
share, to 35 percent Federal/65 percent local. The energy and water
appropriations bill includes language to block this proposal. The
Tancredo-Blumenauer amendment would strip the bill of this fiscally
damaging and environmentally questionable legislative rider.
In an interview with the Associated Press yesterday, Office of
Management and Budget spokesman Chris Ullman said that the White House
continues to believe that the Federal Government should spend less to
build beaches. ``Since most of the benefits are to localities and local
beachgoers, it seems reasonable that they would pay the majority of the
costs of sustaining those beaches.''
The Army Corps of Engineers recently began the world's largest beach
replenishment project, to provide 100-
[[Page H3663]]
foot wide beaches along all 127 miles of New Jersey's coast. This is at
an average cost of $60 million per mile. Right now, the Federal
Government is obligated to pay the majority of that cost, or 65 percent
to be exact. What is worse, most artificial beaches wash away within 1
year of replenishment, leaving taxpayers' money and environmental
damage left in their wake, so to speak.
We encourage you to support the Bush administration's effort to save
tax dollars and cut environmentally questionable spending by removing
this legislative rider on beach replenishment cost-sharing.
The current Federal policy of subsidizing beach projects, by the way,
is a 50-year agreement with towns. That is unsustainable. That means 65
percent of the cost we would be required to fund for 50 years at
current levels.
The Duke University program for the study of developed shorelines
estimated that the cost to pump sand on just four Atlantic coast
States, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and New Jersey, will be
more than $4 billion.
Many of these beach communities are privately owned and privately
renourish their beaches. They pay for the projects through hotel-use
taxes and progressive property tax assessments according to how close
the property lies to the beach. Many, many of these areas, of course,
are some of the most expensive areas, most expensive pieces of property
that you can purchase in the United States of America. To suggest that
the Federal Government has the responsibility to pay for 65 percent of
the cost of pumping sand back on that beach every year is ridiculous.
Let me quote from a statement of the administration's position on
this that they have just put out:
``The administration appreciates the committee's efforts to address
administration funding priorities for the Army Corps of Engineers civil
works program. However, the administration is concerned about the
increase of over $568 million over the request for Corps programs. We
can have a strong water resources program at the funding level proposed
in the budget by establishing priorities among projects. The
administration is particularly concerned that the bill contains
approximately $360 million for about 350 specifically identified
projects and activities that were not included in the President's
budget. We urge Congress to limit the number of projects and to focus
funding on those projects that address the Corps' principal mission
areas.
``We are disappointed that the committee has included a provision
that would preclude the Corps from carrying out in fiscal year 2002 the
administration's proposal to increase local cost-sharing for the
renourishment phase of ongoing shore protection projects. This cost-
sharing proposal would help ensure that the Federal Government's long-
term renourishment obligations do not crowd out other important funding
needs. We urge the Congress to reconsider this proposal.''
Mr. Chairman, I recognize that doing anything on this floor
especially in this bill that jeopardizes some little tiny part of the
Corps of Engineers budget is a highly dangerous thing for a Congressman
to do. I recognize there are many, many people here who benefit as a
result of the largesse of the committee and whose projects are sacred
to them. But this is going too far. Once again, this is not necessary.
This is not requested by the administration. To ask the country, to ask
the Federal taxpayer to support replenishment of these beaches every
year, year in and year out for the next 50 years at these costs is just
not acceptable.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment. I think it is rather ironic that the gentleman offering the
amendment represents a State that has no shoreline, no ocean, and no
Gulf of Mexico which he should be concerned about it. But his real
message should be going to the authorizing committee. This process was
established by the authorizing committee. It has been in process for a
great number of years. It is beginning to work. It even is a cost-
saving effort for the Corps of Engineers. In most every case, instead
of having to go to the expense to haul all of this sand out to some
foreign place in the ocean and dump it, they are able to get the white
sand and replenish the beaches.
We have spent a great deal of effort and money preserving the beaches
in most every State that has a shoreline, including the State of
Florida. I do not want to do anything that would do damage to the
beaches in the State of Florida. I want to preserve them, and I want to
make absolutely certain that the Corps of Engineers understands that
this cost-saving project for the Corps should not be borne by the State
of Florida in the 65-35 ratio that they are talking about.
Mr. Chairman, the beaches in Florida are probably the most beautiful
in the world, especially in the panhandle of Florida next door to my
district.
{time} 1530
I would not do anything to destroy those beaches. I want to protect
them. I want to enhance them, and I think the protection and
enhancement comes from beach nourishment. It is also applicable to the
State of Alabama, at Dauphin Island in Alabama and Gulf Shores,
Alabama, which also has beautiful beaches.
It is applicable to the Great Lakes. It is applicable to the State of
New Jersey. We are doing something positive. We are taking the sand
that we are moving from the deepening of channels, putting it on the
beaches and replenishing beaches that have been washed away by
hurricanes, by natural erosion, and making our beaches beautiful and
making them places where people can go and enjoy sometime in the water
and sometime in the sun.
So we should not be doing anything to diminish the type of
advancement that the Corps is making, but most of all we should not be
doing it here. We are not the authorizing committee. We are simply the
Committee on Appropriations. We have spent a great deal of money in
appropriations on this committee providing the necessary monies to the
Corps of Engineers to enhance these projects.
And I certainly understand the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo)
not being concerned about how beautiful the beaches are in Florida or
whether or not they should be preserved or whether the beautiful
beaches of New Jersey or whether the beaches on the Great Lakes should
be preserved. What if we went out to Colorado and said that we are not
going to allow any snow, we are not going to allow any water to roll
down those beautiful rivers? What if we were going to have to do
something to enhance the rivers of Colorado? He would be here saying,
let us do this, let us do that, and I would be saying, yes, sir, we are
going to do that; we are going to help him preserve his beautiful river
system in Colorado. And we would ask his assistance in helping us to
preserve the beautiful beach systems that the bordering States of the
oceans and Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes have.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the chairman in strong opposition to
this amendment. First of all, coastal shore protection projects are
equivalent to flood protection for inland communities. This proposal
places storm damage prevention and shore protection projects at a cost-
sharing disadvantage with comparable inland flood control projects. It
will disproportionately affect poor communities which will be unable to
raise adequate funds for these projects. It also violates the cost-
sharing agreements already in place for some ongoing shore protection
projects. It abrogates existing, ongoing, long-term contracts with non-
Federal sponsors, and it is inconsistent with the agreed cost-sharing
adopted by the WRDA legislation of 1986.
Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to speak strongly against this amendment for
several reasons. First of all, I want to address my comments to some of
the comments that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) made. I
need to stress, first of all, Mr. Chairman, that if this amendment were
to pass, I assure everyone that the shore protection beach
replenishment projects in New Jersey and probably throughout the
country would simply not take place. It is erroneous to assume that the
towns that are being asked to foot the bill, and in this case under
this amendment the additional costs to pay
[[Page H3664]]
for these beach replenishment projects, would be able to pay for them.
They simply would not.
I live in a municipality that has about 30,000 people. I represent
some towns that have less than 2,000 people. They barely are able to
get the money together now to pay for the percentage that they have to
pay with the Federal Government paying most of the cost. If they had to
double or triple that under the funding formula that the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is proposing, the beach replenishment projects
would simply not take place.
Let me say that in my district where one of these projects basically
extends about 50 miles along the shoreline, that with a very small
exception, probably of that 50 miles maybe no more than one or two, we
are talking about public municipally owned beaches. We are not talking
about mansions and big homes and wealthy Gold Coast municipalities
here. The town that I live in has 5 miles of that 50-mile coastline
that is affected by a beach replenishment project. We are what we call
an urban-aid project in New Jersey, which means we are one of the
poorer towns in the State. We have the second poorest town in the
State. I will not mention the name. I do not need to. That is also part
of this project. We are not talking about rich areas.
This will not happen. These projects will not take place if this
amendment were to pass.
Now let me talk about two other things that I think are misleading
here with regard to this amendment. First of all, I think it should be
understood that the current beach replenishment program is done in a
way to save the Federal Government money. Not cost the Federal
Government more money, but save the Federal Government money. I will
say why.
The Army Corps of Engineers goes through a very strict cost benefit
analysis in deciding which of these beach replenishment projects to
fund, and they weigh the costs and the benefit to the Federal
Government. In every case, the cost to the Federal Government has to be
significantly less than the benefit. What is the cost to the Federal
Government if they do not do the projects? Well, we know about FEMA. We
know about emergency disaster declarations after a hurricane or a tidal
wave or whatever it happens to be.
We have a lot of hurricanes along the New Jersey coast. Every time
there is a hurricane, there is an emergency disaster declaration. The
Federal Government, under FEMA, has to come in and spend millions and
millions of dollars to replace and rectify the situation and the damage
that occurs.
The Army Corps of Engineers does these beach replenishment projects
not because they want to give somebody a nice beach to sit on but
because they know that they do not have to come in with a disaster
declaration because the storm does not affect the upland area, the
infrastructure, the utilities, the roads, that the Federal Government
would have to come in and bail out.
This is done to save the Federal Government money that they would
have to spend through a disaster declaration. It makes no sense not to
do these projects from the Federal Government's point of view. It is
cost effective.
Lastly, I want to make one other point, Mr. Chairman. It has not been
said yet but I am sure I am going to hear from some that somehow these
projects are not good for the environment. That is simply not true.
There is strong indication that when beach replenishment is done it is
a good thing for the environment. We have been able to do the beach
replenishment so that the surfers and the bathers and the fisherman are
not negatively impacted. It can be done and it has been done, and it
has to be done under the current law so there is access to the beaches
for the public and so that the beaches are done or sculpted in a way
that the people that use the ocean, whether they be fisherman or
surfers or whatever, can continue to do so.
So do not let anybody tell me that a vote on this amendment is a good
environmental vote. That is simply not true. I am one of the staunchest
defenders for the environment in the House of Representatives. A vote
against this is a good environmental vote. I am going to tell everybody
I know who thinks that somehow this is something that relates to the
environment, it is not. Beach replenishment is good. It helps the
Federal Government cut costs. It is good for the communities and it is
good for the environment.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tancredo amendment, which
removes the protections in the bill for existing projects and allows
for contracts the government has signed with communities across the
Nation to be broken. The Tancredo amendment singles out existing beach
renourishment, storm damage prevention projects for special adverse
treatment. This amendment would cause serious harm to a project already
underway in my district, Brevard County.
The Federal Government caused most of the erosion along the beaches
in Brevard County when they constructed the Federal inlet in 1953. This
inlet was to create Point Canaveral and a facility for the U.S. Navy so
that they could take part in testing of their ballistic missile
program.
Indeed, one can say the Federal inlet in Brevard County was part of
our national effort to win the Cold War. Studies have been completed by
the Corps of Engineers, the county, independent experts and, yes, even
the U.S. Department of Justice and all have found the Federal
Government largely at fault.
In fact, the Justice Department settled a case brought by over 300
coastal property owners because they knew the Federal Government was
guilty. That agreement calls for this project to be completed.
There are serious environmental issues here as well. Brevard County
beaches are home to the largest concentration of nesting and endangered
sea turtles in North America. Ten percent of the entire sea turtle
nesting population in North America lays its eggs on these beaches.
Throwing a roadblock in front of this project will further threaten
this endangered species and contribute to more habitat erosion.
In short, the formula that currently exists is the proper formula,
and I believe that this amendment would do serious harm.
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong
opposition to this amendment to reduce the Federal Government's
investment in beach renourishment.
This proposal is not only shortsighted but it clearly violates
today's agreements that local communities have arranged with the Army
Corps of Engineers. To walk away from these commitments is simply
wrong. How can we expect the coastal communities in South Carolina and
other States to successfully budget for other major infrastructure
investments if we arbitrarily increase their local cost share by over
80 percent?
I support reigning in unnecessary government spending, but our shore
protection program, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely necessary for us to
maintain the Federal Government's responsibility for coastal hazard and
erosion protection.
If we do not honor the current Federal-local cost-sharing formula, we
should know the communities in my district, including Myrtle Beach and
Folly Beach and 150 miles of the shoreline of South Carolina will be
facing an enormous financial hardship, so much so that it jeopardizes
the progress we have made in improving our water and waste water
infrastructure, roads, and bridges.
Without the current cost-share partnership, we risk the preservation
of the beautiful beaches that attract over 12 million visitors
throughout our country. Our beaches belong to everybody. They provide a
wonderful source of recreation for both young and old Americans. We
hope our responsibility will be seen to help preserve these great
natural resources.
Contrary to the programs' critics, beach renourishment is a sound
investment. I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-advised amendment.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it took 15 years in Brevard
County to develop this formula and this agreement. This amendment would
set back years of work. I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to
keep the
[[Page H3665]]
faith that has been established between the Federal Government and all
of these communities throughout the country. The provisions, the
language that the chairman and the ranking member have put in this
bill, I think, are very wise in grandfathering the existing programs
under the current formula; and I would encourage all of my colleagues
to reject this amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate
on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes,
the time to be equally divided between the proponent of the amendment
and a Member opposed.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alabama?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just
want to make sure that I am going to have a chance as a sponsor of the
amendment to have my opportunity to make a presentation.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer) that I will yield time to him.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alabama?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The time will be equally divided between the sponsor of
the amendment, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), and the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) will control the time in
opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, in response to some of the issues that have been
brought up here, especially by my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pallone), who suggests that there is no environmental concerns
that should come up as a result of this and that anybody that suggests
there is an environmental problem is simply off base, of course, he is
therefore saying that the following organizations, American Rivers,
Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund and Environmental Defense, Friends of
the Earth, League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation,
Sierra Club, all of these people do not know what they are talking
about when it comes to environmental issues and whether in this
particular case especially they are simply off base.
Well, I do not certainly consider myself to be an expert in this
particular area but I would say that there is some cause for concern
with regard to the environmental issues developed by this beach
replenishing program.
Federally subsidized beach projects mainly benefit wealthy vacation
condo owners and tourism. The gentleman from Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina (Mr. Brown) referred to the fact that 12 million visitors a
year enjoy these particular areas.
{time} 1545
I think that is wonderful. Now, in fact, who is benefiting from those
12 million visitors? It is, of course, the communities that are
adjacent to these beaches. Those communities should be responsible for
the majority of the cost of replenishing the beaches. That is all we
are saying here. We are agreeing with the administration.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the
gentleman in yielding time to me. I am pleased to join him in
cosponsoring this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman had it right when he mentioned
that there is at least an argument when you look at the major
environmental organizations around the country who suggest that this
Congress ought to have a debate like this on this floor on the
environmental and economic impacts of these massive beach replenishment
programs.
With all due respect to our other friend from Florida, it is true
that the Federal Government at times has created these problems. It is
because we are in a vicious cycle here. We engineer our beaches, we
fortify them, we put up jetties, we accelerate the process of coastal
erosion, and we make the problem worse.
Then we come forward with these interesting projects. We have watched
over the years as the Corps of Engineers and this Congress has expanded
dramatically the sweep of the Federal involvement in beach nourishment
and replenishment.
I think we ought to take a deep breath, take a step back and support
this amendment, and give this administration an opportunity to pursue
an initiative that is both environmentally sensitive and is fiscally
responsible.
When we look at these massive projects, we have authorized one and
two-thirds billion dollars in the last decade alone. In the State of
New Jersey, where my good friend mentioned a moment ago it was of
concern to his district, well, it is. If you look at beach nourishment
costs in New Jersey, it is $60 million per mile.
In WRDA, I dare say there were very few Members on this floor who
understood the massive project that was slipped in without significant
debate for a 14 mile stretch of beach in Dare County, North Carolina,
for $1.8 billion, a commitment over the next 50 years. I would dare say
that a massive project on this scale merits discussion on the floor of
this Chamber, but we do not have it. I was a member of the authorizing
committee. It was news to me. I dare say it was news to other Members
here.
It is not a benign process akin to snow in the gentleman from
Colorado's district, or, with all due respect, that it is just
someplace that we have to put the beach spoils, the dredging spoils.
This saves the Federal Government money.
Take a look at the record. Mr. Chairman, there have been exposes; in
fact, there have been journalistic exposes dealing with the State of
Florida with the massive amount of ecological destruction. There is not
just spoils with white sand that we would have to pay somebody to take
over. Oftentimes we go out and we disturb sensitive ecosystems for
dredging materials that we end up putting in these areas.
If you look at the cost factors, noted Duke geologist Orrin Pilkey, a
recognized expert in this area, points out that usually beach
nourishment projects cost twice what the cost estimate is, and it ends
up being about half as effective.
We could look in Ocean City, Maryland, where the Army Corps of
Engineers budgeted to use 15 million cubic yards of sand over the next
50 years of beach replenishment, but in the first 3 years of that
project the Corps had used one-third of the total sand allocation. I am
blanking right now on the project, and I can get it for you, where it
has been on average one a year on the east coast.
There are problems here of significant magnitude. It is not
ecologically benign. It is extraordinarily expensive, and we are facing
a situation where FEMA has commissioned studies that indicate over the
next 60 years we are going to have 25 percent of the structures within
500 feet of the ocean coastline subjected to erosion and damage. That
is without taking into account the impact of global climate change.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is an opportunity for people who care
deeply about the environment to join with people who sympathize with
the members of this committee who do not have enough money to solve the
problems and allow the Bush administration to see if they can come up
with a better cost formula. The Democrats ought to be able to submit to
this. It is something also that the Clinton administration wanted to
do. I think this is an important issue.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Shaw). No man in this body has been more vocal and
outstanding in the preservation of beaches than the former mayor of
Fort Lauderdale.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I
want to congratulate the chairman of the full committee as well as the
ranking members of the full committee and subcommittee for recognizing
the importance of beach renourishment.
I have heard some figures thrown out here today that make absolutely
zero sense. $60 million a mile? I know of no beach renourishment
anywhere in the
[[Page H3666]]
country, and I checked with the gentleman from New Jersey, and he said
that is absolutely preposterous.
I listened to the gentleman from Colorado where he said he is no
expert on the particular subject. He has brought the amendment here,
and he has quoted some various environmental organizations, some of
which have credibility, some of which I think are somewhat debatable.
But, in any event, let me ask the question to any environmentalist
here in the Chamber: I have beaches that are nothing but rock. Is that
an environmentally sensitive area that should be protected? These were
naturally covered with sand. Now the sand is gone. In Boca Raton,
Florida, a whole strip is nothing but rock. You go down into the
southern part of Broward County and Dade County, you are seeing the
same thing. These beaches need to be renourished.
If one is concerned about the turtle and reproduction of the turtle,
they do not lay their eggs in rocks; they lay them in beach sand. There
is great sensitivity as to the time we do the beach renourishment. It
is very strictly regulated as to the breeding seasons of the turtles,
so you do not destroy their natural habitat.
We talk about FEMA and 500 feet within the beach. I can tell you, the
ocean is coming right up to many of the structures, and they are going
to be destroyed if we do not get back involved and stay involved in
beach renourishment.
The right of contract, the word of the Federal Government, the
obligations of the government, these would all be wiped out with this
senseless amendment.
This amendment must be defeated. I urge all my colleagues to vote
against this amendment.
I would say in closing, view the beaches of this country as a long
national park. We heard that the local communities should pay because
they are the ones benefiting from it. Do you want to make the same
argument about our national park system? I doubt it. It is there for
all Americans.
Over half the Americans in this country do their vacationing at the
beaches of this country. Let us keep our beaches safe. Let us keep them
environmentally where they should be.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very
much for yielding me time.
I want to say to my good friend from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), I
generally agree with him on just about every vote we have; but on this
one he is totally wrong. I want to take a different perspective.
Not talking about the environmental issues, I must say to the
gentleman from Oregon, I have great respect for you also, though I
disagree, but Dr. Pilkey is an extremist. I do not have the time to get
into why I feel he is an extremist, but he is.
Let me very briefly say that what we are talking about is the economy
of these beach areas, the people that pay taxes, the people that want
to do for their families. That is really what it comes down to.
Let me give you an example. In Dare County, which the gentleman made
reference to earlier, the Corps of Engineers says for every $1 spent on
beach renourishment in Dare County, it will return $1.90 cents to the
Federal Government. So any time we can make those kinds of investments,
we need to do that. We need to partnership with the people of this
country that pay the taxes.
So I want to say to the chairman and the ranking member, thank you
very much for this effort. I want to close in saying, Mr. Chairman,
that beaches are this country's economic engines. Four times as many
people will visit beaches this year as will visit the national parks.
That is telling you how important the beaches are to the American
people.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I too rise in opposition to this amendment. It has been
stated that four times as many people visit our beaches as visit the
national parks in our country.
What do people dream about? They dream about going to the beach. If
they talk about their retirement, they talk about being on a beach
someplace. People want to basically be on beaches. We have many beaches
in Delaware that are probably as popular in these buildings around here
as any beaches in the entire country. Foreign visitors want to come to
beaches in the United States of America.
There is tremendous economic production from the beaches that we have
across this country, a huge tax benefit, up to 180 times the Federal
share that is involved in paying for the beach replenishment which we
have. If we did not have this replenishment, it would be almost
impossible to have these dreams, to have the ability to offer our
beaches to people around the United States of America.
It also protects our migrant birds, which come into my State and come
into some other States. It protects us from major storms. And there is
huge population growth across the United States of America from our
beaches back inland, because people like to be able to access and go to
the beaches of our country.
This, unfortunately, is an amendment which is wrong-headed in terms
of what it does, and we should defeat it.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say to this body and to the world that when I
retire, if I ever do, I intend to spend a great deal of time in
southern Florida on my boat; and I want to view these beautiful beaches
as I patrol the waters of the Atlantic and the Gulf Mexico and the
Keys, and I want to go down in history, if I leave any mark on this
Congress, as the man who saved the Florida beaches. I think the fact
that I am going to go down in history as the man who preserved the
beauty of the Florida beaches is a good compliment to the service that
I have had in this Congress. So I look forward to that reputation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have a feeling that regardless of what happens with
this amendment, even if it were to pass, that my friend and colleague,
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), will be able to enjoy a very
pleasant retirement on the beaches.
The fact is that, of course, we are not talking about anything here
that is going to eliminate the beaches of the Nation. It is just crazy
to suggest that if we would allow the administration to go back to a
35-65 split, that, all of a sudden, all the beach property in this
Nation is gone. Nobody would take care of it. The communities that live
alongside of it, the homes that are built alongside of it, it is not
their responsibility; it is somehow ours, and if we did not kick in 65
percent, it all disappears.
Of course, that is not accurate. It is not what this amendment is
intended to do, but it is typical. I know any time we are trying to cut
10 cents out of the budget around here, it is almost the most dire
consequence we can possibly think of that we use in response to the
request to cut the funds.
This is not even a request to cut. We will still spend the money; it
is just who is going to be responsible for it. It is not even mandating
that we go to the 65-35 split, 65 local. It is saying let us let the
administration have the option of managing this. It is not mandating a
thing in here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if people really
are serious about preserving the beaches, that maybe this Chamber could
be more serious about global climate change, the rising level of
oceans, because what we are talking about with beach nourishment, if
what the scientific experts tell us is accurate, we may be fighting an
uphill battle.
I would duly suggest that maybe suggesting allowing the Bush
administration an opportunity to revisit these issues is not something
that is a radical and extreme position. It is one of these areas where
there is a convergence, I think, of fiscal conservatism and thoughtful
environmentalism.
[[Page H3667]]
It is true that sometimes there are rocks that occur on beaches.
There is a natural ebb and flow. We have it in beaches in Oregon. What
we have done, however, in our infinite wisdom, is we continue to
fortify the beaches, to engineer them, to put up jetties, to put in
sand, to disrupt the process, so actually it ends up making it worse
over time.
{time} 1600
So the Federal taxpayer is on the hook. We mess up the natural
process of restoring the beaches, and when we are further looking at
changes that are a natural part of the environmental process, we just
make it worse.
In Oregon, we had a situation with the senior Senator from our State
having beachfront property that is being eroded, and there was a great
hullabaloo because there was an effort to try and restore and fortify
and wall off that portion of the beach. We made it a difficult public
policy decision that that would simply put the taxpayer on the hook and
deflect the problem further.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that these are difficult, but I would
think that we need to take our time, stepping up and being serious
about this. Otherwise we are going to end up putting the taxpayer on
the hook for a lot of money that is going to make the problem worse
over time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, who
knows firsthand the importance of this issue.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the subcommittee chairman, for doing a
really good job on this bill, as I have said earlier. I must say that I
really appreciate his commitment to Florida's beaches. I know that he
will have many opportunities to help support Florida's beaches and
protect them in their pristine condition as we go through the various
appropriations processes. Seriously, I really do appreciate that
support.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and in favor of
the committee position. The committee thought about this. The
subcommittee thought that we should review this issue, and we did. The
reason that we have a formula of Federal-State partnership is for the
same reasons we have a partnership for highways. We have a Federal-
State-local formula for building highways and maintaining highways,
because people all over America use highways, all over America. People
from all over America use beaches, wherever they might be in America.
We have heard the arguments about the economic effect, the economic
impact. We have heard the arguments about the pleasure-seeking people
who go to the beach to swim and get out into the sun and have a good
time, and all of those are good, solid arguments. There is more to it
than just that.
The fact of the matter is that having a good beach protects the
infrastructure of the community. Now, I live in a community where we
have water on the Gulf of Mexico on one side, water from Tampa Bay on
the other side, water from Boca Ciega Bay goes right up the middle, but
we have a lot of waterfront. I can tell my colleagues when we get a
hurricane in Florida, in my part of the State, most of the damage comes
from the high water that pounds against the sea wall, that pounds
against these structures. The better beach that exists, the less damage
we have to the infrastructure. I have seen roads and highways washed
out because there was no beach to protect against that hurricane tidal
surge. So it is important that we not only have the economic effect,
the tourist effect, but the effect of protecting the infrastructure of
the communities.
Now, the formula was established by law. We should not be changing
the formula in an appropriation bill. If the gentleman wants to change
the formula, the gentleman should go to the appropriate authorizing
committee and offer a bill.
I can understand the concern of the gentleman from Colorado, because
he has a lot of beach, but he has no water, and a beach without water
does not really cut it, and it does not really have the same problems
of those of us that have beaches with water.
So anyway, it is a good debate, and we did consider it seriously, but
I think it is important that we stick with the committee and vote down
this amendment. It maybe well-intentioned, but it is not a good
amendment.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. States and communities in my district and all over the
nation have already entered into binding beach renourishment contracts
with the Corps of Engineers with the 65 percent federal/35 percent
local cost share formula in place for projects authorized before
January 1st of this year. In fact, the current funding formula has been
specifically authorized by Congress. It would be grossly unfair to
suddenly require these states and municipalities to put up almost twice
as much money as had already been agreed upon to protect their beaches
and their tourist economies.
Supporters of this amendment claim that shore protection funding only
benefits ``resort communities.'' Nothing could be further from the
truth. The fact of the matter is, our nation's beaches contribute to
our national economy, with local communities just the tip of the
iceberg. Four times as many people visit our nation's beaches each year
than visit all of our National Parks combined. It is estimated that 75
percent of Americans will spend their vacations at the beach this year.
Beaches are the most popular destination for foreign visitors to our
country as well. The amount of money spent by these beach tourists
creates a huge tax benefit, most of which goes to the Federal
government. That tax revenue each year is more than 180 times the
Federal share of shore protection projects annually.
I understand my friend from Colorado's sincere desire to control
federal spending. However, I think he is taking the wrong approach
here. Decisions like this should be made in the authorization process,
and not on preexisting contracts. If the supporters of this amendment
want to further change the formulas, then I suggest that they work with
the authorizing committee.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this
amendment which would eliminate the federal cost share of 65 percent
for US Army Corps of Engineers beach replenishment projects.
Beach replenishment is vital to the coastal economies in our country.
Millions of residents and small businesses make their home near the
coastline and that population increases dramatically in the summer as
tourists flock to the beaches. The continued economic health of our
nation's beaches is dependent on these important beach replenishment
projects by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The pristine white sand
beaches are not only a vital component of the tourist industry, but an
important natural resource that supports populations of commercially
and recreationally significant fish and rare and endangered species.
This amendment proposes to eliminate the federal cost share of 65
percent for beach replenishment for ongoing and future projects.
Coastal communities have been asked to ``voluntarily'' increase their
cost share for beach replenishment projects to 65 percent, despite that
current project authorizations are at a 35 percent state cost share.
This is obviously unfair to the State and local governments, who have
budgeted their costs for beach replenishment based on their contracts
with the federal government and do not have the additional funds which
is almost double their authorized cost share.
Coastal States have consistently shown their commitment to assist in
the preservation and replenishment of beaches along the Nation's
coastlines. The proposed Federal change in cost sharing would only
result in the delay or elimination of Corps of Engineers projects
potentially increasing the property damage from hurricanes and severe
storm events.
Many coastal communities, such as mine, have suffered from repeated
storm events over the last several years which has resulted in the
narrowing and lowering of the beaches and dunes. This steady erosion
has reduced storm protection that would otherwise have been available,
which will only result in more property damage when the next storm or
hurricane hits.
Each state receives federal funds to protect its communities from
natural disaster, whether it is tornado, earthquake, drought resulting
in crop damage, flood or hurricane. It is not fair to the coastal
communities to withhold federal funds that would otherwise be available
to prevent damage from natural disaster.
I urge by fellow colleagues to oppose this amendment and remember all
states benefit from our nation's beautiful shoreline.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
I commend Chairman Callahan for producing a bill that ensures our
Nation's commitment to work in continued partnership with our state and
local communities to address the vital need of shore protection and for
supporting the traditional funding ratio that worked so well.
[[Page H3668]]
In my home state of New Jersey, tourism is vital to keeping our
economy. With 127 miles of our clean beaches open for visitors from
around the country and the world; this federal/state partnership helps
maintain a dynamic tourism industry that employs over 800,000 people in
my state alone.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Tancredo) will be postponed.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I
would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, my family came to Texas in the 1840s and settled in
Hill and Bosque County in the 1870s around a community called Whitney.
My great-great-grandfather and my great-grandfather and my grandfather
and my father all grew up on a farm under what is now Lake Whitney,
because in the 1940s, the Corps of Engineers built a public lake. Since
1954, that lake has been open for use. There have been hundreds, if not
thousands, of boat docks put on that lake, but beginning in the 1970s,
the Corps began to refuse permits for new boat docks and, as the old
boat docks have declined, they have refused to allow them to continue
to be maintained.
I had submitted language to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Appropriations that would be no cost, but would simply allow a holder
of a permit on Lake Whitney for a boat dock to use that permit. I would
like to ask the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan),
the chairman of the subcommittee, ``Beach Boy Callahan,'' if he would
support at some point in the process insertion of language that is of
absolutely no cost to the Federal Government, but which would allow
people around Lake Whitney which, at some point in time, had a permit
for a boat dock to utilize that permit.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am a little surprised because I
represent both Hill County and Bosque County. This is the first I have
heard about it, and none of this is in the gentleman's district. I
respect the fact that he has family ties in the area, but as a member
of the subcommittee, I would have at least asked the gentleman to
contact me to ask me if I am aware of what he is trying to do.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman
and I have actually had discussions on this.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I had no idea
this issue was coming up. It is wholly within my district. I am the
only Texan of either party on this subcommittee. I do not know that I
would have objection; I do not know if I would support the gentleman's
request, but it seems like it would have been common courtesy to
approach me personally.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have done that.
Mr. EDWARDS. It would have been common courtesy to approach me
personally and say, I am going to come to the floor today to talk to
the chairman of the subcommittee about something that is not in my
district that is within yours.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, I
think the gentleman from Waco has got an absolutely sincere complaint.
The gentleman and I have spoken on this several times, but not in the
last week. I thought this was in the bill.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, not in the last month, not in the last
year that I can recall.
My request to the gentleman would be this: This bill still has a long
way to go. I am more than willing to sit down with the chairman of the
subcommittee, the ranking member, and the gentleman from Texas and see
if we agree on this. But I would think before we shape the future of my
congressional district, that I would have some input on this.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, the
gentleman and I have not had a discussion on this recently.
Mr. EDWARDS. Not in the last year.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Yes, we have. Yes, we have.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I will say to the gentleman, I honestly do
not recall that discussion. I have dealt with this issue since 1974
when I worked for former Congressman Tiger Teague, and I think I would
remember if we had a discussion any time in the last 12 months on this.
My request is simply one of common courtesy. I would like to work
with the gentleman on this. I would like to work with the chairman on
this. I would hope that we would not make any decision today on this.
Let us work in good faith and sit down, since this is entirely,
completely within my congressional district.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I will
withdraw my request for a colloquy, because I am absolutely stunned at
what the gentleman has just said.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am stunned
that this came up on the floor today, quite frankly. But despite being
stunned on both sides, let us sit down and talk this out as two Members
of Congress from the State of Texas and see if we can proceed.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me explain my position. This problem
is not limited to just one county in Texas, it also is applicable to
some portions of Alabama and other States where the same type of
incident is taking place. My agreement with the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Barton) was that I would agree to sit down with him to try to work
out a problem that impacts me as well as other Members of Congress.
So it was not intended to move into one particular county, but to
discuss the overall issue of what they are doing with these facilities
that these people have been using, in some cases for decades. I do
think that we ought to try to find a solution that will apply to
Alabama and to Georgia and to Missouri and all over the Nation, because
we are all facing a similar problem.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say one
thing, because I am not going to press the point. But the language that
I had prepared does not expand the number of boat permits, it simply
says if there is an existing boat permit or has been, that it can be
utilized. That is all it does.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I think what the gentleman from Alabama
has suggested makes eminent sense; I respect that. I would look forward
to being a part of that conversation along with other Members, but the
gentleman from Texas's comments only focused on a lake in my district,
not in any other district.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is true, that is true.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 106. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control
Manual when it is made known to the Federal entity or
official to which the funds are made available that such
revision provides for an increase in the springtime water
release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow
melt period in States that have rivers draining into the
Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam.
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project
central utah project completion account
For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, $34,918,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $10,749,000 shall be deposited into
the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for
use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Commission.
[[Page H3669]]
In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying
out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the
Interior, $1,310,000, to remain available until expended.
Bureau of Reclamation
The following appropriations shall be expended to execute
authorized functions of the Bureau of Reclamation:
water and related resources
(including transfer of funds)
For management, development, and restoration of water and
related natural resources and for related activities,
including the operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of
reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling
related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and
related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with,
State and local governments, Indian tribes, and others,
$691,160,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$14,649,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper
Colorado River Basin Fund and $31,442,000 shall be available
for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development
Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary may be
advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund; of which $8,000,000
shall be for on-reservation water development, feasibility
studies, and related administrative costs under Public Law
106-163; and of which not more than $500,000 is for high
priority projects which shall be carried out by the Youth
Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706:
Provided, That such transfers may be increased or decreased
within the overall appropriation under this heading: Provided
further, That of the total appropriated, the amount for
program activities that can be financed by the Reclamation
Fund or the Bureau of Reclamation special fee account
established by 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i) shall be derived from
that Fund or account: Provided further, That funds
contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 are available until expended
for the purposes for which contributed: Provided further,
That funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to
this account and are available until expended for the same
purposes as the sums appropriated under this heading:
Provided further, That funds available for expenditure for
the Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program may be expended
by the Bureau of Reclamation for site remediation on a non-
reimbursable basis: Provided further, That section 301 of
Public Law 102-250, Reclamation States Emergency Drought
Relief Act of 1991, as amended, is amended further by
inserting ``2001, and 2002'' in lieu of ``and 2001''.
bureau of reclamation loan program account
For the cost of direct loans and/or grants, $7,215,000, to
remain available until expended, as authorized by the Small
Reclamation Projects Act of August 6, 1956, as amended (43
U.S.C. 422a-422l): Provided, That such costs, including the
cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section
502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended:
Provided further, That these funds are available to subsidize
gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans
not to exceed $26,000,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the program for direct loans and/or grants, $280,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the total
sums appropriated, the amount of program activities that can
be financed by the Reclamation Fund shall be derived from
that Fund.
central valley project restoration fund
For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, and habitat
restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $55,039,000, to be
derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d),
3404(c)(3), 3405(f ), and 3406(c)(1) of Public Law 102-575,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau
of Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full
amount of the additional mitigation and restoration payments
authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575.
policy and administration
For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and
related functions in the office of the Commissioner, the
Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau
of Reclamation, to remain available until expended,
$52,968,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be
nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That
no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be
available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and
administration expenses.
administrative provision
Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be
available for purchase of not to exceed four passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Sec. 201. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Bureau of Reclamation (either directly or by
making the funds available to an entity under a contract) for
the issuance of permits for, or any other activity related to
the management of, commercial rafting activities within the
Auburn State Recreation Area, California, until the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 12151 et seq.) are met with respect to
such commercial rafting activities.
Sec. 202. Section 101(a)(6)(C) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 274) is amended to read as
follows:
``(C) Makeup of water shortages caused by flood control
operation.--The Secretary of the Interior shall enter into,
or modify, such agreements with the Sacramento Area Flood
Control Agency regarding the operation of Folsom Dam and
Reservoir, as may be necessary, in order that,
notwithstanding any prior agreement or provision of law, 100
percent of the water needed to make up for any water shortage
caused by variable flood control operation during any year at
Folsom Dam and resulting in a significant impact to the
environment or to recreation shall be replaced, to the extent
that water is available, as determined by the Secretary of
the Interior, with 100 percent of the cost of such available
water borne by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.''.
Mr. CALLAHAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of title II be considered as read, printed
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alabama?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title II?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Energy Supply
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for energy supply activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion; and the purchase of not to exceed 17 passenger
motor vehicles for replacement only, $639,317,000, to remain
available until expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
In title III, in the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY ENERGY PROGRAMS; energy supply'' after the aggregate
dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by
$50,000,000)''.
In title III, in the item relating to ``ATOMIC ENERGY
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION;
Weapons Activities'' after the aggregate dollar amount,
insert the following: ``(reduced by $60,000,000)''.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate
on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes,
the time to be equally divided between the proponent of the amendment
and a Member opposed.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alabama?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would
just want to know who would control the time on each side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) would control
the time in favor of the amendment, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan) would control the time in opposition.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for a
very good work product, but every product can be improved, and I think
that this amendment would improve this energy and water bill
significantly.
One of the problems we face as a country, Mr. Chairman, is the fact
that our energy policy looks backward rather than forward. We are
dependent too heavily on fossil fuels, and increasingly those fossil
fuels are coming from places beyond our shores. We are currently
dependent on more than 50 percent of our oil from places outside of the
United States.
What this amendment would do would be to increase the funding for
renewable energy within this bill by $50 million. It would pay for that
funding by taking $60 million from the Energy Department's missile
program.
[[Page H3670]]
Now, that missile program within the Energy Department currently is
funded at the rate of $5.1 billion. That is just within the Energy
Department. This bill increased that funding by $118 million for the
projected fiscal year.
My amendment would take $60 million from that $118 million increase
and apply $50 million of it to alternative energy. By alternative
energy, of course, we mean producing energy through direct solar, by
wind, geothermal and similar technologies.
{time} 1630
It is important that we do so. It is important that we do so, because
we want to improve the availability of energy from sources other than
fossil fuels, and it is particularly important in terms of nuclear
security, because we want to reduce the amount of energy that we need
to import from places that are outside the United States.
We can do that by advancing technologies that promote solar, wind,
and geothermal energy. Mr. Chairman, up until recently, the United
States led the world in the production of energy through photovoltaic
cells and other direct solar means; however, beginning in the decade of
the 1980s, we began to lose that edge. And that edge currently is
enjoyed by the Japanese.
They have the edge on us by producing electricity directly from solar
and by other solar means and photovoltaic cells particularly.
Up until recently, we had the edge in producing energy through wind
technologies. We have lost that edge to the Danes and to the Germans.
They are currently ahead of us, and they have more advanced technology
for producing energy through wind than we do.
We know that within the next several decades, production of energy
through solar and wind technologies and geothermal technologies will
provide industrial opportunities globally to the tune of hundreds of
billions of dollars, perhaps, trillions of dollars, even by the midpart
of this century. And for that reason, alone, as well as our own
independence and security, we ought to be advancing these techniques
for energy production.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment, which would increase our
funding for renewable energy technologies by $50 million, is frankly
little enough; and perhaps, the least that we could do at this
particular moment.
It pays for this increase by drawing from the Energy Department's
missile program. As we know, the Defense Department under Secretary
Rumsfeld is currently engaged in a top-to-bottom review of our military
defense program, and our nuclear missile program is going to be a major
part of that.
Mr. Chairman, this bill funds nuclear programs through the Energy
Department in ways that are, I think, greatly outdated, even archaic.
For example, there is a provision in this bill to pay $96 million for a
particular type of cruise missile which is used only by the B-52
bomber.
Now the B-52 bomber is 40 years old. It is clearly an outdated
technology, and it is very likely that when the Rumsfeld review, top-
to-bottom of our defense needs, is completed that this particular
program is going to be rapidly phased out.
I can cite a number of other nuclear technology examples that are
archaic, that are outdated, and which will undoubtedly not be funded as
a result of the top-to-bottom review of the Rumsfeld program. So,
therefore, I think it makes sense to take this money from that program
and put it here to renewable energy.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Callahan) for yielding the time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I kind of feel like I am torn between two of my
favorite things, as the ranking member on the panel to oversee the
national nuclear security administration, I believe we should be
investing more money in nonproliferation programs and
counterproliferation programs.
Obviously, as a Californian, I think it is very important that we
work hard to make sure that we have strong energy policies and
diversify our portfolio to make sure that we have renewables and
alternatives to fossil fuels, but I cannot support this amendment,
because we are taking very needed money and, frankly, robbing Peter to
pay Paul.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hinchey
amendment
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan) for yielding the time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I share the desire of the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Tauscher) that we become more energy independent, but it would be
a great mistake to take further funds away from our nuclear weapons
program.
What the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) may not realize is our
existing nuclear weapons are 18 years old and aging. They were designed
to last about 12 years.
We have decided as a country that we are not going to conduct nuclear
tests, but some way we have to make sure these weapons continue to be
safe, reliable, and secure. If we do not have the funds to conduct
surveillance and to conduct scientific tests, to see whether these
weapons will continue to be reliable, the only option for us is to go
back to nuclear testing.
I am afraid amendments like this which would reduce the funds
available to just make sure what we have now is safe, secure, and
reliable drives us inexorably back towards nuclear testing which is not
an option I suggest the gentleman would like.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment; and I suggest my colleagues do
likewise.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan) for yielding me the time; and I rise in opposition to
this amendment.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, at this time, we were rightfully fixated on
the security of our national labs and protection of our secrets and the
protection of our nuclear weapons program and data and research, et al.
This amendment would strip dollars away from the National Nuclear
Security Administration's weapons activities program, the very programs
we have worked to strengthen in last year's budget as a result of well-
publicized security breaches.
As important as support is for renewable energy programs, the sponsor
better find a better account to take it from. I oppose the amendment.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. We have cut the nuclear weapons budget in this country below
what the President requested by $200 million.
I have a letter here from John Gordon that he handwrote to me this
afternoon about this amendment and some others that might result in the
further reduction of money for the nuclear weapons stockpile
stewardship program. It says in part, now, on top of this comes news of
potential further budget cuts resulting from possible floor amendments.
This is completely unacceptable if we are to have any chance of meeting
our high-priority mission needs.
The nuclear weapons program is supposed to certify the safety,
security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. Our
stockpiling is aging, and we must continue to make sure it is safe and
reliable for this country.
As much as I support conservation and investment in renewable energy,
this is the wrong place at the wrong time to take that money from.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have only one more speaker and I think
we have the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining and the right to
close. All time has expired on the other side.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a valuable member of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and our expert on this
issue.
[[Page H3671]]
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the
ranking member, for hearing our bipartisan plea to increase the funding
for renewable energy sources in this bill.
We increased the funding $100 million above the President's request.
We worked overtime to make sure that this appropriation bill matches
the national energy policy from a balanced comprehensive approach. And
as the cochairman of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Caucus
with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), I thank them for hearing
our plea to increase renewables.
The result is good and balanced, but the other side of the well-
intended amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) is that
it takes funding from our nuclear stockpile stewardship and management.
Our country must maintain a safe and reliable stockpile for nuclear
weapons. That decision has been made. That is not even debatable,
frankly, in this country, in terms of the consensus of Americans that
expect us to have a reliable nuclear weapons stockpile.
We must maintain our national preparedness, and we are losing that
capability, so we must fight back this amendment in a bipartisan way.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this
amendment.
Reluctant because I have been an outspoken critic of the President's
budget, which made drastic cuts to COE's renewable energy programs.
Programs that promote renewable energy technologies must be part of any
comprehensive energy plan for our country.
I am pleased that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have
restored some of the funding to the renewable energy accounts,
providing $1 million above last year's levels.
Clearly more needs to be done. It is important to advance deployment
of renewable technologies for applicable use in our homes and
businesses and on our grids as soon as possible.
But Mr. Chairman, I must oppose any attempt to defer fully funding
our nuclear weapons programs while we wait for the Secretary of
Defense's Strategic Review to be completed.
As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I can tell you
that the Secretary has briefed me and my colleagues on the status of
this Review, and based on these briefings, it is unclear when this
Review will be completed.
These programs are vital to our national security and can not afford
to be underfunded or delayed until the Administration concludes its
Review.
And given some of the military needs identified in this year's
supplemental appropriations bill, like training and readiness, military
personnel quality of life issues, and advanced weapons systems; it is
clear that the funding needs of our nuclear weapons programs at DOE
next year must be maintained in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Hinchey) will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Non-Defense Environmental Management
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for non-defense environmental
management activities in carrying out the purposes of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction or expansion, $227,872,000, to
remain available until expended.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman
Callahan) for his work on this bill. Over the years, I have been
intimately involved in several of the issues contained in this bill,
and I am aware of the many challenges that he faces in putting it
together.
It is one of those issues about which I rise today. For several
decades, Congress has debated the merits of constructing a massive
water on the Animas River in Colorado. Last fall, the Colorado Ute
Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 was included in the end-of-the-year
omnibus appropriations bill with little opportunity for debate or a
vote on this specific project, and today's bill appropriates $16
million for it.
While the features of this Animas La Plata project are not as
egregious as earlier versions, there are serious concerns that
significant loopholes remain which will enable project beneficiaries to
violate the intent of the act.
None of these loopholes is more significant than the possibility that
nontribal beneficiaries are going to avoid their responsibilities, as
required by reclamation law, for the full repayment of all capital and
operating costs associated with their share of water from the project.
This has been a continuing concern of many of us who have opposed
this project in the past. There are already some indications that local
nontribal water users may be trying to do just that with the potential
of buying water from the tribes instead.
To cite just one example, on May 24, 2001, the director of Colorado's
Water Conservation Board sent an e-mail to other State officials
stating, and I quote, ``given the cost of ALP water, I do not think the
State can afford to purchase. We discussed the possibility of an option
to lease or option to purchase at some future date with a nominal
annual payment. I would prefer to let the Feds pay for it at this time
with the Indians holding title.''
The language adopted last year clearly states that nontribal
repayment arrangements must be made before construction begins.
Furthermore, it directed the Secretary of the Interior to report to
Congress by April 1 of this year on the status of the repayment
negotiations. That report has still not been made.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that what was declared in the 1987 ad in the
Colorado paper does not come to pass. It said, ``Why should we support
the Animas La Plata project? Reason number seven, because someone else
is paying most of the tab. We get the water. We get the reservoir. They
pay the bill.''
If the local beneficiaries are not willing to pay their share, nobody
else's constituents should have to pay this bill. Such a situation
certainly begs the question of whether the project is really
worthwhile, that is what the principle of cost sharing is all about.
I will continue to closely monitor the development of this project
and, if necessary, work to stop the further funding of this project if
it does not progress as required by law, and I ask the chairman and the
committee and all of my colleagues to do the same.
Please keep an eye on this project and do not allow it to move
forward if all parties do not fulfill their repayment obligations.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation
For necessary expenses to maintain, decontaminate,
decommission, and otherwise remediate uranium processing
facilities, $393,425,000, of which $272,641,000 shall be
derived from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and
Decommissioning Fund, all of which shall remain available
until expended.
Science
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for science activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or facility
or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or
expansion, and purchase of not to exceed 25 passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only, $3,166,395,000, to remain
available until expended.
Nuclear Waste Disposal
For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the
purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the
acquisition of real property or facility construction or
expansion, $133,000,000, to remain available until expended
and to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That
not to exceed $2,500,000 may be provided to the State of
Nevada solely for expenditures, other than salaries and
expenses of State employees, to conduct scientific oversight
responsibilities pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982, Public Law 97-425, as amended: Provided further, That
$6,000,000 shall be provided to affected units of local
governments, as defined in Public Law 97-425, to conduct
appropriate activities pursuant to the Act: Provided further,
That the distribution of the funds as determined by the units
of local government shall be approved by the Department of
Energy: Provided further, That the
[[Page H3672]]
funds for the State of Nevada shall be made available solely
to the Nevada Division of Emergency Management by direct
payment and units of local government by direct payment:
Provided further, That within 90 days of the completion of
each Federal fiscal year, the Nevada Division of Emergency
Management and the Governor of the State of Nevada and each
local entity shall provide certification to the Department of
Energy that all funds expended from such payments have been
expended for activities authorized by Public Law 97-425 and
this Act. Failure to provide such certification shall cause
such entity to be prohibited from any further funding
provided for similar activities: Provided further, That none
of the funds herein appropriated may be: (1) used directly or
indirectly to influence legislative action on any matter
pending before Congress or a State legislature or for
lobbying activity as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1913; (2) used for
litigation expenses; or (3) used to support multi-State
efforts or other coalition building activities inconsistent
with the restrictions contained in this Act: Provided
further, That all proceeds and recoveries realized by the
Secretary in carrying out activities authorized by the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law 97-425, as
amended, including but not limited to, any proceeds from the
sale of assets, shall be available without further
appropriation and shall remain available until expended.
Departmental Administration
(including transfer of funds)
For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy
necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and official reception and representation expenses
(not to exceed $35,000), $209,611,000, to remain available
until expended, plus such additional amounts as necessary to
cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for
others notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency
Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That such increases
in cost of work are offset by revenue increases of the same
or greater amount, to remain available until expended:
Provided further, That of the funds provided to the
Department of Energy under title III of Public Law 105-277
for activities related to achieving Year 2000 conversion of
Federal information technology systems and related expenses,
remaining balances, estimated to be $1,480,000, may be
transferred to this account, and shall remain available until
expended, for continuation of information technology
enhancement activities: Provided further, That moneys
received by the Department for miscellaneous revenues
estimated to total $137,810,000 in fiscal year 2002 may be
retained and used for operating expenses within this account,
and may remain available until expended, as authorized by
section 201 of Public Law 95-238, notwithstanding the
provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of
miscellaneous revenues received during fiscal year 2002 so as
to result in a final fiscal year 2002 appropriation from the
General Fund estimated at not more than $71,801,000.
Office of the Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $32,430,000, to remain
available until expended.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATON
Weapons Activities
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy
defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion; and the purchase of
not to exceed 11 passenger motor vehicles for replacement
only, $5,123,888,000, to remain available until expended.
{time} 1630
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
In title III, in the item relating to ``Weapons
Activities'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $122,500,000)''.
In title III, in the item relating to ``Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert
the following: ``(increased by $66,000,000)''.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the National Ignition Facility is a
multibillion-dollar giant laser designed to blast a radioactive fuel
pellet in an attempt to create a nuclear fusion explosion. The
Department of Energy considers the National Ignition Facility important
to its Stockpile Stewardship program, but according to experts, the
project is overbudget, may not be technically feasible, and is not
necessary to maintain our nuclear arsenal.
According to Dr. Robert Civiak, physicist and former OMB Program
Examiner for Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs, the NIF
will cost nearly $5 billion to build, $4 billion more than the
Department of Energy's original estimate. Including operating costs,
the NIF will consume more than $32 billion, six times the Department of
Energy's original estimate.
Dr. Civiak also reports that the Department of Energy has yet to
solve numerous technical problems that prevent NIF from successfully
creating the fusion explosion. Full operation of NIF is already 6 years
behind its original schedule.
In fact, according to former Los Alamos physicist Leo Mascheroni, The
chance of the NIF reaching ignition is zero. Not 1 percent. Those who
say 5 percent are just being . . . polite.
What is all that money being spent for? Department of Energy says the
NIF helps us maintain our nuclear weapons, but experts disagree. When
asked about NIF's utility for weapons maintenance, Edward Teller,
father of the hydrogen bomb and cofounder of the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, replied that it had ``none whatsoever.''
Sandia National Laboratory's former vice president called NIF
``worthless'' for maintaining nuclear weapons safety and reliability.
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory weapons designer Seymour Sack called
NIF ``worse than worthless'' for the task.
Ray Kidder, another Livermore physicist, has stated, ``As far as
maintaining the stockpile is concerned, NIF is not necessary.''
In fact, NIF is an instrument for developing new nuclear weapons.
Department of Energy itself touts NIF as playing an essential role in
understanding the physics of nuclear weapons design and nuclear weapons
effects. This type of nuclear weapons design activity violates the
spirit of both the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Nor is there a consensus with the Department of Energy on NIF's
importance. Officials at Sandia National Laboratory, another DOE
facility, have challenged Department leaders on NIF, calling for a
scaled-down version in order to make sure it works and that it can be
built affordably.
Now, at the same time that Congress is covering the spiralling cost
of NIF, an instrument of proliferation, we have cut funding for the
DOE's nonproliferation activities. The bill we have before us cuts
nearly $27 million from the 2001 nonproliferation budget.
This should be a cause for concern for all of us, because even
funding at fiscal year 2001 levels would not be enough to address the
problem. Currently, for instance, there are enough quantities of
fissile material in Russia to make more than 40,000 nuclear weapons,
and the resource-starved Russian Government cannot secure all of this
material on its own.
The bipartisan Cutler-Baker panel that recently studied these issues
called the risk of theft of Russian nuclear materials the United
States' most urgent unmet national security threat. Their report urged
sharp increases in spending on nonproliferation, not cuts.
Our amendment attempts to address these skewed priorities by taking
money being used for proliferation-type activities and setting it aside
for critical nonproliferation programs should be considered by this
House and approved by this House.
The amendment reduces NIF funding by one-half. This still represents
a $42.5 million increase in funding over the last year.
At the same time that we slow down the dubious National Ignition
Facility, we add $24 million to the Immobilization Program, which
disposes of surplus plutonium; $19 million to the Materials Protection,
Control and Accounting Program, which seeks to secure 603 metric tons
of at-risk weapons-usable nuclear material in Russia; $23 million to
the Nuclear Cities Initiative, which helps find employment for nuclear
scientists in Russia's 10 closed
[[Page H3673]]
nuclear cities so that they are not tempted to sell sensitive
information to groups developing weapons of mass destruction.
I urge a yes vote on this amendment. Let us demonstrate our Nation's
commitment to smart government and take the leadership role in the
fight to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in opposition
of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, again, I applaud the intent of the author of the
amendment to increase our accounts for renewable energy, but as the
Republican cochairman with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) of
the House Renewable and Energy Caucus, a caucus that includes 180
members, in a bipartisan way we have worked tirelessly with the
cooperative efforts of the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan)
and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), ranking member, to
increase these renewable accounts by $100 million above the President's
request.
This is even by those in the renewable energy field being applauded
as a great victory at this point in the process. Now, if there are
future victories to be had for renewables, and I hope there are this
year, they need to take place at the conference committee where we have
an increase in the allocation on the Senate side, and I believe still
room for debate on the final funding levels for these important
renewable energy functions. I will be there at that conference
advocating on behalf of further increases in these renewable accounts.
But here we go taking the money again out of an absolutely essential
function of our Federal Government. Our nuclear weapons stockpile
stewardship is critically important for the good of this country and,
indeed, the entire free world. If we are going to be able to test these
weapons without firing these weapons, then facilities like NIF must be
supported.
Granted, the management of the project itself has not been stellar,
and it has had to be improved, but the fact is the imperative is there
to finish the project, to continue to support our nuclear weapons
stockpiling stewardship, and to be able to maintain these weapons and
test these weapons without firing these weapons.
We increased at this subcommittee these nonproliferation accounts
that the gentleman referred to by $71 million. Again, we have done a
very good job at the subcommittee of balancing all of these needs
because we agree with the gentleman on the points that he made. But we
have already done that work. What the gentleman's amendment actually
does is takes it further and cuts into our national preparedness,
something that we cannot afford to do.
There is no question that some people would come to the floor today
and oppose anything nuclear. But, Mr. Chairman, our country wants us to
maintain a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile. Our country desperately
needs to invest in NNSA-related programs so that these plants that have
built up our nuclear weapons and today maintain them for the potential
future use, God forbid it ever happens, but it is that deterrent that
has brought about the global peace that we see today because that
deterrent was, indeed, deployed. It was never deployed, but it was
built up to the point where it never had to be deployed.
So our nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship is at risk here with
this amendment, and we must maintain this. We must support the NNSA and
all of its different programs, and this would certainly take away from
that.
So I respectfully agree with the intent of the gentleman, but stand
in strong opposition and applaud the subcommittee work because it is
balanced and responsible and supports our national security missions,
and it also supports the need to have a balanced energy strategy,
including increased funding for renewables.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition of the Kucinich-Lee
amendment. As the mother of a 10-year-old, I share my colleagues' hope
for a peaceful world free of nuclear weapons.
I believe the United States should reduce the number of nuclear
weapons we maintain, and I introduced legislation today with the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Spratt) calling on President Bush to
do just that.
I agree that funding for nonproliferation programs is well short of
what is needed, but I also believe that, as long as this country relies
on nuclear weapons as a central part of our national security strategy,
we have a commitment to maintain them in a safe and reliable condition.
Our best hope for maintaining the reliability of our nuclear weapons
without testing is a robust Stockpile Stewardship program that includes
the National Ignition Facility known as the NIF.
The NIF is an essential component of our Stockpile Stewardship
program because it will allow us to create conditions similar to those
that exist within a nuclear explosion without actually conducting live
tests of nuclear weapons. Tremendous progress has been made in
constructing this facility.
Since construction began, over $1 billion has been invested in the
NIF, and more than 1,000 tons of equipment have been installed. The
building housing the NIF is 98 percent complete, and 70 percent of the
laser glass has been produced and meets specification.
Mr. Chairman, we can ill afford to abandon the NIF at this critical
juncture in the Stockpile Stewardship program. We must give the
Nation's nuclear stewards the tools they need to maintain the safety,
security and reliability of our Nation's nuclear deterrent.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the Record a letter
I received today from Ambassador Thomas Graham, who negotiated the
nonproliferation treaty, expressing his support of the NIF.
I would also like to direct the Record on quotes attributed to Dr.
Edward Teller. Dr. Teller's quote is, ``I was misquoted giving the
appearance I did not support this NIF project. It is necessary that I
correct this completely wrong impression.'' I am for the NIF.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to strongly vote down this
amendment. It will jeopardize our ability to have a safe and reliable
and certifiable stockpile.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following documents for the Record as
follows:
Lawyers Alliance for World Security Committee for
National Security,
Washington, DC, June 26, 2001.
Hon. Ellen Tauscher,
House of Representatives, 1122 Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Congresswoman Tauscher, I am writing this letter to
urge your support on a matter that I consider to be crucial
to the continuing viability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and
therefore to our national security. I believe that it is
necessary that we maintain an effective and fully funded
stockpile stewardship program, an important element of which
is the National Ignition Facility. Specifically, the
stockpile stewardship program is the underpinning for our
current moratorium on nuclear testing and will provide the
conditions for Senate reconsideration of the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
I am not a new supporter of NIF. I supported it when I was
in charge of the U.S. worldwide efforts to extend the
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and I supported it when, after
the 1995 Conference which permanently extended the NPT, I
urged negotiation of a zero-yield CTBT. I supported it
despite earlier concerns about cost, management and technical
problems, concerns that were well justified. And while there
continue to be some problems in these respects, I am
confident that under General Gordon's leadership the NNSA
will successfully correct the situation and complete this
much needed element of our effort to maintain a safe and
reliable nuclear deterrent without underground testing. I
strongly urge you to support the full NNSA request for the
NIF project in FY2002.
I recognize that President Bush has indicated he does not
support a CTBT at this time, a view with which I respectfully
disagree. Nevertheless, he has given his full support to a
continuing moratorium on nuclear testing. Thus, we need a
full commitment to an effective and successful stockpile
stewardship program.
Without a doubt, a significant part of the reason the
Senate voted against ratification of the test ban treaty in
1999 was a failure on the part of CTBT advocates to convince
enough senators that stockpile stewardship works. A
successful NIF, which will perform key scientific experiments
and is crucial to efforts to attract the quality personnel
required to permit the labs to fill their stewardship
missions, would help remedy this misperception in the future.
Conversely, failure to support NIF will undoubtedly undermine
the stockpile stewardship program and,
[[Page H3674]]
as a result, the U.S. testing moratorium and future CTBT
ratification efforts.
While some critics of the NIF correctly assert that other
elements of the stockpile stewardship program need additional
funding, the answer is not to take funds from one part of the
program to fix another but rather to provide sufficient
resources for a fully effective program. When this issue is
considered in committee later this year. I urge you to
continue your support for the National Ignition Facility and
the stockpile stewardship program. We have come too far, and
have too far to go, to falter now.
Sincerely,
Thomas Graham, Jr.
____
Statement by Dr. Edward Teller regarding the NIF:
``. . . I was misquoted giving the appearance that I did
not support this (NIF) project. It is necessary that I
correct this completely wrong impression.
It is my opinion that the NIF will almost certainly
demonstrate nuclear fusion basic for the hydrogen bomb. Such
demonstration will be valuable in the Nation's search for
ways that future functioning of fusion bombs can be
assured.''
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this very irresponsible
amendment. We often debate the proper roles and responsibilities of the
Federal Government, but I thought we all agreed that Congress exists in
large part to provide for our national security.
This amendment strikes at the heart of our country's defense. If we
pull support from the National Ignition Facility, we would cripple our
nuclear weapons stockpile, the cornerstone of our national defense.
NIF is the only facility that can create the extreme temperature and
pressure conditions that exist in exploding nuclear weapons. Without
NIF, we would lose our ability to fully understand the operations of
our arsenal.
NIF is also the only facility that can create fusion ignition-and-
burn in the laboratory. Without NIF, we would not be able to access and
certify the aging nuclear stockpile unless we renew underground
testing.
Do not just take my word for it. The head of the National Nuclear
Security Administration in DOE has said that, without NIF, we will need
to begin underground tests once again.
We need to ensure that our weapons are safe and that they will work.
NIF gives us this assurance. Stand up for the defense of our Nation. I
urge my colleagues to vote against this ill-advised amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I stand today in strong support of this amendment to
cut funding from the National Ignition Facility and to transfer that
money to crucial nuclear nonproliferation programs and to the national
Treasury.
This project has already sucked up billions of taxpayer dollars while
endangering our environment and sabotaging efforts to reduce nuclear
nonproliferation. Instead of continuing to go down this path, let us
stand up today for peace, for security, and fiscal common sense.
NIF has cost billions and will cost billions more and will not
increase our national security. The National Ignition Facility is not
some crucial component to our security system. It is an albatross,
mired in cost overruns and dubious science.
When Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, says that NIF
has no utility whatsoever, we really should listen.
Now, at the same time, the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill cuts funding for nonproliferation programs that
represent an investment in peace, which is really an investment worth
making. So this amendment restores badly needed dollars to programs
that will make us truly safer.
This is not a trade-off in security. It is an enhancement of
security. Now is not the time to cut support for efforts to curtail the
spread of nuclear weapons. Reducing the number of nuclear weapons in
the world and reducing the amount of nuclear material in the world
enhances our security.
{time} 1645
So we must move forward toward a safer future, not backwards to a
more dangerous past.
Finally, this amendment returns over $56 million to the national
treasury. Fifty-six million dollars. That money could go to house the
homeless, to care for our seniors, or to feed the hungry. Without
housing, without medical care, without food for all, how can we really
be secure?
Once again I urge my colleagues' support of this amendment.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words, and I rise in favor of the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this amendment from a good-
government-taxpayer point of view. This program has failed audit after
audit after audit. Just the most recent GAO audit has given it a
failing grade. This program is 6 years over its original completion
date, and it is almost $4 billion over budget.
For us, as the legislative branch of government, to properly conduct
our proper oversight role over the executive branch, to see if their
proper stewardship of our taxpayer dollars is making sense and is being
implemented well, and for us to walk away from these kinds of abuses,
is quite simply irresponsible.
I support the Kucinich amendment. I do not think it strikes a
devastating blow to our nuclear stockpile program. In fact, I think
this is a good thing, because it says that if an organization is going
to take taxpayer dollars, they have to spend them wisely, have a good
plan in place, and that we will not chase good money after bad. These
audits need to be passed before we can reward this program with the
funding they are asking for.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to limit debate
on this particular amendment to 10 minutes, 5 minutes for a proponent
and an opponent.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alabama?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I object momentarily.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I support the
nonproliferation efforts which can reduce the amount of nuclear
material and nuclear expertise which is floating around the world and
which some reports say is the greatest single threat to U.S. security,
but I cannot support reductions in programs that keep our own nuclear
stockpile safe, secure, and reliable.
I would say to the gentleman who just spoke in the well that this
Congress is not walking away from the management difficulties that the
NIF has had. As a matter of fact, in the Committee on Armed Services we
have had a number of hearings over the past several years on the NIF
and its management difficulties. As a matter of fact, I think one of
the reasons we have a new entity within the Department of Energy is to
help correct some of those problems in the past. And I can report that
the new National Nuclear Security Administration and General Gordon,
its head, has moved aggressively to solve the management problems that
the NIF has had in the past.
As my colleague from California has said, we have sunk a tremendous
amount of money into this project. To walk away now would be the height
of folly. But I want to take just a second to put the NIF into its
proper context, because I think many of my colleagues do not realize we
continue to rely today on nuclear weapons as the central part of our
security deterrent; yet those nuclear weapons are 18 years old, on
average. They were designed to last 12 years, and so they are already
well beyond their design life.
What many people do not realize also is that there is a lot we do not
know about nuclear weapons and how they work. In spite of the fact that
we have conducted many tests over the past number of years, going back
to 1945, there is a lot about what happens with a nuclear explosion
that we do not understand, and NIF and other programs like that are
designed to help us understand what is going on so that as our weapons
age we can continue to have confidence that they are safe, secure, and
reliable. If we do not have NIF or other tools like NIF, then the
uncertainties will grow, and they will grow to a point where the
President and a Congress will have no choice but to resume nuclear
testing, and that will have enormous consequences.
I would point out to my colleagues that this subcommittee has already
cut
[[Page H3675]]
the President's request by $176 million. That gives me enormous
concern. But to take more money out of the President's request to
increase the uncertainties and here to stop the funding for NIF, which
is one of the essential tools to help answer those questions as our
stockpiles age, would be a serious, serious mistake.
Mr. Chairman, I think that what we have before us as an amendment
will hurt the security of the United States not only here but in the
long term, and I hope my colleagues will reject it.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate
on this amendment, and all amendments thereto, be limited to 10
minutes, the time to be equally divided between the proponent of the
amendment and a Member opposed.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alabama to limit the debate to 10 minutes, 5 minutes divided equally on
each side?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) will control the
time in favor of the amendment, and a Member on the opposite side will
control the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I am rising in support of the amendment that has been
proposed by the gentleman from Ohio, in part, I think, to clear up some
of the issues along the way.
The expenditure in nuclear programs is far beyond what we need to be
expending in nuclear programs. That is as simple as one can say it. The
increase in nuclear programs in this budget is by a very significant
amount over the previous year when we have such great other needs. The
amendment that the gentleman has proposed returns $56 million to the
Treasury, which by the way is about similar to the amount that was
involved in the amendment that had been offered by the gentleman from
New York seeking only an additional $50 million for renewable energy
research programs. It seems to me that that would be a far, far better
way to use the $56 million that otherwise would be returned to the
Treasury by the gentleman from Ohio and his amendment.
I just want to point out, in partial reply on exactly the same
amendment earlier, the gentleman from Tennessee was speaking about what
the committee had done, and I do commend the committee for returning,
on renewable energy sources, $100 million, which had been cut from the
budget for renewable energy sources by the President's request. In
returning that amount of money, they now have in the bill $377 million
for renewable energy research and development, which is exactly $1
million more than there was in the previous bill.
Now, I would just point out here that in the National Energy Policy
Report that has come out, the policy report has at one point a
statement that President George W. Bush understands the promise of
renewable energy and strongly encourages alternative sources, such as
wind, biomass, and solar energy. And in another place here the
statement reads that ``renewable and alternative fuels offer hope for
America's energy future.'' I do not think that it is appropriate to
have only a $1 million increase in the accounts for renewable energy,
commendable though it is, that the subcommittee has recommended $100
million more than the President had proposed, because he had cut so
much out of what he is in other places here saying are such important
pieces of work to be done.
It seems to me that we would be far wiser to use money that might be
saved from the NIF and otherwise, by the amendment, would return to the
Treasury for something that would really significantly help in
producing the kind of energy that we need for the future in renewable
sources that does not produce global warming, CO2, in most
of its forms, and produces very little, except renewable sources, in
biomass.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) seek to
control the time in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. WAMP. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Tauscher).
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me
this time. We can have our own opinion, but we cannot have our own
separate set of facts; and the facts about the NIF are very clear.
While there were significant production failures and management
problems in the NIF in 1999, even into early 2000, that has been
dramatically fixed by new management. And, frankly, we have not had any
GAO reports saying anything other than that.
These investments are critical to our stockpile stewardship program.
They are critical to having an ability to certify the sustainability
and the safety of these weapons. The NIF is a project that was plagued
with problems; but even today, in the Subcommittee on Military
Procurement, General Gordon, the administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration, testified that the NIF is now problem free, it
is a program that is going forward, that we have significant investment
in, and it is critical to our ability to have a stockpile stewardship
program that enables us to certify weapons without testing.
So I think that while there are rumors out there that the NIF is
still plagued with problems, I want to assure my colleagues that they
need to vote down this amendment. I urge them to strongly oppose it. We
need the NIF for stockpile stewardship, and we need it for nuclear
security.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) has 3\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I would like to cite the latest GAO report about the NIF,
which was issued on June 1, and continues to recommend an independent
scientific review of NIF. It says,
In our reports, we recommended that the Secretary of energy
arrange for an independent outside scientific and technical
review of NIF's remaining technical challenges. NIF still
lacks an independent external review process. Independent
external reviews are valuable for measuring cost, schedule,
and technical success in any large and ambitious science
project. Yet, no such external independent reviews of NIF
have been conducted or planned. The DOE's own orders state
that external independent reviews are beneficial; however,
DOE plans to continue its own internal review program,
allowing Defense Programs officials to manage the process
themselves.
It is very clear, Mr. Chairman, that accountability has been lacking.
While we know about the lack of accountability at NIF, we also have an
opportunity here to take a strong position with respect to
nonproliferation and fund some of those programs that have been cut
back.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Whether coming at the amendment from a budget-cutting perspective or
coming at it from an anti-nuclear or non-proliferation perspective, it
does not serve our country well today to retreat from our national
preparedness, including the ultimate deterrent of a safe and reliable
nuclear weapons stockpile. We built it up for a purpose, and we must
maintain it for a purpose. The entire free world is depending on us.
And, frankly, in closing, I want to say we now have better management
for our weapons stockpile than we had 5 years ago. There is no question
that NNSA was a good move. It was done by a bipartisan team led by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Tauscher), and I applaud their work. Because today,
under General Gordon's leadership, the NNSA is responsibly reforming
our nuclear weapons programs so that we are prepared for the future.
For too long our weapons activities have been put on the back burner.
{time} 1700
We have been funding through our national security programs weapons,
and our personnel on active duty and our Guard and Reserve, but we
cannot move our weapons activities to the back burner and expect to
have an infrastructure that is capable of the next
[[Page H3676]]
generation of nuclear weapons if we need them, or a workforce. We have
a graying workforce and aging infrastructure throughout the weapons
complex.
I represent the Y-12 in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where bricks fall off
the walls and people have to report to work in hard hats because the
infrastructure has eroded.
Mr. Chairman, we must reinvest in the modernization of these
facilities. We have buildings that are 50 years old. We have not
adequately funded those facilities. This strikes at NIF, but NIF is at
next-generation of being able to test without activating these weapons
and testing underground, maintaining the weapons stockpile reliability.
We must do this and fight back this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) 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 Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of
the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
Mr. Chairman, since being elected to the Congress, I have worked
closely with the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure full pool lake
levels at West Point Lake. On several occasions, the Army Corps has
imprudently lowered the lake level, causing environmental degradation
and severely affecting the use of the lake by the tens of thousands of
citizens who rely on it for their water, energy, and recreation.
Over the last year, however, with the assistance of former Assistant
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Joseph Westphal, we were able to
work on making sure that the Army Corps in managing West Point Lake,
respected the benefit-cost priorities that were established by Congress
when this project was authorized by title II, section 203 of the Flood
Control Act of 1962, Public Law No. 87-874 (76 Stat. 1190, October 23,
1962).
This legislation authorized four primary project purposes with
benefits and costs as follows: generation of hydroelectric power, flood
control, fish and wildlife, recreation and navigation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman, the
gentleman from Alabama, can I be assured the gentleman will work with
the Army Corps to continue to respect the relative priorities of these
federally mandated purposes?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing the
issue to the attention of the committee. I recognize the work the
gentleman from Georgia has done to assist the Army Corps in making
rational decisions in the operation of West Point Lake. It is my goal
to direct the Army Corps to continue to work on improving the
management of West Point Lake. The Army Corps needs to work to fulfill
the intent of Congress with respect to this facility. I pledge to work
with the gentleman from Georgia to ensure the Corps of Engineers
adequately addresses the concerns of the gentleman and his
constituents.
Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
continued work in this area and look forward to working with him.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we bring the
Bonior amendment up out of order, and that time constraints be put on
the amendment limiting debate on the amendment and all amendments
thereto to 1 hour, the time to be equally divided between the proponent
of the amendment and a Member opposed.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, the vote
on the Bonior amendment would be the first vote in sequence tomorrow
morning?
Mr. CALLAHAN. That is correct. We are going to make that announcement
after the unanimous consent is adopted. If the unanimous consent is
accepted, then we will debate the Bonior amendment or any amendment
thereto, including the Rogers amendment tonight, probably finish about
6, have no further votes tonight, and then begin in the morning at 9.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. And no further amendment will be offered tonight, we
will do our unanimous consent, and the first vote in the morning would
be the Bonior amendment?
Mr. CALLAHAN. With the exception of the Rogers amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Bonior) will be permitted to offer an amendment in the form of a
limitation to be inserted at the end of the bill at this point in the
reading, and that debate on the amendment and any amendments thereto be
limited to 60 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman
from Michigan and a Member opposed.
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bonior
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bonior:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. ____. No funds provided in this Act may be expended to
issue any permit or other authorization under section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C.
403), or to issue any other lease, license, permit, approval,
or right-of-way, for any drilling to extract or explore for
oil or gas from the land beneath the water in any of Lake
Huron, Lake Ontario, Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake Superior,
Lake Saint Clair, the Saint Mary's River, the Saint Clair
River, the Detroit River, the Niagara River, or the Saint
Lawrence River from Lake Ontario to the 45th parallel of
latitude.
The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous agreement of the House, time will be
limited to 60 minutes equally divided between the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and a Member opposed.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank my colleagues who have
worked to put this together: the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Secondly, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak)
for being the leader on this important issue for all of us in the Great
Lakes. I thank him for his leadership. And I also thank the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his sponsorship of this, as well as the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Mr. Chairman, for those who have grown up along the shores of the
Great Lakes, we know that the Great Lakes defines the region that we
live in. It is what we are about. It is what has made the Great Lakes
region the wealthiest area on the planet Earth because of this
wonderful and abundant resource.
Mr. Chairman, we depend on our drinking water, our recreation, the
engine of our economy on the water in the Great Lakes. Tourism is our
second largest industry. We do about $10 billion a year in tourism.
Families come to Michigan to fish, to use our beautiful beaches, to
swim in our lakes and enjoy our sand dunes. They do not come to
Michigan to look at oil wells or oil derricks. We are passionate about
protecting the Great Lakes.
We cannot afford to put our greatest natural resource at risk. When I
say that, 95 percent of all of the fresh water in our country comes out
of the Great Lakes and its connecting waterways; 20 percent, a fifth of
the fresh water on planet Earth, comes out of the Great Lakes.
I am amazed and appalled and alarmed that some in Michigan are
proposing to drill for oil and gas beneath our Great Lakes. They seek
to add 30 new directional drills along our shores. They are moving at
breakneck speed to get this done. Over their lifetime, directional
wells drilled already in place have produced less than one-
[[Page H3677]]
third of a day's supply of natural gas and oil.
This process began with seven wells, up to 13, now back to seven as
far back as 1979. There is virtually very little that has accrued. I
remind my colleagues that 1 quart of oil can contaminate up to 2
million gallons of drinking water. Just think of the damage that would
do if we had directional slant drilling.
If we have a drill that hits a pressure pocket, it can spew gas and
oil back out like a geyser, Mr. Chairman. There is also another problem
that we have experienced in one of the drills in the area of Manistee,
Michigan. It is called hydrogen sulfide. It is a poisonous gas. It is
very similar to cyanide. It was released back in 1997 and 1998, sending
20 people in that region to the hospital.
Under the present movement to access and explore gas and oil, our
drinking water could be contaminated. Oil could wash up to our shores;
and if that happened, it could take as much as 500 years to completely
flush out.
In conclusion, let me say, Mr. Chairman, oil and water do not mix.
Let us put an end to this bad idea by passing this amendment sponsored
by my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and put an end to this once and for
all.
This amendment would prohibit the Army Corps from spending funds to
issue any new permits for oil and gas drilling under the Great Lakes.
We need to preserve this natural beauty for future generations.
Drilling in the Great Lakes is a formula for disaster. I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Stupak), my distinguished colleague and leader on this issue.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, this could be a great day for the Great Lakes and all
of us who live in and around the Great Lakes. Since the 105th Congress
4 years ago, I have sought to ban the practice of drilling for oil and
gas in and under our Great Lakes. Early on I was a lone voice among
public officials on this issue.
But I have been rewarded for my efforts, Mr. Chairman, with strong
support from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, and
from Members inside and outside of the Great Lakes basin.
The vote we will take tomorrow demonstrates how this issue has found
its time and place in the House of Representatives.
{time} 1715
This is not a Florida situation. We have drilling in Michigan for oil
and gas. But what our amendment says is there will not be any drilling
for oil and gas on our shoreline. We should not be drilling in the
world's greatest supply of fresh water. We should not have to be
drilling on the shoreline of fresh water for 34 million people who live
around the Great Lakes. Let us not jeopardize our Great Lakes. Let us
not jeopardize their drinking water. Let us not drill for gas and oil
under our Great Lakes.
This amendment is important because our State of Michigan is moving
forward to open new areas for drilling along the shores of Lake
Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair, the connecting waterway between
Lake Huron and Lake Erie.
Consider, Mr. Chairman, that 18 percent of the world's fresh water is
found in the Great Lakes. Ninety-five percent of our Nation's fresh
water is found in the Great Lakes. It is the home and workplace of 34
million people. The procedure that Michigan plans to authorize does not
involve oil platforms located in the water of the Great Lakes
themselves. Instead, the rigs would be located along the shore. Oil
pockets under the lakes would be tapped by drilling at an angle from
the shore rigs. This is a procedure known as directional drilling.
Michigan law already permits State officials to move forward to lease
bottomlands of the Great Lakes for drilling, without a new vote of the
Michigan State House or State Senate. Michigan can move forward to
lease bottomlands without permission from any other Great Lakes State.
But as people inside and outside of Michigan have learned what Michigan
is doing, Mr. Chairman, they have raised their voice in opposition. The
Governor of Ohio has said he would never consider such a procedure. The
Wisconsin Senate has said no to directional drilling. Members of the
Michigan legislature themselves are waking up to the dangers that this
practice presents to the Great Lakes. Although the Michigan Senate
earlier this month voted to support new drilling, that language last
night was eliminated from a House-Senate conference report and the
language allowing directional drilling has been eliminated in Michigan.
Here in Congress, a bipartisan group of Members from this body and
the other body have brought forth bills to block any new drilling for
oil and gas underneath the Great Lakes. But despite all of these
actions, the State of Michigan can still move forward by administrative
action and still plans to do so under the leadership of Governor
Engler. Leasing of bottomlands of the Great Lakes for new oil and gas
could take place within months under the current administration in
Michigan. Michigan State officials have argued that the procedure is
safe. A set of recommendations made up by a panel, a panel that was
handpicked by the Michigan Governor to study the safety of directional
drilling, have not been implemented and will not be implemented. They
want to drill up in my district and they have never yet had a hearing
in my district as required under the procedures as to whether or not
you should drill in the Great Lakes.
Mr. Chairman, we may be able to imagine the hazards of drilling, but
it is harder to see the benefits. What is the economic trade-off here
that you could argue in favor of drilling under our Great Lakes? The
answer, Mr. Chairman, is small and short-term gain for Michigan's
budget and profits for oil companies. But the public at large that
faces the threat of drilling would see virtually no benefits. The
proposed 30 or so new wells would yield only enough oil to meet the
needs of Michigan residents for 3 weeks and enough natural gas for 5
weeks.
Mr. Chairman, of all the places in the Nation where we might wish to
sink oil wells, I believe we can argue that we would never choose the
shoreline shared by the people of Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit,
Cleveland, Toronto, and Buffalo among others. Let us block this
procedure.
I thank the U.S. Senators in the Michigan delegation and other
Senators for their efforts. I would like to thank my colleagues, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Thurman), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and others who stepped forward to
cosponsor legislation to ban directional drilling each and every
Congress that I have introduced it.
A vote for this amendment tells the American public that we
understand that the Great Lakes, one of the Nation's, one of the
world's greatest resources, should and will be protected. Vote ``yes''
on the Bonior amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama seek the time in
opposition to the amendment?
Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 30
minutes.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Camp).
(Mr. Camp asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my
colleagues from the Midwest, an amendment which prohibits the Federal
Government from facilitating drilling projects in the Great Lakes. This
amendment is a vote in support of the most precious fresh water
resource we have.
It remains unclear whether or not the Federal Government or the Army
Corps of Engineers has any authority in this area, but I believe it is
important to make a statement on protecting the Great Lakes. For
example, section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
[[Page H3678]]
Act cited in this amendment was passed in 1899 and only refers to
blocking navigable waters.
Protection of the Great Lakes basin best remains with the eight Great
Lakes Governors and two Canadian Premiers. Earlier this month, the
governors and premiers came together and signed Annex 2001 which
protects the Great Lakes from commercial withdrawals of water. So while
not a perfect solution, I am voting for this amendment to be sure the
word goes out that our Federal Government should not be participating
in our Great Lakes and this amendment does that.
I applaud Members of both parties for working to protect our lakes. I
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of protecting our greatest natural
resource.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, my district represents roughly 150 miles of Lake
Michigan shoreline. On a day-to-day basis the quality of life and the
very livelihood of many of my constituents are directly affected by
Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are one of this
Nation's most precious resources. This amendment is one way we can help
protect and preserve the largest body of fresh water in the world.
I am and have always been in favor of States rights and there are
some that will invoke that issue in regard to this amendment. Action by
Congress is needed, however, because the Great Lakes States and
provincial governments of Canada have a patchwork of regulations that
do little to protect the Great Lakes from the dangers associated with
oil and gas drilling. Canada allows vertical drills to line the
bottomlands of Lake Erie. While some States in the Great Lakes region
allow drilling, others have banned this practice. Protection of this
resource cannot vary from State to State or from one body of water to
the next. Everything is interconnected in the Great Lakes region and
the decisions that place Lake Erie at risk in turn place Lake Michigan
at risk and vice versa. The only appropriate policy is to keep drills
out of the Great Lakes.
I feel it is necessary today to vote in favor of this amendment to
eliminate the risk as opposed to allowing this activity to take place.
In addition to supporting this amendment today, I am also introducing
legislation that will call for further study of the environmental
impact of oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. I will ask for a
complete assessment of the condition, safety, and the potential
environmental effects of pipelines that run under the Great Lakes and
through the States that surround those lakes. And I will ask for a
comprehensive study to determine how much oil and gas might be gained
by drilling in the Great Lakes region.
We should go further. We need a comprehensive plan to protect the
Great Lakes. This is a good first step.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe amendments like this. It is
the height of irresponsibility. I think Members should oppose this
amendment because it establishes a horribly irresponsible precedent for
our energy security in this country. The Democrat leadership is
constraining our economy within the same energy straitjacket that they
applied under the Carter administration and that they are applying now
in California that brings blackouts.
The working people of America are depending on us to open energy
reserves to safe, environmentally responsible exploration. Without
reliable energy, our economy will crumble. It will mean blackouts,
layoffs, and plant closings.
This energy security obstructionism is one aspect of a broader effort
to systematically choke off every promising source of domestic energy.
It is hard to fathom how this campaign to block energy production could
be driven by anything but a misguided motivation to weaken America and
to leave us beholden to foreign sources of energy.
The Democrat leadership is at war with our ability to produce an
adequate and dependable energy supply. They oppose safe oil
exploration. They oppose expanded nuclear power. They oppose clean
coal. They oppose ANWR. They oppose tapping the natural gas trapped
beneath public lands. They oppose drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. And
now they oppose slant drilling in Michigan.
Now, they are for closing plants. They are for closing refineries.
They are against opening any new plants. They oppose everything that
allows us to increase our supply. Their actual objective must be to
eradicate America's energy security. Why else would the Democrat
leadership be recklessly pursuing a policy that is weakening the United
States economy?
The question for Democrats to answer is this: Where will Americans go
for the energy that they need to sustain their quality of life after
you have completely strangled our ability to produce the energy that we
need? What will Democrats tell the men and women stranded in gas lines?
What explanation will they offer families suffering through frequent
and recurring blackouts? What justification will they offer to workers
when they open a pink slip after plants are forced out of business by
spiraling energy costs?
And this environmental extremism, this radical environmentalism is
entirely unwarranted. Today, slant drilling technology allows us to
safely withdraw oil and gas beneath bodies of water from the shore.
Environmentally safe. We do not have to trade environmental safety for
energy security.
Members, please oppose these amendments that weaken America by
enhancing the power that foreign suppliers of energy hold over our
Nation.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for introducing this amendment along with the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and others.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
Unfortunately, some public officials in Michigan are using recent fuel
price spikes to justify their desire to open up the Great Lakes to oil
and gas drilling. Although drilling in the Great Lakes may bring a
profit to the oil companies, it is not going to solve our national
energy crisis or even temporarily drive down the cost of gas in the
Midwest. In fact, it is estimated that new wells in the Great Lakes
will only yield enough oil to meet one State's needs for 3 weeks.
The negligible benefits of expanded oil and gas drilling in the Great
Lakes is hardly worth it considering the risks. The type of directional
drilling industry proposes carries the risk of oil spills and toxic
hydrogen sulfide releases, ruining the lakes' pristine ecosystem and
jeopardizing human health. Many of us recall the Exxon Valdez oil spill
which dumped 11 million gallons of crude oil contaminating 300 miles of
shoreline and causing billions of dollars in damage to one of our most
pristine natural wildlife refuges in Alaska. And more recently, an oil
spill devastated the Galapagos Islands, ruining miles of shoreline and
destroying the environment.
As the world's biggest source of fresh water, the Great Lakes must be
protected from such a tragedy. I think the 34 million people inhabiting
the Great Lakes basin as well as Americans across the country would
agree.
Unfortunately, State officials in Michigan are ignoring common sense
and pushing forward in their efforts to reverse a moratorium on Great
Lakes drilling. It is therefore incumbent upon Congress to protect the
Great Lakes. Banning Federal funding through this amendment is a step
in the right direction and would send a strong signal to those eager to
exploit Great Lakes resources.
People in Wisconsin and other Great Lakes States are blessed to have
the world's most pristine lakes and fresh water resources in our
backyard. We get our drinking water from them, our kids swim in them,
and our tourism industry depends on them. Because the Great Lakes are
such an important part of our daily lives, we are not willing to gamble
with this precious resource for short-term gain.
I urge my colleagues' support of this amendment. Please stand with us
to protect the Great Lakes from environmental hazard and degradation.
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
[[Page H3679]]
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of our subcommittee.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. The
amendment is overly broad and would prohibit all agencies in the Energy
and Water bill including the Corps of Engineers, the Department of
Energy, and a portion of the Department of the Interior from expending
funds for drilling in the Great Lakes. I have concerns that needed
grants from these Federal agencies would be cut off as a result of this
amendment. This is another attempt by the amendment's author and others
to shift decision-making authority over the Great Lakes to the Federal
Government, just like the water management issue. They would rather
have bureaucrats in Washington to manage our resources than those of us
who actually live there. I do not think that is right.
The issue is under the jurisdiction of the State of Michigan and our
State legislature and the governments of all the Great Lakes States.
This is not just a Michigan issue. The Michigan State legislature has
made a decision that this will be handled by State agencies, including
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Natural
Resources, and the State's Natural Resources Commission.
{time} 1730
They have made this decision on their own, free from Federal
interference, which is as it should be. In fact, my home State of
Michigan is not alone in this sentiment. It is shared by others. In a
letter from the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, and I have a
letter here, which has 30 of our Nation's 50 States as members, this
letter went to EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman, who writes,
``The member States of the OIGCC regard drilling beneath the Great
Lakes and protection of the environment in relation to that drilling to
be matters that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the States and
not the United States EPA or other Federal agencies.''
This amendment would be counter to the belief of the IOGCC and the
majority of States in our Union. Remember again, there are 30 States
involved here.
Mr. Chairman, directional drilling should not be confused with
offshore drilling. Directional drilling sites are inland. In the State
of Michigan, they are prohibited from being closer than 1,500 feet from
the shoreline. Conversely, offshore drilling done from ships or rigs
directly in the water is prohibited by State law in five of the eight
Great Lakes States.
In 1997, the Michigan Environmental Science Board concluded
directional drilling posed little or no risk to the contamination to
the Great Lakes. Since 1979, there have been no accidents and no
significant impact to the environment or public health. I think the
evidence shows clearly that directional drilling is safe and an
effective procedure and does not warrant any kind of Federal
encroachment. State geologists estimate the production of new oil and
gas resources from the Great Lakes could provide, contrary to what one
might have heard, as much as $100 million to the Michigan Natural
Resources Trust Fund, the State's sole source of funds for land
acquisitions, recreational projects, and natural resource development
projects.
The revenue produced by leasing of land for drilling is crucial; and
without it, state-owned natural resources could be taken without
compensation by private wells drilled along the State of Michigan
shorelines and the other States as well; on private lands, I might add.
Furthermore, I believe directional drilling can be done in an
environmentally safe manner, and it may be one solution, one solution,
to some of our energy woes.
This amendment is counterproductive because our Nation, particularly
those in California, are currently experiencing an energy supply
shortage and prohibiting directional drilling in the Great Lakes would
cut off a critical supply source.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is little more than an example of
mission creep by which the Federal Government slowly, slowly gains more
and more authority. This mission creep amendment should not pass this
House. I urge Members to oppose this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) assumed the Chair.
____________________