[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19941-19951]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



     CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4733, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  Mr. PACKARD. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 598, I call 
up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations 
for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2001, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 598, the conference report is considered as having been 
read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 27, 2000, at page H8312.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House the conference 
report on H.R. 4733, the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act.
  At the outset, I would like to briefly state how pleased I am that 
the conference committee was able to work out the dramatic differences 
between the House and the Senate bills as amicably as we have and with 
a positive effect. Given the great divide over the House and Senate 
priorities, many concluded that we would never be able to resolve our 
differences. Not only did we resolve those differences, but we did so 
in such a way that the critical priorities of the House were carefully 
protected.
  I am proud of the agreement struck between the House and that Senate 
on energy and water resources development programs. It was a difficult 
and arduous negotiation, but the product of our deliberations is a 
package that will help strengthen our defense, rebuild our critical 
infrastructure, and increase our scientific knowledge.
  The total amount included in the conference agreement for energy and 
water program is $23.3 billion. This is about $1.6 billion over the 
amount included in the House-passed bill. The bill also includes $214 
million in emergency appropriations primarily to continue recovery 
operations at the Los

[[Page 19942]]

Alamos National Laboratory as a result of the Cerro Grande fire.
  I am especially pleased with the level of funding we have recommended 
for the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At 
$4.52 billion, the recommended funding is almost $460 million higher 
than the administration's inadequate budget request. The majority of 
this increase, about $350 million, is in the Corps' construction 
program. While that may sound like a large increase, the amount we have 
recommended is about the same as the amount the Corps will expend this 
year on construction. If we had funded the construction program at the 
level requested by the administration, the result would have been 
schedule delays, increased project costs, and the loss of project 
benefits.
  In addition to providing more funding for ongoing projects, I am 
pleased that the conference agreement includes funding for a number of 
new construction starts.
  For the Bureau of Reclamation we have provided $816 million, which is 
$10 million above the fiscal year 2000 level and $24 million above the 
budget request.
  Perhaps the most significant item is one that we did not fund, the 
Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration Program in my State of California. The 
administration had requested $60 million to continue this program in 
fiscal year 2001. However, the authorization for the program expires at 
the end of this fiscal year; and as a result, neither the House nor the 
Senate included funding in their respective bills for this project.
  The House authorizing committee reported the bill to reauthorize this 
program for fiscal year 2001; and as late as yesterday afternoon, we 
thought a compromise had been reached to permit the program to go 
forward. However, negotiations broke down when the Senate did not agree 
with the proposal. Accordingly, we have not funded it in this 
conference report.
  For the non-defense programs of the Department of Energy, our top 
priority all year long was to provide adequate funding for the basic 
research programs of the Department. The basic research performed by 
the Department of Energy has led to many of the technological 
breakthroughs that have helped our economy grow. These programs will be 
even more important as we move into the 21st century.
  I am pleased to report that additional allocations were received to 
enable us to fund these programs near the level requested by the 
administration. For renewable energy programs, I am pleased to report 
that we were able to provide about $30 million over the House-passed 
level.
  For the Atomic Energy Defense programs of the Department of Energy, 
the conference agreement includes about $13.5 billion. These funds will 
permit the Department to ensure that we have a reliable and safe 
nuclear weapons stockpile.
  For the National Ignition Facility, we provided $199 million. We are 
very concerned about the way this program has been managed in the past. 
However, we believe that the Department has assembled the management 
team and put in place the procedures that will enable the project to be 
successfully completed.
  I need to point out to the Members of the House that when we were at 
conference this week, we received a letter signed by the President's 
chief of staff indicating that the President would veto the bill if a 
provision regarding the management of the Missouri River included in 
the Senate bill was not dropped in the conference. It was not dropped, 
incidentally, in the conference. I believe that this is the only item 
in the bill that the Senate actually voted on. Therefore, the provision 
was retained in conference.
  I would point out that the President has signed this very same 
provision into law four times previously. I would hope that on the 
fifth time the President would not see fit to veto the entire bill over 
this one issue that he has agreed to in the past and would not allow a 
single issue to destroy months of hard work by the House and the 
Senate.
  The conference agreement includes funding for many of the 
administrative initiatives, particularly in the Department of Energy's 
science programs, but also in a number of smaller programs that are 
important to the President.
  I want to thank my Senate counterpart, Chairman Pete Domenici, and 
his ranking minority member, Senator Harry Reid, for their cooperation 
and hard work in conferencing the bill. Moreover, I would like to 
express my sincere appreciation to my colleagues on the House 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water, whose devoted efforts have made this 
conference report possible.
  I am especially grateful to my very good friend and the ranking 
minority member of the House subcommittee, the honorable gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for his tremendous effort on behalf of this 
conference report.

                              {time}  1130

  Some last minute issues arose yesterday that had the potential to 
reopen our conference and not allow us to be here today and finish the 
work. His willingness to cooperate permitted us to complete our work, 
and I am deeply grateful for his cooperation.
  I also want to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member 
of the full committee, for their cooperation in enabling us to bring 
this conference report to the floor today.
  I would be remiss if I did not express my sincere gratitude to all of 
the staff people who have worked on this conference report. They have 
given untireless effort to getting the conference report ready for this 
morning, and I sincerely want to thank them: Mr. Bob Schmidt, the clerk 
of the committee; Jeanne Wilson; Tracey LaTurner; Witt Anderson; Terry 
Tyborowski; Sally Chadbourne; and Rich Kaelin; and perhaps several 
others even on the Senate side that have helped us so much.
  I believe the conference agreement is balanced and fair. I would urge 
the unanimous support of the House for its adoption. I would hope we 
could quickly conclude action on this conference report so we can get 
the bill to the White House before the new fiscal year begins.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would want to note for all of the 
Members in the Chamber that as we begin the debate on this conference 
report, this will also be the last time that the gentleman from 
California (Mr.  Packard) will manage legislation on the House floor.
  As I mentioned in my earlier remarks during House consideration of 
this legislation, we ought to all just take a moment to appreciate the 
fact that for over 4 decades, every day of every year of more than 40 
years, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has dedicated his 
life not only to his family, but to his country. We are richer for 
that. And given the experience I have had during the last 2 years of 
working closely with the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) as my 
chairman, I certainly would emphasize to all of the Members of the 
House that the golf game of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) 
will certainly improve, not that it needs much improvement, in his 
retirement, his family will see him more often, but we will be the 
poorer of it.
  Again, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), he 
has done a terrific job, and we ought to give him a hand.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to also not only thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard) and the members of the subcommittee and full 
committee, but to thank those who are truly responsible for ensuring 
that this legislation is on the floor, and that is the staff connected 
with the committee, as well as the personal offices. I want to thank 
Nora Bomar, who is in the office of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Packard); Terry Tyborowski; Carol Angier; Tracey LaTurner; Witt 
Anderson; Sally Chadbourne; Jeanne Wilson; Bob Schmidt; Rich Kaelin; 
and, as a former

[[Page 19943]]

associate staff person myself, all of the associate staff who worked so 
hard with the professional staff throughout the year to make this 
conference report a reality.
  Before getting into the merits of the bill, I would also want to 
express my regret and apology to Members who feel that, for whatever 
reason, their requests were not met in this bill. While we did receive 
a larger allocation after conference, there clearly was more demand 
placed on us than ability to perform.
  I do want to emphasize to Members that, regardless of which side of 
the aisle they were on, particularly on water projects, we tried to 
give everyone every serious consideration, every fair consideration, 
but clearly we could not do everything. I do regret that. I am sure 
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) does as well. It was 
unavoidable.
  During House consideration and consideration in the committee, I 
expressed concern that as far as this country's investment in 
infrastructure, we have fallen short; and while we have moved strongly 
in the right direction during conference on this bill, I would 
reiterate that, for myself, I do believe that we continue to under 
invest in economic infrastructure, and I would continue to use the Army 
Corps as an example of that failure.
  There are $30 billion on the active construction list that are 
authorized, that are economically justified, and that are supported by 
non-Federal entity. Most of those will, unfortunately, not be funded in 
this bill, because, again, of the squeeze of our allocation. There is 
$450 million in backlog of critical deferred maintenance for next year 
alone, and the Corps estimates they need $700 million per year to 
permit projects to move forward on their most efficient schedule.
  The administration asked for a new initiative on recreational 
facility modernization, and the money was not available to do that. The 
administration asked for the Challenge 21 Riverine Exploration Program 
to begin, and there was not enough money for that.
  Generically, in constant dollars, we have seen expenditure on these 
kinds of projects to decline from 1996 of $5 billion to approximately 
$1.7 billion during the 1990s in constant dollars. So while we have 
improved this bill and increased funding for economic infrastructure, I 
think, generically, this institution and the administration has not 
paid enough attention to this critical need.
  I would also want to advise Members that while I am going to vote for 
this bill, they should all, as a matter of information, understand that 
the President has threatened to veto this bill because of a paragraph 
included in the Senate relative to a master water control manual for 
the Missouri River that is being developed by the Army Corps of 
Engineers.
  Relative to the House mark, the Army Corps of Engineers will have an 
additional $395 million, and I think that is a vast improvement. I am 
also happy that the compromise struck in the conference raised the 
dollars to the House level relative to the regulatory programs that the 
Corps has to undergo. That figure is $125 million.
  I would note, however, for the record that because of additional 
regulatory requirements that the Corps has now undertaken, as well as 
additional reporting requirements that we will be imposing on the Corps 
in this bill, it is my belief today that the Corps remains $6 million 
short.
  I warn Members that I hope we do not see a self-fulfilling prophesy; 
and that is during the debate on these new regulations and requirements 
the suggestion was this was going to slow down permitting process 
nationally, well, if you do not give an agency the required monies, 
that is not a possibility. It would not in this case be the Army Corps' 
fault.
  We had a debate during House consideration as far as monies set aside 
for civilian science. That number is higher today than it was in the 
House, and in fact is $356 million higher.
  Finally, we had an amendment in debate on renewable energy. The 
figure in this conference is $422 million. That is $59 million greater 
than when the bill left the House, but I would also note for the 
information of Members that it remains $30 million below the 
President's request. Again, I have these iterations essentially for the 
information of Members.
  It has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Packard). This is a good bill, I support it, but I do want 
Members to be fully informed before their vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the two gentleman bringing this bill to the 
floor have done a fine job. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) 
is a fine Member of this institution, and I am going to hate to see him 
leave his post. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) is also an 
extremely fine Member. But I am not going to vote for this bill, and I 
want to explain why.
  This bill is the product of the total and utter collapse of the 
budget process. That collapse came about as a result of the adoption of 
a budget resolution last spring which pretended that domestic spending 
priorities could be squeezed to the bone, far below the level that 
everyone understood would actually be producible by this Congress, and 
under that resolution the House then proceeded to debate and pass all 
13 appropriation bills. We spent the entire summer working on those 
bills. Many of those bills passed by the narrowest of margins because 
of concerns expressed on both sides of the aisle over the lack of 
adequate resources being provided and most of them to fund government 
activities.
  Now, suddenly, in the last inning, in the middle of September, only a 
few weeks before the beginning of the fiscal year, that budget 
resolution has been thrown out. Discipline has been thrown out. Now we 
are told that we should ignore all decisions that were made in early 
morning and late night sessions throughout the spring and summer to 
produce radically different bills.
  The new guidelines that we have been given by the Republican 
leadership are to spend up to 10 percent of the unified budget surplus 
of nearly $280 billion. That was first interpreted to mean about $28 
billion. Later Republican leaders revealed that, relative to the budget 
passed last spring, they would permit $41 billion of the surplus to be 
spent. But you need to understand that really means close to $80 
billion. Here is why.
  The surplus is only spent when the funds actually leave the Treasury. 
Most appropriations for discretionary programs do not result in all of 
the money leaving the Treasury in the fiscal year for which they are 
provided. They are spent later. So, on average, only half of the 
appropriated funds leave the Treasury in any give year, and, for some 
programs, less than one-tenth of the appropriated funds result in funds 
leaving the Treasury during that same fiscal year. As a result, that 
$40 billion in spending can be leveraged into an expenditure of up to 
$80 billion, and, if you really twist the numbers, you could squeeze 
even more than $80 billion in additional spending into the budget.
  That is why this bill now can come to the floor almost $2 billion 
above the level of the same bill passed by the House in the summer, and 
$800 million above the level requested by the President.
  Now, the leadership is arguing that the reason this has to be done is 
to reach compromise with the President because they do not want him to 
veto the bill. Well, if you take a look the statement of administration 
policy for this bill when this bill was reported in mid-June, almost $2 
billion lower in spending than the bill now before us, you do not find 
in that eight-page statement the word ``veto.'' The President would 
have signed that bill as it stood in June.
  The problem that we have here is that the $2 billion that has been 
added to this bill was not for him, it was for Members of this body, 
and this is not the only bill where that is happening. The problem is 
that I might be willing to vote for this money if I knew what was going 
to happen in some of the

[[Page 19944]]

other bills, but we are being told, for instance, that in the Labor, 
Health and Education conference, that we cannot add to the amount that 
has been agreed to by the majority in that conference. So there is no 
room in the budget for additional funding above the level that the 
Republican Party has laid out for the Labor, Health and Education 
programs, and yet they have room to put $2 billion of additional money 
in for this program.
  I am not willing to vote for that added money in this bill, if it 
means that it is going to be squeezed out of education or out of health 
or out of worker protection programs. Those are not my priorities.
  If we have to choose, and we should have to choose, there should be 
some limits, there should be some context, there should be some 
discipline; but the problem is that there is none, because under the 
new rules under which we are now proceeding in this rush to get out of 
town, the only people who know what the spending limits are are a few 
staffers in the leadership offices of the majority party. The problem 
is that they change the rules every 2 or 3 days.
  So at this point, by voting for the additional $2 billion in this 
bill, I do not know what consequences there are for other programs in 
the budget that, to me, are of higher priority. That is why I am not 
going to vote for this bill.
  I mean no criticism of either of the gentleman, and I certainly mean 
no criticism of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the full 
committee chairman.

                              {time}  1145

  But this process by which decisions are made arbitrarily by a few 
staffers on instruction from a few other staffers in the House 
leadership office disenfranchises rank and file members of the 
Committee on Appropriations. And if we doubt that, take a look at what 
is happening in all the other conferences. Those rank and file members 
are not in those conferences.
  It also disenfranchises the vast majority of members of both parties 
in this House. That is not the fault of the Committee on 
Appropriations. In the end, the committee, the way this place works, 
will take the heat for it, but it is not the fault of the Committee on 
Appropriations. They are simply following the orders of their 
leadership.
  So the result is we have institutional chaos, no discipline, no real 
understanding of what the rules are, and no context in which to judge 
whether the amount of money being put in these bills is responsible or 
not.
  That is why, and I mean no criticism of these two gentlemen, but that 
is why I intend to vote against this bill. Because this is a lousy way 
to run a railroad, and it is a lousy way to run a legislative body that 
is supposed to be the greatest legislative body in the world.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the very distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the subcommittee, 
for yielding me this time. I wanted to say to the gentleman, and I know 
it is not appropriate to direct a comment directly from one Member to 
another without going through the Chair, so, Mr. Speaker, let me say to 
the gentleman from California through the Speaker that he has been an 
outstanding member of the Committee on Appropriations, an outstanding 
Member of the House of Representatives, and he has been a dynamic 
chairman on the subcommittees on which he has chaired over the last 6 
years.
  I would say that one way that a chairman of a committee can be 
successful in getting the job done is to have outstanding subcommittee 
chairmen. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) certainly fits 
that bill. He is, and has been, an outstanding subcommittee chairman.
  Also, he has been a very good friend to this chairman, and I think to 
most everybody in this House Chamber. So, Mr. Speaker, I want the 
gentleman to know how much we are going to miss him, and I regret his 
decision to retire voluntarily from the United States Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Packard) and also the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), 
the ranking minority member, for having brought this bill to the floor. 
It has not been an easy task. There have been many, many differences on 
this bill. There are many Members who have requests for projects in the 
bill that did not make it. They did not make it, not because they were 
not important projects, not because they were not necessary, but 
because we were trying to be as fiscally conservative as we could 
possibly be. I know that there are several Members who are looking for 
another opportunity to have their projects considered.
  But the idea that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) spoke to 
just a moment ago, that he would not support this bill because he was 
not sure what would be done in some other bill, well, that is not the 
way the process works. Mr. Speaker, we have 13 separate bills. I would 
say to and remind my colleagues that the House of Representatives has 
passed all 13 of our bills. And I cannot say that often enough. And we 
passed them at lower spending levels than the White House or many 
Members of the minority side wanted.
  If my colleagues recall, we spent hour after hour, day after day on 
some of these bills dealing with amendments to add more billions of 
dollars, and we fought off successfully most of those amendments, 
realizing that there was only a certain amount of money that we ought 
to spend.
  Just because there is a $230 billion surplus out there, we do not 
have to spend it all. In our homes, in our personal lives, in our 
businesses, and in our government, at a time of great prosperity, we 
pay down some of our bills that have been haunting us for months or 
years before. That is one of the things that we are committed to doing 
in this Congress, pay down some of those debts.
  Mr. Speaker, we have paid in the last 2 years nearly half a trillion 
dollars on the public debt that this Nation owed. That is good news, 
and it is good news for this reason, Mr. Speaker: it is good news 
because we have had to pay a substantial interest payment on the 
national debt. $250 billion is a good round figure to estimate what the 
interest payment on the national debt was last year and would be this 
year.
  Can my colleagues imagine how many schools we could build? School 
construction is a big issue. How many schools could we build with $250 
billion that we are now paying out as interest on the national debt? 
How many highways could we build or bridges could we build? How much 
more advantage could we give to our veteran population in medical care? 
In some areas veterans have to wait in line to get their medical care 
because the demand is greater than the supply available.
  So, it is important that we have fought off some of these big 
spending amendments. I found it really ironic yesterday when I read a 
statement by the President of the United States scolding Congress for 
being a ``big spending Congress.'' Well, up until just the last couple 
of weeks, he was scolding us for not providing all of the money that he 
wanted for all of his programs. He cannot have it both ways. There he 
goes again. On the one hand he is scolding us for not spending enough; 
on the other hand he scolds us for spending too much.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman brought up the subject I 
wanted to discuss and that was the news accounts last night where I saw 
the President criticizing the majority for wanting to spend too much 
money. I have been in on some of the negotiations. The gentleman from 
Florida has been in all of them. In every instance that I have been 
involved in we have been trying to hold down the growth in spending; 
and the President's representatives ought to go see the President and 
see what he was talking about, because the representatives he

[[Page 19945]]

has negotiating these appropriation bills with us are insisting that we 
spend more money, that we increase the size of government. Yet the 
President very clearly last night on the news account indicated that we 
were trying to hold him hostage so we could spend more money.
  I am glad the gentleman from Florida clarified that, because I was 
confused. I thought maybe I had fallen asleep in some of those 
meetings.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman from Alabama for those comments.
  I think it is important that our colleagues know this. We have been 
very diligent in communicating with the White House and the President's 
staff, and the Office of Management and Budget, to do the best we could 
to accommodate the wishes that they had within our strong desire to 
keep the budget balanced and to pay down a substantial amount on our 
national debt.
  Anyway, Mr. Speaker, we are at this point. This bill should be 
decided on its own merits. We should not vote for this bill or against 
this bill because of what may or may not be in some other 
appropriations bill. This is a good bill, and all of the minority 
members signed the conference report except for the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), so I think that is an indication that this is a 
pretty decent bipartisan appropriations bill.
  Again, I congratulate the gentleman from California (Chairman 
Packard) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), for bringing a good bill to this floor; and I thank the 
gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Pastor), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate 
the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, for bringing to the floor 
a good bill. I know that we have worked on it. We worked on it very 
hard, and we are able to have a good conference. I will support the 
bill and ask other Members to support it.
  I would like to thank the staff. I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Indiana for working with all of us, as well as the gentleman from 
Florida.
  People of Arizona in Maricopa County and in Pima County want to thank 
the committee for the fine work they have allowed to be funded in terms 
of habitat restoration and the studies that will rehabilitate the 
environment.
  I would like to take a moment to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Packard). He has been very fair and willing to work things 
out with all of us. I want to thank him for the way he treated this 
Member. I wish him the best. Sorry to see him go, but I wish him the 
best in his retirement.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a valued member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I want to join in congratulating the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Packard), our subcommittee chairman, on a 
great job this year. It is only indicative of the job he has done for 
so many years in this Congress, and I think we all know that he will be 
sorely missed next year.
  I would like to just address one issue that is in this bill that is 
of extreme importance to Iowa and the States along the Missouri River. 
Apparently, the President and the Vice President have threatened a veto 
over this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this has to do with the Missouri River flow. Mr. 
Speaker, apparently our memories are very, very short. No one is going 
back to 1993 with the tremendous flooding that we had in the Midwest. 
At that time, if the policies that President Clinton and Vice President 
Gore wanted to put in place had been in place, we would have 
dramatically increased the amount of flooding along the Missouri River, 
all the way down to the lower Mississippi River basin.
  This is a direct threat to the lives and property of people who live 
along the Missouri River. It is extraordinary that when the Vice 
President comes out of Iowa and asks for our support, or Nebraska, or 
Missouri, or any of the States below the junction of the Missouri and 
Mississippi Rivers, that he would want to compound a tremendous 
flooding potential.
  It is not only a matter of lives and property; it is a matter of 
economic necessity that we maintain navigation on the Missouri River. 
It is going to dramatically increase the cost to agriculture as far as 
our inputs are concerned, and it is going to dramatically reduce the 
price even further of our grains as we try to export them down the 
river. What it is going to do is make the railroads absolutely king, 
with no competition in the upper Midwest.
  One other issue that is not talked about is the reduced generating 
power of the dams upstream during the low flow that they are proposing 
in the middle of the summer.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of life, property, economic viability for 
anyone along the Missouri River or the lower Mississippi. It is 
something that is wrong in their position, and we have to maintain the 
position that is in the bill. And I would really ask anyone, when the 
Vice President comes out and asks for support, how he can put the lives 
of our citizens in jeopardy by supporting this outrageous proposal that 
they are threatening a veto over.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The Chair advises 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) has 14\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey), a member of the full committee.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for his kind 
consideration. I also want to express my respect and appreciation to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Packard), chairman of the subcommittee, 
and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the full 
committee as well. I am a great admirer of their work and certainly of 
their personal qualities.
  This bill, however, is a different matter all together. The bill 
suffers from serious and dramatic deficiencies. First of all, with 
regard to the need to bring our country more closely into a condition 
of energy independence, the bill fails. It is $32 million less than 
what the President requested for alternative energy and energy 
conservation.
  Now, I wish that the President had requested more than that, but the 
very least that this bill could do is to meet the request laid out by 
the President of the United States and recognize the need to move our 
country closer to a situation of energy independence.
  We are now importing 53 percent of the oil that we use every single 
day for transportation and for heating of our homes, businesses, and 
industries. This is a deplorable situation. This is a matter of 
strategic interest and strategic concern.

                              {time}  1200

  I can only conclude that this is a conscious decision. Why? Because 
it is not a matter of money. The bill adds $2 billion to that which was 
in the bill when it left this House. So it is not a question of 
funding.
  It is a question of establishing priorities. We could use a 
substantial portion of that $2 billion to move us away from our 
dependence upon people who wish us ill in the Middle East. In fact, 
this bill plays into the hands of several leaders who wish this country 
ill, Middle Eastern leaders who control the oil spigot, because it 
increases our dependence on foreign oil. That is one of the 
deficiencies.
  Another deficiency is that the bill fails to reauthorize the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and fails to authorize a strategic home 
heating oil reserve for the northeastern part of this country.
  We have heard that those provisions may be in another bill, another 
bill coming out of another subcommittee. But at this moment, we have no 
reason

[[Page 19946]]

to have any confidence in those pronouncements. Why? Because that 
subcommittee, the Interior Subcommittee, the conferees of that 
subcommittee are allegedly meeting somewhere in this Capitol, 
somewhere, allegedly. Now I say allegedly because I am one of the 
conferees.
  I am one of the conferees, and I do not know where that conference is 
meeting, nor do almost all of the other conferees, whether they are 
Democrats or Republicans. These meetings, if they are being held, are 
being held clandestinely.
  This is a bill that suffers seriously in its deficiencies, and for 
those reasons, it ought to be defeated.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is $60 million on alternative fuels more than 
last year's, so we have not neglected that area. We have raised it even 
from where it was as it passed out of the House.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the gentleman just said, 
and I think that that is a very good procedure and the right direction, 
but is it not true that the bill appropriates an additional $2 billion 
for a variety of unknown works, and that it is $32 million below the 
requests for energy conservation and alternative energy as requested by 
the President; is not that true?
  Mr. PACKARD. Reclaiming my time, the $2 billion figure has been 
thrown around several times today. It is an inaccurate figure. We have 
increased the funding for this bill to the tune of $1.6 billion, not $2 
billion. But the fact is we have readdressed the alternative fuel 
issue, and we have increased it substantially this year over last year. 
That is moving in the right direction and in the direction the 
gentleman has addressed.
  Mr. HINCHEY. But it is $32 million less than the President requested.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a valued member of the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Water Development.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Packard) very much for his great work. I, too, want to join 
my colleagues in extending to the gentleman the very best. Three words 
come to mind when I think of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Packard) as to the style in which he operates, one is temperament and 
another patience and the third is attentiveness. The gentleman ranks 
high on all three of those.
  Again, my thanks also to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), 
the ranking Member and the staff that contributed so much to this bill.
  Let me just say that this is a good bill. It is a good conference 
report. It exercises a proper balance between spending for the Nation's 
important water, energy and national security projects while still 
maintaining adequate fiscal restraint. Furthermore, the bill sets aside 
a sizable amount of money, sizable amount of the budget surplus to go 
towards paying down the Federal debt.
  As we all know, the Nation is facing a period of exceptionally high 
energy prices. Unfortunately, the Clinton-Gore administration has 
decided to tamper with our national security by releasing oil from our 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve instead of correcting what can only be 
called their antienergy policy of the last 8 years.
  Mr. Speaker, this measure takes some of the necessary steps toward 
bringing a proper balance to our national energy mix. It provides for a 
variety of important research and development projects that I hope will 
deliver some of the break-through technologies to fuel America's future 
energy needs.
  It is clear that electricity is the source that drives our burgeoning 
information economy, and we need to recognize that nuclear power now 
provides over one-fifth of our total electric demand. Along these 
lines, this bill provides vitally required funding for nuclear energy 
research under the NERI, the NEPO and the NEER programs; and it 
enhances the ability of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to perform 
its mission. And nuclear technology provides more than just power. 
Nuclear technology right now is being used to take excess weapons 
material and making it available for life-saving cancer treatment.
  It likewise keeps the Department of Energy on its path towards 
completing nuclear cleanup as some of the Nation's old cold war weapon 
sites by the year 2006, and it funds the development of the Yucca 
Mountain spent fuel repository.
  The measure also invests in fusion as a future energy source, and it 
addresses the need to bring ever-greater computing capabilities through 
the advanced scientific computing research initiative to our national 
laboratories and universities. Finally, in addition, the vital water 
infrastructure projects that the Corps of Engineers performs are, I 
believe, sufficiently addressed.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, the chairman of 
the subcommittee for yielding me the time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a member of the full committee.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Water Development for his leadership and for working with us as we 
try to work together to serve the people of America. I thank the 
gentleman very much and I wish him well in his retirement.
  And I would like to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for his work in yielding time to me this 
morning.
  Mr. Speaker, I voted for this bill, as some 400 others did as it went 
through the House in June, June 28, I do believe. At that time we 
thought it was a good bill, needed improvement, but we were willing to 
work with the chairman and our ranking member to see that we can 
address America's problems.
  The Interior bill should have included, and did not, a provision that 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would be used in the case of an 
emergency. The Interior bill did not have that in the House. It did not 
have that in the Senate. This House passed a bill that would give the 
President authority to release those reserves in an emergency. Mr. 
Speaker, unfortunately, that bill has not been acted on in the Senate.
  The Committee on Appropriations took action to put an amendment on 
this bill that would give our President the authority, should he need 
it, to release those reserves. This House adopted that amendment, as 
well as one that said that the Northeast Corridor could also secure the 
oil reserves they need.
  We are now 2 days from a new fiscal year, and much more than that or, 
just as important, we are on our way in the Midwest and the Northeast 
part of our country in a severe weather winter season.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has stricken the language for the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, and I think that is unfortunate. It has also 
stricken the language that would help the people in the Northeast meet 
their heating bills. At a time when our economy is booming, we find 
many people on fixed incomes, seniors, who will not have the dollars it 
will take to heat their homes; families who will not have the dollars 
they will need to send their children to school from a heated healthy 
home.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate 2 days before the new fiscal 
year ends that we have not approved permission to our President to 
release the oil reserves.
  It is important with 2 days left that we act for the people of the 
Midwest, for the people of the Northeast Corridor who are about to 
embark on the winter season, when they do not have the resources. Oil 
prices are high. It is unfortunate that since we announced and since 
the President acted on releasing some of the 30 million barrels

[[Page 19947]]

of oil that oil prices have begun to come down now because this 
Congress is not acting, because we have stricken the language in this 
bill.
  Oil prices are on the way up. Now why is that? The demand is high. 
Can we not as Members of Congress do what we need to do to make sure, 
A, the President has the authority, B, that oil prices begin to come 
down, and that people on fixed incomes, middle-income people with 
families have the right to heat their homes and drive their cars to get 
back and forth to their employment with oil reserves that this country 
can make available to them.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work of the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Packard) and the work of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky). It did not get in the Interior bill. We passed it in this 
full House. We ought to do it today. I urge my colleagues to adopt it.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the full committee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Packard), who is just simply a class act. He will 
be sorely missed here. He is a real gentleman and a credit to this 
institution. I want to commend the staffs on both sides of the aisle. 
They are professionals, specifically Bob Schmidt, the staff director, 
an excellent job. I do not think there is a staffer on the Hill who is 
more thorough, efficient, fair or tougher than Jeanne Wilson, I thank 
her. I thank Eric Mondero and Nora Bomar for their cooperation.
  Thousands of Tennesseans work in national security, science, and 
environmental management every day on behalf of our country. The 
Department of Energy needs oversight. We need to be tough with them. We 
need to hold them accountable. This committee does both. They fund 
them, but they hold them accountable.
  This bill is the product of both of those things. We thank our 
colleagues for the priorities that they set to carry out the critical 
missions of national security, major science investments for future 
generations, and environmental cleanup. The work this bill will do in 
those areas is the best product in the last 6 years that this Congress 
has passed out, but it comes with tough love and oversight of the 
Department of Energy, which is very needed. A job well done, everyone 
should support this conference report.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen) and would point out that his work on the Brays 
Bayou flight control project and the Houston Ship Canal has been 
critical.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member. I also want to 
congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for his work and for 
putting together an extremely good bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill, and I want to point out 
three items that are in it. First, the bill fully funds for the second 
consecutive year the Brays Bayou project which runs through my 
congressional district, that affects tens of thousands of homeowners, 
the Texas Medical Center, the largest medical center in the world and 
Rice University, all in my district. This is part of a new 
authorization that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and I worked on 
and had passed, that gives more local control. And we think this is 
going to be a very good project for the taxpayers and for providing 
public safety.
  It also fully funds the Simms Project, which runs in part through my 
district. And it fully funds the Port of Houston project, which is an 
ongoing project which will continue economic growth in our area. Most 
particularly, it includes legislative authorization for barge lanes 
along the Houston Ship Channel project that I and others have been 
working on trying to get for the last year and a half.
  This will enhance the barge business in our districts but also 
provide great safety. So I appreciate it.
  In closing, let me say I strongly support this bill. I think it is a 
well-done bill. It would be very good for Texas and for the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4733, the FY 2001 Energy and 
Water Appropriations Conference Report. Chairman Ron Packard, Ranking 
Member Peter Visclosky, and all other conferees deserve recognition 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 conferees to provide the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers with vital funding to continue their work in 
the areas of flood control and navigational improvement. This funding 
is necessary for the critical economic and public safety initiatives 
contained within the legislation. Because many flood and navigation 
projects located in and around my district are on accelerated 
construction schedules, full funding by the conferees leads to 
expedited completion at great savings to the taxpayers and reduced 
threat to public safety.
  I am very pleased with the support this legislation provides for 
addressing the chronic flooding problems of Harris County, Texas. H.R. 
4733 provides vital federal assistance to flood control projects in the 
Houston area on Brays, Sims, Buffalo, Hunting and White Oak bayous. I 
am confident these projects will safeguard tens of thousands in my 
district from flood waters and safeguard taxpayers from potential 
disaster relief expense.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing Harris County, one 
of the original sites for a demonstration project for a new federal 
reimbursement program which was authorized by legislation introduced by 
Representative Tom DeLay and myself as part of the Water Resources 
Development Act (WRDA) of 1996. Much of the flood control project 
design, contracting, and maintenance in my district is undertaken by an 
extremely competent local agency, the Harris County Flood Control 
District, which is at the forefront of integrated and effective 
watershed management. This unique program strengthens and enhances 
Corps/Local Sponsor relationship by giving the local sponsor a lead 
role and providing for reimbursement by the federal government to the 
local sponsor for the traditionally federal portion of work.
  I am most gratified that the conferees, for the second consecutive 
year, decided to fully fund the Brays Bayou project at $6 million for 
FY '01. This project will improve flood protection for an extensively 
developed urban area along Brays Bayou in southwest Harris County 
including tens of thousands of homeowners in the floodplain and the 
Texas Medical Center and Rice University by providing three miles of 
channel improvements, three flood detention basins, and seven miles of 
stream diversion resulting in a 25-year level of flood protection. 
Originally authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 
and reauthorized in 1996 as part of a $400 million federal/local flood 
control project, over $16.3 million has already been appropriated for 
the Brays Bayou Project. It is important that the Congress fully fund 
its match now that the local sponsor has approved the final design.
  I am also gratified that the conferees decided to fully fund the Sims 
Bayou project at a level of $11.8 million. This project is necessary to 
improve flood protection for an extensively developed urban area along 
Sims Bayou in southern Harris County. Authorized as part of the 1988 
WRDA bill, the Sims Bayou project consists of 19.3 miles of channel 
enlargement, rectification, and erosion control and will provide a 25-
year level of flood protection. The Sims Bayou project is scheduled to 
be completed two years ahead of schedule in 2004.
  Flood control projects are necessary for the protection of life and 
property in Harris County, but improving navigation in our Port an 
integral step for the rapid growth of our economy in the global 
marketplace. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that this 
legislation provides the full $53.5 million for continuing construction 
on the Houston Ship Channel expansion project. I also commend the 
Committee for including legislative language directing the Corps of 
Engineers to design and construct new barge levees in the Houston Ship 
Channel as part of the deepening and widening project. I and others 
have worked very hard over the last year and a half to obtain this 
authorization to ensure that the increasingly important barge traffic 
can be conducted safely and without disruption. Upon completion, this 
entire project will likely generate tremendous economic and 
environmental benefits to the nation and will enhance one of our 
region's most important trade and economic centers.

[[Page 19948]]

  The Houston Ship Channel, one of the world's most heavily-trafficked 
ports, desperately needs expansion to meet the challenges of expanding 
global trade and to maintain its competitive edge as a major 
international port. Currently, the Port of Houston is the second 
largest port in the United States in total tonnage, and is a catalyst 
for the southeast Texas economy, contributing more than $5 billion 
annually and providing 200,000 jobs.
  The Houston Ship Channel expansion project calls for deepening the 
channel from 40 to 45 feet and widening it from 400 to 530 feet. The 
ship channel modernization, considered the largest dredging project 
since the construction of the Panama Canal, will preserve the Port of 
Houston's status as one of the premier deep-channel Gulf ports and one 
of the top transit points for cargo in the world. Besides the economic 
and safety benefits, the dredged material from the deepening and 
widening will be used to create 4,250 acres of wetland and bird 
habitat. I congratulate the conferees on continuing a project supported 
by local voters, governments, chambers of commerce, and environmental 
groups.
  I sincerely thank the conferees, Chairman, and Ranking Member for 
their support and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bliley), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Packard) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the conference report 
before the House. We are supposed to be considering an appropriations 
conference report today. Instead, what we have before us is a 
legislative outrage.
  Mr. Speaker, who knew that instead of funding energy and water 
programs this year, we would be bailing out the nuclear industry to the 
tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Well, that is exactly what 
this bill does, by dramatically changing the fee structure that the 
industry pays to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
  That is not all. Who knew that not only would we be funding the 
Department of Energy this year, but we would be legislating major 
changes to the agency that safeguards our nuclear secrets? That is 
right. This conference report contains substantial amendments to the 
National Nuclear Security. The NNSA has not been doing such a great job 
in the last year, does anyone really think that legislative on the fly 
like this is going to improve our nuclear safety?
  It is conference reports like this, Mr. Speaker, that have gotten the 
American people sick and tired with Washington politics. Mr. Speaker, I 
urge my colleagues to vote against the conference report.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green), who also has been indispensable in working on the 
Houston Ship Channel Project.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I hope we quickly pass this 
conference report and send it on to our colleagues in the Senate and 
hopefully the President will sign this vital piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman 
Packard) not only for this particular bill, but the service to our 
Nation for many years, and thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), our ranking member, along with the conferees for the work 
on this report.
  Mr. Speaker, I especially want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards), my colleague and friend, for his dedication and hard work and 
especially appreciate his advice during this process.

                              {time}  1215

  Because of the vision of the conference committee and the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, the Houston-Galveston 
Navigation project will receive $53.5 million needed to continue the 
construction schedule for the deepening and widening of the Houston 
Ship Channel including the safety effort in barge lanes.
  The continued expansion of the Port of Houston is important on many 
levels. More than 7,000 vessels navigate the ship channel each year. 
The port provides $5.5 billion in business revenue and creates 
indirectly and directly 196,000 jobs.
  It is anticipated that the number and size of vessels will only 
increase. So this important project is definitely needed for, not only 
for the port, but for the city of Houston and Harris County.
  In addition to the Houston Ship Channel, there are several other 
flood control projects that the Army Corps of Engineers, in partnership 
with the Harris County Flood Control, have undertaken.
  The Hunting Bayou project and the Greens Bayou project will protect 
many square miles of watershed and provide protection for hundreds of 
homes.
  Mr. Speaker, again, citizens of Houston and Harris County appreciate 
the work of the conference committee and our Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I, 
too, compliment him on his work. I particularly rise to thank him for 
including the ongoing funding for the Brevard County Beach project.
  The historical record supports that, prior to the creation of Port 
Canaveral by the Army Corps of Engineers, the beaches in Brevard County 
were growing. The creation of that port was in order to stimulate 
commerce but as well to support the Navy's ballistic missile program, 
clearly a program that benefited us in our ability to win the Cold War 
that accrued to the benefit of every American.
  The disruption of the natural flow of sand from north to south by the 
creation of that port has contributed to a heavy degree of erosion. The 
Federal Government is recognizing that. I compliment the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard) and all the conferees for their support of 
ongoing funding for this project and the need to badly redress the 
critical problem of beach erosion there.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Packard) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise because of my great concern that within this bill 
is the reauthorization for the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. But 
missing from it is the language which would authorize the President to 
deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or to create a regional home 
heating oil reserve on a permanent basis. When this bill left the 
House, it was in. As it comes back from the Senate, it is gone.
  Now, I know that there are some people, George Bush, who is saying it 
is 45 days before the election. I understand his perspective. But for 
those of us in the Northeast and the Midwest, we have a different 
perspective. We think it is 45 days before winter.
  We think the President should have the authority to create a regional 
home heating oil reserve on a permanent basis, to have a trigger in it 
that is a definition that he can use to deploy it, that is flexible so 
that we can deal with the fact that two-thirds of all the home heating 
oil in the world is really consumed in the northeastern part of the 
United States, and that ultimately there can be this depressing impact 
upon the price of crude oil.
  Since last Wednesday when this discussion began in the Clinton-Gore 
administration, the price of oil has dropped $6 a barrel, from $38 down 
to $32, which is good for the consumers.
  Now, yesterday the chairman of the energy subcommittee, the 
Republican chairman, said that he was going to introduce a bill that 
prohibited the President from using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He 
said he did not think it was an emergency.
  Of course, down in Texas, they have another phrase for this kind of a 
situation. They call it a profit-taking opportunity, and it is for the 
oil companies.

[[Page 19949]]

They are tipping people upside down and shaking money out of their 
pockets.
  This bill should contain the authorization for the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve and for the regional home heating oil reserve which 
is so critical for the Northeast and Midwestern part of the country.
  Now, people say that we should not use it. Nero fiddled while Rome 
burned. They could have sent over some firehoses to kind of do 
something about it, but he just decided to fiddle away, and Rome was 
lost. Noah could have listened to the fish, not built an ark. The fish 
say, no problem. The higher the water gets, the better it is for us.
  Kind of like the oil companies. You do not need this ark of a 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve for everybody else, for the human beings. 
They can just pay higher prices.
  So this bill is severely deficient, lacking the authority to protect 
American consumers from these skyrocketing outrageous energy prices. As 
a result, this bill should be rejected.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Water Appropriations 
Conference Report provides critical funding for many important water 
projects in my state of North Dakota. Under the bill we will be able to 
provide a clean, reliable water supply to communities across North 
Dakota and on the reservations. We will be able to continue work on the 
construction of a permanent flood control project to protect the city 
of Grand Forks. Finally, we will be able to continue preconstruction, 
engineering and design of an emergency outlet to relieve flooding in 
Devils Lake.
  However, while I will be supporting the conference report, I strongly 
object to language included in the conference report that would prevent 
the Corps of Engineers from moving forward to revise the Missouri River 
Master Manual. Today, the Army Corps of Engineers is managing the 
Missouri River on the basis of a manual that was adopted in the 1960s. 
Under the manual, the Corps manages the river by trying to maintain 
steady water levels through the spring and summer to ensure there is 
always enough water to support barge traffic downstream. Unfortunately, 
under this management system, navigation has been emphasized on the 
Missouri River to the detriment of upstream interests, including 
recreation, which is much more important now than it was in 1960. The 
projections on barge traffic used to justify the manual have never 
materialized and have actually declined since its peak in the late 
1970s.
  After more than 40 years, the time has come for the management of the 
Missouri River to reflect the current economic realities of a $90 
million annual recreation impact upstream, versus a $7 million annual 
navigation impact downstream. The Corps has proposed to revise the 
master manual to increase spring flows, known as a spring rise, once 
every 3 years in an effort to bring back the river's natural flow and 
reduce summer flows every year.
  The President has indicated that he intends to veto the conference 
report because of this provision. If the conference report comes back 
to the House with this provision in it, I will vote to sustain the 
President's veto. I firmly believe the Corps should not be stopped in 
their efforts to revise and update the manual.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the Chairman of the Energy 
and Water Appropriations Subcommittee Representative Ron Packard and 
the Ranking Member, Representative Peter Visclosky, and the conferees 
for their support of Sacramento flood control projects included in the 
FY 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report. Flooding 
remains the single greatest threat to the public safety of the 
Sacramento community, posing a constant risk to the lives of my 
constituents and to the regional economy. Thanks to your efforts and 
the efforts of this Committee, Sacramento can continue to work toward 
improved flood protection.
  With a mere 85-year level of protection, Sacramento remains the 
metropolitan area in this nation most at risk to flooding. More than 
400,000 people and $37 billion in property reside within the Sacramento 
flood plain, posing catastrophic consequences in the event of a flood. 
While Congress will continue to consider the best long-term solution to 
this threat, funding in this bill will provide much needed improvements 
to the existing flood control facilities throughout the region.
  I am grateful that the Committee was able to find the necessary 
resources to provide funding for the Folsom Dam Modifications under the 
Army Corps of Engineers New Starts construction account. This project 
is crucial to the public safety of the residents in the Sacramento 
flood plain. The funding allotted will be used to make modifications to 
the outlet works on Folsom Dam, improving its flood control efficiency, 
and allowing more water to be released earlier during storms that cause 
flooding. These improvements represent the first significant 
enhancements to Sacramento's flood control works in roughly 50 years, 
and will boost its level of flood protection to approximately 140-
years.
  Also, this legislation provides funding that allows for the 
continuation of levee improvements and bank stabilization projects 
along the lower American and Sacramento Rivers, increasing levee 
reliability and stemming bank erosion. Additionally, I greatly 
appreciate the Committee's willingness to provide funding for 
projects--including the Strong Ranch and Chicken Ranch Sloughs, and 
Magpie Creek--aimed at preventing flooding from a series of smaller 
rivers and streams that present substantial threats separate from those 
posed by the major rivers in the region. Importantly, the Committee's 
willingness to include funding for the American River Comprehensive 
Plan will allow for ongoing Corps of Engineers general investigation 
work on all area flood control needs, including a permanent long-term 
solution.
  Again, I am thankful this Committee has recognized the grave danger 
confronting Sacramento and by this funding has signaled a willingness 
by the federal government to maintain a strong commitment to the 
community. On behalf of my constituents, I am grateful for your support 
in helping to address this perilous situation.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4733, the FY 2001 
Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report. Chairman Ron 
Packard, Ranking Member Peter Visclosky, and all other conferees 
deserve recognition 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 conferees to provide the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers with vital funding to continue their work in 
the areas of flood control and navigational improvement. This funding 
is necessary for the critical economic and public safety initiatives 
contained within the legislation. Because many flood and navigation 
projects located in and around my district are on accelerated 
construction schedules, full funding by the conferees leads to 
expedited completion at great savings to the taxpayers and reduced 
threat to public safety.
  I am very pleased with the support this legislation provides for 
addressing the chronic flooding problems of Harris County, Texas. H.R. 
4733 provides vital federal assistance to flood control projects in the 
Houston area on Brays, Sims, Buffalo, Hunting and White Oak bayous. I 
am confident these projects will safeguard tens of thousands in my 
district from flood waters and safeguard taxpayers from potential 
disaster relief expense.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing Harris County, one 
of the original sites for a demonstration project for a new federal 
reimbursement program, which was authorized by legislation introduced 
by Representative Tom DeLay and myself as part of the Water Resources 
Development Act (WRDA) of 1996. Much of the flood control project 
design, contracting and maintenance in my district is undertaken by an 
extremely competent local agency, the Harris County Flood Control 
District, which is at the forefront of integrated and effective 
watershed management. This unique program strengthens and enhances 
Corps/Local Sponsor relationship by giving the local sponsor a lead 
role and providing for reimbursement by the federal government to the 
local sponsor for the traditionally federal portion of work.
  I am most gratified that the conferees, for the second consecutive 
year, decided to fully fund the Brays Bayou project at $6 million for 
FY 2001. This project will improve flood protection for an extensively 
developed urban area along Brays Bayou in southwest Harris County 
including tens of thousands of residents in the flood plain, the Texas 
Medical Center, and Rice University. The project will provide three 
miles of channel improvements, three flood detention basins, and seven 
miles of stream diversion resulting in a 25-year level of flood 
protection. Originally authorized in the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1990 and reauthorized in 1996 as part of a $400 million federal/
local flood control project, over $16.3 million has already been 
appropriated for the Brays Bayou Project. It is important that Congress 
fully fund its match now that the local sponsor has approved the final 
design.
  I am also gratified that the conferees decided to fully fund the Sims 
Bayou project at a level of $11.8 million. This project is necessary to 
improve flood protection for an extensively developed urban area along 
Sims

[[Page 19950]]

Bayou in southern Harris County. Authorized as part of the 1998 WRDA 
bill, the Sims Bayou project consists of 19.3 miles of channel 
enlargement, rectification, and erosion control and will provide a 25-
year level of flood protection. The Sims Bayou project is scheduled to 
be completed two years ahead of schedule in 2004.
  Flood control projects are necessary for the protection of life and 
property in Harris County, but improving navigation in our Port is an 
integral step for the rapid growth of our economy in the global 
marketplace. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that this 
legislation provides the full $53.3 million for continuing construction 
on the Houston Ship Channel expansion project. Upon completion, this 
project will likely generate tremendous economic and environmental 
benefits to the nation and will enhance one of our region's most 
important trade and economic centers.
  The Houston Ship Channel, one of the world's most heavily-trafficked 
ports, desperately needs expansion to meet the challenges of expanding 
global trade and to maintain its competitive edge as a major 
international port. Currently, the Port of Houston is the second 
largest port in the United States in total tonnage, and is a catalyst 
for the southeast Texas economy, contributing more than $5 billion 
annually and providing 200,000 jobs.
  The Houston Ship Channel expansion project calls for deepening the 
channel from 40 to 45 feet and widening it from 400 to 530 feet. The 
ship channel modernization, considered the largest dredging project 
since the construction of the Panama Canal, will preserve the Port of 
Houston's status as one of the premier deep-channel Gulf ports and one 
of the top transit points for cargo in the world. Besides the economic 
and safety benefits, the dredged material from the deepening and 
widening will be used to create 4,250 acres of wetland and bird 
habitat. I congratulate the conferees on continuing a project supported 
by local voters, governments, chambers of commerce, and environmental 
groups.
  I also commend the committee for including legislative language 
directing the Corps of Engineers to design and construct new barge 
lanes in the Houston Ship Channel as part of the deepening and widening 
project. I and others have worked very hard over the last year and one-
half to obtain this authorization to ensure that the increasingly 
important barge traffic can be conducted safely, without spills, and 
without disruption.
  I sincerely thank the conferees, Chairman, and Ranking Member for 
their support and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the 
conferees for their excellent work in bringing this Energy and Water 
Appropriations Conference Report to the floor today.
  It is my understanding that the conference report under consideration 
provides $125 million for the regulatory program account of the Corps 
of Engineers for fiscal year 2001--an increase of $8 million above the 
FY00 appropriation for this program. This funding is necessary for the 
Corps to carry out its permit-related responsibilities pertaining to 
navigable waters and wetlands under the Clean Water Act, the Marine 
Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, and the 1899 Rivers and 
Harbors Act.
  I am pleased that the conferees have added these important funds in 
an effort to help address the growing backlog of permit applications in 
need of Corps review and decision. In my district and State, there is 
increasing concern about the number of permits that are awaiting final 
agency action, a number more than double what has been achievable in 
recent years. This growing permit backlog is unnecessarily delaying 
projects that are vitally important to local and regional economies. I 
believe the Corps must redouble its efforts to reduce this permit 
backlog to more reasonable levels as expeditiously and professionally 
as possible. I am confident that this is the intention of the conferees 
when they added $8 million to the regulatory program account.
  I also expect the Corps to review its current program procedures and 
to revise those procedures through streamlining, partnering with other 
public entities, or other appropriate measures that will expedite 
permit review and decision without jeopardizing the quality of that 
review and decision or the interests of the public.
  Again, I thank the conferees for taking real steps to address this 
crucial need and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure 
that the Corps effectively reduce the current permitting backlog.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference 
report to H.R. 4733, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
bill for fiscal year 2001.
  I want to thank Chairman Packard for his hard work on producing this 
important bill.
  This conference report will appropriate funding to the Army Corps of 
Engineers providing for the design and construction of necessary flood 
control projects throughout our Nation. These projects offer our 
constituents and communities the protection against the devastation 
that flooding has on human life and property.
  In fact, my constituents in Elmsford and Suffern, New York, have and 
continue to suffer from the flooding of the Saw Mill and Ramapo Rivers.
  In 1999, when Hurricane Floyd dropped more than 11 inches of rain on 
my congressional district, my constituents were faced with flood waters 
that destroyed homes and businesses and created severe financial 
stress.
  After observing the destruction in my district first-hand, I 
contacted the U.S. Army Corps and Chairman Packard for assistance.
  Accordingly, Chairman Packard has provided the Army Corps with 
$750,000 for each of these flood projects, the Saw Mill River and the 
Ramapo-Mahwah Flood Control projects, to begin the phases necessary to 
prevent such destruction in the future.
  I look forward to continuing my work with the chairman as the flood 
control process in both Elmsford and Suffern proceeds.
  Once again, I thank Chairman Packard for his diligence and work on 
this important measure, and I urge our colleagues to support this 
conference report.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this 
opportunity to thank Chairman Packard for his commitment to fully fund 
the Office of River Protection and include increases in many vital 
Hanford cleanup projects in my district.
  The Office of River Protection is a congressionally created office in 
the Department of Energy that is responsible for ``managing all 
aspects'' of the River Protection Project, the world's largest and most 
challenging environmental cleanup project. The $377 million in total 
available funds the conference report provides for the River Protection 
Project Vitrification facility and $383 million for the tank feed 
delivery and tank farm operation portion is critical to ensure that the 
project remains on schedule.
  The conference report will also allow for the continued timely 
placement of eight retired plutonium reactors along the Columbia River 
at the Hanford site, into an interim safe storage (ISS) mode. The 
continuation of the accelerated schedule funding will allow these 
reactors to be cocooned by the end of FY 2003, 6 years ahead of 
schedule saving the American taxpayer more than $14 million. $950,000 
of this increase will go directly to ensuring the preservation of the 
world's first nuclear reactor, The B reactor, which I hope to see 
opened one day as a museum.
  I also support the additional $12 million for the successful cleanup 
of the Spent Fuel Project in the K-basins and the additional $7 million 
provided for the stabilization of plutonium at the Plutonium Finishing 
Plant included in the conference report. The Spent Nuclear Fuel Project 
is a first of its project the will safely move 2,100 metric tons of 
irradiated nuclear fuel away from the Columbia River beginning this 
November. The additional $7 million for the PFP will allow current 
operations allowing for the continued disposition of over 1800 metric 
tons of Uranium as well as the deactivation of highly radioactive hot 
cell facilities.
  Further, I appreciate the Committee's support of $720,000 for the 
Pasco Shoreline Rivershore project. These dollars are necessary to 
initiate and complete plans and begin construction on this vital 
project.
  I also appreciate the committee's support of language to ensure that 
no cleanup funds will be diverted from the Hanford site for the 
implementation of the Hanford Reach National Monument. While many in my 
community are split on the issue of a National Monument all of us agree 
that cleanup at Hanford must not be affected by this decision.
  Finally, I want to thank Chairman Packard for his excellent work 
throughout his tenure in Congress and especially his time as chairman 
of this important subcommittee. America is truly a better place because 
of his work and his leadership will be truly missed by all of us.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays 
are ordered.

[[Page 19951]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 301, 
nays 118, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 501]

                               YEAS--301

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Packard
     Pastor
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--118

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Berman
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehner
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Cook
     Coyne
     Cubin
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Engel
     Frank (MA)
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Goodling
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Inslee
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Largent
     Larson
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Petri
     Pickering
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rogan
     Rothman
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Smith (MI)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Clay
     Dingell
     Eshoo
     Gilchrest
     Jones (OH)
     Klink
     Lazio
     McCollum
     McIntosh
     Morella
     Paul
     Talent
     Vento
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1242

  Messrs. RANGEL, HASTINGS of Florida, BRADY of Texas, WEYGAND, TOWNS, 
COOK, GREEN of Wisconsin, HOLT, and Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. KAPTUR changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________