[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18055-18097]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
261 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. 2605.

                              {time}  1642


                     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. 2605) making appropriations for energy and water development for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Hansen in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard).
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to present to the Committee of the 
Whole for its consideration the bill H.R. 2605, making appropriations 
for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2000.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide array of 
Federal Government programs involving such diverse matters as national 
security, environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced scientific 
research, navigation, alternative energy sources, and the nuclear power 
regulation.

                              {time}  1645

  Programs funded by this bill affect multiple aspects of American 
life, having significant implications for domestic security, commercial 
competitiveness, and the advance of science.
  I am proud of the bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations 
without amendment, and I believe it merits the support of the entire 
membership of this body.
  Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this bill is its constrained 
size. The measure represents an unqualified victory for fiscal 
austerity, conservativism, and responsibility.
  Total funding for the energy and water bill in H.R. 2605 is $20.19 
billion. This is more than $900 million below the fiscal year 1999 
baseline for energy and water development programs. Further, it is $1.4 
billion below the budget request and more than $1 billion less than the 
energy and water bill passed by the Senate earlier this year.
  Mr. Chairman, the substantial cuts contained in H.R. 2605 are real. 
They are not produced by smoke and mirrors gimmicks or creative 
accounting. They, rather, are the result of a fiscal discipline 
demanding reduction in the size, scope, and cost of the Federal 
Government.
  Despite the bill's deep programmatic reductions, it provides adequate 
funding for the continuation of high priority programs, promising the 
greatest return on the investment of taxpayer dollars.
  The cost-effective civil works program of the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, for example, is funded at a level significantly higher than 
the budget request and slightly higher than the fiscal year 1999 level. 
This funding is more than offset by considerable reductions in the 
Department of Energy.
  The bill requires, for example, a reduction of $125 million in DOE 
contractor travel expenses. This is one-half the level of this current 
year. And, as my colleagues all know, we have received documented 
evidence of abusive travel in that Department.
  Mr. Chairman, I owe a great debt of gratitude to the hard-working 
members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. They have 
labored hard under difficult fiscal constraints to provide a bill that 
is balanced and fair.
  I especially want to express my gratitude to the ranking minority 
member, the honorable gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). He has 
been extremely helpful. Together we have developed a good bill. I know 
there are one or two items of disagreement, but overall I think both of 
us support a very good bill.

[[Page 18056]]

  I am very proud of his efforts and pleased that we have worked as 
well as we have together. It is in large part due to his effort that we 
present this bill that merits the support of all the Members on final 
passage.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support H.R. 2605 as reported by 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to present to the Committee of the 
Whole for its consideration H.R. 2605, making appropriations for energy 
and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000. 
Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide array of 
Federal government programs, comprehending such diverse matters as 
national security, environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced 
scientific research, navigation, alternative energy sources, and 
nuclear power regulation. Programs funded by this bill affect multiple 
aspects of American life, having significant implications for domestic 
security, commercial competitiveness, and the advance of science. I am 
proud of the bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations without 
amendment, and I believe it merits the support of the entire membership 
of this body.
  Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this bill is its constrained 
size. The measure represents an unqualified victory for fiscal 
austerity, conservatism and responsibility. Total funding for energy 
and water programs in H.R. 2605 is $20.19 billion. This is more than 
$900 million below the fiscal year 1999 baseline for energy and water 
development programs. Furthermore, it is $1.4 billion below the budget 
request and more than $1 billion less than the Energy and Water Bill 
passed by the Senate earlier this summer.
  Mr. Chairman, the substantial cuts contained in H.R. 2605 are real. 
They are not produced by smoke and mirrors, gimmicks, or creative 
accounting. Rather, they are the result of a fiscal discipline 
demanding reduction in the size, scope and cost of the Federal 
government.
  Despite the bill's deep programmatic reductions, it provides adequate 
funding for the continuation of high-priority programs promising the 
greatest return on the investment of taxpayers dollars. The cost-
effective civil works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for 
example, is funded at a level significantly higher than the budget 
request and slightly higher than fiscal year 1999. This funding is more 
than offset by considerable reductions in the Department of Energy. The 
bill requires, for example, a reduction of $125 million in DOE 
contractor travel expenses, an area of documented abuse.
  Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works program of 
the Corps of Engineers. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development is unanimous in its belief that this program is among the 
most valuable within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. The national 
benefits of projects for flood control, navigation and shoreline 
protection demonstrably exceed project costs. The bill acknowledges the 
importance of water infrastructure by funding the civil works program 
at $4.19 billion, an increase of $91 million over the fiscal year 1999 
level and $283 million over the amount requested by the Administration.
  Within the amount appropriated to the Corps of Engineers, $159 
million is for general investigations, $1.413 billion is for the 
construction program, and $1.888 billion is for operation and 
maintenance. In addition, the bill includes $313 million for the Flood 
Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, project. This is an 
increase of $33 million over the Administration's patently inadequate 
budget request. The bill also fully funds the budget request for the 
regulatory program, general expenses, and the Formerly Utilized Sites 
Remedial Action Program.
  Mr. Chairman, funding for title II, most of which is for the U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation, totals $822 million--a reduction of less than $3 
million below the fiscal year 1999 level. The bill includes level 
funding of $75 million for the CALFED Bay-Delta restoration program and 
fully funds the budget request for the Central Valley Project 
restoration fund and the Bureau of Reclamation loan program.
  Substantial reductions are included throughout title III of the bill, 
which funds the Department of Energy. DOE spending reductions, however, 
are not applied indiscriminately. The Committee has examined each 
program to determine its relative value and merit. As a consequence, 
the bill includes more than $2.7 billion for the science programs of 
DOE. This represents an increase of $36 million over the fiscal year 
1999 level and reflects our commitment to protecting the Federal 
investment in our national scientific infrastructure.
  Funding for energy supply programs of the Department totals $578 
million. This includes $326 million for research and development of 
solar and renewable energy technologies. Although this falls short of 
the Administration's unrealistic budget request, it is a substantial 
and credible level of funding. Given the Department's historical 
difficulties in executing these programs, I submit that the 
recommendation is more than generous.
  The energy supply account also includes $266 million for nuclear 
energy programs. The bill provides $20 million, an increase of $1 
million over last year's level, for the nuclear energy research 
initiative. It also includes $5 million, the full amount of the budget 
request, to initiate the nuclear energy plant optimization program.
  The largest spending category in the Energy and Water Bill is that of 
environmental restoration and waste management at Department of Energy 
sites. Funding for cleanup activities in title III of the bill exceeds 
$6 billion--more than $5.44 billion for defense-related cleanup and 
more than $560 million for non-defense cleanup activities. The 
Committee is dedicated to the environmental restoration of areas that 
participated in the development and maintenance of our nuclear weapons 
complex. This bill reflects the Committee's continued efforts to 
promote actual, physical site cleanups and to accelerate the completion 
of remediation work at DOE sites. Accordingly, the Committee has 
provided $1.05 billion, the full amount of the budget request, for 
defense facilities closure projects. This account concentrates funding 
on discrete sites that are on schedule for cleanup completion by the 
year 2006.
  The bill includes $4 billion for weapons activities of the Department 
of Energy. This considerable amount should be sufficient to provide for 
legitimate requirements of stockpile stewardship and management in the 
coming year. When Congress agreed to initiate the science-based 
stockpile stewardship program of the Department, it did so based on the 
pretense that funding for weapons activities would be contained at $4 
billion a year for ten years. In the few short years since this 
program's initiation, however, weapons funding has steadily climbed to 
$4.4 billion in fiscal year 1999, and the budget requests a further 
increase of $124 million for fiscal year 2000. The Department has 
demonstrated neither the capacity nor the commitment to contain program 
expenses, leaving it to Congress to rein in these runaway costs.
  In recognition that the national security programs of DOE must be 
reorganized, the bill includes language fencing $1 billion of the $4 
billion weapons appropriation until such time as the national security 
programs of the Department have been restructured or an independent 
agency for national security programs has been established. We will not 
continue to pour money into a dysfunctional security operation without 
the promise of meaningful reform.
  Section 317 of H.R. 2605 contains language intended to impose limits 
on the ability of Federal power marketing administrations to compete 
with the private sector in certain areas outside the sale of 
electricity. It is the intention of the House Managers that this 
section not vitiate or adversely impact any of the self-financed or 
ongoing direct financing relationships for power operations and 
maintenance or power capital rehabilitation between the power marketing 
administrations (PMAs) and the Bureau of Reclamation or the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers. Likewise, the House Managers do not interpret this 
provision to impair the ability of PMAs to aid their customers, other 
utilities, state and local and other Federal government entities or the 
public in cases of emergencies or disruption of electrical service 
where assistance is not otherwise available to the requesting entity. 
Also, it is not the intent of the legislation to prohibit or disrupt 
the ability of PMAs to carry out the electrical transmission 
interconnection mandates of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's 
open access Orders Numbers 888 and 889. Finally, it is not the intent 
of the provision to disrupt any Y2K planning, testing and modifications 
necessary for the continued reliability of PMA electrical systems.
  Title IV of the bill provides funding for certain independent 
agencies of the Federal government, including the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. 
Reductions in spending for independent agencies over the past five 
years have been nothing short of remarkable. In fiscal year 1995, 
Congress appropriated $470 million for title IV programs. The 
comparable figure for fiscal year 2000 is $84 million, a reduction of 
82%. The bill provides no funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority, 
eliminating appropriated subsidies to that New Deal-era electric 
utility.
  Mr. Chairman, I owe a debt of gratitude to the hard-working and 
dedicated Members of

[[Page 18057]]

the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. They have labored 
under difficult fiscal constraints to produce a bill that is balanced 
and fair. I am especially grateful to the Ranking Minority Member, the 
Honorable Pete Visclosky. It is in large part due to his efforts that 
we present a bill that merits the support of all Members of the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support H.R. 2605 as reported by 
the Committee on Appropriations.

[[Page 18058]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JY99.019



[[Page 18059]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JY99.020


  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would again begin, as I did under the rule, to thank 
the chairman and all of the members for their good work and for this 
nonpartisan bill that is before the House today but to reiterate, as 
the chairman alluded to in his remarks during general debate, that 
there is one fundamental disagreement. That is two environmental riders 
that were added to the legislation. During the amendment process, I 
will have an amendment to remove those.
  I would like to use my time during the general debate to set the 
stage for the House, if I could, on the two issues before us. Both deal 
with the Army Corps. Both deal with wetlands. Both deal with the Clean 
Water Act. If they are not removed from the legislation, the 
administration has indicated that they would veto the legislation 
because they are now included.
  I would suggest to the body that they should be removed today.
  The first deals with the issue of jurisdictional appeal. Today if a 
property owner wants to find out if there is a wetland on his or her 
property, they would approach the Corps and receive a determination. If 
the determination is not satisfactory to the property owner, they would 
then proceed to the permitting process and thereafter have jurisdiction 
to go to the U.S. Federal courts.
  The Corps, since 1996, and the administration has recognized that 
this is not good policy. I would acknowledge to all of my colleagues it 
is not good policy and it ought to change.
  That is what they are about, to promulgate an administrative appeal 
process so that if a property owner is aggrieved, there is an appeal 
process within the Corps itself before recourse is taken, especially to 
the Federal courts. I think that that is what we should be about and 
that is the process that we should retain.
  In the bill, $5 million is included to fully fund the completion and 
implementation of this appeal process. And we call upon the Corps to do 
it as expeditiously as possible.
  I think that the language that was approved by the other body is 
acceptable and that the offending language on the jurisdictional issue 
goes for one final portion talking about final agency action.
  What the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) would do in the 
legislation is to suggest that if an appeal is taken, it would be 
considered a final agency action and that the property owner could then 
go to Federal court without first seeking a permit.
  I do not believe that this is appropriate policy, because a 
jurisdictional determination, first of all, does not restrict use of 
the property. It simply suggests that a permit would be necessary and 
95 percent of the permits requested are granted.
  Instead of expediting the process, and that is certainly what I think 
most people want to see encouraged on both sides of the political 
aisle, it would result in delay. Because instead of people and 
personnel at the Corps considering permit evaluations and considering 
other matters dealing with wetland and expeditious consideration, they 
would be defending those actions in Federal court. It would burden the 
courts. It would burden the Department of Justice and it certainly is a 
burden to the Corps.
  Finally, it seeks remedy where there is no harm. The issue only 
arises if there is a wetland. And it is the primary policy of this 
Nation it preserve those wetlands. And it only occurs if a permit is 
required.
  So I would suggest at this point in time the language that is 
included in the bill would simply lead to more litigation, and it would 
not solve the problem as intended.
  The second issue refers to a program called Permit 26. And 
essentially today, and since about 1977, there are 37 different general 
permits that the Corps of Engineers established to again expedite the 
process. They are meant to protect wetlands. They are meant to 
facilitate implementation of the Clean Water Act. If a certain criteria 
is not

[[Page 18060]]

met under general permitting, then an individual permit would be 
necessitated.
  Permit 26 is the only one of the 37 that does not meet the standards 
of the Clean Water Act because it is based on size and acreage and not 
on activity.
  The administration recognized this in 1996 and began to develop a 
permitting process that is activity based. In 1996, they reduced 
acreage and allowed the Permit 26 to continue 2 years while this 
program proceeded. On July 1 of last year, the situation was extended 
until March of this year, and comments were solicited from the public.
  In October of last year, one of the six activities that had been 
proposed by the Corps based on the comments received were withdrawn, 
that dealing with master plan development. The Corps heard the concern 
of property owners, developers, and landowners. An additional comment 
period was set aside in September of last year.
  As we speak, a third comment period relative to this permitting 
process is now underway. It began on July 21 to make sure that the 
public input is provided.
  It is anticipated, as with the jurisdictional issue, that this 
permitting situation will be resolved and a final process will be put 
into place by the end of this year. I think it is inappropriate for us 
to intervene in an extraordinary fashion to now delay that 
implementation after the Corps has worked so hard to ensure that it is 
put in place this year.
  I am very concerned about this provision. This is not something that 
is minor or insignificant. And again, I would remind all of my 
colleagues that FEMA, the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers have 
strongly objected and the administration has now issued a veto threat.
  I do believe that the language ought to be removed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) a member of the full committee and also a member 
of the subcommittee.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill and 
commend it to the body.
  In his first year as chairman, our good friend the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard) has done an outstanding job. He has taken the 
courageous approach to producing this bill, working with a lot less 
money than his predecessors. He compensated for that with difficult but 
justified decisions throughout the bill.
  This bill restores the public works programs of the Army Corps of 
Engineers, maintaining commitments between the Federal Government and 
communities across the Nation for flood control, navigation, and 
shoreline protection.
  The President's requested budget ignored many ongoing projects and 
zeroed them out, while at the same time he proposed $80 million in 
brand new activities.
  The administration adopted the practice of low-balling the annual 
Corps budget, leaving ongoing projects dangling and walking away from 
front-line responsibilities that Congress has directed and the Corps 
has proceeded with.
  We on the subcommittee have repeatedly hammered the White House for 
that practice because it breaks the faith between the Congress the 
Corps and our communities. It is an irresponsible approach to budgeting 
for our Nation's needs, and our constituents deserve better.
  Fortunately, we have the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) at 
the helm; and this bill goes a long way towards getting these projects 
back on track. The recommendation of $4.2 billion will ensure that 
these vital national priorities are adequately funded.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, I want to speak very briefly in favor of 
the bill's provisions regarding wetland permitting.
  We have been hearing and we will hear more from the opponents on this 
issue claiming that the bill reduces Federal protections and allows 
expanded development on remaining wetland. Simply put, that accusation 
is false. Neither the intent nor the impact of these provisions will be 
harmful to the environment.
  With regards to the administrative appeals process, the bill's 
provisions merely reflect what the administration expressed support for 
some time ago. But despite report language in both the 1998 and 1999 
bills giving the Corps the direction and the resources to implement an 
administrative appeals process for jurisdictional wetlands, nothing has 
happened.
  The underlying provisions in this bill in no way undermine public 
interest groups' rights in the appeals process. It merely gives private 
property owners, those most affected by the jurisdictional 
determination, the same rights now afforded to our environmental 
interest group friends.
  The language currently in the bill is a common-sense measure and 
should have been implemented by the Corps some time ago. I urge the 
House to support it.
  In closing, I will just say that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Packard) and his very capable staff have put together something we can 
all be proud of, and I would urge everyone to vote in favor of this 
bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), chairman of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding me 
this time.
  I may not be able to be here on the floor when we debate the 
Visclosky amendment, although it has already been referred to by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). I must say that I rise in 
strong opposition to that amendment.
  This amendment, if it passed, would delete a provision in the bill 
that simply requires a report to Congress before the Corps of Engineers 
finalizes extremely controversial changes to the nationwide permitting 
program. There are at least three compelling reasons to support the 
modest provisions in the bill and vigorously oppose this amendment:
  First, the right to know, truth-in-permitting. Congress and the 
American public have a right to know the costs and workload impacts of 
sweeping changes to the nationwide permitting program. What is the 
administration trying to hide? Why are unelected regulators so afraid 
to assess and disclose information on workload impacts and costs?
  Secondly is a question of fairness. While comprehensive reform on 
wetlands will have to wait for another day, there are some small steps 
we can take. One is to insist that the administration fully implement 
the administrative appeals process promised.
  Thirdly, accountability. We must hold the administration accountable. 
President Clinton promised an appeals process in 1993. To date, no 
process has been established for robust administrative appeals or 
expedited judicial review.
  We have got to hold the environmental extremists and the fearmongers 
accountable. This bill does not destroy wetlands, risk lives or cause 
flooding. Read the language. It simply is telling the Corps to share 
information with the appropriators and with the authorizers. It is not 
changing any standards under the Clean Water Act.
  Stop this misinformation. When the time comes, vote ``no'' on the 
Visclosky amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, there is a pilot project at the mouth of the 
Columbia River, established through the Oregon Graduate Institute and 
the Marine Environmental Research and Training Station in Astoria, 
Oregon which provides both realtime and historical model forecasts. The 
technology from this pilot project could have numerous applications, 
including channel deepening, habitat restoration and the reduction of 
flood hazards.
  Is it the chairman's understanding and the ranking member's 
understanding that the Army Corps of Engineers can exchange information 
and

[[Page 18061]]

provide professional advice to the Oregon Graduate Institute and the 
Marine Environmental Research and Training Station in the Institute's 
development and implementation of this system?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WU. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's position, and 
the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. If the gentleman will yield, I would agree with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. WU. I thank the chairman and the ranking member and encourage the 
Corps to interact with the Institute as this remarkable project moves 
forward in Oregon.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a very valuable member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2605, making 
appropriations for Energy and Water Development. Let me first thank the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pakard) and the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky) for their approach to this year's Energy and Water 
bill. It is a model of bipartisanship. Likewise, I would like to thank 
the staff of the committee for their tireless work on behalf of the 
Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill stresses important national priorities while 
keeping our commitment to downsizing the Federal Government and to keep 
our budget balanced. Again this year the President's budget request for 
the Army Corps of Engineers was woefully inadequate. Despite this 
committee's repeated calls for the President to fund these important 
infrastructure needs, he chose to ignore us. This bill maintains 
funding for critical flood safety, coastal protection and dredging 
projects throughout our Nation and flatly rejects the administration's 
efforts to back away from these very important and long-term 
investments. It restores the needed funds to protect American life and 
property and promotes our international competitiveness.
  In addition to the funding for our Nation's infrastructure, this bill 
provides funding for the Department of Energy. While this bill funds 
many critical programs at the Department, I would like to speak 
favorably, but do it under extended remarks, about some of the 
nonproliferation programs that the gentleman from California and a 
number of us visited in Russia recently. I think these are long-term 
investments in protecting our world, and I would like to thank the 
gentleman from California for taking us to Russia to visit two closed 
cities, nuclear cities, where we could see firsthand how some of our 
tax dollars are spent in protecting the world from a growing nuclear 
problem where, in fact, nuclear materials can get into the wrong hands.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the bill.
  As you know, Mr. Chairman, after the Cold War, our country and the 
Soviet Union were left with vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons, 
plutonium and highly enriched uranium. As a result, the mission of 
safeguarding this material has fallen to the DOE. In particular, the 
U.S. needed to ensure that Russian nuclear weapons were being 
dismantled and that the excess fissile materials removed from them were 
not used again to produce new nuclear weapons.
  The Warhead and Fissile Material Transparency Program, one of the 
many programs established at the DOE, sought to incorporate a 
comprehensive strategy to work cooperatively with Russia to develop 
transparency measures providing confidence that Russian nuclear arms 
were being dismantled. This program has opened doors in Russia which 
were once closed to the world.
  Also, under the Nuclear Cities Initiative, the U.S. and Russia are 
now joining forces to bring jobs and commercial enterprises to Russia's 
nuclear cities. Similarly, the Energy Department is working in Russia 
to install modern safeguards against further loss of controls over 
nuclear weapons, elements and knowledge under Material Protection, 
Control and Accountability System paid for with Energy Department 
dollars.
  Both of these programs are examples of how crucial this international 
work is and this bill continues to emphasize this importance. The 
reason I have taken the time to point out a few of these programs is to 
highlight, that this appropriations bill is more than just meeting our 
nation's infrastructure needs and scientific research. This bill 
continues our commitments made through treaties and agreements with 
Russia and underscores the importance of our continued work together to 
protect the world from new nuclear threats.
  Finally, let me say a word about fusion research. The Committee 
worked very hard to see that funds were provided to keep this important 
research on track. Specifically, I am very pleased that the bill 
includes $250 million for fusion research. Fusion energy has the 
potential to be unlimited and ultra-clean source of energy for the 
world. After numerous years of declining budgets for this program, it 
is refreshing to provide this important commitment.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill represents real progress towards setting 
national priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
California and the gentleman from Indiana for their leadership in 
bringing this bill to the floor. They have made a serious effort to 
keep the bill clean and their dedication to that effort has been 
instrumental in putting together a bill that we can move through the 
process. I would like to also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr) for his assistance with a matter in the report regarding the 
Trinity River Diversion.
  It is my understanding that the report language relating to the 
Trinity River Diversion is meant to ensure that a decision on the 
Trinity River flows is made in accordance with existing law.
  Is that the gentleman's understanding as well?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. That is my 
understanding.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working 
with the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Indiana to 
ensure final passage.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a moment to thank the 
gentleman from California for bringing such a fine bill to the floor 
today. Many Members know the difficulty it is for a chairman to wrestle 
all the issues that they are confronted with because so many priorities 
exist around America that we all want to deal with.
  We all know the funding constraints the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development was under this year and I think the gentleman from 
California did an excellent job of funding Members' priorities.
  I think the gentleman from California did a particularly fine job 
funding beach renourishment projects which are vital to the economies 
of coastal States like Florida. Every year, the administration refuses 
to recognize the Federal commitment to these projects by not requesting 
funds. Since I arrived here in 1994, I was quite shocked at the fact 
that they chose not to fund any beach renourishment projects in my 
district. I will suggest to Members if they look back at the history of 
Florida, particularly around the areas where the beaches have suffered 
the greatest damage, it is as a result of the inlets that were dug by 
the Corps of Engineers, years, some of them 50, 60 years ago, that have 
then changed the, if you will, flow of sand that occurs on the beaches, 
and particularly those to the south of the beach where the inlet was 
dug have suffered consequences that are extremely dire and 
environmental concerns on ocean, if you will, enhancements, in turtle 
nesting, a number of things. I again want to underscore the gentleman's 
particular fine attention to beach renourishment.
  I know that makes the subcommittee's job more difficult, and I thank 
the

[[Page 18062]]

gentleman from California for not going along with the administration's 
irresponsible policy. These are projects that demand and deserve the 
Federal Government as an active and willing partner, including, in my 
particular district, there are a number of communities that have, if 
you will, brought forward local tax dollars in support of these. In 
fact, some to the degree of well over 50, 75 percent of the local 
matching effort.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from California for fully funding 
the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Account. This 
account funds the Everglades ``critical restoration projects'' 
authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 which also 
includes Ten Mile Creek, a project in my district, these entire 
projects for the sustainability of Everglades National Park, underscore 
``national park,'' a priority we should all share in this Chamber as we 
care about our national parks in every region and every State and every 
jurisdiction.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this year's House bill funds the critical 
projects list that I just specified that have been designed by the 
local sponsor, South Florida Water Management, the Corps of Engineers 
and other entities to the tune of $21 million, an amount greater than 
the previous 2 years combined, to keep these vital restoration efforts 
moving forward.
  Again, I want to finally and strongly commend the gentleman from 
California, his first year as chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Water Development, for listening to Members' concerns, for looking 
out for the welfare and vitality of all of our regions, all of our 
States, for the entirety of our Nation. My hat is off to him for his 
excellent work and stewardship of this bill to the floor today.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for their leadership on the bill and thank the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for yielding me this time. I also appreciate 
the support of both the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) and the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant) on this project that is important 
not only to the International Port of Memphis but also to the ports 
along the Lower Mississippi from Cairo, Illinois to Baton Rouge, 
Louisiana.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1944 the Congress authorized a 12-foot navigation 
channel on the lower Mississippi River between Cairo, Illinois, and 
Baton Rouge. However, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers only maintains a 
9-foot channel. And although it is estimated that a 12-foot channel 
exists 85 percent of the time, the need for a formal reevaluation by 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is necessary. I ask the committee to 
direct the Corps of Engineers to evaluate the current feasibility of 
maintaining a dependable 12-foot navigation channel on the Mississippi 
River below Cairo to Baton Rouge within available Mississippi River and 
Tributaries funds. The study should determine if the expansion is 
technically sound, environmentally acceptable and economically 
justified.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his leadership 
on the inland navigational issue and will be more than pleased to work 
with him.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, the lower Mississippi River is vital to our 
Nation as the primary commerce link between our Nation's agricultural 
heartland and the foreign and domestic markets. It also serves as an 
economic backbone to the economically challenged areas of the lower 
Mississippi delta area. A 12-foot navigation channel can increase the 
cargo-carrying capacity of the existing system with the least 
investment cost to the Nation. I appreciate the committee's willingness 
to address this issue and hope that language will be included in the 
conference report that would direct the Corps of Engineers to evaluate 
this issue.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise today in support of H.R. 2605, the Energy and Water 
Development appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2000.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill plays a critical role in public works 
projects throughout my coastal district. I am especially grateful to 
the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Indiana for their 
efforts in the area of shore protection. Since the Clinton-Gore 
administration decided several years ago to drastically cut shore 
protection from their annual budget, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development has struggled each year to come up with the 
additional millions of dollars to meet critical beach erosion needs all 
across our country. This fact, coupled with the budget cap realities, 
has coastal communities across the country finding themselves facing 
severe beach erosion with little Federal relief in sight.
  Funding issues aside, I am also concerned over the slow rate of 
progress being made to renourish beaches in Broward County and Miami-
Dade County, Florida, where arcane and archaic Army Corps policies have 
slowed down beach renourishment projects. I am hopeful that I can work 
with the subcommittee over the next few weeks to find innovative 
solutions to overcome these obstacles.
  I also would be remiss if I did not express my appreciation to this 
committee as well as the Subcommittee on Interior and also to the 
chairman of the full committee the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
for their sensitivity to our needs of the environment in the 
Everglades. The attention that this Congress has given to our 
environmental needs in Florida has really been most gratifying. I want 
to express appreciation for the entire Florida delegation on this 
matter.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
Energy and Water appropriations bill and to thank the gentleman from 
California and the gentleman from Indiana for all their hard work along 
with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  On behalf of my constituents from the Seventh Congressional District, 
I want to convey my heartfelt gratitude for a very important project 
made possible by this legislation. This bill allows for an Army Corps 
of Engineers feasibility study to be conducted in Flushing Bay and 
Flushing Creek in Queens County in New York City.

                              {time}  1715

  This study will develop ideas for improving water quality in these 
bodies of water and help make them viable again for the citizens of New 
York.
  Mr. Chairman, without Federal funding, Flushing Bay and Flushing 
Creek would not be cleaned up.
  I thank the committee for recognizing the importance of this project 
to the people of Queens and to agreeing to help us maintain and, more 
importantly, to improve our bodies of water, and once again, Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) for all his support and help in this effort.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a valued member of the subcommittee and the 
full Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
this time to me. I appreciate obviously all the work he has done on 
this bill, his staff included, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) for his work in bringing about a great bipartisan proposal. 
I would like to thank the committee as well for addressing my concerns 
on back-door implementation of the Kyoto Treaty. This bill includes my 
language to prohibit the DOE, the Department of Energy, from issuing

[[Page 18063]]

rules or regulations to implement this fatally flawed agreement until 
it is ratified by the Senate.
  The Kyoto Treaty is unfair. The United States Senate has unanimously 
voted that it will not consent to a treaty that is so unfair.
  Given the stakes involved, Congress must be vigilant in ensuring that 
this agreement is not rammed through the back door. Make no mistake 
about it. As the offerer of the amendment, I intend that no taxpayer 
dollars be spent to do any work whatsoever on carbon emissions trading, 
be it under the rubric of educational materials, or a seminar or 
otherwise.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that that bill provides much needed 
funding for nuclear R&D. Nuclear energy, which represents 20 percent of 
the Nation's energy supply, provides a viable, cost-efficient and clean 
alternative to fossil fuels. However, for nuclear energy to become a 
more prominent energy source for the American people in the 21st 
century, the Federal Government must dedicate more money to nuclear 
R&D.
  This bill provides 20 million for the NERI program, 12 million for 
the university support programs, and a first-time appropriation of 5 
million for the NEPO program. This modest investment of taxpayer 
dollars will facilitate the development of technology that will make 
nuclear energy safer and more efficient. It also ensures that the 
United States will continue to produce the best nuclear scientists in 
the world, and it provides the resources to improve the efficiency, the 
safety and reliability of our existing nuclear power plants.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe these programs provide enormous benefits to 
the American people, and I would like to see their funding increased 
even further. I understand however the realities of this at this time 
are not possible.
  Once again, I do want to sincerely thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky). I want to recognize the staff again because they did a 
super job, a tremendous job, in bringing this bill to closure.
  So with that I urge a yea vote on this bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards), a valued member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not going to be one of the highest profile 
bills that we will pass before this House this year, but I think it 
will be one of the most important, one of the most important if my 
colleagues believe that providing for flood control for communities and 
urban rural areas across our country is important. One of the most 
important if they think it is a role of our Federal Government to 
safeguard the nuclear stockpile, provide for energy research, and help 
solve the problem and the threat of nuclear proliferation. This bill 
deals with those crucial, crucial issues.
  The reason this bill is not going to be one of the highest profile 
bills in the Congress is because we had a great chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and a great 
ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), who worked 
together in a bipartisan, really nonpartisan, fashion on so many of the 
important decisions that had to be made. And as happens when we have 
leaders in this House that work together, the press, the national 
press, pays very little attention to that.
  So notwithstanding the honest disagreements as there would be and 
should be on issues such as the environment and the wetlands issue in 
this bill, the chairman and the ranking member did an outstanding job 
of putting together this package on a nonpartisan basis.
  Let me say personally while I wish we had more money to fund the 
critical programs in the Department of Energy, the budget simply did 
not allow that, and I hope the final conference report might include 
some plus ups in some of those programs.
  And as a final note, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I understand that 
there are between, depending on how one counts them, 800 and a thousand 
Member requests for additional spending in this bill, and to those who 
would argue in support of nearly a trillion dollars tax cut over the 
next 10 years that we can cut domestic discretionary spending by 20 to 
40 percent, I would suggest they need to look at the finer details of 
legislation such as this, important flood control, water research 
projects; that if they were to be cut by 20 to 40 percent, we would 
undermine some terribly, terribly important causes and programs for 
this country.
  This is a good bill. Notwithstanding what happens on the amendment 
dealing with the wetlands, I intend to support it, and I want to again 
commend the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for 
their leadership on this legislation.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I have a series of colloquies that I would 
like to take care of, if we can during the general debate time, and to 
begin that series I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me express my appreciation 
for the hard work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and 
that of the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), 
in putting together this bill that is before us today.
  I know they were approached with many requests that simply could not 
all be accommodated. I, along with a number of our colleagues, sought 
funding for a study to be conducted by Oakridge Laboratory of the Atlas 
Uranium Mill Tailings site in Moab, Utah. I know the gentleman from 
California is familiar with this issue as this site sits within 750 
feet of the Colorado River which runs drinking water for 25 million 
people.
  I understand that funding was not provided because this particular 
study is not currently authorized. It is my hope that in the coming 
year, we will secure adequate authorization. At that point would the 
chairman be willing to work with us to secure funding in the future for 
this vital study and other remediation efforts?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, we did not fund 
any unauthorized projects, and thus this could not be funded. I will be 
more than happy to work with the gentleman in the future years.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard) and the entire committee and their staff for 
the good bill they brought before us. They worked hard to cut wasteful 
spending out of the Department of Energy's budget.
  I do appreciate this opportunity to engage the chairman, the 
gentleman from California, in a colloquy, and I would like to urge the 
gentleman to make the Department of Energy's tight budget even tighter. 
I believe more cuts can be made to questionable grants awarded under 
the nuclear energy research initiative or NERI program including cold 
fusion and others.
  Now cold fusion can receive a grant, then the grant administrators 
are simply not taking seriously their responsibility to the taxpayers. 
We have to question the adequacy of DOE's peer review process. The 
whole NERI project needs to be looked at under a microscope. The 
Department of Energy is not doing this. They are reviewing only the 
cold fusion grant.
  Now here is a perfect opportunity to stop the traditional government 
solution of throwing more money at a problem in the hope that it will 
go away. The American people are tired of paying more taxes simply 
because the government sometimes does not know what it is doing.

[[Page 18064]]

  The general focus of the other cuts that I suggest are an unnecessary 
administrative cost.
  I hope my colleague can also work to restore or increase funds for 
several critical programs such as the computational and technological 
research to ensure that the cleanup of the Defense sites remains on 
schedule and to guarantee the Department of Energy can adequately fund 
its payment in lieu of taxes. The DOE has been in arrears on its 
obligations in these counties since 1994, and with all the money 
taxpayers give DOE, they should be able to be current on the PILT.
  We also need to ensure the safekeeping of our nuclear secrets by 
increasing counterintelligence funding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has raised funding in this bill for 
counterintelligence, and I commend him for it, but we need to make sure 
the job is done right by increasing this funding by about $2 million 
more.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the gentleman from 
California and the committee will work to make some of these changes in 
conference to address these concerns and save the American taxpayers 
money.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COOK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. The gentleman is correct. We will be more than pleased 
to work with him in conference, and we are trying to resolve this 
issue.
  Mr. COOK. I thank the gentleman very much for engaging me in this 
colloquy.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. First of all, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
California for his leadership and hard work on this bill, and his time 
and commitment is appreciated by me and the entire Congress. And for 
this reason, Mr. Chairman, I am here at the well to discuss the ability 
of the State of Nevada and all affected local governments in the State 
to carry out their oversight authority of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as 
was granted to them under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
  Currently the Department of Energy is conducting tests to determine 
if Yucca Mountain will be a suitable permanent repository site for 
nuclear waste. When the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 was created, 
Members of this body felt that it was imperative for the State of 
Nevada and all affected local governments to have sufficient resources 
to carry out their own oversight.
  These necessary moneys are used to properly oversee tests the 
Department of Energy is carrying out to determine whether or not Yucca 
Mountain is suitable as a permanent nuclear waste site. This is a very 
critical part of the 1982 act because it allowed for Nevada and, 
particularly its residents, to have confidence in the scientific 
studies and especially the validity of those tests that the Department 
of Energy has been conducting.
  These resources will allow for State and local governments to 
continue to perform their own independent validation and oversight 
tests to ensure the best science is used to determine site suitability. 
It has been my experience that local scientists have been nonbiased and 
have produced needed assurances that only the best scientific data is 
used to determine the hydrologic and geologic character of the Yucca 
Mountain area.
  We have nearly 2 million people in Nevada, and their safety and 
quality of life in this debate should not be ignored, making it 
imperative that we provide the financial resources to ensure the State 
of Nevada and affected local governments are able to monitor and report 
on this activity.
  Therefore, I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the House conferees work 
with me to get $4.727 million for the State of Nevada and $5.432 
million for the affected local governments. These appropriated amounts 
are consistent with the moneys appropriated in the Senate Fiscal Year 
2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
  And as time moves closer to designate Yucca Mountain as a permanent 
nuclear repository, it becomes imperative that we address the 
scientific and safety concerns of the citizens of Nevada, and again I 
would thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for his work on 
this bill and appreciate his willingness to work with me on this very 
important issue.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GIBBONS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the gentleman that 
I do understand the Yucca Mountain issue, particularly as it relates to 
the Nevada people, and I will do my best to work with the gentleman in 
resolving the issues. It is a very, very important issue nationally as 
well as in the gentleman's state.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
understanding on this very important issue. These moneys are important 
to Nevada and to its future.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take this 
opportunity to again express my support for this bill. I also want to 
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for working with me 
and my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) on our 
amendment on renewable energy.
  I am glad that the gentleman has agreed to accept our amendment, and 
I look forward to discussing it in more detail at the appropriate time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the committee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I seek time to thank the distinguished 
chairman of this subcommittee and to thank the excellent staff with 
which he works every day and also to engage him in a colloquy.

                              {time}  1730

  This is an issue of great importance to our Nation.
  As the gentleman knows, the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant is located in 
the district that I serve. These facilities were on the front lines of 
the Cold War and were an integral part in bringing that long conflict 
to a successful and victorious end. The workers in Oak Ridge selflessly 
served our country and did a magnificent job.
  As their representative here in the House, I am acutely aware that 
our national security depends on adequately funding their mission and 
making sure our aging weapons plants are properly maintained and 
modernized. However, earlier this year the President submitted a budget 
that was insufficient to maintain the current activity level at the Y-
12 plant. Recognizing this shortfall, the House Committee on National 
Security provided a $38.6 million increase in funds for the Y-12 
weapons plant and environmental management activities there in Oak 
Ridge.
  Because of the small allocation and the extreme pressures placed on 
the subcommittee, the chairman was not able to fully fund this request. 
While I understand that not much can be done at this time, I would like 
to make a strong appeal to the chairman of the subcommittee that when 
the conference committee convenes, that every effort is made to 
adequately fund the critical missions of nuclear weapons, stockpile and 
stewardship and modernization of their facilities.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is very much aware of the 
fact that we have very limited funding, and if additional funds become 
available between now and conference, we will do our best to make sure 
that the gentleman's concerns are addressed in conference.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo).

[[Page 18065]]


  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the subcommittee is 
aware, I have an amendment at the desk that has been made in order. The 
purpose of this amendment is to take $150,000 from the ``General 
Investigation'' section under Title 1 for a project in my district and 
place that amount in the ``General Construction'' section of that same 
project. After discussing this in detail with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard), while this is an authorized project and I 
view it as sound policy, I have decided not to offer that amendment at 
this time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for not 
offering this amendment. I will work with the gentleman as we proceed 
through the regular process and through the conference. I understand 
this project, and I agree that it merits reimbursement funding at the 
appropriate time during the conferencing.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, the Corps did not include this in its 
current budget request. In order to ensure that this project is 
included in the Corps' next fiscal year budget proposal, I drafted this 
amendment and appreciate the gentleman taking an interest in seeing 
this important issue resolved.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, I am 
aware of the importance this holds to Stockton, California, the city 
where the gentleman certainly has a great interest in his district, and 
I will work to see that they are promptly repaid by the Federal 
Government for authorizing Federal flood control work projects as it 
carries out on behalf of the Corps. I will do my best.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) has 13\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has 1\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire if the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) would be willing to yield 5 minutes for the 
purpose of engaging in colloquies with various Members.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is the gentleman may 
need up to 6 minutes, and I am happy to yield him that 6 minutes for 
purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California will 
control 6 additional minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
California and also the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana, the 
committee members and staff for the great job they have done on this 
bill.
  As my colleagues know, I had the privilege of serving for 10 years on 
this subcommittee, and I miss the opportunities of being there for a 
lot of the discussion and debate. But I do appreciate the committee 
including funding for the southeast Oklahoma water study which is in my 
district. The study would determine what benefits and needs there are 
for the potential use of that water in southeast Oklahoma. It is my 
understanding that the study will also include two hydroelectric 
projects under consideration at Pine Creek Dam on Little River and at 
the Broken Bow Re-Regulation Dam on Mountain Fork River, both in my 
district.
  Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is 
correct.
  I want to thank the gentleman for his expertise and input and 
experience on this, and I look forward to working with the gentleman on 
this very important project.
  Mr. WATKINS. I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Packard), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, and all members of the 
committee, as well as the very fine staff. I have read through most of 
this very thorough report which goes on for roughly 201 pages; and in 
those pages we can see fairness. We can see responsibility and thinking 
about the national interests in all of these various projects that 
affect millions of our fellow citizens.
  For millions of Americans, my colleagues on the subcommittee have 
shown the way in building what needs to be done to prevent floods, to 
utilize and purify our waters in many ways, and to enable us to have 
great harbors.
  I thank the chairman of the subcommittee on behalf of the five 
congressional districts in Los Angeles County where 500,000 people are 
in the flood plain. It is a very expensive project, but hopefully it 
will be almost the last year of construction. The flood area is in the 
most devastated part of the county of Los Angeles. 400,000 aerospace 
workers became unemployed starting in March of 1988 and for the next 
decade.
  On top of that then, FEMA imposed flood insurance on this project, 
and millions of dollars were extracted from thousands of low income 
workers.
  The subcommittee and its members were wise to finish this project 
which affects so many people in a county of 10 million residents.
  Again, I thank the gentleman (Mr. Packard) and all of the members of 
the subcommittee for their help. They have shown fairness and 
recognition of a population in need, and we thank him for it.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. 
Hill).
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the subcommittee 
for the work they have done on this bill, and I want to draw the 
gentleman's attention today to an issue that is important to the people 
of Montana.
  Last year, Congress authorized the sale of certain Federally owned 
cabin sites on Canyon Ferry Reservoir. The proceeds from the sale, 
estimated to be $18 million to $20 million, will be used to improve 
fish and wildlife habitat and recreational access along the Missouri 
River. In addition, the sale of the cabin sites would enhance the local 
property tax base.
  The Congress made the sale of the cabin sites contingent on the 
establishment of a $3 million Canyon Ferry Broad Water County Trust, 
funded in full or in part by in-kind projects carried out by the Bureau 
of Reclamation. Unfortunately, this bill does not contain any money for 
these projects.
  Does the Chairman believe that it is critical for the Bureau of 
Reclamation, working in conjunction with the cabin site owners and the 
local units of government, to identify specific improvement projects 
around Cabin Ferry in order to ensure that the intent of the Cabin 
Ferry legislation is fulfilled?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HILL of Montana. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman. The 
gentleman is correct. I appreciate his leadership on making me aware of 
this important issue, and I want to compliment him for his hard work 
and diligence in attempting to complete this sale.
  I look forward to working with the gentleman from Montana on this 
important issue as it proceeds through the appropriations process.
  Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his 
comments and I look forward to working with the subcommittee and with 
him in the future to complete this important project.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), a member of the full committee.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from

[[Page 18066]]

California (Mr. Packard) for the good work that has been done on this 
bill, as well as express appreciation to the ranking member to try to 
put this bill together in a way that is fair for all parts of the 
country who have issues relating to energy and water, especially the 
work that has been done, Mr. Chairman, on addressing of the salmon 
restoration funding in the Pacific Northwest. There are tight fiscal 
constraints in this year's budget, and I appreciate the effort that has 
been undertaken to address those issues of salmon restoration.
  The Pacific Northwest has numerous salmon species listed as 
endangered or threatened, and the committee has expressed concerns 
about the money spent on restoration efforts. In fact, last year the 
subcommittee provided $7 million for Columbia fish mitigation efforts 
by the Corps of Engineers and included report language that questioned 
the amount of money that has been spent on fish mitigation efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, we are delighted that we are making progress in the 
region, and I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to provide $65 
million in funding for Columbia River fish mitigation efforts. We must 
continue to look at all options for recovering salmon, including 
addressing predation by Caspian Terns, thoroughly evaluating ``PIT'' 
tag research, and to encourage the Corps of Engineers to make 
improvements to the current hydroelectric system to improve salmons' 
survival success rate. It is critically important to the Northwest.
  I also appreciate the efforts the gentleman has made to address my 
concerns regarding section 317 of this bill, since it was marked in the 
full committee last week. I am still concerned about the interpretation 
of the language, but I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the clarification of 
the intent that appears in this bill.
  The Federal Power Marketing Administration, such as BPA, Bonneville 
Power Administration, provides power in the Pacific Northwest. They are 
interconnected to other transmission systems. In the case of BPA, the 
transmission lines are interconnected by areas such as California and 
Wyoming, and even Canada, and were mandated by law to maintain the 
safety and reliability of the transmission system.
  There are times in these remote areas when power marketing 
administrations may be the only utility capable, because of manpower 
and having necessary equipment, of restoring downed transmission lines. 
PMAs may do this for a public or private utility, thereby expending 
ratepayer funds, but the operations are done based on reciprocal 
contracts. In the case of BPA, the ratepayers are reimbursed by the 
incumbent utility for their work.
  So I appreciate the clarification, Mr. Chairman, that has been done 
with respect to PMAs providing these kinds of services. I am concerned 
that the language would be interpreted to prohibit PMAs, including BPA, 
from providing these reciprocal agreements and could hinder the 
reliability of the system, especially for remote and rural customers.
  I appreciate the gentleman's help in this regard.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the importance 
of the Department of Energy's Worker and Community Transition Program. 
I am greatly concerned and disappointed with the report language 
regarding this program.
  This year's energy and water report states that, ``Funding at DOE 
cleanup sites in the nuclear weapons complex has stabilized. The need 
for enhanced severance payments to contract employees and grants to 
local communities has declined. Worker and community transition is not 
an enduring mission of the government. The committee does not intend to 
continue to fund this program, and the Department should prepare for 
significantly decreased or no funding in fiscal year 2001.''
  Mr. Chairman, I represent one of two uranium enrichment facilities 
which is located in Piketon, Ohio. The other plant is located in 
Paducah, Kentucky; and I know the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield), my friend and colleague, has been very supportive of this 
program.
  Our plants were privatized last summer and since privatization, both 
sites have experienced significant layoffs. Our communities are bracing 
for more layoffs this summer with future workforce reductions imminent. 
Now is not the time to eliminate funding for the Worker and Community 
Transition Program, because we would effectively leave numerous Cold 
War veterans without the assistance others have received over the 
years.
  I urge the committee to revisit this issue.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member. I recognize 
this is their first year working together, and I think they have done a 
very good job on this very important bill. I want to thank them for all 
the money they gave to specific projects in the Pacific Northwest.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) did, 
I want to register my concern, however, about two provisions included 
in this year's Energy and Water Appropriations Act relating to the 
power marketing administrations. I understand that the chairman has 
demonstrated willingness to clarify the language, but I still have deep 
concerns about the implications, unless the bill language is amended.
  Section 316 of the bill would limit the ability of the power 
marketing administrations to install fiberoptic cable. It is my 
understanding that the Bonneville Power Marketing Administration is 
willing to develop a report to the subcommittee which would present 
their fiberoptic capacity needs, projections, construction, and 
financing plans.
  This provision in the bill limits the ability of the Power Marketing 
Administrations from certain ``construction, expansion or upgrades'' to 
dark fiberoptic telecommunication lines which are repaid by users. I 
believe this provision is premature and unnecessary. We should allow 
the PMAs to complete ongoing projects and allow them to provide the 
Congress with their view of the public benefits before we enact a 
legislative provision in this appropriations bill.
  Additionally, section 317 prohibits the PMAs from providing emergency 
transmission system maintenance and repair and reimbursable contract 
services to their customers, which are provided by service utilities 
across the country.

                              {time}  1745

  This provision not only jeopardizes the safety and reliability of the 
vast transmission system owned by Bonneville, but also violates the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's order 888, which states that the 
PMAs in certain circumstances must provide transmission access and 
construction of additional facilities to neighboring utilities.
  This section would prevent the Bonneville Power Administration from 
directly funding the power operations and maintenance of the 29 Federal 
Columbia River Power System dams which they are required to do under 
Federal law. The Northwest power system cannot operate without these 
funds.
  Each of these sections in the bill is unworkable in its current form. 
It is my great hope that both provisions can be removed, and the PMAs 
and the subcommittee can work together to address any concerns they may 
have.
  I appreciate, again, all the help from the chairman, he bent over 
backwards to help us, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) 
has been very willing to help us, as well. We look forward to working 
with the gentleman in the conference on this issue.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. John).

[[Page 18067]]


  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard).
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for his past 
support for the Jennings, Louisiana, biomass ethanol plant. It is my 
understanding, Mr. Chairman, that it will be possible to explore ways 
to complete the Federal funding of this plant in fiscal year 2000.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JOHN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. PACKARD. The gentleman is correct, Mr. Chairman. I will do my 
best to work with the gentleman.
  Mr. JOHN. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2605, the 
Energy and Water Appropriations Bill. I would also like to thank 
Chairman Packard and Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard work on 
bringing a fair and balanced bill to the floor.
  I have the privilege and honor of representing the greater Portland 
area and the Northwest Coast of Oregon. For those of you who have had 
the pleasure of visiting this wonderful city, you will know that much 
of the vitality of our region depends on the Willamette and Columbia 
rivers. Commerce, recreation, and scenic beauty are three products of 
these Rivers. The Columbia River, stretching from the eastern part of 
Washington and ending at the mouth in Astoria is one of America's 
greatest resources.
  One in six jobs in the state of Oregon depend on the commerce from 
the Columbia River. The success of the river is vital to our economy 
and way of life. Unfortunately, as trade and technology increases, so 
does the need for passable channels for ships to continue to move in 
and out of the area ports. This bill includes important operation and 
maintenance funds to ensure that sorely needed dredging activities can 
take place and keep commerce moving. Commerce in Oregon will continue 
to prosper, and the benefits of a solid economy will follow.
  I hope to continue to work with the Corps of Engineers to insure that 
the disposal of dredged materials not affect the crab fishers on the 
Oregon coast and work to have the least amount of environmental impact 
as possible. Furthermore, with the deepening of the Columbia River 
channel, there is concern about the local efforts to develop the Port 
of Astoria as a deep draft port. As with all ports, development of 
extensive infrastructure must be market driven, and I am looking 
forward to doing all I can to look at viable options.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Committee for 
their support of the Clatskanie River and Fox Creek Projects. With the 
federal funding allocated, Clatskanie city officials will be able to 
commence with planning of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial with a free 
flowing river; and fish will swim freely in Fox Creek. Finally, I would 
like to thank the committee for their support of the East Mooring Bay 
repair in the city of Astoria. These desperately needed funds, along 
with other funding, will allow Astoria to repair almost half of the 
breakwater.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Packard, Ranking Member Visclosky, 
thank you for giving me the opportunity today to support the Energy and 
Water appropriations bill and more importantly to support the funding 
for the Columbia River Deepening Project.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill, but I have one concern that I 
hope can be resolved during Conference.
  My concern is bill language in ``Title I, General Expenses'' that 
will force the closure of the Chicago office of the Great Lakes/Ohio 
River division of the Army Corps of Engineers. Because of the 
importance of the Great Lakes to the United States, both for shipping 
and providing drinking water to millions of people, an agreement was 
reached in 1996 to maintain dual headquarters of the Great Lakes/Ohio 
River Army Corps division in both Chicago and Cincinnati. This dual 
headquarters system should be maintained, and I hope that the House 
conferees will recede to the Senate's silence on this matter.
  Otherwise, I am supportive of the bill because it provides funding 
for critical flood control projects in my district and throughout the 
Chicago area.
  These projects include:
  $4.5 million to continue work on the ``Deep Tunnel'' project, 
including the Calumet leg of the tunnel in Chicago's South Side and 
south suburbs, and the McCook and Thornton reservoirs.
  $200,000 for detailed planning of a detention pond and storm sewer 
improvements along Natalie Creek near the Chicago Sanitary and Ship 
Canal in Oak Forest and Midlothian.
  $150,000 for small ecosystem restoration at a reservoir along Hickory 
Creek in Tinley Park.
  $100,000 each for preliminary studies of recurrent flooding problems 
along: Tributaries A and B of Thorn Creek in Chicago Heights; Flossmoor 
Tributary of Butterfield Creek in Flossmoor; and Village streets in 
Calumet Park.
  I commend Chairman Packard and Ranking Member Visclosky for putting 
together a bipartisan, even-handed bill under difficult budget 
circumstances. They have done an amazing job with this bill, while 
taking into consideration the countless deserving project requests they 
received from Members from all regions of the country.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee to resolve the issue of closure of the Chicago office of the 
Great Lakes/Ohio River division, and I encourage my colleagues to 
support the bill.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take this opportunity to 
congratulate and thank the chairman of the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Subcommittee, the chairman of the full Appropriations 
Committee and all of my colleagues who serve on those two bodies for 
the excellent work they have done in crafting the Energy and Water 
Appropriations measure for Fiscal Year (FY) 2000. Not only is the bill, 
as reported, fiscally responsible, but for the most part its priorities 
make sense--as does its treatment of wetlands and the environment.
  Permit me to elaborate. As it came to the House Floor, the FY2000 
Energy and Water Appropriations (H.R. 2605) bill called for $880 
million less in spending than the total amount appropriated for energy 
and water programs in FY1999. Even if one subtracts out the emergency 
appropriations for those functions in FY1999, the bill is still $215 
million below last year's spending level. More impressive yet, the sum 
of the spending provided for in the committee-reported version of this 
bill is, according to the committee report, more than $300 million 
below the amount appropriated in FY1995. What better way to make good 
on our commitment to a balanced federal budget that locks away Social 
Security surpluses and reduces our national debt, than to adopt a 
measure such as this.
  Certain critics of H.R. 2605 demur, citing several provisions of the 
bill that deal with the wetlands permitting process. Their fear is that 
these provisions will hasten the demise of America's wetlands and, for 
that reason, they have labeled them ``anti-environmental'' riders. I 
beg to differ. Not only do the provisions in question treat all parties 
interested in wetlands determinations more fairly, but the critics are 
overlooking another item in the bill that will promote the creation and 
restoration of wetlands and help us better understand the role they can 
play in controlling flooding.
  That item is the appropriation of the last $1.75 million needed to 
complete the Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project (DPRWDP) 
in northern Illinois. I make particular mention of the project, not 
just because it is located in the district I am privileged to represent 
in Congress, but because it has already provided us with invaluable 
information about the way wetlands work and how they can contribute to 
such things as habitat preservation and flood control. When the DPRWDP 
is finished, not only will additional research information be 
available, but so too will be a ``how-to'' guide that will help other 
areas of the country restore wetlands for environmental and flood 
control purposes. That, in turn, will aid in the accomplishment of the 
very objective that critics of the wetlands permitting provisions of 
H.R. 2605 have in mind: the preservation and restoration of wetlands 
areas around the country.
  Having been a supporter of the DPRWDP for over a decade now, I am 
proud of its accomplishments, excited about its potential and pleased 
by its inclusion in this bill. Like many other items funded by H.R. 
2605, the DPRWDP promises to save American taxpayers many more dollars 
than it will cost. Not only that, but it should ease the minds of those 
who are concerned about the future of America's wetlands. The DPRWDP 
is, in short, a win-win proposition. Within the context of an overall 
bill that is one of the most fiscally responsible appropriations 
measures in recent memory, it promotes environmental responsibility as 
well. That being the case, I urge my colleagues to look at the DPRWDP 
as one more reason to support the FY2000 Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill. with the DPWFDP included, H.R. 2065 is a measure 
to which most everyone should be able to give their enthusiastic 
backing.
  Mrs. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Energy and 
Water Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2000, and I compliment the 
job of my two colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee 
Chairman Ron Packard and Ranking Member

[[Page 18068]]

Peter Visclosky, on their first year in their respective roles.
  The Energy and Water Appropriations bill is always of great 
importance to California because of its impact on our harbors and 
waterways, and the need to protect our residents from natural disasters 
such as flooding.
  I will focus on a number of projects that are of specific importance 
to my constituents in the 33rd Congressional District as well as the 
entire Los Angeles area.
  One of the most important projcts for my constituents is the Los 
Angeles County Drainage Area flood control project along the Los 
Angeles and Rio Hondo Rivers, known as the ``LACDA'' project. This 
project was recommended by a task force of government agencies, 
environmental groups, and neighborhood groups. My constituents and 
other residents along the Los Angeles River are impacted directly 
because each year of project delay costs local residents as much as 
$130 million in flood insurance premiums as well as the adverse 
economic impact associated with building restrictions within the flood 
plain. Fortunately, FEMA has given us an indefinite postponement of 
flood insurance increases, but I am pleased that the final increment of 
this funding has been provided so we can bring the much-needed 
protection to my constitutes. The LACDA project will restore an 
adequate level of flood protection to 500,000 people and 177,000 
structures, and it will affect 11 cites over 82 square miles in Los 
Angeles County. Without the LACDA project, an estimated $2.3 billion in 
damages would result from a large storm event.
  I am also pleased that the bill provides the funding to complete the 
next phase of the Pier 400 construction project in Los Angeles Harbor. 
This project will create an additional 315 acres of new land at Pier 
400 upon which new state-of-the-art marine terminals will be built. In 
addition, a deep draft navigation project will be completed in order to 
accommodate the next generation of larger container ships. The Corps of 
Engineers has already made this project a top priority by reprogramming 
funds in order to maintain an optimal construction schedule.
  Although I was disappointed that funds for the pre-construction, 
engineering and design phase of the main channel deepening project have 
not been included, I look forward to working with the committee once 
this project has been formally authorized to continue these needed 
improvements to Los Angeles Harbor.
  This bill also provides funds for clean-up of the San Gabriel Basin. 
The San Gabriel groundwater basin is the primary source of drinking 
water for about one million residents in the San Gabriel Valley. 
Unfortunately, the groundwater is contaminated with both organic and 
inorganic compounds, so I am pleased that funds have been included in 
the bill to get the clean-up project underway. My constituents may draw 
their water from the Central Basin, but this project is still important 
to them. If we do not undertake the cleanup of these contaminated 
sediments in a timely fashion, we run the real risk of contamination of 
the Central Basin, serving 1.4 million Los Angeles County residents, 
including my constituents in Vernon, Cudahy, Maywood, Bell, Bell 
Gardens and South Gate.
  Finally, as a member of the House Select Committee on U.S. National 
Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of 
China, I understand the Committee's concern with the Department of 
Energy's national security programs centered around its weapons' 
laboratories. Given the recent revelations regarding Chinese espionage 
at our national labs, these concerns are valid and timely. However, I 
have serious reservations about the way the Committee has chosen to 
address this issue.
  It may be the practice for the Appropriations Committee to delay 
obligating funds to an agency in order to correct a problem, achieve a 
specific end, or perhaps just to send a message. In this case, however, 
the withholding of $1 billion in funding from DOE's nuclear weapons 
program until June 30, 2000, is overly harsh and, in my view, 
unnecessary. That level of funding amounts to one-fourth of the 
Department's total funding for weapons activities. Restricting these 
funds for the majority of the fiscal year would seriously hamper DOE's 
ability to carry out its weapons-related research and functions.
  Further, both the House and the Senate are already addressing this 
issue. Just last week, the Senate passed an amendment to the 
Intelligence Authorization bill which establishes a separately 
organized Agency for Nuclear Stewardship to be headed by a new Under-
Secretary who will report directly to the Secretary of Energy. Within 
this new agency, a separate office focusing on counter-intelligence 
would be established with a direct line to the new Under-Secretary as 
well as the Energy Secretary. The House-passed version of the bill 
includes several recommendations to increase security at the labs that 
were agreed to by our bi-partisan Select Committee. Further, the House 
Science Committee, the Commerce Committee, and the House Select 
Intelligence Committee are all looking into this matter, and a free-
standing bill is expected to be ready sometime this summer.
  With the House and Senate already taking meaningful steps to address 
the security problems at DOE, this funding restriction is unnecessary 
and will only serve to further hamper the Department's efforts to 
address these security concerns while carrying out day-to-day 
functions. I would, therefore, urge the Committee to drop this harmful 
provision.
  Again, I compliment Chairman Packard and Ranking Democrat Peter 
Visclosky for putting together a well-balanced bill that makes progress 
on many projects of importance to my constituents, my state and the 
nation.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2605, the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. First, I would like to 
thank Chairman Packard for his hard work and dedication in crafting a 
balanced bill. I would also like to commend Chairman Young for his 
responsible leadership in ensuring that these necessary spending bills 
are delivered on time and at the levels required under the budget 
resolution.
  As a member of the southern California delegation, I understand the 
importance of preserving our water resources and protecting citizens 
from flood damage. This bill appropriates vital funds for watershed 
management, flood control, environmental enhancement, water 
conservation and water supply, and building dams which will save many 
lives downstream.
  This bill will help protect vulnerable communities. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  I also urge my colleagues to vote against the Visclosky amendment. 
Under current law, if the Corps of Engineers determines that no 
wetlands exist on a piece of property, a third party can file suit in 
court. But, if the Corps determines that wetlands do exist, then the 
landowner is forced to go through the entire permitting process before 
he or she can go to court.
  Mr. Chairman, current law puts the hard-working citizens at a 
disadvantage to extreme environmental groups. This bill will allow 
landowners the same right to appeal a decision in court, the same right 
that any interested third party currently enjoys. It's only fair and I 
urge my colleagues to oppose the Visclosky amendment.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the bill provides $97.5 
million under biomass/biofuels energy systems, which includes $41 
million for the transportation program.
  It is my understanding that, although the House version does not 
identify which projects receive funds, the conference report has 
reflected a compromise between the two chambers that provides funding 
to certain projects.
  The concern I would like to raise to the Chairman deals with a 
project that the Chairman and I have discussed, the National Ethanol 
Research Pilot Plant.
  As the Chairman knows, this project has a $6 million cost-share 
contribution from the State of Illinois, and will provide for cutting-
edge research that will lead to increased efficiencies coupled with 
cheaper production of ethanol.
  Preliminary estimates are that the plant could reduce the cost of 
ethanol by over 10 cents/gallon in the near term.
  If, as in the past, the Conference Report on this bill identifies 
projects for funding under the biofuels program, I would like to 
strongly urge that this plant be funded.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the Chairman of 
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations subcommittee, and the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking 
member of the subcommittee for their exceptional work in bringing this 
bill to the floor.
  This Member recognizes that extremely tight budgetary constraints 
made the job of the subcommittee much more difficult this year. 
Therefore, the subcommittee is to be commended for its diligence in 
creating such a fiscally responsible bill. In light of these budgetary 
pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the 
Subcommittee and formally recognize that the Energy and Water 
Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000 includes funding 
for several water projects that are of great importance to Nebraska.
  This Member greatly appreciates the $10 million funding level 
provided for the four-state

[[Page 18069]]

Missouri River Mitigation Project. This represents a much-needed 
increase over the Administration's insufficient request for this 
important project. The funding is needed to restore fish and wildlife 
habitat lost due to the Federally sponsored channelization and 
stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. The islands, wetlands, 
and flat floodplains needed to support the wildlife and waterfowl that 
once lived along the river are gone. An estimated 475,000 acres of 
habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri and Kansas have been lost. Today's 
fishery resources are estimated to be only one-fifth of those which 
existed in pre-development days.
  In 1986, the Congress authorized over $50 million to fund the 
Missouri River Mitigation Project to restore fish and wildlife habitat 
lost due to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan 
plan.
  In addition, this bill provides additional funding for flood-related 
projects of tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's 1st 
Congressional District. Mr. Chairman, flooding in 1993 temporarily 
closed Interstate 80 and seriously threatened the Lincoln municipal 
water system which is located along the Platte River near Ashland, 
Nebraska. Therefore, this Member is extremely pleased the Committee 
agreed to continue funding for the Lower Platte River and Tributaries 
Flood Control Study. This study should help formulate and develop 
feasible solutions which will alleviate future flood problems along the 
Lower Platte River and tributaries. In addition, a related study was 
authorized by Section 503(d)(11) of the Water Resources Development Act 
of 1996.
  This Member is also pleased that this bill includes $250,000 to 
complete the interim feasibility study and begin plans and 
specifications for the Lake Wanahoo project in Saunders County, 
Nebraska. This is a breakout study of the Lower Platte River and 
Tributaries Flood Control Study. The interim feasibility study will 
assess the environmental and flood control benefits of Lake Wanahoo. It 
will also evaluate other possible measures to provide flood control for 
the affected downstream areas. The Corps of Engineers has conducted a 
preliminary feasibility study and has determined that further study of 
the Sand Creek watershed, the site of the proposed project, is 
required. This will fulfill the intent of the study authority and to 
assess the extent of the Federal interest.
  Mr. Chairman, additionally, the bill provides continued funding for 
an ongoing floodplain study of the Antelope Creek which runs through 
the heart of Nebraska's capital city, Lincoln. The purpose of the study 
is to find a solution to multi-faceted problems involving the flood 
control and drainage problems in Antelope Creek as well as existing 
transportation and safety problems all within the context of broad land 
use issues. This Member continues to have a strong interest in this 
project since he was responsible for stimulating the City of Lincoln, 
the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, and the University 
of Nebraska-Lincoln to work jointly and cooperatively with the Army 
Corps of Engineers to identify an effective flood control system for 
Antelope Creek in the downtown area of Lincoln.
  Antelope Creek, which was originally a small meandering stream, 
became a straightened urban drainage channel as Lincoln grew and 
urbanized. Resulting erosion has deepened and widened the channel and 
created an unstable situation. A ten-foot by twenty-foot (height and 
width) closed underground conduit that was constructed between 1911 and 
1916 now requires significant maintenance and major rehabilitation. A 
dangerous flood threat to adjacent public and private facilities 
exists.
  The goals of the study are to anticipate and provide for the control 
of flooding of Antelope Creek, map the floodway, evaluate the condition 
of the underground conduit, make recommendations for any necessary 
repair, suggest the appropriate limitations of neighborhood and the 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln city campus development within current 
defined boundaries, eliminate fragmentation of the city campus, 
minimize vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle conflicts while providing adequate 
capacity, and improve bikeway and pedestrian systems.
  This Member is also pleased that the bill provides 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.
  Although this bill does not include funding for the proposed Missouri 
River Research and Education Center at Ponca State Park in Nebraska, 
this Member is pleased that $1 million is included in the version 
approved earlier by the other body. This Member hopes that the 
conference committee will include funds for this important project in 
the conference report.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this Member recognizes that H.R. 2605 also 
provides funding for Army Corps projects in Nebraska at the following 
sites: Harlan County Lake; Papillion Creek and Tributaries; Gavins 
Point Dam, Lewis and Clark Lake; Salt Creek and Tributaries; and Wood 
River.
  Again Mr. Chairman, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman 
from California (Mr. Packard), the Chairman of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee for their support of projects which are important to 
Nebraska and the First Congressional District, as well as to the people 
living in the Missouri River Basin.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the 
Energy and Water Appropriations legislation. I am particularly pleased 
to support two provisions of this legislation that will directly 
benefit many of the people I represent in Southwest Ohio.
  The former Fernald Feed Materials Production Center, now known as the 
Fernald Environmental Management Project, was a Department of Energy 
facility that was part of the United States' nuclear weapons production 
complex from 1951 to 1988. The Fernald site became heavily contaminated 
and has been the focus of extensive nuclear and hazardous waste cleanup 
efforts.
  The Energy and Water Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2000 
contains $280,589,000 for the Fernald cleanup. The FY 2000 funding 
level represents an increase of more than $6 million from the FY 1999 
appropriation. The funding is intended to keep the Fernald's 
accelerated cleanup project on track for completion in 2006, rather 
than the originally planned 2020.
  This appropriation is directly in the public interest. Keeping the 
accelerated cleanup program at Fernald on track will lower health risks 
for residents of the surrounding area and lower the overall project 
costs for the taxpayers.
  This legislation also contains $915,000 for the Army Corps of 
Engineers to study ways to improve flood control in the Mill Creek 
valley while restoring the waterway's ecosystem. This funding will help 
with our ongoing effort to revitalize and restore the Mill Creek 
watershed.
  I commend the members of the subcomittee--specially Chairman Packard 
and Ranking Member Visclosky--for their good work on the bill and for 
including this essential funding.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2065, the FY 
2000 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I would first like to thank 
Chairman Packard and Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard work on 
this important legislation. I would also like to thank my good friend 
from Texas, Mr. Edwards, for all the help he and his office have 
provided me.
  I strongly support the decision of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water to ensure the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers receives adequate 
funding to continue their vital work in the areas of flood control and 
navigational improvement. I would also like to compliment the 
Administration for their decision to fully fund the Corps budget. This 
funding level recognizes the critical economic and public safety 
initiatives contained within the legislation. Because many flood and 
navigation projects located in my district are on accelerated 
construction schedules, full funding by both the Administration and the 
subcommittee will ensure the expedited completion at great savings to 
the taxpayers.
  I am very pleased by the support this legislation provides for 
addressing the chronic flooding problems of Harris County, Texas. H.R. 
2065 includes vital funding for several flood control projects in the 
Houston area. These projects include Brays, Sims, and Hunting and White 
Oak bayous, and will provide much-needed protection for our 
communities.
  I am most grateful for the subcommittee's decision to fully fund the 
Brays Bayou project at $9.8 million for FY '00 while remaining within 
their budgetary spending caps as specified by the 1997 Balanced Budget 
Agreement. This project is necessary to improve flood protection for an 
extensively developed urban area along Brays Bayou in southwest Harris 
County. The project consists of three miles of channel improvements, 
three flood detention basins, and seven miles of stream diversion and 
will provide a 25-year level of flood protection. The project was 
originally authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1990, 
as part of a $400 million federal/local flood control project. Through 
Fiscal Year 1999, over $10 million has already been appropriated. The 
Harris County Flood Control

[[Page 18070]]

District has expended over $21 million for preconstruction preparation 
in terms of land acquisition, easements, and relocations, plus an 
additional $2.5 million in engineering and construction. As part of the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996, the project was authorized as 
a demonstration project for a new federal reimbursement program. This 
program is an effort to strengthen and enhance the Corps/local sponsor 
role by giving the local sponsor a lead role and providing for 
reimbursement by the Federal Government to the local sponsor for the 
traditional federal portion of work accomplished.
  I am also most grateful for the committee's decision to fully fund 
the Sims Bayou project at $18.3 million for FY '00. This project is 
necessary to improve flood protection for an extensively developed 
urban area along Sims Bayou in southern Harris County. This project, 
authorized as part of the 1988 WRDA bill, consists of 19.3 miles of 
channel enlargement, rectification, and erosion control beginning at 
the mouth of the bayou at the Houston Ship Channel and will provide a 
25-year level of flood protection. This continuing project has received 
over $120 million to date in state and federal funding and is scheduled 
to be completed two years ahead of schedule in 2004.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that this legislation provides $60 
million to fully fund continuing construction on the Houston Ship 
Channel expansion project. This project offers tremendous economic and 
environmental benefits and once completed, will enhance one of our 
region's most important trade and economic centers. The Houston Ship 
Channel 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.
  However, the Port's capacity to increase tonnage and create jobs is 
limited by the size of the channel. Hence the need for the Houston Ship 
Channel expansion project, which calls for deepening the channel from 
40 to 45 feet and widening it from 400 to 530 feet. The ship channel 
modernization, considered the largest dredging project since the 
construction of the Panama Canal, will preserve the Port of Houston's 
status as one of the premier deep-channel Gulf ports and one of the top 
transit points for cargo in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, while I am pleased the critical functions of the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers have been maintained, I am very concerned about 
the inappropriate legislative rider attached to this bill. This 
legislation contains a provision indefinitely postponing the phase out 
of the Corps Nationwide Permit 26 (NWP 26), which is accelerating the 
destruction of our country's sensitive wetlands. Acknowledging the 
weaknesses of this permit, the Corps has had several public comment 
periods with all the stakeholders to develop a workable alternative to 
revise the NWP 26 process. This ill-conceived legislative rider will 
negate all the effort that went into forging a workable wetlands 
permitting system and will continue the ruinous development of 
wetlands. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to support the Visclosky 
Amendment allowing the Corps to preserve our shrinking wetlands.
  Again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking member for their support and 
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to 
thank Chairman Packard and the Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky, for their 
support of Sacramento flood control projects included in the FY 2000 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Flooding remains the single 
greatest threat to the public safety of the Sacramento community, 
posing a constant risk to the lives of my constituents and to the 
regional economy. Thanks to your efforts and the efforts of this 
Committee, Sacramento can continue to work toward improvement flood 
protection.
  With a mere 85-year level of protection, Sacramento remains the 
metropolitan area in this nation most at risk to flooding. More than 
400,000 people and $37 billion in property reside within the Sacramento 
flood plain, posing catastrophic consequences in the event of a flood. 
While the Congress continues to debate the best long-term solutions to 
this threat, funding in this bill will provide much needed protection 
to the existing flood control facilities throughout the region.
  Specifically, this legislation will allow for the continuation of 
levee improvements and bank stabilization projects along the lower 
American and Sacramento Rivers, increasing levee reliability and 
stemming bank erosion. Additionally, I greatly appreciate the 
Committee's willingness to provide funding for projects--including the 
South Sacramento Streams Group, Strong Ranch and Chicken Ranch Sloughs, 
and Magpie Creek--aimed at preventing flooding from a series of smaller 
rivers and streams that present substantial threats separate from those 
posed by the major rivers in the region. Importantly, the Committee's 
willingness to include funding for the American River Comprehensive 
Plan will allow for ongoing Corps of Engineers general investigation 
work on all area flood control needs, including a permanent solution.
  Your support of these vital projects represents a recognition by this 
Congress of the grave danger confronting Sacramento and a willingness 
by the federal government to maintain a strong commitment to the 
community. Again, on behalf of my constituents, I am grateful for your 
support in helping to address this perilous situation.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2605, the 
FY 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
  Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Packard and the Ranking Member, 
Mr. Visclosky, of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Subcommittee, we have before us today a finely crafted piece of 
legislation that will fund the Army Corps of Engineer's civil works 
division and invest in our nation's water infrastructure. In my 
opinion, they have been successful in putting together a bill--under 
very demanding circumstances--that balances the infrastructure needs of 
this nation, the traditional mission of the Army Corps, and severe 
budgetary constraints. The end product is a vigorous funding bill that 
targets wise investments in water infrastructure projects.
  Included in the bill are three important projects for my constituents 
in the Third Congressional District of Illinois. The bill includes 
$640,000 for the Stoney Creek flood control project in Oak Lawn, 
$200,000 for the Natalie Creek flood control project in Midlothian and 
Oak Forest, and $150,000 for the Hickory Creek project in Tinley Park. 
These funds will be used to continue these ongoing Army Corps projects. 
These cost-effective projects will help protect property from future 
flooding damages, safeguard the environment, and improve our 
communities' standard of living.
  I would like to take this opportunity to express some concerns over 
the progress of those Corps projects, specifically the Section 205 
Stoney Creek project in the Village of Oak Lawn. Over the years, there 
have been some delays. I understand that these are complex and 
technical projects and things do not always go according to plan, but 
every year this project is delayed means that another year the Village 
of Oak Lawn is exposed to extreme flooding risks. I strongly urge the 
Army Corps Chief of Engineers to expedite completion of this project. 
Moreover, I would hope that the Natalie Creek and Hickory Creek 
projects are completed in a reasonable amount of time.
  Also included in the bill is $13.129 million for the Chicago 
Shoreline project, which represents a $5.5 million increase over the 
Administration's request. My colleagues and I on the House 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee worked to authorize this 
project in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. With nearly 
eight miles of Chicago's lakefront and over $5 billion worth of 
irreplaceable infrastructure and public property at risk, the 
importance to fully fund and expedite this particular project cannot be 
understated. The funding for FY 2000 will be utilized to reconstruct 
the seriously deteriorated revetments from Irving to Belmont, I-55 to 
30th Street, 33rd to 37th Street, and 37th to 43rd Street. I commend 
the Army Corps of Engineers for the hard work put into drafting and 
finalizing the partnership agreement with the City of Chicago to 
expedite this project. The new 2005 completion date shortens the 
schedule by five years.
  Again, I thank Chairman Packard and the Ranking Member, Mr. 
Visclosky, for their assistance and leadership in providing the 
necessary funding for the above projects.
  I urge all of my colleagues to pass H.R. 2605.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Gentleman from California, 
Mr. Herger, and myself, we wish to thank you for the generous 
allocation for biomass energy transportation systems in the FY 2000 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill. We understand that, due to budget 
constraints, the allocation was over $10,000,000 below the budget 
request. However, it appears that biofuels was a priority to the 
committee in the renewable energy category. We applaud the committee's 
foresight, as this is a critical time for commercializing this 
technology, both to aid in increasing the efficiency of the existing 
corn ethanol plants, and to help build several biofuels pilot projects 
throughout the U.S. There are, for example, two plants in California, 
one almost complete and one slated for construction. One such plant 
will use rise straw as its feedstock, another will use wood waste. 
Again, we thank

[[Page 18071]]

the Chairman and his committee for its support of the biofuels budget 
and ongoing pilot plan projects.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
2605, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1999. This 
bill contains funding for the majority of the Department of Energy's 
(DOE's) civilian science and energy R&D programs as well as legislative 
guidance on some key project management issues at the Department of 
Energy.
  Today, the Department of Energy epitomizes all that is wrong with how 
a government department should be run. DOE lacks basic planning and 
project management skills and cannot provide simple planning 
information to Congress on costs and deadlines. This appropriation bill 
represents the hard work of Mr. Packard and the Members of the 
Subcommittee to correct a department that has gone awry and appears 
incapable of righting itself.
  The Science Committee has responsibility for setting authorization 
levels for funding civilian scientific research and development 
programs at the Department of Energy as well as providing programmatic 
direction. The Committee has passed two authorization bills which 
address Department of Energy funding needs.
  They are: H.R. 1655, the Department of Energy Research, Development, 
and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1999; and H.R. 1656, the 
Department of Energy Commercial Application of Energy Technology 
Authorization Act of 1999. While H.R. 2605 does not fully fund some 
science and energy R&D accounts to their authorized levels, it is a 
good attempt to follow the authorization bills directions on R&D 
funding within a tight fiscal framework.
  In addition, H.R. 2605 will have a profound impact on climate 
research at the Department of Energy. While the Administration jumped 
on the Kyoto bandwagon, I have always believed that a more science-
based assessment of our climate and energy resources is necessary 
before we use taxpayer funds to support a flawed policy approach.
  H.R. 2605 addresses this issue through its inclusion of language, 
known as the Knollenberg amendment, that prohibits any funds from being 
used to implement the Kyoto Protocol. This language is consistent with 
language from Representative Zoe Lofgren's amendment that was adopted 
by the Committee on Science as part of H.R. 1742, the Environmental 
Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Act of 1999, on 
May 25, 1999. Together, both Ms. Lofgren's and Mr. Knollenberg's 
language assures taxpayers that Senate ratification must precede 
actions to implement the Kyoto Protocol and that the Department of 
Energy cannot attempt to implement any Kyoto regulations through a 
disingenuous approach. Given the glaring problems with this unfunded, 
unsigned, and unratified Protocol, such a limitation is proper and 
necessary and I commend the Appropriations Committee for including this 
language in H.R. 2605.
  Finally, I want to commend and applaud the Committee's decision to 
follow the authorization language in H.R. 1655 regarding the Spallation 
Neutron Source (SNS) project. Specifically, H.R. 2605, through 
legislative and report language, will require DOE to meet the following 
criteria before any construction funds are released. The criteria taken 
from H.R. 1655 are as follows:
  1. Certification that senior project management positions for the 
project have been filled by qualified individuals;
  2. Cost baseline and project milestones for each major construction 
and technical system activity, consistent with the overall cost and 
schedule submitted with the Department's fiscal year 2000 budget, and 
that have been reviewed and certified by an independent entity, outside 
the Department and having no financial interest in the project, as the 
most cost-effective way to complete the project;
  3. Binding legal agreements that specify the duties and obligations 
of each laboratory of the Department of Energy in carrying out the 
project;
  4. A revised project management structure that integrates the staff 
of the collaborating laboratories working on the project under a single 
project director, who shall have direct supervisory responsibility over 
the duties and obligations described in subparagraph (3.) above;
  5. Official delegation by the Secretary of primary authority with 
respect to the project to the project director;
  6. Certification from the Comptroller General that the total taxes 
and fees in any manner or form paid by the Federal Government on the 
SNS and the property, activities, and income of the Department relating 
to the SNS to the State of Tennessee or its counties, municipalities, 
or any other subdivision thereof, does not exceed the aggregate taxes 
and fees for which the Federal Government would be liable if the 
project were located in any other State that contains a national 
laboratory of the Department; and
  7. Annual reports on the SNS project, included as part of the 
Department's annual budget submission, including a description of the 
achievement of milestones, a comparison of actual costs to estimated 
costs, and any changes in estimated project costs or schedule.
  In the past, costs associated with some major scientific projects 
have spiraled out of control because adequate preventative measures 
were not taken in the early planning stages to limit cost growth. The 
Superconducting Supercollider and International Space Station are two 
examples, and I believe that the language on Spallation Neutron Source, 
when coupled with rigorous oversight, will provide the Department of 
Energy with the facility they need at a cost that does not cause 
heartburn for the American taxpayer.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing this important bill 
to the floor. I wish to thank also Chairman Packard for his leadership 
and work in crafting this bill, a bill that will directly help the 
residents of the 11th Congressional district of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, 
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill is a good bill, 
and I ask that all of my colleagues support it.
  Two specific projects are funded in this bill that are important to 
the citizens of Illinois. Both the Thornton Reservoir Project and the 
Kankakee River Feasibility Study have been given significant and 
important funding under this bill. The Thornton Reservoir project 
continues funding for the Tunnel and Reservoir Project known as TARP. 
TARP is an intricate system of underground tunnels and storage 
reservoirs that provide flood relief and control combined sewer 
overflow pollution into Lake Michigan, the source of drinking water for 
a large portion of the Chicago metropolitan area. To the project's 
merit, the completed segments of TARP have helped to eliminate 86% of 
combined sewage pollution in a 325 square mile area.
  The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill will provide 
$4.5 million dollars in construction funding for the McCook and 
Thornton Reservoirs. This funding will go toward continuing 
construction of the reservoir portion of TARP. Once completed, these 
reservoirs will provide a storage capacity of 15.3 billion gallons and 
will produce annual benefits of $104 million.
  The Kankakee River is a very important river for residents of the 
11th Congressional District, as well as the residents of Congressmen 
Ewing and Buyer's districts. The river provides scenic, recreational, 
and commercial opportunities for many. Unfortunately, the river does 
experience flooding and sedimentation problems both in Illinois and 
Indiana. The Appropriations committee has been very generous with 
funding in previous years, providing funds for the Army Corps of 
engineers to complete a Corps Reconnaissance Study and begin a 
Feasibility Study.
  For fiscal year 2000, the Appropriations Committee has provided 
$295,000 in funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to continue the 
Feasibility Study. This is an important project and that will improve 
the quality of life for those who use or live near the river. I am very 
pleased to see this continued funding, and thank you again for bringing 
this important bill to the floor today.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment, and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
be permitted to offer a point of order on Section 506 at this point in 
the reading.

[[Page 18072]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read Section 506.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Title III, division C, of Public Law 105-277, Making 
     Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations for fiscal Year 1999 and section 105 of Public 
     Law 106-31, the 1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
     Act, are repealed.

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


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against 
Section 506 of the bill, found at page 36, lines 21 to 25. This 
language repeals the Denali Commission Act of 1998 and constitutes 
legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2(b) of 
rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member desire to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my right to be heard on the 
point of order.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed this, and we recognize 
that it does violate it. We would concede the point of order.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Section 506 is conceded to be legislation and the point 
of order is sustained, and Section 506 is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, for energy and water development, 
     and for other purposes, namely:

  Mr. CALLAHAN. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment both the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and our friend, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Packard) as well for following in the footsteps of two great 
Americans, Tom Bevill from Alabama, as well as Joe McDade, who chaired 
this committee before them. I think they have done an outstanding job.
  In serving on the subcommittee, I recognize the difficulties the 
Members have, especially under the circumstances of the limited amount 
of allocations we have.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that this is a good bill and it deserves the 
support of every Member of this body. But I would request that the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) pay attention to a few items of concern to me 
in the bill.
  While I certainly understand the need to effectively cut corners and 
to save money wherever possible, I do have some very serious concerns 
about the impact of the bill on the Power Marketing Administrations' 
efforts to continue to provide low-cost power to rural areas, including 
those in south Alabama, as well as throughout the Nation.
  Additionally, I have concerns regarding the implementation and the 
monitoring of water compacts under negotiation between the States of 
Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. Specifically, I have concern about the 
lack of sufficient water flow and water quality monitoring systems. 
Even though I have not discussed this with the gentlemen, the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Packard) or the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), this is something of great concern.
  Conceivably we are not talking about a lot of money, but it is 
something that would require some direction to the Corps, or possibly 
Interior. I just wanted to make the Members aware that sometime during 
the process we need to look at this problem to see if possibly the two 
gentlemen would go along with some language in the conference report to 
ensure that this problem in this water compact between the States of 
Alabama, Florida, and Georgia are addressed.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. We have already made assurances that we will deal with 
the power marketing issue the gentleman has brought up. It is more than 
just the gentleman's own issue.
  On the second issue, I deeply appreciate him bringing that to my 
attention. We will certainly work with the gentleman in any way we can 
as we proceed forward with the appropriation process.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama, in whose 
district this problem lies.
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to thank the gentleman for 
bringing this to the attention of the Committee. I think there is a 
debate right now of what committee this jurisdiction will actually fall 
under.
  But as the gentleman from Alabama mentioned a moment ago, this is a 
compact that has been negotiated now for about 2 years. One of the 
problems they face in these water negotiations is having a historical 
record that they can rely on. So I think it is going to be almost 
imperative for us to do something to put in these gauges, these 
monitoring sessions, so we do have a historical record.
  So as we go into conference, I hope that the chairman will look upon 
this with favor, work with us as we work through this process, and see 
if we can, and as the gentleman from Alabama said, this is not a lot of 
money, but it is something that is absolutely vital to Alabama and 
Georgia and Florida's negotiating structure.
  I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                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, 
     $158,993,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers, is directed to use the remaining unobligated funds 
     appropriated in Public Law 102-377 for the Red River 
     Waterway, Shreveport, Louisiana, to Daingerfield, Texas, 
     project for the feasibility phase of the Red River 
     Navigation, Southwest Arkansas, study.

                         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), 
     $1,412,591,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such sums as are necessary for the Federal share of 
     construction costs for facilities under the Dredged Material 
     Disposal Facilities program shall be derived from the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund, as authorized by Public Law 104-303; 
     and of which such sums as are necessary pursuant to Public 
     Law 99-662 shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust 
     Fund, for one-half of the costs of construction and 
     rehabilitation of inland waterways projects, including 
     rehabilitation costs for the Lock and Dam 25, Mississippi 
     River, Illinois and Missouri; Lock and Dam 14, Mississippi 
     River, Iowa; Lock and Dam 24, Mississippi River, Illinois and 
     Missouri; and Lock and Dam 3, Mississippi River, Minnesota; 
     London Locks and Dam; Kanawha River, West Virginia; and Lock 
     and Dam 12, Mississippi River, Iowa, projects; and of which 
     funds are provided for

[[Page 18073]]

     the following projects in the amounts specified:
       Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana, $10,991,000;
       Harlan/Clover Fork, Pike County, Middlesboro, Martin 
     County, Pike County Tug Forks Tributaries, Bell County, 
     Harlan County, and Town of Martin elements of the Levisa and 
     Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River 
     project in Kentucky, $14,050,000; and
       Passaic River Streambank Restoration, New Jersey, 
     $8,000,000.

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

       For expenses necessary for prosecuting work of flood 
     control, and rescue work, repair, restoration, or maintenance 
     of flood control projects threatened or destroyed by flood, 
     as authorized by law (33 U.S.C. 702a, 702g-1), $313,324,000, 
     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, $1,888,481,000, 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.

                           Regulatory Program

       For expenses necessary for administration of laws 
     pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands, 
     $117,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers, is directed to use $5,000,000 of funds 
     appropriated herein to fully implement an administrative 
     appeals process for the Corps of Engineers Regulatory 
     Program, which administrative appeals process shall provide 
     for a single-level appeal of jurisdictional determinations, 
     the results of which shall be considered final agency action 
     under the Administrative Procedures Act: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers, shall, using funds provided herein, prepare 
     studies and analyses of the impacts on Regulatory Branch 
     workload and on cost of compliance by the regulated community 
     of proposed replacement permits for the nationwide permit 26 
     under section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds made available under this Act may be 
     used by the Secretary of the Army to promulgate or implement 
     such replacement permits unless and until the Secretary of 
     the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, has 
     submitted the aforementioned report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House and Senate, the Transportation 
     and Infrastructure Committee of the House, and the Committee 
     on Environment and Public Works of the Senate: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
     Chief of Engineers, shall not terminate the current 
     nationwide permit 26 unless and until the aforementioned 
     report has been submitted to the Committees on Appropriations 
     of the House and Senate, the Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee of the House, and the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works of the Senate.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Visclosky

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

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Visclosky:
       Page 5, line 25, strike the comma and all that follows 
     through page 6, line 23, and insert a period.

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would indicate that the amendment 
before the body is offered by myself, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), and it 
goes to correct the one deficiency in the bill relative to the Clean 
Water Act, relative to preserving wetlands in the United States of 
America, and relative to the veto issue by the administration relative 
to the language.
  It relates to two provisions in the bill, jurisdiction as far as 
wetlands and the Army's Corps of Engineers, and a program called Permit 
26.
  I have talked about the importance of wetlands in my earlier remarks. 
I have talked about the generic situation we find ourselves in. I would 
like to use the time allotted to me to talk about the potential 
arguments raised against the amendment, and why I think the amendment 
ought to be adopted.
  As far as the jurisdictional arguments, I do believe that they would, 
as the bill is currently constituted, lead to more litigation. Several 
speakers before us on the floor today talked about the delay involved 
as far as the implementation of the new procedures as far as the 
appeal, the new permitting process.
  There would be much further delay if the language continues to stand. 
There would be additional burden on the Corps, and again, we would see 
an increase in litigation.
  As far as Permit 26, some might argue that Permit 26 works. It 
facilitates the process. To some minor extent, they would be correct. 
The problem is as far as the overarching policy we are concerned about 
here, that is, the preservation of our wetlands. I would note again 
that we are losing 70,000 to 90,000 acres a year. Permit 26 is part of 
the problem. I would not presuppose that it is all of the problem, but 
it is part of the problem, and it ought to be fixed for that reason, 
and for the reason that it is not in compliance with the Clean Water 
Act.
  Some would say that this is going to increase the workload for the 
Army's Corps of Engineers. Earlier when the acreage was reduced in 
Permit 26, this same argument was raised: We are going to increase 
delays, we are going to increase the process, and burden two property 
owners.
  The fact is, that turned out not to be true. There were 55,000, 
approximately, general permits issued in 1996 before the acreage was 
reduced. In 1998, general permits issued to facilitate the process did 
increase to 64,000. But on the other hand, the individual permits, 
which do take more time, were reduced from 5,028 in 1996 to 4,931.
  Will there be some increase as far as the burden to the Corps? Quite 
possibly, but it is manageable, and the Corps is ready to assume that 
responsibility. Is there going to be increased cost to those who own 
property, who develop property? Only if they deal with wetlands.
  As far as the time delay, I would point out that, again, before 
Permit 26 was changed in 1996, the average evaluation time for 
individual permits was 88 days. In 1998, it was reduced to 87 days, and 
it is my understanding for the individual development of a property 
that the delay, if you would, or the time involved before construction 
is started is anywhere from 6 months to a year. These are not 
consecutive sequences, they are concurrent.
  Does the Corps listen to anybody? Has the Corps simply run roughshod 
over the process? That is another issue that has been raised. I think, 
again, it is incorrect. There have been over 10,000 comments issued in 
three different public comment periods. In some cases the Corps has 
made fundamental changes and agreed with the developmental community.
  The developmental community wanted time limits for the Corps to 
respond regarding a completed application, and as far as the proposed 
Permit 26, the Corps said, you are absolutely right, it should be 
included.

                              {time}  1800

  Inversely, as far as the environmental community is concerned, they 
asked at one time that there be a complete prohibition in critical 
waters in 100-year floodplains. They asked for a complete revocation of 
permit 26 with no replacement, clearly an additional burden to the 
developmental community and the Corps said absolutely not. That is 
going too far in the other direction.
  In the earlier debate, there was talk about the delay involved. This 
is a very precise, very complicated issue. The Corps is trying to do it 
correctly and have been about that task in both instances since 1996.


              Perfecting Amendment Offered By Mr. Boehlert

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential perfecting 
amendment.

[[Page 18074]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert:
       Page 6, line 11, after ``until'' insert the following: ``30 
     days prior to the final publication of the proposed 
     replacement permits for the nationwide permit 26 under 
     section 404 of the Clean Water Act''.
       Page 6, line 13, strike ``report'' and insert the 
     following: ``studies and analyses not later than December 30, 
     1999''.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. My question, Mr. Chairman, is if the perfecting 
amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) is adopted, 
will the Visclosky-Oberstar-Borski amendment to strike still be the 
pending business before the House, and will our amendment, that is, the 
Visclosky-Oberstar-Borski amendment, if adopted, strike the perfected 
language?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair finds that the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana is properly treated as a motion to strike. The 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York is a perfecting 
amendment to a portion of the text proposed to be stricken. As such, 
the perfecting amendment may be considered as preferential, and the 
motion to strike is placed in abeyance.
  After disposition of the perfecting amendment, the committee will 
decide the motion to strike the specified text, as it may be perfected 
or not.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to perfect the text 
that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) hopes to strike. The 
amendment I am offering comes after extensive dialogues with my friends 
and associates and partners, both in the environmental community with 
whom I am closely associated, and development communities, as well as 
with the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard).
  Let me tell my colleagues, this has involved extensive negotiations. 
Because I will say this, essentially, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) and my friends in the environmental community are right in 
expressing their concern that a report on the costs associated with the 
implementation of a new nationwide 26 permitting program should not be 
a vehicle to delay the implementation of this program. Let me emphasize 
and repeat that, should not be a vehicle to delay the implementation of 
this program.
  That is why I am offering an amendment that would make it absolutely 
clear that a report on costs of implementation would not impede the 
wetlands nationwide permitting program.
  My amendment makes it absolutely clear that the report be required, 
must be submitted to Congress no later than December 30, 1999. Let me 
read to my colleagues where we are coming from in the actual language 
of the bill. It will read, if I am successful with this amendment, 
``That none of the funds made available under this Act may be used by 
the Secretary of the Army to promulgate or implement such replacement 
permits unless and until 30 days prior to the final publication of the 
proposed replacement permits for the nationwide permit 26 under section 
404 of the Clean Water Act the Secretary of the Army, acting through 
the Chief of Engineers, has submitted the aforementioned studies and 
analyses not later than December 30, 1999.''
  That is very specific. There is no wiggle room.
  In the July 21 Federal Register, the Corps stated for the record that 
they had ``extended the expiration date for nationwide permit 26 to 
December 30, 1999.''
  My amendment assures that the report being legitimately requested by 
Congress on the costs of a new permitting scheme will not stop the 
Corps, will not stop the Corps from going final on their nationwide 
permit 26 changes on the date that they have projected to go final.
  I believe this amendment addresses the real environmental concerns 
that have been expressed.
  I have also included language requesting the Corps to submit their 
report to Congress at least 30 days before implementing a new 
nationwide permit scheme. I think that is a legitimate request. Because 
I have the pleasure and privilege of serving as chairman of the House 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, the committee of 
jurisdiction, I would like to know what the costs in both dollars and 
manpower, what the costs will be for these new regulations that we are 
going to impose on the Corps.
  Again, let me make it clear, this amendment coming from me is a pro-
environment amendment, an amendment that makes sense, an amendment that 
has been worked out. They did not just snap and accept it and say that 
I am right, and they agree. We had to really work on this thing. But it 
has been accepted by the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard), 
and I urge all my colleagues to support its adoption.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I am glad to yield to the distinguished gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. We have worked 
long and hard to work out an agreement that is acceptable. We have no 
intention in the language of the bill to delay this process. We simply 
felt that the report was required. I think the gentleman from New York 
has concurred in that in his statement.
  I fully support the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert). I think it is an improving amendment, and I think it is 
improving from both a process point of view as well as an environmental 
point of view.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I appreciate coming 
into the discussions and rather tough negotiations in the spirit the 
gentleman from California did. He was willing to listen, and he was 
willing to consider another point of view. Because, initially, as the 
gentleman well knows, we did not see eye to eye. He did not think this 
thing needed to be changed. I did. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) feels that, too.
  Let me read from the Federal Register back on July 21 when they are 
talking about the proposal to issue and modify nationwide permits. They 
point out this, ``the Corps will spend more time on projects with the 
potential for more environmental damage and less time on projects with 
minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment.'' I support that 
and obviously urge support for my amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would, first of all, indicate my regard for the 
abilities, intellect, as well as the commitment to the environment of 
the gentleman of New York (Mr. Boehlert). I appreciate his working with 
the chair and the committee to make the bill a better bill. But I make 
a couple of observations to my colleagues.
  The first is that the language proposed by the gentleman from New 
York essentially provides for a political solution to a fundamental 
flaw in the legislation as far as the Clean Water Act and protecting 
wetlands.
  Secondly, I do think that, again, the underlying language that we are 
talking about is extraordinary as far as the additional costs to the 
Corps to now issue these reports and studies, the diversion of their 
energies, and a potential delay from the proposed end of these 
programs; and that is for the jurisdictional issue to be resolved in 
September and permit 26 to be resolved in November. That, despite the 
December 30 date in both of these instances, the time frame we are 
facing today is shorter, so there is still a delay involved.
  Additionally, I think it is extralegal because, under permitting, 
there is no requirement for the agency to provide a costs study. So 
what is being requested here is outside of what is legally required 
under the law.
  The gentleman's language does not touch upon the issue of 
jurisdiction that is part of the amendment that is pending before the 
House.
  But saying that, I can read English. I respect the gentleman. The 
gentleman has, in a way, improved the language of

[[Page 18075]]

the bill, and I appreciate him for doing it. I accept the gentleman's 
language, and I would ask every one of my colleagues in the House to do 
the same.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Visclosky-Oberstar-Borski 
amendment. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say to those who may have 
just tuned into this discussion that the issue at hand that we are 
talking about is wetlands. That word has not entered into this 
discussion very much, and it does not usually enter into the discussion 
much on this floor, at least in recent years.
  But I think it is fundamental that we understand how important 
wetlands are to our planet. They are the fundamental breeding grounds 
of our planet. Nationwide, wetlands serve as home to 43 percent of our 
threatened and endangered species. Nearly 70 percent of our commercial 
fishing catch in this country depends upon these fragile areas.
  They also serve as our nature's water treatment facility. They act as 
a sponge to intercept sediment, polluted runoff, and toxic substances 
before they contaminate our lakes and our rivers and our streams. They 
are a fragile part of our ecosystem that brings great joy, great 
beauty, a tremendous sense of serenity to literally tens of millions of 
people in this country and abroad. They are, indeed, a very special 
place.
  Now, there has been much talk recently in the country about this 
thing called sprawl. This area that we discussed tonight, wetlands, has 
been a victim of that and at an alarming rate. When I talk about an 
alarming rate, we are letting anywhere between 70,000 to 90,000 acres 
of wetland be destroyed annually in our country.
  One acre of wetlands can store more than 360,000 gallons of water 
runoff. As I said earlier, they are an important filter for our water 
system. It was not very long ago, not very far from my State of 
Michigan, where 104 people died of poisoning from cryptosporidum in 
their drinking water.
  So when we engage in this discussion about this fragile important 
piece of our planet, it is important to understand that the American 
people are demanding we do something about this question of clean 
water. My colleagues cannot address the clean water issue unless they 
address the question of wetlands.
  One of our cheapest and most natural ways to do that is to protect 
our wetlands. And at a time when our older communities are struggling 
with the cost of updating their sewers, we should be making it easier 
to protect these natural water flows and water filters.
  The bill before us today has two riders which actually make it harder 
to protect our wetlands. One would prevent the Army Corps from 
implementing a common-sense activities-based permitting proposal. The 
Corps wants to implement a permitting process that would be on a case-
by-case basis to protect practices which damage our natural wetlands. 
But this bill stops the Corps dead in their tracks.
  The other rider would eliminate public input from the wetlands 
decision making process by allowing the Federal courts to issue permits 
straight to the developers.
  Our communities have a right to provide input, not just for wetland 
permits, but for activities which affect our waters, our ecosystems, 
and our way of life and our quality of life.
  I just want to encourage all of our colleagues to think about the 
implications here before we go rush off and pass this bill without 
addressing this question. This amendment is a good amendment. It 
strikes a good balance in the bill. It preserves for us and for our 
ancestors a very fragile part of our planet that serves us all so very 
well.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for having the foresight to bring this to the 
floor. This amendment is supported by all the environmental 
organizations. Trouts Unlimited, hunters, fishermen, folks across this 
country understand the nature of what we are talking about here. I 
would encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to compliment the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development for bringing forth a very difficult, complicated, yet 
sophisticated piece of legislation to deal with the Nation's resource 
needs, energy needs, water needs. This is not an easy task to follow, 
to implement.
  I also want to compliment the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) 
for his eloquent statement about the need for this Nation to, not only 
protect the Nation's wetlands, to not only come up with a proposal for 
no net loss of the Nation's wetlands, but to add to the Nation's 
wetlands, because they are what he has spoken, the world's filtering 
system for the dwindling supply of water.

                              {time}  1815

  It does create habitat and spawning grounds for most of the fish in 
the world. So wetlands are important.
  I want to make just a brief statement about this country, the United 
States. We are as sophisticated as we are right now, we are as 
successful as we are right now for four reasons: democracy, our 
political system; an endless frontier; an abundance of natural 
resources; and character. We are about character and democracy, but we 
are diminishing our resources because of the expanding population, and 
our frontier is gone. We are a developed Nation.
  So what is our next frontier? What is the most important thing we can 
do now? Understand that for future unseen generations we need to be as 
sophisticated as possible to recognize the next frontier is an 
intellectual frontier on how to manage and increase and improve the way 
we use the Nation's resources.
  Now, this energy appropriations bill goes a little way toward doing 
that. We will do this on an annual basis. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Packard) has taken a diverse amount of material, disparate 
interests, and he has put together, or pieced together a package to do 
something about the Nation's resources. And I am going to support the 
Boehlert amendment because it does what we want to do.
  Let me run through a couple of other items. The gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) said that the President had an edict that we 
were going to get rid of Nationwide 26. What is Nationwide 26? It is a 
regulation that came out in 1996 that said the Corps of Engineers could 
not issue permits for isolated wetlands or wetlands on the headwaters 
of our Nation's waterways for any particular activity.
  Now, they have studied that for several years to see its impact. The 
President said last October that by this July he wanted to eliminate 
Nationwide 26. The Corps said they could not do it by then, so they 
pushed it off until September. Now they have pushed it off until 
December, according to the Federal Register. The Corps of Engineers is 
not going to eliminate Nationwide 26 permitting process until December.
  Now, does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) offer a delay to 
that? Does this stop the Corps dead in its tracks? The answer is no. 
There is no delay in the proposal of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Packard) or the proposal of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). 
Does it cause a burden on the Corps? I personally do not think so. The 
Corps can pool its resources with the help of this Congress and decide 
by December 31 that Nationwide 26 will be eliminated and we will 
propose some permits for activities in the Nation's wetlands.
  What is the cost of the Corps to do this? We ought to know. Do they 
need any more people on the ground to evaluate the activity to issue 
the permit? We should know this. What is the cost to the community that 
would like to propose those activities? I think some of the cost to the 
regulations by the bureaucracy is arbitrary. We do not know as Members 
of Congress when we

[[Page 18076]]

issue statutes what happens. We ought to know the cost to the Corps, 
because we have to propose funding for the Corps, and we should know 
the cost to the people that want the permits to do those activities so 
we can better expedite the entire process.
  The language in this proposal by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) is not a political solution; it is a practical solution. 
There is no potential delay. The language says by December 30. That is 
what the Corps said themselves.
  We should know the cost estimate, and we should know the activities. 
I would urge my colleagues that a more sophisticated approach to 
protecting the Nation's wetlands is to know the full impact of what the 
Corps is about to do. I want to preserve those wetlands. We want to 
increase the number of wetlands.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the Boehlert amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there is no more debate on the Boehlert perfecting 
amendment, the Chair will put the question.
  The question is on the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 261, further proceedings 
on the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Debate will continue on the underlying Visclosky motion to strike.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1993, the Clinton administration directed the Corps 
of Engineers to establish an administrative appeals process for 
wetlands determinations. That instruction came with a 1-year time line 
to perfect those guidelines. However, it was 1995, a full year later, 
before the Corps proposed an administrative appellate process but was 
not able at that time to fully implement that plan.
  It was then 2 years later, in January of 1997, that the Corps 
testified that they would need some $5 million to implement their 
administrative review process. The Congress responded and made those 
funds available.
  In 1998, in January, the Corps announced the appellate process that 
they were formulating as a result of the $5 million appropriation would 
only review denied permits, not jurisdictional determinations.
  Why is this significant? Well, it means a small landowner or a small 
businessperson must go through the entire administrative appellate 
review process and spend significant amounts of money to defend their 
right to their property. Only when they were denied were they then able 
to go on to an administrative appeal if the Corps' proposal had been 
enacted.
  In 1999, the Congress was told that the Corps would need an 
additional $5 million to implement an administrative appellate process 
to include jurisdictional determinations. Now, finally, some 7 years 
after the Clinton administration directed the Corps to prepare and 
implement an administrative appellate process, we find in this 
legislation, as proposed by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Packard), the important remedy to small landowners across this country.
  For those who do not live in a State like Louisiana, where 
increasingly human habitation is being found impermissible by the Corps 
of Engineers, it may be difficult to understand the significance of 
wetlands determinations. A couple who owns a small dry cleaners back 
home worked hard, many hours, saving as best they could to put money 
aside to acquire their dream of homeownership. They bought 5 acres of 
property in a rural part of Livingston Parish.
  As they were making their decisions about where they might build 
their home on this piece of property they were acquiring, a friend told 
them they had better call the Corps of Engineers and have them come out 
and make a determination before they decided on their building 
location.
  Well, the fella happened to own a tractor, and what is called back 
home a bush hog, a piece of equipment for cutting grass, normally. 
Well, he took the tractor and the bush hog and he went out and topped 
the 5-acre tract so he could get a better idea of where the trees were 
located and what might be an attractive place to put the home.
  When the Corps of Engineers came out, they were not particularly 
impressed with this young man's activities. They determined right off 
the bat, using an inaccurate floodplain map, that the property in 
question was a wetland and that he had inappropriately cut down young 
trees. Not only were they not allowed a permit to build in a timely 
fashion on that property, they were told they had to replant 50 trees 
at their expense and be responsible for the life of those trees, for 
their continued growth and safety.
  This couple soon realized what they had gotten themselves into: that 
they had spent 10 years of their life working to save money to buy 
their American dream only to be told by a government agency, ``I am 
sorry, if you want to object to our determinations, you are going to 
have to go all the way through the process; and only at the end, if you 
are denied a 404 permit, will you have the right to go to court and 
spend more money to try to overturn a decision of the United States 
Government.''
  This is ridiculous. The couple has abandoned their hopes of building 
on the 5 acres and are now back in their dry cleaners, working again 
this evening, trying to save money to buy another piece of property on 
which they hope to build their home.
  Now, we are not asking that the delicate environmental balance that 
exists in this country be upset. But let me tell my colleagues, those 
of us from Louisiana understand delicate environmental balance. Our 
economy is based on agriculture and fisheries. The wealth of the Gulf 
of Mexico feeds most of the people around here who go to Washington 
restaurants and eat these crabs that say made in Louisiana, though I 
would be interested in knowing where they really come from. Our biggest 
problem with the environment is not polluting waters, it is gill-
netters from out of state, who take monofilament nets and, frankly, 
destroy our fisheries by hauling them out of state for other purposes.
  What we are asking for is just a simple opportunity. If the Corps of 
Engineers says a landowner cannot build their house on their property 
that they paid for, we think that landowner should have a chance to 
have a jurisdictional determination first. Does the Corps have the 
right to do this to this landowner and can the landowner not get this 
determination made before they have to spend thousands of dollars 
defending their right to own property in what is supposed to be a free 
country.
  I congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the 
committee for finally having put in to a proposal a decent common sense 
opportunity for small business people and landowners around this 
country to have the chance to be heard before the government takes 
their land away.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and with the 
ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), in offering this 
amendment. This amendment will strike the harmful riders which would 
undermine Federal protection of our Nation's wetlands and needlessly 
increase litigation.
  Mr. Chairman, regrettably we are once again debating anti-
environmental riders in an appropriations bill. This practice is simply 
not acceptable. First, this rider undercuts the national protection of 
wetlands; second, the bill will increase litigation over the wetlands 
issue; and, third, these issues

[[Page 18077]]

should be considered and fully debated in the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure where they belong under the rules of 
the House.
  Furthermore, while anti-environmental riders should not be considered 
in any appropriations bill, it is particularly unfortunate to see this 
type of controversy in the energy and water appropriations bill. 
Historically, this bill is considered to be noncontroversial and 
receives broad support. The wetlands rider in this bill creates 
unnecessary controversy and ends that bipartisan support and, in fact, 
will liked result in a presidential veto of this bill. The Visclosky 
amendment removes the controversy and ensures this bill an overwhelming 
vote.
  Mr. Chairman, our Nation's wetlands are a critical natural resource 
deserving of a special level of protection. Not only are wetlands 
essential for protecting water quality and the health of aquatic 
ecosystems, but wetlands are the front line of defense against the 
devastating effects of flooding.
  As many of my colleagues know firsthand, one of the greatest benefits 
provided by our Nation's wetlands, both economically and 
environmentally, is that of flood protection. Wetlands serve as natural 
holding areas for heavy rainfall and snow melts, temporarily storing 
the excess waters for slow release in surrounding areas and recharging 
groundwater, thereby reducing the damage to downstream farms and 
communities.
  In the process, these vital areas limit the spread of pollutants by 
naturally assimilating contaminants and often provide critical habitat 
and nursery areas for migratory birds. Unfortunately, since the 1600s, 
more than half of the original wetlands in the lower 48 States have 
been destroyed. Wetlands across the Nation have been drained at an 
alarming rate, up to 100,000 acres annually, and subsequently converted 
to farmlands, built for housing developments and industrial facilities, 
or used as receptacles for waste.
  Yet what is even more unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, is the fact the 
provisions contained in this bill would assist in the destruction of an 
even greater number of wetlands. First, the legislative proposals 
contained in this bill would delay the implementation of a revised 
nationwide program for wetland development. Currently, the discharge of 
fill materials into certain types of waters is allowed without regard 
to the type of activities being conducted and without prior 
notification or delineation as a protected wetland.
  In fact, since 1993, the administration has called for a complete 
review of the wetlands program, and just a few weeks ago the Army Corps 
of Engineers published a proposal to correct the deficiencies. The 
riders contained in this bill will needlessly delay the implementation 
of the new nationwide permitting program, continuing the loss of 
wetlands. That is unacceptable.
  Instead of continuing the destruction of wetlands, we should allow 
the Corps of Engineers to finish the work on the revised permit system, 
providing additional protections to our vital wetland resources, yet 
still allowing continued development of selected wetlands areas.
  Mr. Chairman, this proposal also will needlessly increase the amount 
of litigation surrounding the wetlands permit program. Under the 
current program, an individual may seek a determination by the Corps to 
identify whether or not a wetland exists on their property in advance 
of any planned development. Because such determinations are not always 
tied to any real desire to develop lands, these agency determinations 
are not litigated. This rider allows these issues to be challenged in 
court. We certainly do not need any more lawsuits.

                              {time}  1830

  While I support establishing an administrative appeals process for 
jurisdictional determination, this should not create new multiple 
opportunities for lawyers.
  In addition, this threat of litigation is intended to cause the Corps 
to be significantly more conservative in its determination of what is a 
wetland in order to avoid future litigation. This can only result in 
the further development of greenfields at a time when we should be 
encouraging continued redevelopment of urban and rural brownfields.
  Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, our Nation's wetlands are an 
important but rapidly diminishing natural resource. We cannot accept 
riders in appropriations bills which further diminish their protection. 
This amendment will stop this rider and protect these precious 
resources.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to address the two issues that are in this 
amendment. Let me take the nationwide permit 26 issue first. I will try 
to be brief on that, because I honestly believe that the Boehlert 
amendment essentially removes all of the concerns for this portion of 
the amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Frankly, all this provision is in the bill is a reporting provision. 
It simply asks for a report. It is nothing more than that. It does not 
change the process. It does not change the regulations. It does not 
change the impacts. It does not change any part of the existing law as 
it relates to wetlands. It only requires a report.
  That report will be done before the Corps, at their own admission, 
can implement the change from the nationwide process to the individual 
permitting process.
  I cannot see any reason for Members to disagree with the provisions 
that are now in the bill, as amended, on this nationwide permitting 
process.
  I should mention that the Corps itself has admitted that individual 
permits will take five times longer to process than the nationwide 
permit 26 general permits will take. The Corps further said, just the 
other day, last Wednesday, in the Federal Register, the Corps reported 
that the proposed changes will cause a substantial increase in the 
Corps' workload by requiring individual permits for activities that 
would otherwise be evaluated through the nationwide permit program.
  The Corps estimated that just one of those proposed exclusions would 
result in two to three thousand more individual permits per year, at 
least a 40-percent increase over the current individual permit 
workload. Can any of my colleagues feel it is not necessary to find out 
what problems that will cause in the processing?
  The Corps is going to have to do more work. They have admitted that. 
All we want to do in this report is to find out how much more required 
work it is going to be. Can the Corps handle it? Will it cost more for 
the Corps? Will we have to provide more funds for the Corps? Will it 
cost more to the applicant? And, will it cause delays?
  All of these questions need to be answered. And the Corps can do it 
under the Boehlert amendment. Not only can they do it, they must do it 
before they implement it by the end of the year, which is the time that 
they said it would take to implement this process anyway.
  So much for the nationwide permit process. I can speak a lot more on 
it, but I will not because far more important is the next issue. 
Because again, I believe the Boehlert amendment solves the problems in 
the nationwide permit issue and deserves really no further discussion.
  But on to the other portion, that is the administrative appeals 
process. My colleagues, this is my biggest concern. I get complaints on 
this process from cities, from counties, from school boards wanting to 
build schools, water districts wanting to put the sewer and water lines 
in, State and county facilities that need to be put in to service the 
people, to build roads, and to build parks.
  They are the ones that are struggling more with this now than the 
private sector is, and they are the ones that are complaining. I have a 
list of letters from the cities and counties in my district asking us 
to do something to make it easier for them to go through the process.
  My bill very modestly addresses the problems that they have brought 
to my

[[Page 18078]]

attention. And the modest change we recommend is to give the cities, 
the counties and private enterprises that need to develop their land 
the same opportunity as third parties that may disagree with the Corps' 
decision.
  Let me explain briefly, all this does under current law. I may not 
have sufficient time to do this, but I will seek time from others to 
allow me to complete it.
  I will use a school district as an example because that is the one 
that I have heard from most recently, a school district wanting to 
build a new school. If it is determined by the Corps that they have a 
wetland on their school site, whether there is or not, if it is 
declared a wetland by the Corps, then the school district is required 
to go through the long and drawn out and expensive process of seeking a 
404 permit; and they have to complete that 404 permit application and 
be denied before they can go to court to determine if, in fact, they do 
have a wetland.
  Now, in the meantime, a community group that may be opposed to the 
school district building a school, can immediately go to court. If the 
court decides that there is no wetland on the site and this group is 
objecting to it, they can immediately go to court.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Packard was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, so if the school district is seeking a 404 
permit, they cannot take it to court. But someone else can take it to 
court if the court decides that it is not a wetland on the site.
  That is an injustice to the applicant, in my judgment. It definitely 
favors the third parties and penalizes the applicant.
  All my bill will do will be to allow the school district in this 
instance to challenge the decision that there is a wetland on the site. 
And they can appeal it to a higher level within the Corps, not at a 
different agency, within the Corps. The Corps, if they decide, yes, 
there is a wetland, then the school district can go to court and verify 
that that decision is correct before they have to go through the long, 
drawn out expensive process of a 404 permit.
  Now, I do not understand what is wrong with that process. It simply 
gives the school district in this instance exactly the same options 
within the courts as a third party that may object. To me, that is 
fair, it is reasonable, it is very sensible, and certainly a very 
modest change in the process.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize that it is not just the big 
developer that is affected by the rules and the regulations and the 
process. It is cities, it is schools, it is water districts, it is 
counties that want to do something for the people that they represent 
and that they serve.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the standard of 
review for a court determination that the Corps has made an improper 
determination of what is a wetland is the arbitrary and capricious 
standard.
  I am sorry, if the Corps has made a wetland determination that is 
arbitrary and capricious, and I am not suggesting it does it left and 
right, then it should be examined in the courts.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comment.
  All this does is to give a chance for any applicant, any property 
owner, whether it be public or whether it be private, a chance to be 
certain that this is really a wetland. I do not understand why that is 
such an egregious request.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope and pray that my colleagues will recognize that 
this is a very modest change and that they will defeat the Visclosky 
amendment and allow the bill, as now amended and improved, to stand.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, 10 years ago President Bush announced a no-net-loss 
policy for Wetlands in this country; and, as a local official, I 
saluted him for that. It was a policy that was long overdue.
  We have heard colleagues from both sides of the aisle talk about the 
need to protect wetlands in this country. Yet we continue to fall far 
short of the goal articulated by President Bush.
  We can quibble about the statistics, but we are still losing between 
1,000 and 2,000 acres per week, 50 to 100 thousand acres per year, year 
after year, losing this precious resource.
  The gentleman does not understand why we should intervene quickly if 
someone is proposing to develop land as opposed to a slight delay or a 
longer delay in terms of development. There is a big difference. 
Because if we allow development to proceed forthwith, we lose that 
wetland. There is a big, big difference.
  I can understand in my mind why it would be sound Government policy 
to act immediately if there is a potential for losing this activity.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, this provision, I think, is better known 
now as the puppy. The gentleman has not met this puppy. It is not a 
puppy that wants to destroy wetlands. Nor is it a puppy that wants to 
delay the process.
  The provision in the bill does not change any of the procedures 
required by an applicant. It simply gives them the opportunity to 
appeal the decision. But it certainly is not going to deplete wetlands. 
That is simply not an issue in this.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I was explaining 
why it was sound Government policy to permit an immediate action if we 
are going to lose a resource that is going to be lost for centuries or 
millennia, as opposed to having a slight delay for development that 
people can go ahead and appeal and can move forward.
  We have seen tremendous progress that has been made streamlining. 
And, in fact, we have streamlined in many cases too well. We have not 
halted the loss of the wetlands in this country.
  Wetlands, as has been documented, are the cheapest way that we are 
going to provide flood control. They are the cheapest way that we are 
going to provide for endangered species. It is the most cost-effective 
way for combined sewer overflow problems that plague over 1,100 
communities around the country.
  It is, with all due respect, an effort that a number of us who are 
concerned environmentally see this as being putting sand in the gears. 
The last thing an underfunded, overworked Corps of Engineers needs to 
do is to come forward with yet another study.
  They are working on this. I have been a critic at times of the Corps, 
but I am impressed with the 180-degree effort that has been undertaken 
on behalf of the Corps of Engineers. We do not need to sidetrack them. 
They have had over 10,000 comments, moving forward.
  Let them develop an administrative procedure for appeal. Do not move 
it automatically to the courts, undermining some of the incentives that 
we have now for people to work cooperatively to solve these problems.
  We do not need, in my judgment, for us to go once again in an 
appropriations bill undercutting the work that we appropriately do in 
the authorizing committee.
  I would defer to my friend from New York, the chair of the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, for work that he might 
do in terms of fine-tuning. In fact, I urge that we bring some of our 
friends together from a variety of water resources agencies because it 
goes beyond the Corps of Engineers. It includes FEMA. It includes 
Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation. There are a wide range of people 
that need to be involved.
  I am not concerned if we require local governments, water districts, 
school districts, even some Federal agencies to play by the same rules 
that we require the private sector. That is not an argument for pulling 
the plug. I think that helps us fine-tune and move the process forward.

[[Page 18079]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Blumenauer was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of my 
colleagues.
  I have long felt that one of the problems we have in the Federal 
Government is that we do play by different rules, whether it is the 
post office that does not obey local land use laws, zoning code, 
environmental regulations. I think the Congress should move forward to 
make sure that we all play by the rules.
  But for heaven's sake, I think it is ill-advised, when the Corps of 
Engineers is, in fact, moving in the right direction, for us to throw 
sand in the gears as it relates to permit 26, require an overworked, 
underfunded Corps to come forward with yet another study and to enact a 
separate appeal process rather than have an administrative repeal.

                              {time}  1845

  I strongly urge support for the 
Visclosky-Borski-Oberstar amendment and that we move away from this 
notion of environmental legislation with the appropriations process.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER. I just wish to point out that the appropriations process 
gave an additional $11 million for regulatory and administrative 
procedures in the proposed budget, and, secondly, just a quick 
Louisiana note, we lose more wetlands in one 2- or 3-day period from 
one Stage or Level 3 storm called a hurricane than we do in the entire 
year of normal geological processes. If the gentleman really wishes to 
help us save wetlands in Louisiana, we just need a few bucks to do some 
onshore revetments to protect whatever precious wetlands we have left. 
Otherwise our coastline is going to be up somewhere south of Arkansas.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reclaiming my time, with all due respect, I think 
there are a whole host of areas we could constructively discuss in 
terms of what has happened environmentally with the State of Louisiana. 
I think by some ill-planned efforts that have gone, including the 
Federal Government, over the years, that we have helped create sort of 
an environmental time bomb in terms of Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER. I will agree with the gentleman, if he will yield further 
just quickly. One of the problems, which I know that he would not 
support, would be to let the Mississippi River meander to its natural 
course.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I will talk with the gentleman about 
the Mississippi River flood control and these sorts of things at 
another time.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to make a quick comment that the gentleman from 
Louisiana stated earlier about crabs and restaurants in Washington, 
where most of them come from Louisiana. I would just like to say that a 
good portion of those crabs come from the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER. The gentleman is absolutely correct. I appreciate him for 
correcting the official record on this matter. I would point out, 
however, it is the small ones that come from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time, it is the big, meaty blue crabs 
from the Chesapeake Bay. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana. We are 
also working on the nutria problem. I know you guys eat them down 
there. We do not do that up here.
  I would like to respond to the gentleman from Oregon for whom I have 
great respect and with whom I realize and all of us here collectively 
certainly want to do everything we can to add to the Nation's acreage 
of wetlands, but as far as two quick items:
  The appeals process that is in this legislation. One, it offers 
someone that has been, if you want to, and I cringe when I say this 
word, develop or have some activity on wetlands, which I think we 
should avoid them at all cost and find some other alternative. But if 
you disagree with the Corps when they say that they have delineated 
that piece of acreage as a nontitled wetland, what can you do then? In 
the bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has said, you can 
appeal that to a higher level of the Corps of Engineers and then they 
will determine whether the person on the ground delineated that piece 
of wetlands correctly. If the Corps sustains the original delineation, 
then the individual or the group can go to a Federal court. But the 
Federal court is not going to overturn the Corps' delineation unless it 
is judged to be arbitrary and capricious. That is rock solid.
  The other issue we are talking about here is Nationwide 26 which is a 
small, narrow area of nontitled wetlands, of wetlands in general. It is 
not the whole program of section 404. It is a narrow part of section 
404 dealing with three acres or less that are considered isolated, are 
considered at the headwaters of an area. Personally I do not think 
those isolated wetlands should have activity on there other than maybe 
a Canada goose or some other habitat for wildlife. But the language in 
this bill does exactly what the Corps of Engineers said they were going 
to do in the Federal Register. That is, the Corps of Engineers said by 
December 31, we will have in place the ability to implement a new 
regime for isolated wetlands, and, that is, to get rid of Nationwide 
26, so they will be able to have an individual permit for activity on 
that particular wetland.
  This bill makes sure, puts into statute, that they will no longer 
postpone that implementation. It will happen December 31st. They were 
going to do it in July and then that slipped. They were going to do it 
in September, then that slipped. Now they say they might do it this 
December.
  What the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) does 
is to make sure they will do it in December, and I think we ought to 
know the kind of money they need for the people on the ground to 
implement that policy so that we can ensure that they have enough 
money. And I think it will help the community that wants to have 
activity on wetlands, the development community, that they ought to 
know what it is going to cost them. This is just good legislation.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. The gentleman should know, and I hope the Congress 
knows, that we have put money into this bill to literally implement 
what the Corps was planning to do.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for that comment.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to just rise today to associate myself with the 
remarks of my friend from Oregon whom I think is one of the foremost 
experts in this body in regards to this issue and a whole host of other 
environmental issues. That is why I rise as a strong supporter of the 
Visclosky amendment and would encourage my colleagues to support it in 
final passage.
  But I also rise this evening, Mr. Chairman, as one of the cochairs of 
the bipartisan Upper Mississippi River Task Force that was formed over 
3 years ago, a group of Members on both sides of the aisle which is 
dedicated to get together to bring a little more focus to the 
importance of the preservation and the protection of one of our 
national treasures, the Mississippi River. Normally I would be eager to 
support this bill and I hope I still can if the antienvironmental 
riders that have been attached are removed, and although there is an 
agreement to restore some of the funding to the renewable energy 
program, it is a little disheartening that we could not at least get to 
level funding as we had last year.
  This bill, nevertheless, does contain important provisions for the 
upper Mississippi River Environmental Management Program, the LaFarge 
Dam

[[Page 18080]]

Project, and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal Dispersal Barrier. I 
just want to take a couple of moments to talk about a couple of these.
  In light of the tight budget constraints, I commend the 
appropriators, especially the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the committee members 
and committee staff for their recognition of the importance of the 
Environmental Management Program and for appropriating $18.95 million 
to the EMP program which is about level funding, where it was last 
year, but it is $3 million more than what the Senate appropriations 
level is right now.
  Of special note is the bipartisan support and the leadership that we 
have had in this Mississippi River Task Force from my other cochairs, 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).
  The EMP is a great cooperative effort at the Federal, State and local 
level involving the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Geological Service, 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the five upper Mississippi River 
basin States that is dedicated to ensure the coordinated development 
and enhancement of the upper Mississippi River system. The EMP is 
designed to evaluate, restore and enhance riverine and wetland habitat 
along a 1200-mile stretch of the upper Mississippi and Illinois River. 
The EMP program manager, Bob Delaney, has highlighted some of the 
detrimental effects that would occur to the program if we went with the 
$3 million less appropriated level on the Senate side than what we have 
here on the House side.
  Mr. Chairman, I include Mr. Delaney's letter to me in the Record.

                                       Department of the Interior,


                                       U.S. Geological Survey,

                                     La Crosse, WI, July 27, 1999.
     Hon. Ron Kind,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Kind: I thought it appropriate that I communicate 
     to you impacts to the Upper Mississippi River Environmental 
     Management Program (EMP) which will occur under fiscal year 
     2000 funding levels currently being considered by the House 
     and Senate.
       As you know the EMP funds have never been cost indexed. 
     Yearly inflation and uncontrollables, such as salary 
     increases have reduced program operations and capabilities 
     even under the fully funded level of $19,455 by nearly half 
     since the EMP was initiated in fiscal year 1987. This has 
     prevented the construction of dozens of habitat projects in 
     the five river states (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, 
     and Wisconsin) involved in the EMP. In addition, it has 
     severely curtailed critical science information needed to 
     assist state and federal river managers in balancing the 
     billion dollar industries associated with navigation, 
     recreation, and wildlife conservation.
       The proposed Senate funding level of $16.1 million, $3.555 
     million below full funding levels, would reduce the Long Term 
     Resource Monitoring component of the EMP by $1.12 million and 
     result in the following impact: (1) It would be necessary to 
     close two of the six state-operated field stations that have 
     been collecting critical data on the river for over ten 
     years. Disrupting the continuity and spatial distribution of 
     data on water quality, fish, and vegetation would seriously 
     compromise the integrity of the resource monitoring program. 
     (2) It may be necessary to terminate the fish monitoring 
     altogether. Given how important this information is to the 
     federal and state agencies that are responsible for managing 
     the fish populations upon which much of the recreational 
     economy of the region depends, this would also be a serious 
     set-back. (3) It may be necessary to eliminate sediment and 
     river mapping functions at the USGS Upper Midwest 
     Environmental Sciences Center in Wisconsin.
       The Senate EMP reductions would reduce habitat project 
     construction by $2.43 million and result in the following: 
     Suspend design of a number of habitat restoration projects, 
     including Lake Odessa (Iowa), Batchtown Phases II and III 
     (Illinois), and Calhoun Point (Illinois). In addition, it may 
     be necessary to cancel the scheduled award of construction 
     contracts for projects such as Spring Lake Islands 
     (Wisconsin), Ambrough Slough (Wisconsin), Harpers Slough 
     (Wisconsin/Iowa), Pool Slough (Minnesota/Iowa), Pool 11 
     Islands (Wisconsin and Iowa), the Batchtown Phase I 
     (Illinois). Each of the Corps of Engineers districts, which 
     implement habitat projects, will experience these types of 
     impacts.
       The above funding reduction actions will certainly have 
     crippling effects. The timing could not be worse. The Corps 
     of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey, and the five river 
     states have just concluded a very difficult process of 
     restructuring the EMP Long Term Resource Monitoring Program 
     to accommodate inflation-driven budget shortfalls that the 
     program will experience even with full funding. Painful 
     decisions have already been made that reduce personnel levels 
     and curtail data collection efforts. The USGS and other 
     partner agencies have made every effort to reduce costs, 
     maximize efficiency, and still maintain the scientific 
     credibility of the program. Further loss of scientific data 
     will reduce the ability to describe and mitigate impacts of 
     the sue of the system for navigation. Additional funding 
     cutbacks will seriously jeopardize the integrity of the 
     program.
       The Water Resources Development Act which is currently 
     before Congress reauthorizes the EMP and proposes increased 
     funding levels. Reducing funding for this river management 
     support program at the very time that we are all 
     simultaneously planning for its future seems particularly 
     ill-advised.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert L. Delaney,
                                            LTRMP Program Manager.

  Mr. Chairman, the EMP is a vital program to the environmental and the 
economic well-being of the Mississippi River and the entire upper 
Mississippi River basin. Navigation along the upper Mississippi 
supports over 400,000 full-time and part-time jobs, which produces 
about $4 billion in individual income. Recreation use totals 12 million 
visitors each year in the upper Mississippi region and results in an 
economic benefit of roughly $1.2 billion. Maintaining a proper balance 
between economic growth and environmental protection is essential to 
maintain the health of the river and the wetlands associated with it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to mention an issue that has dragged 
on far too long and needs to be resolved in my district. In 1962, 
Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to construct the LaFarge Dam 
on the Kickapoo River in western Wisconsin. In the process, it 
condemned more than 140 family farms and began construction of the dam 
and reservoir. The project, however, was halted in 1975 and it was only 
half completed.
  Also, under the project, certain State and county highways that were 
slated for relocation have since fallen into disrepair. Several times 
throughout the history of the project the Wisconsin DOT has been denied 
the opportunity to maintain these roads by the Corps. This bill 
provides the funds to correct this wrong. Now the land is slated to 
revert back to the people of Wisconsin.
  Only recently with the passage of WRDA 1996 were additional funds 
appropriated to finish what the Corps started. This appropriations bill 
has made provisions to enable the Corps to finish its business so that 
eventually the land can be returned to the people of Wisconsin.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, another important issue to the Mississippi 
River contained in the bill is the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal 
Dispersal Barrier funded at $300,000. All this will do is establish an 
electrical barrier along the Illinois River in order to prevent the 
migration of nuisance species from Lake Michigan to the Mississippi, 
such as the round gobi and also carp trying to travel from the 
Mississippi to Lake Michigan. It is long overdue. I think this barrier 
is going to add to the protection of the river.
  I would encourage my colleagues again to support the Visclosky 
amendment to make this a better bill which in all other respects I 
wholeheartedly endorse.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
  This amendment will strip from the bill the harmful riders that would 
reduce protection for our valuable wetlands and would make it very 
difficult for a great number of Members of this Congress to vote for 
the bill without it. With those riders, it will not work.
  In my district just north of the Golden Gate Bridge on the north edge 
of the San Francisco Bay, we spend a lot of time and a lot of energy 
reconstructing, restoring wetlands that have been destroyed in our 
area. A lot of

[[Page 18081]]

that comes through matching funds from the Federal Government and from 
the State and from local investment and from private investment, 
because it is very, very important to my district. In fact, we are 
going to reconstruct a wetland that is now an old, unused Air Force 
landing pad, Hamilton Air Force Base. It is going to be the largest 
restored wetland in the State of California. We would not have to do 
this if wetlands were not disappearing at nearly 100,000 acres a year 
in this Nation.
  In fact, in my State, California, we have lost nearly 90 percent of 
our original wetlands. This is extremely alarming. Wetlands provide a 
home to wildlife habitat, filter pollutants from our streams and lakes, 
help control floods and give us more recreational areas. These wetlands 
are a spawning ground for fish and provide homes for more than 138 
species of birds and also for every amphibian and reptile in the United 
States.
  The riders in this bill undercut key Clean Water Act protections for 
wetlands. They would invite increased litigation, they would waste 
Federal dollars, and block revised wetland permits designed to limit 
wetland destruction and the flooding of homes and businesses.
  The Visclosky amendment would allow the Army Corps of Engineers to 
revise their permit process, providing more protection for our 
wetlands. Developers may say, and they do, they will say, and they will 
say it over and over, that this is a long, drawn-out process that would 
become much longer. However, the reality of the situation is that 82 
percent of permits are approved within 16 days of submission, and less 
than half of 1 percent are denied in the end.
  The Corps of Engineers has been in the process of developing these 
replacement permits for more than 2 years. The process involved two 
public notice and comment periods in which more than 10,000 people and 
businesses have participated. These comments ran 9 to 1, Mr. Chairman, 
in favor of stronger wetland protections.
  We need to protect our remaining wetlands. The people of this country 
know it. They know that the wetlands are among our most valuable 
environmental resources. These antienvironmental riders must be removed 
before our wetlands disappear entirely.
  I ask my colleagues to support the environment by supporting the 
Visclosky amendment.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Visclosky 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman I rise in strong support of the Visclosky-Oberstar-
Borski amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations Act. The 
amendment would remove two provisions from the bill which severely 
threaten the health of our nation's wetlands and ability of the Corps 
of Engineers to effectively implement the Clean Water Act.
  The first provision severely limits the review process for wetlands 
decisions by making the review of these initial determinations 
appealable to Federal courts before a final permit decision has been 
made. It is my understanding that the Administration is currently 
creating an administrative appeals process for these determinations, 
and that this section in the bill cuts off that process.
  The second provision would indefinitely delay implementation of a 
revision to the Corps' ``Nationwide Permit 26'' under Section 404 of 
the Clean Water Act. The revision was first proposed by the agency last 
year and is still in the public process being undertaken by the agency. 
The new nationwide permits are a high priority of the administration. 
Through this public process, they plan special protections for flood 
plains and other environmentally sensitive lands. I believe the 
administration should be allowed to complete the open process and move 
forward with its revisions to the permitting system, not be cut short 
by a legislative provision in an appropriations bill.
  Our nation's wetlands have already been drastically reduced. We must 
ensure the protection of these critical areas and not preempt any 
public processes to be halted because of this legislation. I urge 
support for the amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say a word in support of the 
Visclosky amendment as well because I think it does something that is 
very important. The administration, this administration, has recognized 
that the policy that has been pursued by the Army Corps of Engineers 
over many years which has allowed for the destruction of small 
wetlands, wetlands under three acres, is a wrongheaded policy in that 
in the course of that policy we are losing cumulatively hundreds of 
thousands of acres and have lost cumulatively hundreds of thousands of 
acres of wetlands over a period of time in the past. The administration 
wants to move to stop that.
  This is a very important thing to do, and we should not discourage 
the administration in this effort, and unfortunately that is what the 
anti-environmental riders in this appropriations bill would do. It 
would make it more difficult to protect small wetlands, wetlands under 
three acres. It is very important to protect those wetlands for a 
variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that we in this 
country, as a result of increasing population and increasing activities 
of various kinds, have placed in jeopardy our surface water supplies, 
the reservoirs of our Nation, particularly the big cities. We have seen 
that impact in the Midwest and elsewhere. Consequently the EPA has 
adopted a program whereby, if cities fail to protect their surface 
water supplies, their reservoirs, they will have to implement a 
filtration program. That filtration program is a very expensive one.
  Let me give my colleagues the example of the City of New York. In the 
case of the City of New York, if New York has to build a filtration 
program which is more likely if we destroy the wetlands upstate, it 
will cost the city approximately $5 billion to construct that 
filtration plant and approximately a half a billion dollars a year to 
operate it. Now that is just the economic side of the equation. Of 
course, once the filtration plant is built and operating, the quality 
of the watershed and the water supply system will further deteriorate 
because the main incentive for protecting it will have been evaporated, 
will have been lost as a result of the construction of this filtration 
plant.
  So the loss of these wetlands is very critical.
  Recently the City of New York did something very foolish, I think, 
because they approached the Army Corps and dropped a provision whereby 
they would agree that the city would agree to a plan which would 
provide for the protection of these small wetlands, these wetlands of 
less than three acres in the Catskill watershed in upstate New York. 
The city was prepared to go along with that, but recently the mayor of 
the city intervened and decided that he would drop that. And so these 
small wetlands, which are now protecting the quality of the watershed, 
which is an absolutely precious, invaluable, and I use that word 
literally, invaluable resource, is in danger now and increasingly in 
danger because we will be losing these small wetlands.
  So, by adopting the anti-environmental rider in this bill we will 
once again deprive ourselves of the opportunity to protect these small 
wetlands, protect our water supplies, avoid enormous costs associated 
with building filtration plants and operating those filtration plants 
and place our citizenry in increased jeopardy of disease and other 
ailments as a result of contaminated water supplies.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to point out the only 
modification the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Packard) would make is to allow, at the beginning of the 404 
process for these small acreage tracks, a determination to be made 
whether it is or is not a wetlands; no construction, no damage, no 
wetlands lost. Only a small property owner can go into the United 
States Government and say, ``Is this really a wetlands before I spend 
all my money to

[[Page 18082]]

get my property back?'' That is all the gentleman's amendment would do.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
very much for that. I listened to the gentleman, I am very sympathetic 
to what the gentleman said about the situation that the story, the 
anecdote that the gentleman told to us about the situation in Louisiana 
in his district; I am very sensitive to that, and I appreciate it, and 
I think that things need to be done about that. We need to protect 
people from buying property that they intend to build on and then later 
on they find it is a wetland. We need to take action, at least States 
particularly ought to take action, against people who sell property 
alleging that it is buildable, and then later on the purchaser finds 
out that that is not the case because a wetland is located on it.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very sensitive to the problem that my colleague 
outlines, and I think steps can be taken at the State and local level 
to deal with those kinds of problems.
  I do not think, however, that we ought to be adopting on 
appropriation measures anti-environmental riders which will make it 
more difficult for us to protect small wetlands when those small 
wetlands are so crucial to the health, safety, and welfare of the 
citizens of this republic.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  We are switching our attention to a debate on wetlands and the value 
of wetlands. Let me tell my colleagues I appreciate the value of 
wetlands.
  When President Bush said back in the 1980s that we should have no net 
loss of wetlands, I stood up and cheered, stood up with many of my 
colleagues on that side of the aisle. He was right then, and he is 
right now. Wetlands are precious. They are natural spawning grounds, 
they are natural filter systems, they are wonderful. We ought to 
protect the Nation's wetlands.
  What we are trying to do simply is, one, say we are not going to let 
anybody delay, delay, delay determinations or the implementation of 
this new plan that the Army Corps of Engineers wants to go forward 
with, we are not going to say, no, we are going to give some people an 
excuse to delay it. I think they should go forward with it. So there is 
no argument there. That is why my amendment passed overwhelmingly; 
well, it is going to when we have the recorded vote. It makes sense. I 
am not going to let anybody delay something.
  And then secondly, I fail to see why we should be offended by the 
idea, and I have great respect for my colleague, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). He serves with me on the Subcommittee on Water 
Resources and the Environment, which I am privileged to chair, and let 
me tell my colleagues Mr. Blumenauer is one of the most valuable 
members, one of the hardest-working members, but I do not see what the 
objection would be to have a modest amount of money for the Corps of 
Engineers and say, ``Hey, corps, you're overworked and underfunded.'' I 
will agree, everybody can agree with that. ``Now tell us what more you 
need to do the job we expect.''
  Not everybody here agrees that we should protect these wetlands. I 
do, and so do a lot of other people on both sides of the aisle. The 
environment is not a partisan issue. It is not a Republican environment 
or a Democrat environment. It is a precious, fragile environment, and I 
want to protect it. But I see nothing wrong with saying to the Corps of 
Engineers, ``We're going to give you a lot more responsibility. Give us 
an idea of what more you need to fulfill that responsibility.''
  And then I will tell my colleagues my commitment is on the 
authorizing committee. I am going to do my level best to give them some 
additional resource to do the job.
  And finally, as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) pointed out 
a little bit earlier, I see nothing wrong with saying to somebody, 
``Let's have sort of an appeal process in place,'' so if the district 
office says this is something that I do not agree with and I do not 
like, then one goes to the next level, they have got a process, and if 
they say something that I do not like, then go to the court, and the 
court says, well, this is arbitrary and capricious, they cannot get 
away with it.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to make the esteemed Member's 
opinion clear on the underlying text of Mr. Packard's in this bill. If 
it is adopted without the Visclosky amendment, no damage to wetlands 
occurs in the gentleman's opinion. It only allows the land owner to 
come in and say, ``Mr. Corps, is this a wetlands; yes or no,'' before 
they do anything.
  So there is no damage occurring as some have alleged in the debate 
here tonight.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I exactly agree with the text as 
perfected, and the perfecting is very important in my heart. Let me 
tell my colleagues the perfecting is very important because I could 
sense, as my colleagues know, sort of a little potential problem here. 
That is why I had the perfecting amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana with whom I work 
closely and for whom I have great respect.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comment and 
would ask why this issue was not addressed in the Water Resources Act.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues we had enough 
issues that we had to address in the water bill. We are still working. 
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) over there, my colleague, 
is smiling because we are getting very close to resolving that issue in 
a bipartisan manner, and that is what we should do on this floor.
  Look. Let us not look at issues as if we are Republicans or 
Democrats. Let us look at the issues as if we are Americans concerned 
about a future legacy for our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I really want to associate myself with the 
gentleman's remarks because I too have worked most of my public life to 
preserve and protect wetlands. I live along the southern California 
coast surrounded by lagoons and wetlands, and they are very valuable to 
us, to our quality of life, to our way of life, and to the environment.
  I am not anti-environment, I am not anti-wetlands. In fact, my 
provisions, in my judgment, do not affect the amount of wetlands. 
Frankly, I dispute that we are losing wetlands. I think the 
requirements, the mitigation requirements, and the process is requiring 
that any applicant that has a wetland has to replace it sometimes two, 
three, four times the amount of acreage than what they have on their 
property, and, in fact, the State of Pennsylvania has found that they 
have increased their wetlands since 1989 by the tune of some 4,700 
acres.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Reclaiming my time, let me point out that we educated 
the governor of the State of Pennsylvania in this body, and then we 
sent him back to Harrisburg to do that.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate I think makes the exact point that the 
ranking member on the committee is trying to make with his amendment, 
and that is that this ought to be hashed out in the policy committee 
where all sides can be heard on this as opposed to proposing this 
amendment, if my colleagues will, in the eleventh hour of this 
consideration.
  I think this committee has done a remarkable job with this 
legislation given the terrible lack of resources that they have had 
available to them under the budget constraints to deal with the 
problems that all the Members have tried to deal with. But clearly in 
this particular case this language is flawed because it simply comes in 
in

[[Page 18083]]

the middle of the process, if my colleagues will, or very near the end 
of the process, and takes the demands of one constituency to what has 
been a long-running argument in this country about how we process 
permits dealing with the protection, the enhancement and conservation 
of wetlands, and puts the thumb of the committee on one side of the 
scales of justice here, if my colleagues will, and decides that, in 
fact, that those who do not think that the Corps is going to respond to 
them now come to the committee and get it done by edict with no 
hearing, with no chances for the other side to be heard on this matter.
  And that is the reason that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski) are quite right in offering 
this amendment. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have 
already attested to the damage that has been done under the current 
process and the need to change that process. And the Corps is going 
through a very deliberative process to make sure that all sides, in 
fact, have been heard.
  And we have listened to the testimony of how many tens of thousands 
of people have testified in organizations on this amendment, I mean on 
the process by the Corps to change the nationwide permit program that 
we have under section 26, and we ought to fully understand that that is 
a process that then the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
or the Committee on Appropriations can deal with through hearings.
  But that is not this process. This process is to render a verdict on 
a claim that is made, that somehow this will change, this will change 
the equities, if my colleagues will, of when people can appeal this 
process, when they can make that determination.
  One of the things we clearly found out was that at three acres at a 
time we were gobbling up tens of thousands of acres of wetlands in the 
current process or the old process, if my colleagues will. Small does 
not necessarily mean that wetlands are not important, it does not mean 
that they are not significant. The fact of the matter is that they have 
to be reviewed and they have to be considered that.
  The Corps also found out that a considerable period of time is being 
dealt with this question based upon acreage that really does not render 
a proper judgment, and that is why they are moving to this activity-
based system of wetlands that will hopefully give people greater 
confidence and greater certainty in that process.
  And that is why we should support this amendment, because to come in 
now clearly, as my colleagues can already see, whether it is from the 
Corps or whether it is from FEMA or other parts of the administration, 
this has the potential to threaten this entire bill because people have 
not been able to be heard or make their case on this matter.
  I have had meetings on this exact point with many members in our 
community, but I have to tell my colleagues I do not think that many of 
the people that I have met with would think that this a terribly fair 
way to resolve that process in this legislation without an ability to 
offer amendments other than what the committee would agree to here in 
the case of Mr. Boehlert's, which is clearly an improvement of this. 
But the Visclosky amendment still ought to be voted on by the House, 
and it ought to be passed by the House so that we can get back to a 
thoughtful process that the Corps is currently engaged in.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for offering his 
amendment.

                              {time}  1915

  I want to thank the gentleman for offering his amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, given the exchange of unanimous 
consents, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I want to return the body and the 
Members to the issue at hand, and the issue is the loss of wetlands in 
the United States of America. This year, we will lose approximately 
70,000 to 90,000 acres of wetland. The two provisions in the bill are 
not going to lead to the entire loss of all of those wetlands, but they 
are contributing factors; and for every acre we lose, we cannot get it 
back.
  The gentleman indicated earlier that as far as the authorization 
bill, we had other issues to deal with, and I appreciate the Chairman's 
comments. We have other issues to deal with in this bill to the tune of 
about $20 billion, and that is what we ought to be focused on. We ought 
to remind ourselves that in the last three Congresses, there were 225 
on other bills dealing with issues related to wetlands and permitting, 
similar to that being debated at this point in time, and we have not 
ourselves, Republicans or Democrats alike, been able to resolve those 
in the authorization process. This is not the time, this is not the 
place, this is a mistake and is subject to a veto, and I would ask my 
colleagues to support the Visclosky-Oberstar-Borski amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Visclosky-
Oberstar-Borski amendment. Mr. Speaker, wetlands protect our families 
from floods, filter our drinking water, provide recreational areas, and 
provide critical habitat for fish and wildlife. Yet we have destroyed 
more than half of our wetlands for development and agriculture and we 
continue to destroy one hundred thousand acres of wetlands annually, 
one hundred thousand. In my state of Ohio we have already lost more 
than 90 percent of our precious wetlands. The Army Corps of Engineers 
estimates that floods have killed almost 900 people and destroyed $900 
billion in homes, businesses, crops, and government structures since 
1990.
  The anti-environmental rider in this bill will allow developers to 
drive their tractors through a loophole and dump fill directly into our 
wetlands. This rider seeks to extend, indefinitely, a scientifically 
discredited wetlands permit known as Nationwide Permit 26. This same 
permit has been the largest source of permitted wetlands loss in 
America, authorizing tens of thousands of wetland-filling development 
activities each year. We cannot afford this decimation of one of our 
nation's most treasured resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow members to support this amendment to 
remove this damaging anti-environmental rider and close this loophole. 
Vote yes for this amendment and allow us to provide fair and effective 
protection for the nation's critical wetlands.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Visclosky 
amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill (H.R. 2605).
  This amendment addresses two provisions in the bill where Committee 
language would result in threatening the progress being made to protect 
wetland areas and the wildlife they shelter. The amendment would 
address two issues by:
  --striking the reporting requirement for the Corps
  --striking the appeal of wetlands designations prior to completion of 
the permitting process
  Both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of 
the Army oppose these provisions in the bill. EPA's letter states:

       Both provisions will significantly impair the 
     Administration's ability to provide fair and effective 
     protection for the nation's critical wetlands resources.

  The Army summarizes its opposition by stating:

       The Administration strongly objects to a provision that 
     would short-circuit the review process for wetlands 
     jurisdictional determination by making the review of these 
     initial decisions appealable to the Federal courts prior to a 
     final permit decision. Although the Administration supports 
     the creation of an administrative review process for these 
     determinations, the bill would generate unnecessary and 
     premature litigation, set back efforts to ensure a fair and 
     amicable resolution of potential disputes, and undermine the 
     ability of citizens and communities to participate on an 
     equal footing in the permit process.

  These are letters from the people in charge of this process; 
individuals who are considered experts and intensely involved in 
balancing the interests of appropriate development environmental 
protection. The language in the bill destroys the unique balance that 
is necessary to protect our nation's wetlands and, instead, tilts the 
scales toward development of these areas. When we have threatened or 
endangered species, there are laws with the specific purpose of 
safeguarding our natural identity. The same

[[Page 18084]]

criteria should be applied to guard against exceptions for wetlands 
development. These areas are diminishing; we know that. Given that 
knowledge, our focus should be on taking extraordinary steps to protect 
extraordinary areas.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Visclosky amendment and to keep 
in place the necessary protections intended to protect and preserve 
precious wetlands which are retreating at an alarming rate from our 
natural landscape. Vote yes on the Visclosky amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there is no further debate on the Visclosky motion 
to strike, it will remain in abeyance pending disposition of the 
Boehlert perfecting amendment, on which proceedings have been 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites 
     throughout the United States resulting from work performed as 
     part of the Nation's early atomic energy program, 
     $150,000,000.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), I raise a point of order against the 
portion of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program 
beginning with the last comma on page 7, line 7 through page 9 line 2, 
on the grounds that it is legislation on an appropriations bill in 
violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI of the Rules of the House. This 
program has not been authorized for fiscal year 2000. In fact, it is 
likely that there has never been an authorization for this program.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Indiana wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The portion of the paragraph identified by the point of 
order provides for extended availability of funds without a supporting 
authorization in law, and includes five legislative provisos.
  As such, that portion of the paragraph constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. The specified portion of the 
paragraph is stricken.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to section 505 of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision would repeal Title VI, division C, of 
Public Law 105-277, Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999. That provision, known 
as the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and State 
of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration Act, would 
transfer lands along the Missouri River in South Dakota from the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers to the tribes mentioned above as well as the 
State of South Dakota. The Act also would establish a fund to pay for 
wildlife habitats.
  The Act is a major priority for South Dakota Governor William 
Janklow. The Governor has requested I submit a letter on this topic for 
the Record. I would like that letter from the Governor inserted at the 
conclusion of my statement.
  The Act also has been the subject of much discussion for South 
Dakotans, and I have taken great interest in all comments on this 
issue. While I am aware of the concerns of some of my constituents over 
issues surrounding this Act, I share in the sentiments of many who 
support the objectives the Governor attempts to forward in this law. 
Because of the interest in this issue, I would like to see Section 505 
stricken from the bill and hope the Act receives a full review and 
consideration in a conference committee between the House and Senate on 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I include a letter from the Governor in reference to 
this matter.

                                            State of South Dakota,


                                 William J. Janklow, Governor,

                                        Pierre, SD, July 27, 1999.
     Hon. John Thune,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Thune: I am writing to reaffirm my adamant 
     support for Title VI, division C, of Public Law 105-277 
     (Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and 
     State of South Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat 
     Restoration). As you know, the House version of the Energy 
     and Water Development Appropriation repeals it. I hope you 
     will do everything you can to remove the repeal language from 
     the bill and appropriate $3 million for the project.
       Please explain to your fellow members of Congress that if 
     the new law is allowed to remain a law, it will reduce future 
     federal tax dollar spending, provide more access for people 
     to use the Missouri River for recreation and give both the 
     state and the participating tribal governments the 
     opportunity to receive benefits we didn't receive when four 
     of the five Missouri River dams were built in South Dakota.
       As you know, over 600,000 acres of South Dakota's best 
     river bottom and river adjacent land were taken in the 1950s 
     to create the huge reservoirs of water behind the four 
     Missouri River dams in South Dakota. The water held in these 
     reservoirs has already prevented billions of dollars worth of 
     flood damage to Omaha, Kansas City, and many other cities on 
     the Missouri River and Mississippi River.
       Unfortunately, South Dakota is the only state in the Union 
     which as never been allowed to do even a modest amount of 
     development along our greatest river resource. That's been or 
     history because the land immediately adjacent to the Missouri 
     River is owned by the federal government and managed by the 
     Corps of Engineers. We were promised developmental benefits, 
     such as irrigation. But, it didn't happen.
       Nebraska sacrificed no land for dams and reservoirs, but it 
     has received federally funded irrigation for over six million 
     areas. North Dakota has only one dam and reservoir, but it 
     has over 300,000 acres of federally funded irrigated land. 
     South Dakota is between those two states and has sacrificed 
     excellent land for four dams and four reservoirs. But, our 
     people have received less than 20,000 acres in federally 
     funded irrigation and very few other benefits from our 
     sacrifices to prevent downstream flooding.
       Even though the Missouri River in South Dakota has more 
     miles of shoreline than the Pacific Ocean coast of 
     California, there are only seven marinas on the entire length 
     of the Missouri River in South Dakota. To create a marina 
     here, it takes more than five years to get all of the 
     bureaucratic approvals to put in a dock and facility for our 
     people and visitors to enjoy the Missouri River.
       The federal government also controls 84 recreational areas 
     adjacent to the Missouri River. Most of these areas have a 
     restroom, a fish cleaning station and a small dock or ramp 
     for boaters. Some of them have campgrounds. Unfortunately, 
     the Corps of Engineers has neglected them. I receive many 
     letters from South Dakotans and visitors who complain to me 
     about the poor conditions of these federal recreation areas. 
     They write to me because they mistakenly believe that the 
     State of South Dakota is responsible for the poor conditions.
       Title VI, division C, of Public Law 105-277 (Cheyenne River 
     Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, and State of South 
     Dakota Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat Restoration) will solve 
     all of those problems by starting the process of transferring 
     all of those Corps of Engineers recreation areas to either 
     state or tribal control.
       Because we are willing to do the work to improve and 
     maintain these recreation areas, the state and the tribes 
     will create tremendous recreational opportunities for all of 
     the people of the upper Midwest and anyone else who visits 
     South Dakota. It will be an environmentally sound project and 
     will do nothing to disturb any of the cultural heritage of 
     our Native Americans.
       If the new law is allowed to remain in effect, no longer 
     will we be forced to ask the Corps of Engineers ``Captain, 
     may I?'' No longer will we have to wait for Washington to 
     provide benefits that were promised, but never delivered.
       We're not asking for a massive public works project like 
     the old irrigation proposals of the 1950s and 1960s. All we 
     want is the opportunity to take control of these river 
     adjacent lands so that we can improve the recreation areas 
     for all visitors to enjoy.
       I have no higher priority than removing this repeal 
     language and implementing this renaissance along the Missouri 
     River. For the first time in our state's 110-year history, we 
     can really have the opportunity to create significant and 
     long-lasting Missouri River benefits for our people and all 
     of the visitors who come to our state.
       The amount of money we requested is not a significant 
     portion of the federal budget, but it will provide tremendous 
     opportunities in South Dakota. The $3 million is far less 
     than what the federal government would spend to accomplish 
     the same improvements.
       We have an excellent track record concerning federal 
     properties that have been given to the State of South Dakota. 
     When I was Governor fourteen years ago, the federal 
     government announced the closing of many federal fish 
     hatcheries in America. I was the only Governor who didn't 
     object. Instead, I said, ``Please give the federal fish 
     hatchery in South Dakota to South Dakota and we'll do a 
     better job for less money.'' President Ronald Reagan and 
     Secretary of the Interior James Watt said ``Yes'' to my 
     challenge.

[[Page 18085]]

       Now, fourteen years later, we are producing twice as many 
     fish as the federal employees produced and our budget is 
     still less than 90 percent of the last federal budget 
     fourteen years ago! I know the state and the tribal 
     governments can do the same with the Corps of Engineers 
     recreation areas.
       Please ask your colleagues to give us this opportunity to 
     save the taxpayers of America a lot of money and create more 
     recreational fun for America's families.
       Please remove the repeal language for Title VI, division C, 
     of Public Law 105-277 (Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower 
     Brule Sioux Tribe, and State of South Dakota Terrestrial 
     Wildlife Habitat Restoration) from the House version of the 
     Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill and 
     appropriate $3 million for the project.
           Sincerely,
                                               William J. Janklow.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            General Expenses

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

                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Dingell

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Dingell:
       Page 9, line 18, strike ``; Provided further,'' and all 
     that follows before the period on line 21.

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because of concerns shared by 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the Great Lake States who 
value highly the quality of service that we received from the Corps of 
Engineers of the United States Army.
  The legislation before us caught quite a number of Members of the 
Great Lakes task force by surprise, because it will have the effect of 
closing the Corps of Engineers' regional office, which is located in 
Chicago, which oversees planning and technical assistance for the 
world's largest and most highly populated fresh water watershed.
  I am offering an amendment to strike this language today because of 
concern not only of Members of Congress, but also of State and local 
governments along the Great Lakes, and upon the concern of millions of 
Americans who have rightly depended upon the timely and professional 
service of the Corps with regard to the use, the development, and also 
the protection and preservation of that important body of water which 
means so much to us in the Middle West.
  For most of this decade it seems as if we have been struggling with 
how to restructure the Corps of Engineers. The Great Lakes task force 
repeatedly opposed general and early plans which, in our view, would 
have gutted the Corps' ability to serve the Lake States. Finally an 
agreement was reached in 1996 which established a dual division 
headquarters in the Great Lakes in the Ohio River division in response 
to the administration's proposal at the time to close the Great Lakes 
division. As a result, today the Corps of Engineers has two 
headquarters in the Midwest, in Chicago and in Cincinnati; and I would 
note the importance of this in terms of service to the Midwest and 
protection of the Great Lakes. The movement of many full-time employees 
from the Great Lakes to the Ohio River office caused a lot of distress 
amongst the constituencies of our region. However, Great Lakes Members 
of Congress accepted this split in the spirit of compromise.
  My amendment today would remove a provision which moves beyond that 
compromise, which has generally worked to the satisfaction of the Great 
Lakes States and their Members of Congress. The result is a high level 
of uncertainty with regard to both the domestic program coordination 
and joint implementation of international responsibilities with Canada 
for the protection and the preservation of the Great Lakes. Issues of 
concern include the implementation of the boundary waters treaty, Great 
Lakes waters diversion, lake levels, flood mitigation, technical 
assistance for our fresh water lakes.
  The Chicago office of the Corps, the old north central division, was 
recognized as a national leader among Corps divisions with regard to 
the professional development of environmental projects. Already, 
concern has been expressed by Members of that area and our 
constituencies about the continued success of those efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I plan to withdraw this amendment after remarks of a 
few of my colleagues, again in the spirit of trying to make some time 
between now and conference to have the issues appropriately resolved in 
partnership with the Corps, the appropriation committees, and the 
Members of the Great Lakes States.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman 
from California, for whom I have enormous respect, for whatever 
comments he wishes to make at this time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to assure the gentleman from Michigan that this is a 
conference item. I fully intend to bring it up at the conference and 
will work with the gentleman and make every effort to solve the 
problem.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, we do have colleagues from the Great Lakes Basin who 
wish to make some observations on this matter, so I will rise again at 
a later time for the purpose of withdrawing the amendment.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment which would strike 
provisions of the energy and water appropriations bill to require 
closing the Chicago headquarters of the Great Lakes in the Ohio River 
division of the Army Corps of Engineers. The division has a 
headquarters in Cincinnati as well as in Chicago. Both offices are 
important to serving the needs of the region.
  This energy and water bill contains no funds for fiscal year 2000 for 
the Chicago headquarters. The office would have almost no notice before 
closing at the end of the current fiscal year. There would not be 
sufficient time for a smooth transition to the Cincinnati office. The 
result would be confusion and delays and loss of institutional memory 
for the programs that are currently run out of the Chicago 
headquarters. Closing the Chicago headquarters would significantly 
impair our relationships with Canada for the purposes of managing and 
preserving Great Lakes and other boundary waters. A mission of the Army 
Corps that is especially significant to the Great Lakes is the support 
that it provides for the International Joint Commission.
  The U.S. and Canada created the IJC to cooperatively manage the lake 
and river systems along the border to protect them for the benefit of 
today's citizens and future generations. The Army Corps has 
responsibilities under the Great Lakes water quality agreement which 
coordinates with the EPA's Great Lakes national program office and with 
the Great Lakes regional office of the IJC, both of which are in 
Chicago. Maintaining the Army Corps' involvement in these binational 
responsibilities will be especially critical in the coming year as the 
Great Lakes region prepares to address the issue of water diversion and 
international water sales. Even short disruption of the agency's 
regional leadership structure could have serious negative effects on 
its contribution to this important process.
  Last year, Mr. Chairman, a Canadian firm tried to implement a plan 
for balk sales of Great Lakes water to customers in Asia. The company 
has stepped back for the time being while our two governments study the 
issue of water diversions. But we know more

[[Page 18086]]

attempts will be made to extract and sell our water. In Ohio, we rely 
on Lake Erie for much of our region's well being. It is important to 
safeguard the Great Lakes for the future, and the Army Corps office in 
Chicago we believe has a key role to play.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Dingell amendment to 
H.R. 2605. H.R. 2605, as currently drafted, seeks to close the Army 
Corps of Engineers' regional office located in the City of Chicago.
  It was only after a few years ago that we negotiated the continued 
existence of the Chicago regional office with a plan which was both 
cost effective and streamlined. I recall those days, Mr. Chairman. Long 
meetings, meetings where there was a very intense discussion, but we 
agreed that the Chicago office should be open.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, this bill seeks to undo the work that we did 
accomplish in 1996. The Chicago Corps office is a recognized national 
leader among the Army Corps of Engineers' division and the professional 
development in environmental projects. Moreover, surrounding cities and 
States have long depended upon the services provided by the Corps. 
Currently because of the Corps, Chicago is in the process of repairing 
its deteriorating shoreline.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that this amendment will be withdrawn. 
That said, I nonetheless stand in support of the amendment with the 
trust that between now and the conference that a partnership will be 
formed between the Committee on Appropriations, the members of the 
Great Lakes States, and the Army Corps of Engineers to resolve this 
important issue.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). This amendment would strike 
language in the bill that would effectively close the Army Corps of 
Engineers' regional office in Chicago, and I look forward to the intent 
of this amendment being included in the final piece of legislation.
  At this very moment under a landmark agreement between the Army Corps 
of Engineers and the City of Chicago, the Chicago lake front is being 
saved from literally crumbling into the water. The city was able to 
negotiate an agreement with the Army Corps that advanced by 5 years 
completion of this project. Certainly, the presence of the Army Corps 
in Chicago helped us do that.
  The Great Lakes are unique in the degree to which the Corps is 
required to work with other Federal agencies. For example, the EPA, 
which also has its headquarters, its regional headquarters in Chicago, 
facilitating that kind of cooperation. The north central division has 
been a national leader in Corps divisions in developing environmental 
projects.
  Certainly, the Great Lakes are the world's greatest source of free-
flowing fresh water. We should make providing for the quality of the 
Great Lakes a priority with every opportunity we are given. Keeping the 
Army Corps' regional office for the Great Lakes and Ohio River 
divisions in operation at both the Cincinnati and Chicago locations 
makes great sense.

                              {time}  1930

  Binational and treaty obligations with Canada would be most seriously 
impacted by the closure of the Chicago headquarters. The Army Corps of 
Engineers has responsibilities under the Great Lakes Water Quality 
Agreement and the Boundary Waters Treaty, which are run chiefly through 
the Chicago regional headquarters. These functions have been identified 
by the division as the most critical to maintain in Chicago.
  Lacking an international airport hub, Cincinnati is not as easily 
accessible as Chicago. Travel costs for the Corps' staff and other 
Federal agency staff and Canadian counterparts would rise dramatically 
if the same level of cooperation and collaboration were to be 
maintained.
  Maintenance of the integrity of the binational responsibilities of 
the Corps will be especially critical in the coming year as the Great 
Lakes region prepares to address the issues of water diversion and 
consumptive uses. Even short-term disruptions to the Corps' regional 
leadership structure at this time will have serious consequences on the 
Corps' ability to effect these important decisions.
  I know all of my colleagues understand the importance of representing 
the needs of their districts. We make decisions that are in the best 
interests of our constituents by being there and seeing them. I would 
submit to my colleagues, then, that similarly, in order to make 
decisions that are best for the Great Lakes, the Army Corps must have 
an operating regional office in the Great Lakes region, in Chicago.
  Let us continue a strong commitment to environmental quality and 
culture by voting for the Dingell amendment, and allowing the Army 
Corps to do their job unimpeded in the Great Lakes region.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Dingell amendment. In 1996, the 
administration granted the Great Lakes Basin and the Ohio River 
Division two regional branches of the Army Corps of Engineers as a 
result of a compromise in the 1996 Congress. Now there is an effort to 
close that which we just negotiated to keep open, and without even 
discussing it or telling representatives of the areas affected about 
it.
  Although this is a unique situation, there is good reason why this 
dual division system exists. Both branches serve important purposes. 
However, I do not believe that the office in Cincinnati can adequately 
serve Chicago's interests.
  Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers is working on a variety of 
projects in the Chicago area, like Chicago's shoreline restoration, the 
Deep tunnel, Des Plaines River, small flood control projects, and 
aquatic ecosystems projects. It is vitally important that these 
projects be managed from a local site.
  We recognize the need for financial reform and cost savings, but the 
current budget achieves this. After only 3 years of fiscally 
consolidating the services and administrative activities of the Chicago 
branch of the Corps, we have seen successful consolidation of the 
Chicago headquarters. The past 3 years has seen the elimination of 
several positions in the Chicago office and the streamlining of 
services, all of which have helped to reduce spending at this branch.
  The decision to cut the funding and eliminate the Chicago 
headquarters would be a great blow to the work that has already been 
done to accommodate for the 1996 reductions. It would also eliminate 
the existence of a Great Lakes Army Corps of Engineers headquarters in 
a city situated on a Great Lake.
  I trust that we can get together and form the kind of partnership 
that is necessary to resolve this difficulty. I commend the gentleman 
from Michigan for introducing this amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have heard the comments of my good 
friend, the gentleman from California. We in the Great Lakes are very 
much troubled about this situation. It means, I think, serious problems 
to us in terms of protecting one of the great treasures of the United 
States, because this constitutes the largest reservoir of fresh water 
anywhere in the world, and of course, one of the most precious and 
necessary needs of the United States is going to be for water.
  I want to thank my colleagues who have joined me in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I will at this time, with respect to the chairman of 
the subcommittee and the ranking member, withdraw the amendment, in the 
expectation that the matter will be discussed carefully and that they 
will

[[Page 18087]]

work with us to achieve the protection of the Great Lakes by the 
continuation of this important service from the Corps of Engineers.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today because of a concern shared by many of my 
colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--in the Great Lakes states who 
value highly the quality of service we have received from the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers.
  The legislation before us caught quite a few of the members of the 
House Great Lakes Task Force by surprise, because it would have the 
effect of closing the Corps of Engineers' regional office--located in 
Chicago--which oversees the planning and technical assistance for the 
world's largest and most highly populated freshwater watershed.
  I am offering an amendment to strike this language because of the 
concern not only to Members of Congress, but also state and local 
governments along the Great Lakes who have rightly depended upon timely 
and professional service by the Corps.
  For most of this decade, it seems as if we have been struggling with 
how to restructure the Corps of Engineers. The Great Lakes Task Force 
repeatedly opposed several of the early plans which, in our view, would 
have gutted the Corps' ability to serve our states.
  Finally, an agreement was reached in 1996 which established a ``dual-
division'' headquarters in the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division in 
response to the Administration's proposal at the time to close the 
Great Lakes Division. The result is that, today, the Corps of Engineers 
has two headquarters in the Midwest: in Chicago and in Cincinnati.
  The movement of many full-time employees from the Great Lakes to the 
Ohio River office caused a lot of distress among constituencies in our 
region; however, Great Lakes Members of Congress accepted this split in 
the spirit of compromise.
  My amendment would remove a provision which moves beyond that 
compromise. The result is a high level of uncertainty with regard to 
both domestic program coordination and joint implementation of 
international responsibilities with Canada. Issues of concern include 
implementation of the Boundary Waters Treaty, Great Lakes water 
diversion, lake levels, flood mitigation, and technical assistance for 
our fresh-water lakes.
  The Chicago office of the Corps (the old North Central Division) was 
recognized as a national leader among Corps' divisions in the 
professional development of environmental projects. Already, concern 
has been expressed about the continued success of these efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I plan to withdraw this amendment after remarks by a 
few of my colleagues again, in the spirit of trying to take some time 
between now and conference to have these issues resolved in partnership 
with the Corps, the Appropriations Committee, and Members of Great 
Lakes States.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill through 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 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through title II, page 15, line 
10, is as follows:

                        Administrative Provision

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

                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project


                central utah project completion account

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah 
     Project Completion Act, and for activities related to the 
     Uintah and Upalco Units authorized by 43 U.S.C. 620, 
     $35,907,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $15,476,000 shall be deposited into the Utah Reclamation 
     Mitigation and Conservation Account: Provided, That of the 
     amounts deposited into that account, $5,000,000 shall be 
     considered the Federal contribution authorized by paragraph 
     402(b)(2) of the Central Utah Project Completion Act and 
     $10,476,000 shall be available to the Utah Reclamation 
     Mitigation and Conservation Commission to carry out 
     activities authorized under that Act.
       In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying 
     out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the 
     Interior, $1,283,000, to remain available until expended.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

       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, 
     $604,910,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $2,247,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper 
     Colorado River Basin Fund and $24,089,000 shall be available 
     for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development 
     Fund, and of which such amounts as may be necessary may be 
     advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund: Provided, That such 
     transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall 
     appropriation under this heading: Provided further, That of 
     the total appropriated, the amount for program activities 
     that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund or the Bureau of 
     Reclamation special fee account established by 16 U.S.C. 
     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.


               bureau of reclamation loan program account

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


                central valley project restoration fund

       For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, and habitat 
     restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $47,346,000, to be 
     derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central 
     Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d), 
     3404(c)(3), 3405(f ), and 3406(c)(1) of Public Law 102-575, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau 
     of Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full 
     amount of the additional mitigation and restoration payments 
     authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575.


                    california bay-delta restoration

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior 
     and other participating Federal agencies in carrying out 
     ecosystem restoration activities pursuant to the California 
     Bay-Delta Environmental Enhancement Act and other activities 
     that are in accord with the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, 
     including projects to improve water use efficiency, water 
     quality, groundwater storage, surface storage, levees, 
     conveyance, and watershed management, consistent with plans 
     to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, in 
     consultation with such Federal agencies, $75,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which $45,000,000 shall 
     be used for ecosystem restoration activities and $30,000,000 
     shall be used for such other activities, and of which such 
     amounts as may be necessary to conform with such plans shall 
     be transferred to appropriate accounts of such Federal 
     agencies: Provided, That no more than $7,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated herein may be used for planning and management 
     activities associated with developing the overall CALFED Bay-
     Delta Program and coordinating its staged implementation: 
     Provided further, That funds for ecosystem restoration 
     activities may be obligated only as non-Federal sources 
     provide their share in accordance with the cost-sharing 
     agreement required under section 1101(d) of such Act, and 
     that funds for such other activities may be obligated only as 
     non-Federal sources provide their share in a manner

[[Page 18088]]

     consistent with such cost-sharing agreement: Provided 
     further, That such funds may be obligated prior to the 
     completion of a final programmatic environmental impact 
     statement only if: (1) consistent with 40 CFR 1506.1(c); and 
     (2) used for purposes that the Secretary finds are of 
     sufficiently high priority to warrant such an expenditure.


                       policy and administration

       For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and 
     related functions in the office of the Commissioner, the 
     Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, to remain available until expended, 
     $45,000,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be 
     nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That 
     no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be 
     available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and 
     administration expenses.


                        administrative provision

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Salmon

  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Salmon:
       Page 15, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 19, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $37,500,000)''.

  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Mark Udall) for his help with this 
amendment. He and his staff have been generous with their ideas and 
time, and their outstanding work is much appreciated by the renewable 
energy community and myself.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Packard), the chairman of the subcommittee, for his help with this 
amendment.
  Even though the House energy and water budget allocation is $1.5 
billion less than the Senate bill, we were still able to come to a good 
faith agreement to increase the renewable energy budget above Senate 
levels. The amendment I am proposing today is a responsible effort to 
restore renewable energy funding to near FY 1999 levels.
  We ask that the $30 million be returned to the renewable energy 
budget. We need this funding to continue the quality research and 
development that is vital to our national security, international 
competitiveness, and environmental protection.
  We spend more than $100 billion per year to import foreign oil from 
regions where political instability is tied to fluctuating oil prices. 
Diversification of our national energy portfolio with renewable energy 
technologies would lessen the need for costly and potentially prolonged 
military intervention abroad to defend our access to oil supplies.
  Economically, the export market for U.S.-made renewable energy 
technologies is potentially huge. With 2 billion people around the 
world still without electric power, we should be doing everything that 
we can to help American companies compete in this lucrative global 
market. This amendment will help the United States maintain its lead in 
the renewable energy race.
  Clearly, renewable energy is a clean alternative to conventional 
fuel. Avoiding pollution through clean, renewable energy technology is 
almost always cheaper and less intrusive than the alternative of 
prescriptive government mandates.
  Furthermore, renewable energy technologies approach zero emissions 
for pollutants. The American Lung Association estimates that Americans 
spend $50 billion a year each year on health care needs that result 
directly from air pollution alone. Avoiding pollution through clean, 
renewable energy is preventative medicine, and it is smart.
  Renewable energy programs are strongly supported by the public. A 
survey of 1,018 registered voters conducted in April of 1998 asked what 
energy programs should receive the highest priority for Federal 
research and development funding. Renewable energy and energy 
efficiency programs were supported by 61 percent of all respondents. 
Natural gas received the next highest level of support from Americans, 
with 10 percent support, followed by fossil fuels, 7.5 percent, and 
nuclear energy, 5.9.
  Similarly, House support for renewable energy here is strong. The 
House Renewable Energy Caucus boasts 153 bipartisan Members. Whether 
Members are concerned about national security, economic prosperity, or 
the environment, renewable energy technology is a valuable commodity.
  As President George Bush said, we must encourage environmentally 
responsible development of all U.S. energy resources, including 
renewable energy. Renewable energy does reduce demand upon our other 
finite natural resources. It enhances our energy security, and clearly, 
it protects the environment.
  So I would like to, again, express my appreciation to the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Packard) for supporting this measure, and 
also for his commitment to fight for this number in conference 
committee. We also proposed an offset of $30 million to be deducted 
from contractor travel.
  As Members know, the GAO has investigated contractor travel spending 
and found outrageous abuses that must be terminated. Regardless, given 
the choice between travel dollars and research dollars of this valuable 
resource, it is clear that we must choose the latter.
  I urge my colleagues to support the renewable energy research and 
development funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record an accounting of the 
Allocation of Additional Funds for Solar and Renewable Energy Programs.
  The material referred to is as follows:

ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR SOLAR AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS--
                  REP. MARK UDALL AND REP. MATT SALMON
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Amendment total (amount of
   Solar and renewable energy programs               increase)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solar Buildings..........................  $2.81 (+1.31)
Photovoltaics............................  $70.13 (+3.13)
Concentrating Solar Power................  $15.41 (+2.41)
Biomass Power............................  $30.47 (+1.47)
Wind.....................................  $30.96 (+5.96)
Renewable Energy Production Incentive....  $2.61 (+2.61)
International Solar......................  $4.95 (+1.95)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.....  $2.8 (+1.7)
Geothermal...............................  $24.31 (+6.31)
Hydrogen.................................  $21.76 (+.76)
Hydropower...............................  $2.76 (+.76)
Superconductivity........................  $31.91 (+.91)
Program Direction........................  $17.72 (+.72)
                                          ------------------------------
      Totals.............................  $309.35 (+30)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from 
Colorado would like to speak. But I accept the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to say that the Committee strongly 
supports solar and renewable energy programs. In the bill, we are 
recommending a total of $326,450,000 for research and development of 
these technologies. While not as much as some Members would like to 
spend, it is a generous and credible level of spending given our severe 
budget constraints.
  The Committee had to reduce last year's funding level by close to 
$900 million. Nevertheless, the Committee has not reduced spending for 
photovoltaics, biomass, hydrogen, energy storage and the 
superconductivity programs. The Committee recommendation is equal to 
the amount provided by the Senate, which had an allocation $1.5 billion 
higher than the allocation available to this Committee.
  The Subcommittee has provided direction and guidance to reform the 
way funds are spent. As a result, the Department has acknowledged that 
the amount of competitively-awarded funds from just two years ago has 
been increased 219 percent from $77 million in fiscal year 1998 to $247 
million in fiscal year 1999. This is a dramatic improvement. We have 
been hearing from new recipients of this funding who are doing exciting 
new projects in biomass, photovoltaics and other important solar 
technologies.
  Second, I would like to express my understanding and agreement with 
the effort to reduce contractor travel. The Energy and Water 
Subcommittee, working in a bipartisan matter, identified and requested 
a report which tallied jaw-dropping travel expenses charged to the 
Department by its own contractors. By now, you have heard that in one 
year alone, DOE was charged $250 million for contractor travel. This 
does not include taxpayer-funded travel expenses for DOE's Federal 
workforce. One contractor was charging DOE for trips from New Mexico to 
Washington, D.C. at a rate of 87 trips per week. The Committee 
recommendation includes a 50 percent reduction

[[Page 18089]]

of travel expenses which is a total of $125 million. If it is the will 
of the House to further reduce contractor travel for one year, then I 
believe this sends a very strong message to the Department, which has 
shown too little interest in controlling contractor costs.
  That brings me to my interpretation of this amendment. Since no other 
source of funding is identified, I will support this amendment which 
further reduces contractor travel and would provide an additional $30 
million in funding for energy supply programs. In accepting the 
amendment, we agree to distribute this additional funding to the solar 
and renewable programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the Committee accepts the amendment and I urge its 
immediate adoption so that we might move on to the next amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. For the Record, the Clerk will read the pending 
paragraph.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

                             Energy Supply


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for energy supply, and uranium 
     supply and enrichment activities in carrying out the purposes 
     of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 
     et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any 
     real property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion; and the purchase of 
     not to exceed one passenger motor vehicle for replacement 
     only, $583,399,953, of which $820,953 shall be derived by 
     transfer from the Geothermal Resources Development Fund, and 
     of which $5,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the 
     United States Enrichment Corporation Fund.

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by just saying how much I appreciate 
working with my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), 
chairman of the House Caucus on Renewable Energy, in developing this 
amendment.
  I am also grateful for the support of a number of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, including the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook), the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Minge,) the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and many 
others who have joined me in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am glad the amendment will be accepted. Of course, I 
wish we could do more for solar and renewable energy programs. I was 
initially disturbed by the deep cuts that the committee made to these 
programs, reducing them from $336 million this fiscal year to $279 
million in the fiscal year 2000. Even our Committee on Science voted to 
fund them at $316 million in fiscal year 2000.
  The Salmon-Udall amendment would restore $30 million to solar and 
renewable energy programs, leaving them well short of fiscal 1999 
funding levels, and would offset this sum with Department of Energy 
contractor travel funds. Finding offsets to fund these important 
renewable programs was not easy in such a lean bill, but we did the 
best we could.
  Mr. Chairman, renewable energy is all about investing in America's 
future, the future of our energy security, our environment, and our 
international competitiveness. Renewable energy programs allow the U.S. 
to use its scientific and technological expertise in developing 
alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, biomass power, and 
geothermal energy. These diverse energy resources can decrease our 
ever-growing dependence on imported oil, and reduce environmental 
impacts of traditional fossil fuels while expanding our economy through 
technological advances.
  Some may question the need for the development of these technologies. 
After all, we are not waiting in gas lines, as we were two decades ago, 
and gas prices are near record levels. But our Nation's dependence on 
foreign oil is even greater than it was during the 1973 crisis.
  Why should we jeopardize our national energy security when we can use 
home-grown clean energy to reduce our reliance on oil imports and 
diversify our energy sources?
  The DOE's renewable energy programs are a major component of this 
country's environmental initiatives. By reducing air pollution and 
other environmental impacts from energy production and use, these 
programs constitute, as my colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Salmon) mentioned, the single largest and most effective Federal 
pollution prevention program.
  Past Federal support for sustainable energy programs has been key to 
the rapid growth of these emerging technologies. Solar, wind, 
geothermal, and biomass have together more than tripled their 
contribution to the Nation's energy mix over the past 20 years.
  Including hydropower, renewables now account for about 10 percent of 
total domestic energy production and approximately 13 percent of 
domestic electricity generation.
  It is estimated that the world market for energy supply equipment and 
construction over the next 30 years is in the range of several hundred 
billion dollars. America currently leads the world in developing 
advanced renewable instruments and products, and we should not 
surrender this lead to foreign competitors. Yet, funding levels in the 
bill are not up to the task.
  For example, this bill would allocate just $67 million for 
photovoltaic research. This low funding would jeopardize U.S. 
technological development, industry growth and momentum, at a time when 
Japan is spending more than $230 million each year on its own PV 
program.
  Renewable energy technologies have become increasingly cost 
competitive, but the pace of their penetration into the market will be 
determined largely by government support for future research and 
development.

                              {time}  1945

  We need to support public-private partnerships that help promote 
further commercialization of these technologies. If we look back into 
history, we did the same thing 100 years ago at Petrochemicals, and 
that is why we have that strong industry in the fossil fuel area.
  To conclude, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Energy's renewable 
energy programs are vital to our Nation's interests. They help provide 
strategies and tools to address the national security, environmental, 
and technological challenges we will face in the next century. Our 
investments in the past 2 decades are just beginning to pay off in 
terms of energy security and a cleaner environment.
  Even if we were to just keep these programs at fiscal 1999 levels, 
this might not be sufficient to ensure that we will have uninterrupted 
reliable sources of energy in the future. Our amendment does not do all 
that should be done; but it does greatly improve the bill, and I urge 
its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:

 ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR SOLAR AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS
                        [In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Amendment total (amount of
    Solar & renewable energy programs                increase)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solar Buildings..........................  $2.81 (+1.31)
Photovoltaics............................  70.13 (+3.13)
Concentrating Solar Power................  15.41 (+2.41)
Biomass Power............................  30.47 (+1.47)
Wind.....................................  30.96 (+5.96)
Renewable Energy Production Incentive....  2.61 (+2.61)
International Solar......................  4.95 (+1.95)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.....  2.8 (+1.7)
Geothermal...............................  24.31 (+6.31)
Hydrogen.................................  21.76 (+.76)
Hydropower...............................  2.76 (+.76)
Superconductivity........................  31.91 (+.91)
Program Direction........................  17.72 (+.72)
                                          ------------------------------
      Totals.............................  309.35 (+30)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    ENERGY AND WATER AMENDMENT BREAKDOWN--SOLAR AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Totals
                                        Sub      FY99   Add-ons     to
               Program                  mark    actual   to $30  $309.35
                                        FY00               M        M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solar Buildings.....................      1.5      3.6    +1.31     2.81
Photovoltaics.......................       67     72.2    +3.13    70.13
                                         
[[Page 18090]]                   ____

 
Concentrating Solar Power...........       13       17    +2.41    15.41
Biomass Power.......................       29    31.45    +1.47    30.47
Biofuels............................    41.75    41.75    (\1\)    41.75
Wind................................       25   34.771    +5.96    30.96
REPI................................        0        4    +2.61     2.61
Solar Program Support...............        2    (\2\)  .......        2
Internatl Solar.....................        3     6.35    +1.95     4.95
NREL................................      1.1      3.9     +1.7      2.8
Geothermal..........................       18     28.5    +6.31    24.31
Hydrogen............................       21    22.25     +.76    21.76
Hydropower..........................        2     3.25     +.76     2.76
Renewable Indians...................        0    4.779    (\2\)    (\2\)
Elect. Systems Transmission.........      2.5      2.5    (\1\)     $2.5
  HTS...............................       31     32.5     +.91    31.91
  Storage...........................      4.5      4.5    (\1\)      4.5
Fed Building........................        0        4    (\2\)    (\2\)
Program Dir.........................       17     18.1     +.72    17.72
                                     -----------------------------------
      Totals........................   279.35      336      +30   309.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Level.
\2\ Not requested.

                               agreement

       Brings major renewable energy research programs closer to 
     Senate fiscal year 2000 level of $301.8 million.
       Offers 8% reduction from fiscal year 1999 totals, bringing 
     total to $309.35 million.

  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this Salmon-Udall 
amendment. This amendment makes a good bill better in that it would 
increase funding for renewable energy research and development 
programs. This amendment would also give limited funding to begin 
implementing the new strategic plan to develop enhanced geothermal 
production technologies.
  The Department of Energy produced this strategic planning in 
collaboration with national laboratories, the University of Utah, and 
the geothermal industry. Implementing the strategic plan will develop 
the technology to enhance the production from geothermal systems.
  The technology would be applicable to literally hundreds of sites 
throughout the United States. The U.S. government currently gets $40 
million per year in royalties on its geothermal technology. Renewables 
are a good investment.
  A recent report prepared by the Geothermal Energy Association in 
conjunction with the University of Utah and the Department of Energy 
expects this research to yield a threefold increase in domestic 
geothermal electricity production. This extra power will supply 18 
million homes with electricity.
  This amendment has good offsets. It is paid for from savings 
resulting from reductions in contractor travel. This is the responsible 
way to pay for this program rather than taking the money out of the 
Social Security Trust Fund.
  This amendment is not only fiscally responsible, it is 
environmentally responsible. It takes the savings from cleaning up the 
waste and inefficiencies in the contractor travel budget and uses them 
to fund research in clean, safe energy produced here in America.
  The Committee on Science passed my amendment that funds geothermal 
research in this way, and I urge my colleagues here to do the same and 
vote for this amendment. This amendment will lead to cleaner air for 
our children and continue to protect Social Security for our parents.
  Accelerating development of our renewable resources is a good 
investment. We in Congress have a duty to spend the money taxed from 
the American people responsibly. This amendment does that.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment for two 
reasons. First, we as a Nation, will need to come to terms with the 
rise in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide at some point, and we 
might as well start right now. Carbon dioxide is an insidious pollutant 
because, one while it is odorless and tasteless, it has a nasty habit 
of trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere.
  Now, there has been a lot of talk about this pollutant, so I thought 
it might be helpful to look at a chart showing atmospheric 
concentrations of carbon dioxide over the last 150 years. The 
information on this chart is one thing virtually all scientists agree 
on.
  Carbon dioxide rates are increasing. They are increasing rapidly. 
When I first saw it, I was shocked. Because I saw they increased 
dramatically over the last 100 years and are now beginning to skyrocket 
towards the end of this century and will continue on that pace upward 
unless we act. I should repeat, this fact is not in dispute in any 
country in any scientific journal. That is the bad news.
  The good news is that our Nation is perfectly positioned as a net 
winner, a winner in the call to develop technologies to deal with this 
problem. The world is going to need new technologies to address this 
issue. When it comes to developing new technology, no country is more 
creative, no country is more dynamic and resourceful than the United 
States.
  That is why this graph shows that, when carbon dioxide rates go up, 
so does our economic potential for capturing new markets, new emerging 
markets for new energy technologies. But our economic potential will 
rise only if we make the investments in these new technologies that are 
possible.
  I do not want Europe to lead this new industry. I do not want Japan 
to lead this new industry. I want America to lead this new industry 
just like we have led everywhere else.
  That is why it is going to be a bright day in Congress when we pass 
this amendment, when we seize economic potential in the face of a new 
challenge and pass this amendment, increase investment in new renewable 
energy resources, and we will turn an environmental challenge into an 
economic opportunity.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I accepted this motion with the idea that 
it would stop all the talk, but now I hope that we can move on. I urge 
its immediate adoption.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the minority, I would agree 
with the chairman.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Udall-Salmon 
amendment to restore $30 million to solar and renewable energy 
programs.
  Across the nation this summer, and especially here in the nation's 
capital, all of us have felt the oppression of numerous ``Code Reds''--
days when extremely high temperatures combine with high pollution 
levels--prompting warnings to the elderly and those with asthma and 
other respiratory illnesses to stay inside if possible, and to limit 
outdoor activity. How can we, in good conscience, slash funding for the 
very programs that will combat pollution and reduce the number of days 
where thousands of people are forced to either stay inside or 
jeopardize their health and well-being to go about their daily 
responsibilities?
  Renewable energy has an enormous potential to reduce acid rain, 
global warming, ozone red alert days and health risks associated with 
pollution from conventional energy sources. Solar and renewable energy 
programs further represent an opportunity to strengthen America's 
position in the expanding world markets for clean energy and aid in 
reducing our dependence on foreign oil imports. We must drive the 
research that will lead to the technology to produce clean energy in 
the developing world.
  Try to imagine what our environment would be like if the 5 billion 
people of underdeveloped and developing nations of Asia, Africa, and 
Latin America were using as much energy per person as we in the United 
States use per person. And that they energy were being produced from 
fossil fuel rather than from the renewable energy sources.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to the future. This 
responsibility can only be fulfilled by embracing effective energy 
efficient and pollution-free technologies. Today's children and their 
children's children--the generation who will be members of this body 
100 years from now--deserve to breathe cleaner air, cleaner water, and 
enjoy a world free from global warming and environmental decay.
  We cannot turn our backs on our children and on the future--vote yes 
for the environment and the future--vote yes on the amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Salmon-Udall 
amendment.
  Our future is literally blowing in the wind. Wind and other renewable 
energy sources are a great investment in our nation's energy future. 
Solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy technologies can: (1) reduce 
dependence on imported fossil fuels; (2) reduce long-run energy costs 
to consumers and businesses;

[[Page 18091]]

(3) create new industries to supply both he U.S. an foreign energy 
markets; and (4) reduce emissions which create smog acid rain, mercury 
poisoning, energy markets; and (4) reduce emissions which create smog, 
acid rain, mercury poisoning, and global climate change. The federal 
government continues to spend more on fossil fuels, a mature industry 
that does not need our support, than on renewable energy. We spend 
almost as much on nuclear energy as on renewables, both for dying 
fission technologies and for fusion research that is still decades from 
viability. We need to fund the future, not subsidize the past.
  Renewable energy sources are especially important for our 
environment, as an environmentally benign and sustainable energy 
alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power. Today we rely on fossil 
fuels for 88% of total energy use; oil alone accounts for nearly 40% of 
our energy, of which 60% is imported crude oil. Our fossil fuel power 
plants alone spew out 12 millions tons of sulfur dioxide, 7 million 
tons of nitrogen oxides, and 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide each 
year. Cars and airplanes emit similar amounts of pollutants. Energy 
consumption is rising due to economic growth. Even with an aggressive 
energy conservation effort, we will need new energy sources. We must 
invest in alternative technologies now if we are to increase the role 
renewables play in meeting our nation's energy needs and are to avoid 
further environmental destruction.
  Fortunately, renewable technologies have been steadily dropping in 
price and are on the verge of making a major contribution to our energy 
supply. Right now, these emerging technologies are limited to niche 
markets, but ongoing research has cut their costs so that they are 
almost competitive with fossil fuels, even neglecting the huge 
environmental costs as fossil fuels:
  Wind energy, for example, cost almost 50 cents per kilowatt hour in 
1980. Today, the cost of wind energy is around 4 cents, very close to 
the cost of conventional generation, and is still dropping.
  Solar thermal costs have dropped from 60 cents per kilowatt hour in 
1980 to 13 cents today.
  Solar photovoltaic costs have dropped from over 100 cents per 
kilowatt hour in 1980 to 20 cents in 1996.
  Turning our backs on the R&D program needed to achieve the necessary 
breakthroughs that will make solar, wind and other renewables fully 
viable and competitive would be like shepherding a baseball team 
through eight innings and just walking away in the bottom of the ninth.
  The Energy and Water Appropriations bill would slash DOE funding for 
renewables from the current funding level of $36 million down to $326 
million. The Appropriations Committee cut $120 million, 27%, from the 
President's budget. Unless we boost the funding, we will devastate DOE 
programs aimed at creating vibrant, fully competitive U.S. renewable 
industries.
  The bill's proposed cuts in renewables funding would severely delay 
adoption of solar, geotherman, and wind energy technologies. Most 
economists agree there is at east a 10-year window between the time a 
technology is first ready for the market and the time the market is 
ready for the technology. But sometimes, that window is even wider. For 
example, the telephone was discovered in 1875, but not commercialized 
until 1915. Television was discovered in 1917, but not commercialized 
until 1946. Telefax was discovered in 1913, but fax machines weren't 
commercialized until 1974. Right now, the fledgling renewables 
technologies industries find themselves in the same position. If we 
fail to fund renewable energy R&D, the invention-commercialization 
window could become a multi-decade ``window of vulnerability'' for U.S. 
energy consumers.
  The Salmon-Udall amendment would restore some funding for renewables. 
The amendment is fully offset from contractor travel, so it does not 
take this bill over the budget allocation. It will however, allow DOE 
to continue providing vitally-needed funding for solar, wind, 
geothermal, and biomass energy sources, so that America is not held 
hostage to future oil embargoes or a lack of technological options.
  I urge my colleague to support the Salmon-Udall amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  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, $327,223,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

       For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment 
     facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial 
     actions and other activities of title II of the Atomic Energy 
     Act of 1954 and title X, subtitle A of the Energy Policy Act 
     of 1992, $240,198,000, to be derived from the Fund, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That $30,000,000 of 
     amounts derived from the Fund for such expenses shall be 
     available in accordance with title X, subtitle A, of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 1992.

                                Science

       For 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 six passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, $2,718,647,000, 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, $169,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That 
     none of the funds provided therein shall be distributed to 
     the State of Nevada or affected units of local government (as 
     defined by Public Law 97-425) by direct payment, grant, or 
     other means, for financial assistance under section 116 of 
     the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended: Provided 
     further, That the foregoing proviso shall not apply to 
     payments in lieu of taxes under section 116(c)(3)(A) of the 
     Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended.

                      Departmental Administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy 
     necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the 
     purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and official reception and representation expenses 
     (not to exceed $35,000), $193,769,000, to remain available 
     until expended, plus such additional amounts as necessary to 
     cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for 
     others notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency 
     Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That such increases 
     in cost of work are offset by revenue increases of the same 
     or greater amount, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That moneys received by the Department for 
     miscellaneous revenues estimated to total $106,887,000 in 
     fiscal year 2000 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 2000 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2000 
     appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more 
     than $86,882,000.

                    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, $30,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                           Weapons Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion; and the purchase of 
     passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed three for replacement 
     only, $4,000,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That, of this amount, $1,000,000,000 shall not be 
     available for obligation or expenditure until after June 30, 
     2000, and until legislation has been enacted restructuring 
     the national security programs of the Department of Energy or 
     establishing an independent agency for national security 
     programs.

         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense 
     environmental restoration and waste management activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any

[[Page 18092]]

     real property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion; and the purchase of 
     35 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, 
     $4,157,758,000, to remain available until expended.

                  Defense Facilities Closure Projects

       For expenses of the Department of Energy to accelerate the 
     closure of defense environmental management sites, including 
     the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant and 
     capital equipment and other necessary expenses, 
     $1,054,492,000, to remain available until expended.

             Defense Environmental Management Privatization

       For Department of Energy expenses for privatization 
     projects necessary for atomic energy defense environmental 
     management activities authorized by the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), $228,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                        Other Defense Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense, other 
     defense activities, in carrying out the purposes of the 
     Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,651,809,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $5,000 may be used for official reception and representation 
     expenses for national security and nonproliferation 
     activities.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

       For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the 
     purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the 
     acquisition of real property or facility construction or 
     expansion, $112,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                    POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

                  Bonneville Power Administration Fund

       Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund, 
     established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for 
     the Northeast Oregon Hatchery Master Plan, and for official 
     reception and representation expenses in an amount not to 
     exceed $1,500.
       During fiscal year 2000, no new direct loan obligations may 
     be made.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy, and for construction and acquisition of 
     transmission lines, substations and appurtenant facilities, 
     and for administrative expenses, including official reception 
     and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500 
     in carrying out the provisions of section 5 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the 
     southwestern power area, $27,940,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $773,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from unobligated balances in ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration''; in 
     addition, notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302, 
     not to exceed $4,200,000 in reimbursements, to remain 
     available until expended.

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

       For carrying out the functions authorized by title III, 
     section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7152), and other related activities including conservation 
     and renewable resources programs as authorized, including 
     official reception and representation expenses in an amount 
     not to exceed $1,500, $171,471,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $160,286,000 shall be derived from the 
     Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That 
     of the amount herein appropriated, $5,036,000 is for deposit 
     into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account 
     pursuant to title IV of the Reclamation Projects 
     Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992.

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

       For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the 
     hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams, 
     $1,309,000, to remain available until expended, and to be 
     derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance 
     Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in 
     section 423 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
     Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and 
     representation expenses (not to exceed $3,000), $174,950,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed 
     $174,950,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and 
     other services and collections in fiscal year 2000 shall be 
     retained and used for necessary expenses in this account, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated from the General Fund shall be 
     reduced as revenues are received during fiscal year 2000 so 
     as to result in a final fiscal year 2000 appropriation from 
     the General Fund estimated at not more than $0.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 301. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used to award a management and operating contract 
     unless such contract is awarded using competitive procedures 
     or the Secretary of Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, a 
     waiver to allow for such a deviation. The Secretary may not 
     delegate the authority to grant such a waiver.
       (b) At least 60 days before a contract award, amendment, or 
     modification for which the Secretary intends to grant such a 
     waiver, the Secretary shall submit to the Subcommittees on 
     Energy and Water Development of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     a report notifying the subcommittees of the waiver and 
     setting forth the reasons for the waiver.
       Sec. 302. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used to award, amend, or modify a contract in a manner 
     that deviates from the Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless 
     the Secretary of Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, a 
     waiver to allow for such a deviation. The Secretary may not 
     delegate the authority to grant such a waiver.
       (b) At least 60 days before a contract award, amendment, or 
     modification for which the Secretary intends to grant such a 
     waiver, the Secretary shall submit to the Subcommittees on 
     Energy and Water Development of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     a report notifying the subcommittees of the waiver and 
     setting forth the reasons for the waiver.
       Sec. 303. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to--
       (1) develop or implement a workforce restructuring plan 
     that covers employees of the Department of Energy; or
       (2) provide enhanced severance payments or other benefits 
     for employees of the Department of Energy;

     under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2644; 42 
     U.S.C. 7274h).
       Sec. 304. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to augment the $20,000,000 made available for obligation 
     by this Act for severance payments and other benefits and 
     community assistance grants under section 3161 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 
     (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2644; 42 U.S.C. 7274h).
       Sec. 305. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals (RFPs) for 
     a program if the program has not been funded by Congress.


                   (transfers of unexpended balances)

       Sec. 306. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
     provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to 
     appropriation accounts for such activities established 
     pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred may be merged 
     with funds in the applicable established accounts and 
     thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time 
     period as originally enacted.
       Sec. 307. Notwithstanding 41 U.S.C. 254c(a), the Secretary 
     of Energy may use funds appropriated by this Act to enter 
     into or continue multi-year contracts for the acquisition of 
     property or services under the head, ``Energy Supply'' 
     without obligating the estimated costs associated with any 
     necessary cancellation or termination of the contract. The 
     Secretary of Energy may pay costs of termination or 
     cancellation from--
       (1) appropriations originally available for the performance 
     of the contract concerned;
       (2) appropriations currently available for procurement of 
     the type of property or services concerned, and not otherwise 
     obligated; or
       (3) funds appropriated for those payments.
       Sec. 308. None of the funds in this Act may be used for 
     Laboratory Directed Research and Development or Director's 
     Discretionary Research and Development.
       Sec. 309. Of the funds appropriated by this title to the 
     Department of Energy, not more than $125,000,000 shall be 
     available for reimbursement of contractor travel expenses.
       Sec. 310. (a) None of the funds in this Act or any future 
     Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act may be 
     expended under a covered contract unless the funds are 
     expended in accordance with a Laboratory Funding Plan that 
     has been approved by the Secretary of Energy. The Plan shall 
     be submitted on a quarterly basis, or at such intervals as 
     may be prescribed by the Secretary. The Secretary's approval 
     of the Plan may include adjusting or deleting particular 
     items or categories of items proposed in the Plan.
       (b) For purposes of this section, ``covered contract'' 
     means a contract for the management and operation of the Los 
     Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National 
     Laboratory, or Sandia National Laboratories.
       Sec. 311. As part of the Department of Energy's approval of 
     laboratory funding for Los

[[Page 18093]]

     Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National 
     Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories, the Secretary 
     shall review and approve the incentive structure for 
     contractor fees, the amounts of award fees to be made 
     available for the next year, the salaries of first and second 
     tier laboratory management, and the overhead costs.
       Sec. 312. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to establish or maintain independent centers at a 
     Department of Energy laboratory or facility unless such funds 
     have been specifically identified in the budget submission.
       Sec. 313. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to waive overhead or added factor charges for work 
     performed for other Federal agencies or for other Department 
     of Energy programs.
       Sec. 314. Sec. 505 of Public Law 102-377, the Fiscal Year 
     1993 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, and 
     section 208 of Public Law 99-349, the Urgent Supplemental 
     Appropriations Act, 1986, are repealed.
       Sec. 315. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act may be used to restart the High Flux Beam Reactor.
       Sec. 316. None of the funds provided in this or any other 
     Act may be used by the Federal power marketing 
     administrations for construction, expansion or upgrades of 
     fiber optic telecommunication lines, associated facilities or 
     purchase of equipment directly related to such efforts, 
     except for fiber optic cable that is necessary for the 
     foreseeable future for internal management of programs of the 
     Federal power marketing administrations. Federal power 
     marketing administrations shall apply any reduction in 
     spending resulting from the restrictions in the section to 
     the reduction of debt of the Federal power marketing 
     administration.
       Sec. 317. None of the funds provided in this or any other 
     Act may be used by the Federal power marketing 
     administrations to:
       (1) rent or sell construction equipment;
       (2) provide construction, equipment, operation, maintenance 
     or repair services;
       (3) perform contract construction work;
       (4) provide a construction engineering service; or
       (5) provide financing or leasing services for construction, 
     maintenance, operational or engineering services to any 
     private utility, wholesale or retail customer (other than 
     those existing retail customers served by the Federal power 
     marketing administration prior to the date of enactment of 
     this provision), publicly-owned utility, Federal agency, or 
     state or local government entity. The Federal power marketing 
     administrations may provide equipment or a service to a 
     private contractor that is engaged in electrical work on an 
     electrical utility project of the Federal power marketing 
     administration. As used in this section, the term ``used 
     construction equipment'' means construction equipment that 
     has been in service for more than 2,500 hours. Any Federal 
     power marketing administration may dispose of used 
     construction equipment by means of a public auction conducted 
     by a private entity that is independent of the Federal power 
     marketing administration. Federal power marketing 
     administrations shall apply all proceeds of a disposition of 
     used construction equipment to the reduction of debt of the 
     Federal power marketing administration.

                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

       For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized 
     by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as 
     amended, for necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman 
     and the alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission, for 
     payment of the Federal share of the administrative expenses 
     of the Commission, including services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     $60,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

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

                           DENALI COMMISSION


                              (rescission)

       Of the funds made available under this heading in Public 
     Law 105-245, $18,000,000 is rescinded.

                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out 
     the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 
     amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
     including official representation expenses (not to exceed 
     $15,000), $455,400,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That of the amount appropriated herein, $19,150,000 
     shall be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided 
     further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection 
     services, and other services and collections estimated at 
     $432,400,000 in fiscal year 2000 shall be retained and used 
     for necessary salaries and expenses in this account, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That $3,850,000 of the 
     funds herein appropriated for regulatory reviews and other 
     assistance provided to the Department of Energy and other 
     Federal agencies shall be excluded from license fee revenues, 
     notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 2214: Provided further, That the 
     sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of 
     revenues received during fiscal year 2000 so as to result in 
     a final fiscal year 2000 appropriation estimated at not more 
     than $23,000,000.

                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $6,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the sum herein appropriated shall be 
     reduced by the amount of revenues received during fiscal year 
     2000 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2000 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $0.

                  NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

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

  Mr. PACKARD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through title IV 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 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence 
     congressional action on any legislation or appropriation 
     matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to 
     Members of Congress as described in section 1913 of title 18, 
     United States Code.
       Sec. 502. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
        (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.
        (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 503. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be used to determine the final 
     point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis 
     Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the 
     water quality standards of the State of California as 
     approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis 
     drainage waters.
       (b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program 
     and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 
     shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as 
     reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully 
     repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program--Alternative 
     Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP--Alternative Repayment 
     Plan'' described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report, 
     Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley 
     Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department 
     of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future 
     obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or 
     providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the 
     San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit 
     beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal 
     Reclamation law.
       Sec. 504. Section 6101(a)(3) of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 
     2214(a)(3)) is amended by striking ``September 30, 1999'' and 
     inserting ``September 30, 2000''.
       Sec. 505. Title VI, division C, of Public Law 105-277, 
     Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental 
     Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999, is repealed.
       Sec. 506. Title III, division C, of Public Law 105-277, 
     Making Omnibus Consolidated and

[[Page 18094]]

     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999 
     and section 105 of Public Law 106-31, the 1999 Emergency 
     Supplemental Appropriations Act, are repealed.
       Sec. 507. Section 211(e)(2)(A) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-303, 110 Stat. 3682) 
     is amended by striking ``in advance in appropriations Acts''.
       Sec. 508. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or 
     orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation 
     for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted 
     on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan at the Third Conference 
     of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on 
     Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate 
     for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article 
     II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution, 
     and which has not entered into force pursuant to article 25 
     of the Protocol.


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Filner

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Filner:
       Page 37, after line 16, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 509. Of the amount provided in this Act for ``Atomic 
     Energy Defense Activities--Weapons Activities'', $50,000,000 
     shall be used for the removal of residual radioactive 
     material from the Atlas site approximately 3 miles northwest 
     of Moab, Utah, and from the floodplain of the Colorado River 
     for permanent disposition and stabilization of such residual 
     radioactive material in a safe and environmentally sound 
     manner.

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California reserves a point of 
order.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I offer today is really 
life and death protection for the 25 million people who get their water 
from the Colorado River. This is an emergency, Mr. Chairman. We have 
heard about emergencies in appropriations bills. People are drinking 
poisoned water.
  The water is poisoned by radioactive wastes leaching from an 
abandoned mine waste pile that is located only 750 feet from the 
Colorado River. This deadly waste pile, abandoned by the Atlas 
Corporation, sits in the Moab Valley of southeastern Utah. The Colorado 
River, flowing south past the site, provides water for 7 percent, Mr. 
Chairman, 7 percent of the United States population, including Las 
Vegas, Phoenix, the entire Los Angeles area and the city I represent, 
San Diego.
  My amendment would provide the Department of Energy $50 million, 
perhaps a third of the money needed, to begin moving the contaminated 
pile away from the Colorado River. Moving this pile is the most 
reliable way to save the growing population of California, Arizona, and 
Nevada from having the highly contaminated waste leak into the water 
supply for the next 270 years, almost 3 centuries, Mr. Chairman, during 
which time, many people would likely die from various diseases and 
maladies caused by drinking water laced with radioactivity and chemical 
contaminants from the uranium pile.
  The money is appropriated by my amendment to begin the first phases 
of moving the pile, and it is offset by cutting a program that already 
has $4 billion in the budget; $4 billion offset by a simple $50 
million. This is money that will save American lives.
  The Department of Energy must step in to save innocent people because 
the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has jurisdiction over 
moving the site, has proven it is simply not up to the task. The NRC's 
own report states that Atlas' plan to cap the radioactive pile is 
environmentally acceptable, and I quote their expression, 
``environmentally acceptable,'' Mr. Chairman. Is it environmentally 
acceptable to cover 10.5 million tons of uranium mill waste with rock 
and sand where the river can reach it during floods in spring and cause 
a health crisis. With the pile only 10 to 20 feet above the underground 
aquifer, highly concentrated ammonia will continue to seep into the 
groundwater.
  By contrast, when the Department of Energy has been involved with all 
of the other contaminated sites along the Colorado River, it moved, not 
just capped, sites with uranium concentration levels of less than 2 
milligrams per liter. I say this is an emergency because the uranium 
concentration levels at Moab receive 26 milligrams per liter, 13 times 
what has already been considered a problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard the earlier colloquy between the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Packard) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) 
calling for a study of this situation. We are passed the time for a 
study. We know what must be done. We must move jurisdiction of the pile 
to the Department of Energy and move this pile. It is a matter of life 
and death.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's 
comments and understand the problem. I certainly look forward to 
working with him as we proceed forward with the appropriations process.
  But I would, however, respectfully ask the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Filner) to withdraw the amendment. Otherwise, I will still have to 
pursue the point of order.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman very much for offering this amendment. I would hope that the 
point of order would not lie. This is becoming an increasingly 
important and dangerous situation. We have been working on this now for 
the last several years. Clearly, a number of the solutions that have 
been proposed are simply inadequate for the protection of the drinking 
water supply from those who take their water from the Colorado River.
  I think the gentleman is quite correct. This is now getting to an 
emergency state of affairs here where we have so many people depending 
upon this water and we have what clearly is a continuation of the 
leaching of this radioactive material.
  The simple capping of this in place and failure to remove it is not 
going to work. I think the gentleman's amendment is quite on point.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Napolitano).
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong support of this 
very important amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner). This amendment provides critical funding to immediately begin 
moving the radioactive material called the uranium tailings pile from 
the banks of the Colorado River to an environmentally safe location.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Filner was allowed to proceed for 1\1/2\ 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Napolitano).

                              {time}  2000

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, the Moab site is the fifth largest 
uranium tailings pile in the country and by far the largest situated 
near a river. The pile is unlined, in a floodplain, and just 750 feet 
from the water's edge, currently leaking contaminants into the Colorado 
River.
  The water affects 25 million people and at least four States. It is 
truly an environmental crisis and we must act now to protect the safety 
and well-being of our citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this very important amendment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would simply say that 
notwithstanding the emergency nature of this situation, and 
notwithstanding the life and death matters of which we are involved, I 
understand the chairman will insist on his point of order. I am sorry 
that these technicalities will be insisted upon, but I acknowledge that 
the point of order will be sustained.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?

[[Page 18095]]

  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am going to offer my 
support for this legislation and be very brief.
  I want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), for his leadership. This is, in particular, about Texas, 
and I wish to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Packard), for his ongoing funding of projects that the Army Corps of 
Engineers is working on; Sims Bayou, an area that flooded enormously 
over the years, which we are keeping on schedule. We want to thank the 
committee for its continued commitment on that issue.
  And likewise, though we are competitive with many of our fellow 
colleagues, I wish to thank the chairman for his work on and the 
funding of the Houston Port, because that is an enormous economic arm 
for the community that I come from and we appreciate very much the fact 
that that is being kept on track.
  Lastly, let me say to the chairman, and I know there are many other 
smaller projects that we will benefit from in the State of Texas, and 
in particular the 18th Congressional District, but I also want to note, 
as I have heard my colleagues speak about being environmentally safe 
and secure, we realize how much energy and water resources deal with 
the environment and we appreciate the committee's sensitivity.
  I want to say to my constituents in the 18th Congressional District, 
in the Houston area, that I will continue to work with them, and that 
the projects that we are funding will be environmentally sound and that 
I will continue to work with the committee on these issues.
  I rise in support of H.R. 2605, the energy and water development 
appropriations for fiscal year 2000. I support this bill mainly because 
it provides a total of $5.0 billion in fiscal year 2000 for planning, 
construction, operation and maintenance, and other activities relating 
to water projects administered by the Army Corps of Engineers and the 
Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation. This bill increases 
funding for the Army Corps of Engineers by $283 million, 7 percent 
above the administration's request.
  Mr. Chairman, the Sims Bayou Project is a project that stretches 
through my district. Over the course of recent years, the Sims Bayou 
has seen massive amounts of flooding. Citizens in my Congressional 
District have been flooded out of their homes and businesses, and as a 
result their lives have been continually disrupted.
  In 1994, some 759 homes were flooded as a result of the overflow from 
the Sims Bayou. Mr. Chairman that is 759 families that were forced from 
their homes and livelihoods. This bill continues the important work of 
ensuring the continued vitality of the Houston community.
  I mainly support this bill because the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Energy and Water Development has included $18.3 million for 
construction and improvement of the Sims Bayou. These funds are needed 
to continue this vital project and as a result protect the community 
from further loss of property.
  The project is located in south central Houston and Harris County. 
The Sims Bayou Flood Control Project provides flood damage reduction 
and consists of 19.3 miles of channel improvement and erosion control 
measures with environmental quality measures, riparian habitat 
improvements, and authorized recreational features.
  I would like to express my gratitude to the Army Corps of Engineers 
for their cooperation in bringing some relief to the people of the 18th 
Congressional district. Their continued efforts continue to avoid and 
avert the dangers posed by uncontrolled flooding in the Houston 
community.
  In addition to the Sims Bayou project, the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development also provided funding for several other locations in 
Houston. These projects include the Buffalo Bayou project and the 
Hunting Bayou project. Funding was also provided for the Houston-
Galveston Navigation Channels.
  I am quite certain Mr. Chairman that these projects would not have 
been able to go forward if this additional money had not been 
appropriated by the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. For 
that I have to thank Chairman Packard, Ranking Member Visclosky, and my 
friend and colleague Chet Edwards who sit on the Appropriations 
Committee.
  I will continue to work with the Army Corps of Engineers and the 
local Houston officials to ensure that these projects are successfully 
completed. We need to ensure that these communities are fully protected 
from the ravages of flooding.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 2605, the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Act, for Fiscal Year 2000.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I wish to advise the 
Membership that I am ready to wrap up, and I presume my colleague on 
the other side of the aisle is ready as well.
  I want to say what a pleasure it has been to work with the entire 
subcommittee, particularly the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), 
and his staff on his side of the aisle. I certainly want to compliment 
the staff on our side, who have been working tirelessly on this. They 
have done a remarkably good job and I really cannot say enough about 
them.
  In wrapping this whole thing up, I simply want to make two things 
clear: The Boehlert amendment improves the text of the bill. It is not 
an amendment to the Visclosky amendment. The Visclosky amendment 
actually would undo the Boehlert amendment. I want all colleagues to 
understand that clearly.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Boehlert 
amendment, a ``no'' vote on the Visclosky amendment, and a ``yes'' vote 
on final passage.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 2000''.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 261, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, 
in the following order: The perfecting amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and amendment No. 3 offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


              Perfecting Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the perfecting amendment.
  The Clerk designated the perfecting amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 426, 
noes 1, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 340]

                               AYES--426

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier

[[Page 18096]]


     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--1

       
     Dingell
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Johnson (CT)
     Martinez
     McDermott
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Peterson (PA)

                              {time}  2022

  Mr. Sandlin changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the perfecting amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 340 I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Visclosky

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the motion to strike offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) which was placed in abeyance 
by the previous perfecting amendment.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 183, 
noes 245, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 341]

                               AYES--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--245

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Reynolds

[[Page 18097]]


     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Martinez
     McDermott
     Oberstar
     Peterson (PA)
     Roybal-Allard

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. LAZIO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hansen, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2605) making 
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 261, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 420, 
nays 8, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 342]

                               YEAS--420

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--8

     Chenoweth
     DeFazio
     Gibbons
     Paul
     Royce
     Sanford
     Smith (WA)
     Wilson

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Clement
     Martinez
     McDermott
     Oberstar
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps

                              {time}  2048

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

                          ____________________