[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12556-12583]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 532 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. 4733.

                              {time}  1520


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and water development for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Barrett of Nebraska in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard).
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to present to the Committee of 
the Whole for its consideration the bill, H.R. 4733, making 
appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2001.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide array of 
Federal Government programs which include such diverse matters as 
national security, environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced 
scientific research, navigation, alternative energy sources, nuclear 
power regulations.
  Programs funded by this bill affect multiple aspects of American life 
having significant implications for domestic security, commercial 
competitiveness, and the advance of science. I am proud of this bill as 
reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and I believe it merits 
the support of every Member of this body.
  Total funding for H.R. 4733 is $21.7 billion. This is over $500 
million more than the fiscal year 2000 for energy and water development 
programs, but almost a billion dollars below the President's budget 
request.
  We were presented with an additional constraint in fiscal year 2001 
because our 302(b) allocation consisted of two distinct parts: defense 
and nondefense. While the defense allocation in the bill is $12.9 
billion, and that is about $755 million over the fiscal year 2000 and 
$191 million below the budget request, the nondefense portion of the 
allocation is significantly less. For the nondefense portion of our 
bill we received $8.8 billion, which is about $210 million below the 
last fiscal year.
  Despite the bill's constrained funding levels for nondefense 
programs, it provides adequate funding for the continuation of high-
priority programs, promising the greatest return on the investment of 
taxpayer dollars.
  Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works program of 
the Corps of Engineers. This includes, of course, projects for flood 
control, navigation, shoreline protection, and a variety of other 
things. The bill acknowledges the importance of water infrastructure by 
funding the civil works program at the same level as last year, a 
little over $4 billion.
  Within the amount appropriated for the Corps of Engineers, $153 
million is for general investigations and $1.38 billion is for the 
construction program, and about $1.8 billion for the operation and 
maintenance.
  Mr. Chairman, funding for title II, most of which is for the Bureau 
of Reclamation, totals $770 million, a reduction of $35 million from 
last year's fiscal level. The bill also includes no funding for the 
CALFED Bay-Delta restoration program, a project which I have been 
greatly interested, in California. The reason for this is because we 
did not fund any unauthorized projects and the authorization for CALFED 
expired this year. Therefore, it was not funded, to my regret. But to 
be consistent with all of the Members, we followed that rule.
  There are reductions in title III of the bill, which includes the 
budget of the Department of Energy, particularly the nondefense 
programs. Despite constrained funding levels, most DOE nondefense 
programs are funded at last year's level or slightly below. One 
exception to that policy is the Yucca Mountain program to site a 
permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel, high-level 
nuclear fuel. This program was increased about $413 million to maintain 
its schedule which calls for the Department of Energy to issue a site 
recommendation during the fiscal year 2001. We wanted to keep that on 
schedule, and thus we funded it accordingly.
  We sought to maintain the level of funding for science programs, and 
we increased that area over fiscal year 2000. We also recognized that 
there are delays in some ongoing projects such as the Spallation 
Neutron Source, and we were unable to fund several new science 
initiatives as proposed in the fiscal year 2001.
  Funding for the energy supply programs of the Department totals $576 
million. This includes about $350 million for research and development 
of renewable energy technologies. We recognize that this is a little 
bit short of what the administration requested, and we wished that we 
had the funds to beef that up; but we feel that it is adequate to fund 
the renewable research effort.
  The bill provides $301 million for uranium facilities maintenance and 
remediation, a new account established to consolidate uranium programs 
that were spread through many other accounts.
  The largest spending category for the Energy and Water bill is that 
of environmental restoration and waste management of the Department of 
Energy. Funding for cleanup activities at the variety of sites in title 
III of the bill exceeds $6.4 billion for defense and nondefense 
programs.
  The bill also includes $6.1 billion for new National Nuclear Security 
Administration, a semiautonomous agency within the Department of 
Energy. Title IV of the bill provides $107 million reduction of $21 
million in fiscal year 2000 for certain independent agencies of the 
Federal Government, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 
Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
Board, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
  Mr. Chairman, I owe a great deal of gratitude to the hard-working 
members of my Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. They have 
labored with difficult fiscal constraints to produce a bill that I 
think is fair and balanced. I particularly want to thank the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), 
the chairman and ranking member of the full Committee on 
Appropriations, who helped us and cooperated with us in crafting the 
bill.
  Perhaps more importantly than any, I thank the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky), the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. It 
has been a joy to work with him. He has been extremely helpful in 
crafting the bill. And then I certainly want to pay tribute to our 
staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in constructing an 
excellent bill.

[[Page 12557]]

  Mr. Chairman, I have been pleased to hear during the debate in the 
Committee on Rules the willingness of virtually, well, not virtually, 
every Member that spoke of a willingness to support this bill. I would 
hope that every Member of the House would support this bill. We feel it 
is an excellent bill within the constraints that we had to live with, 
and I would encourage every Member to support it.
  It is my privilege to present to the Committee of the Whole for its 
consideration H.R. 4733, making appropriations for energy and water 
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. Mr. 
Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide array of Federal 
government programs which include such diverse matters as national 
security, environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced scientific 
research, navigation, alternative energy sources, and nuclear power 
regulation. Programs funded by this bill affect multiple aspects of 
American life, having significant implications for domestic security, 
commercial competitiveness, and the advance of science. I am proud of 
the bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and I believe it 
merits the support of the entire membership of this body.
  Total funding for H.R. 4733 is $21.7 billion. This is $546 million 
more than fiscal year 2000 for energy and water development programs, 
but $951.8 million below the President's budget request.
  We were presented with an additional constraint in fiscal year 2001 
because our 302b allocation consisted of two distinct parts: defense 
and non-defense. While the defense allocation in the bill is $12.893 
billion which is $755.5 million over fiscal year 2000 and $191 million 
below the budget request, the non-defense portion of the allocation is 
significantly less. For the non-defense portion of our bill, we 
received $8.85 billion which is $209.5 million below fiscal year 2000 
and $760.7 million below the budget request. This was a severe 
constraint on our ability to provide funding for many programs in this 
bill.
  Despite the bill's constrained funding levels for non-defense 
programs, it provides adequate funding for the continuation of high-
priority programs promising the greatest return on the investment of 
taxpayer dollars.
  Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works program of 
the Corps of Engineers. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development is unanimous in its belief that this program is among the 
most valuable within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. The national 
benefits of projects for flood control, navigation and shoreline 
protection demonstrably exceed project costs. The bill acknowledges the 
importance of water infrastructure by funding the civil works programs 
at $4.1 billion, an increase of $59.9 million over the amount requested 
by the Administration, and level with fiscal year 2000.
  Within the amount appropriated to the Corps of Engineers, $153.3 
million is for general investigations, $1.38 billion is for the 
construction program, and $1.85 billion is for operation and 
maintenance. In addition, the bill includes $323.4 million for Flood 
Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, project. The bill also 
fully funds the budget request of the regulatory program and the 
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.
  Mr. Chairman, funding for Title II, most of which is for the Bureau 
of Reclamation, totals $770.5 million--a reduction of $35.3 million 
from the fiscal year 2000 level. The bill includes no funding for the 
CALFED Bay-Delta restoration program whose authorization expires in 
fiscal year 2000 and fully funds the budget request of $38.4 million 
for the Central Valley Project restoration fund.
  There are reductions in Title III of the bill which includes the 
budget of the Department of Energy, particularly in the non-defense 
programs. Despite constrained funding levels, most DOE non-defense 
programs are funded at last year's level or slightly below. The one 
exception is the Yucca Mountain program to site a permanent geologic 
repository for spent nuclear fuel. This program was increased to $413 
million to maintain its schedule which calls for the Department of 
Energy to issue a site recommendation in fiscal year 2001.
  We sought to maintain level funding for science programs and provided 
$2.83 billion, an increase of $43.3 million over fiscal year 2000. 
However, there are delays in some on-going projects such as the 
Spallation Neutron Source, and we were unable to fund several new 
science initiatives proposed in fiscal year 2001.
  Funding for energy supply programs of the Department totals $576.5 
million. This includes $350.5 million for research and development on 
renewable energy technologies. Although this falls short of the 
Administration's unrealistic budget request, it is a substantial and 
credible level of funding. The energy supply account also includes 
$231.8 million nuclear energy programs. The bill provides $22.5 million 
for the nuclear energy research initiative and $5 million, the full 
amount of the budget request, for the nuclear energy plant optimization 
program.
  The bill provides $301.4 million for uranium facilities maintenance 
and remediation, a new account established to consolidate uranium 
programs that were spread throughout other accounts. These programs 
were merged to enhance coordination and eliminate duplication in the 
environmental remediation work performed at the uranium enrichment 
facilities in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio.
  The largest spending category in the Energy and Water Bill is that of 
environmental restoration and waste management at Department of Energy 
sites. Funding for cleanup activities in title III of the bill exceeds 
$6.4 billion for defense and non-defense programs. The Committee is 
dedicated to the environmental restoration of areas that participated 
in the development and maintenance of our nuclear security complex. 
This bill reflects the Committee's continued efforts to promote actual, 
physical site cleanups and to accelerate the completion of remediation 
work at DOE sites. Accordingly, the Committee has provided $1.08 
billion, the full amount of the budget request, for defense facilities 
closure projects. This account concentrates funding on discrete sites 
that are on schedule for cleanup completion by the year 2006. The 
Committee has also directed the Department to establish a cleanup 
program for those sites and projects that can be completed by 2010.
  The bill includes $6.16 billion for the new National Nuclear Security 
Administration, a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of 
Energy. The bill provides $4.6 billion for stewardship of the Nation's 
nuclear weapons stockpile, $861.5 million for defense nuclear 
nonproliferation programs, and $677.6 million for the naval reactors 
program.
  Title IV of the bill provides $107.5 million, a reduction of $21 
million from fiscal year 2000, for certain independent agencies of the 
Federal Government, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the 
Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
Board, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
  Mr. Chairman, I owe a debt of gratitude to the hard-working and 
dedicated Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. 
They have labored under difficult fiscal constraints to produce a bill 
that is balanced and fair. I am especially grateful to the Ranking 
Minority Member, the Honorable Pete Visclosky. It is in large part due 
to his efforts that we present a bill that merits the support of all 
Members of the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support H.R. 4733 as reported by 
the Committee on Appropriations, and I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 12558]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN00.001



[[Page 12559]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN00.002

 

[[Page 12560]]

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would begin by also commending the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Packard) and would point out to every Member of 
the body in this institution that this will be the last Energy and 
Water bill that the gentleman will bring to the House floor during his 
tenure as a Member of Congress, given the fact that he will now retire 
after the 106th Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California is a very decent man. He 
is a God-fearing man whose family is the most important thing in his 
life, his wife, Jean, as well as his seven children. Clearly as 
important to him is his country. And whether it was his service in 
defense of this country as a member of the United States Navy; whether 
it was his service as a member of a school board ensuring that the 
youth of his community receive the best education possible for their 
future; whether it be as the mayor and chief executive of his local 
community or his years of service in this Congress, I certainly respect 
the gentleman's three great passions in life.

                              {time}  1530

  But I would be remiss, as I would have been remiss in full committee, 
Mr. Chairman, if I did not mention for one moment the other great 
passion in life of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and 
that is golf. For those who do not yet know the good work, the foursome 
of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) did win the recent Bob 
Michael's, Founder, Golf Tournament with the lowest team score.
  I salute the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). He has been a 
gentleman, a friend, and we will all miss him.
  I also want to add my thanks, my deepest thanks as a former staff 
member myself, to all of the staff involved on both sides of the aisle, 
whether they be professional committee staff, detailees, or associate 
staff.
  But today, because this is the last bill of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard), I would also point out to the House, this is 
John McNutt's last bill. He is my associate staff member and has been 
for the last 7 years 6 months and 27 days, not that we are counting.
  But as I pointed out in my previous remarks before the full 
committee, Mr. McNutt is moving on with his life. He is going to be 
attending the University of Virginia Law School and made the wise 
choice, from an academic consideration, when he had the option of going 
to either UVA or the University of Notre Dame, that he chose Virginia. 
I do wish him well in his endeavor.
  I would advise all of the Members that I do support this bill. I do 
believe that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has done the 
best job humanly possible with this bill given the allocations the 
subcommittee had.
  But I would note that I for one did not vote for the budget 
resolution adopted by this institution, and I did not vote for the 
allocations adopted by the committee and have not agreed with the 
allocation we were given.
  On the civilian side particularly of the legislation, it gives us 
great trouble. The fact is we are $210 million today under a freeze 
level for civilian purposes. Let me note for the Members of this 
Chamber several problems that it causes.
  In the area of water projects, and there is hardly a Member in this 
institution who does not have a problem one way or the other with water 
in their district, the spending this year, while $60 million over the 
President's request, is $6 million under a freeze. Given the fact that 
the Corps today has responsibilities of over 400 multipurpose 
reservoirs, 12,000 miles of navigation channels, hundreds of ports, and 
11.6 million acres of land, we fall woefully short.
  It is anticipated just to fully fund authorized active construction 
projects, those projects that this Congress has authorized, that are 
economically justified, and are supported by a non-Federal entity, we 
would need an additional $30 billion.
  It is further anticipated that if the shadows of the future are not 
unaltered, the backlog for critically deferred maintenance this coming 
fiscal year will amount to $450 million.
  The Assistant Secretary of the Army, Mr. Westphal, has indicated 
that, to ensure that projects proceed on the most efficient schedule 
possible, we should probably be spending almost $700 million more a 
year.
  People have noted in the past that there has been mission creep by 
the Corps, that, first, it is flood control projects, then it is 
navigation, then it is hydropower, shoreline protection, and 
recreation.
  But I would point out to the body that those are all responsibilities 
we collectively have given to the Corps. We have also seen fit, both 
the legislative branch and the executive branch, to give them 
additional responsibilities as far as environmental restoration, water 
treatment facilities, sewer treatment facilities, and the clean up of 
contaminated sites.
  Within the last couple of weeks, we had a very controversial debate 
and vote relative to trade with China. I would point out that global 
commerce is projected to double over the next 20 years, and the harbors 
and inland waterways that lead to them will have to be expanded and 
maintained for us to stay competitive, and that nearly half of the 
inland waterway locks and dams today are over 50 years old.
  To put it in another perspective, in 1999 constant dollars, in the 
1960s, we were spending nearly $5 billion on water construction 
projects. Today for inflation adjusted dollars, we are spending about 
$1.7 billion.
  There is no money in the bill for a new recreation facility 
modernization initiative by the administration. There is no money for 
the Challenge 21 Riverine Restoration Program to move towards more 
nonstructural solutions to many of our flooding and water problems. 
They would also be looking to have greater coordination with 
environmental restoration. Given the fact that we have at least a two 
to one cost benefit ratio, I think it is a mistake not to further fund 
these programs.
  In the arena of science, I would mention renewables. There was a 
debate during the rule about gas prices going up. Whether one blames 
OPEC, the oil companies, EPA, ethanol, the fact is they have gone up. 
Funding in this bill currently as we debate it has gone down $12 
million from last year's level. It is my anticipation and I appreciate 
the fact that it would appear that later today that figure will go up.
  Finally, I would point to an initiative that the administration asks 
for in the area of nanoscience and nanotechnology. In 1959, Richard 
Feynman delivered a famous lecture; and in it he challenged his 
audience to envision a time when materials could be manipulated and 
controlled on the smallest of scales. He said then in 1959 that, when 
they looked back at this age, they will wonder why it was not until 
1960 that anybody began seriously to move in this direction, and here 
we are 40 years later.
  Nanoscale science and synthesis would result in a number of benefits: 
significant improvements in solar energy conservation, more energy 
efficient lighting, stronger, lighter materials that would improve 
efficiency in transportation, greatly improved chemical and biological 
sensing, and others. Again, a new science initiative would not be 
funded.
  I would simply close again by assuring Members that, within the 
allocations provided, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has 
done a very good job. I do support the bills, but I would have been 
remiss in my remark for not pointing out the deficiencies given the 
allocations that we were given that I did not support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, yield such time she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into the colloquy with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard),

[[Page 12561]]

chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California knows, I had intended 
to offer an amendment today on an issue of great importance to my 
district. I am not going to offer this amendment, however, with the 
understanding that the gentleman from California is willing to work 
with me on this matter.
  I wish to bring to the gentleman's attention some serious concerns I 
have regarding the Indian Point 2 nuclear power facility in my 
district.
  This plant was shut down in February after a steam generator started 
leaking radioactive material into the atmosphere. It goes without 
saying that this was a distressing situation for my community. What 
merits mentioning, and what brings me to the floor today, however, are 
the string of revelations in the months following this incident which 
have fundamentally undermined the community's confidence in the safety 
of the plant.
  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself admitted in March that 
previous inspections of the plant were ``weak and incomplete.''
  The NRC determined in May that operational deficiencies at the plant 
were serious enough to place it on the agency's watch list.
  Then we learned that the conduct of the NRC staff responsible for 
plant safety is now the subject of an investigation by the Inspector 
General. Despite my repeated requests, the NRC will not postpone their 
decision on the restart of this plant at least until the investigation 
is complete, as they would have us believe that it is somehow 
irrelevant.
  Just last week, an internal memo from the plant's operator was 
discovered revealing serious problems which occurred at the plant on 
the night of the leak. Mr. Chairman, it appears that the NRC saw this 
document only after stories were written about it in local newspapers.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a problem here. These are legitimate concerns, 
and it is reasonable for me and my constituents to expect for them to 
be given full and fair deliberation before that plant is restarted. I 
would like to make it clear on this floor that this is not the case, 
that this issue is not being dealt with reasonably, and it is 
unsettling my community.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly that the NRC should postpone a decision 
on restart of Indian Point 2 until the serious and legitimate concerns 
that have arisen on this issue are addressed. At the very least, it 
would seem prudent to postpone the NRC's decision on restarting the 
plant until the final investigation report of the Inspector General's 
office is released and carefully reviewed by the NRC officials to 
ensure that the outstanding issues are identified and corrected.
  Would the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) agree to work with 
me in ensuring that the committee continue to provide strict oversight 
of this serious matter?
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard).
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentlewoman 
from New York bringing this serious matter to the attention of the 
House, and I share her concerns over the serious nature of the problem 
at Indian Point 2 nuclear facility, and agree that the NRC inspector 
general should provide to the NRC all relevant information that its 
investigation developed prior to the decision and restart. Let me say 
to the gentlewoman that I will work closely with her to see that this 
issue is provided with continued congressional attention in the coming 
months.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
his attention to this matter. I hope that this matter will be resolved 
in the interest of my constituents.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking 
minority member.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise, not so much to comment on the content 
of the legislation, as to take note, as has the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky) that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is 
bringing this bill to the floor for the last time.
  Without getting into the merits of the bill, which are considerably 
constricted because of the budget resolution, which I find to be ill-
advised, I simply, Mr. Chairman, wanted to say that I think that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is one of the people who have 
added to the decency of this institution.
  In the years that he has been on the committee, I think he has been 
an extremely genial Member. I think he has been extremely fair-minded 
as chairman. I think he has worked very hard to try to produce a 
rational set of priorities in an irrational situation. I for one want 
to say that it has been a distinct pleasure for me to share our service 
in this institution.
  What I admire about the gentleman from California most of all is that 
he does not, he is not one of those Members who is prone to cheapshot 
the institution. He recognizes that this institution is a precious 
asset to the American people and tries to remind others of that fact in 
virtually everything he does.
  I simply want to congratulate him for the service he has provided to 
his district, to the country, to his State, to his party, and to this 
institution, and wish him good luck in whatever he does after he leaves 
this place.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman) on the same issue that the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Kelly) addressed.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard) in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, for more than 25 years, along with my colleagues in my 
area, I have been working with the communities throughout our Hudson 
Valley region to ensure the safety of the Indian Point 2 nuclear power 
plant in Buchanan, New York. Over the past year, that plant has had to 
be shut down on two separate occasions. Prior thereto, over the past 25 
years, this nuclear plant has had to be shut down on a number of 
occasions due to the failure of the plant's outmoded steam generators, 
insufficient emergency preparedness, and questions about the integrity 
of the nuclear plant.
  The facility has been plagued with safety problems over the years. It 
is the only nuclear power reactor in the entire country which is still 
operating with the outmoded Westinghouse Model 44 steam generators. 
Nevertheless, the NRC is presently considering an application by 
Consolidated Edison to restart the plant.
  During a recent public meeting, I joined with Senator Schumer, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), and the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey), and the citizens of our Hudson Valley region in 
requesting that the application for restarting this plant not be 
approved until the existing steam generators have been replaced and 
emergency and safety deficiencies outlined in the NRC's inspection 
team's report are remedied.
  Mr. Chairman, this nuclear facility is located only 35 miles from New 
York City and in the heart of our heavily populated Hudson Valley 
region. It is obvious that the replacement of these outmoded steam 
generators and the remediation of emergency and safety procedures at 
Indian Point 2 is vital to the safety and welfare of millions of our 
citizens.

                              {time}  1545

  Will the chairman be able to assist us in assuring the future safety 
of this nuclear facility?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. I advise the gentleman from New York that I would be 
pleased to offer any assistance that I may be able to in monitoring 
this situation at Indian Point 2 and work with the gentleman to resolve 
the situation.
  Mr. GILMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank our 
distinguished chairman for his time and attention on this pressing 
matter.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).

[[Page 12562]]


  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding 
me this time. I also wish to thank our chairman, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard), as well as our ranking member, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their support, and the whole 
committee's hard work, both the full committee and the subcommittee. I 
also want to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards), for his dedication and hard work and especially 
for his advice.
  Because of the committee's efforts, the Houston-Galveston Navigation 
Project is appropriated the full $53.5 million needed to maintain the 
optimal construction schedule for the deepening and widening of the 
Houston Ship Channel. This subcommittee had the foresight to maintain 
this construction schedule. By providing the necessary funds now, this 
project's return on investment will save taxpayers many millions of 
dollars in increased construction costs.
  Also, the Port of Houston generates $300 million annual customs fees 
and $213 million annually in State and local taxes, which demonstrates 
that the Houston-Galveston Navigation Project will more than pay for 
itself in the long run, both for the local taxpayers but also for the 
Federal taxpayers of the United States.
  The continued expansion of the Port of Houston is important on many 
levels. More than 7,000 vessels navigate the ship channel each year. 
The port provides 5.5 billion in annual business revenues and creates 
directly and indirectly 196,000 jobs.
  It is anticipated that the number and size of vessels will only 
increase. Completing the widening and deepening of the ship channel in 
a timely manner will increase the safety and economic viability of the 
port and of the City of Houston.
  In addition to the Houston Ship Channel, there are several flood 
control projects that the Corps of Engineers, in partnership with our 
Harris County Flood Control District, have undertaken. Hunting Bayou 
Flood Control Project, $337,000 in this bill. This project will affect 
29 square miles of the Hunting Bayou watershed and benefit over 7,000 
homes and businesses located within that watershed. The environmental 
evaluation and the General Reevaluation Report should be completed on 
that and submitted to the Corps by November of this year.
  Another project of importance is the Greens Bayou Flood Control 
Project. This 213 square miles of watershed will provide important 
protection for hundreds of homes that are currently extremely 
vulnerable to flooding.
  Mr. Chairman, I again thank the committee for their hard work.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for the purpose of colloquy.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, the Office of River 
Protection at the Hanford site in my district is currently engaged in 
the world's largest and most pressing environmental cleanup project. 
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the privatization 
account at Hanford was $450 million. However, due to recent 
developments, privatization is no longer a viable option at this time.
  In light of these developments, the Department of Energy has 
identified a new path forward to ensure the timely cleanup of the 
waste. As a result of this new path forward, the Department identified 
an updated funding requirement of $370 million instead of the $450 
million for FY 2001 to fully fund the necessary design and long-lead 
procurement to keep the project on schedule.
  I would like to ask the gentleman if he will insist that the 
necessary $370 million of design and long-lead procurement needs for 
this project will be preserved during the conference with the other 
body.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman by 
saying, absolutely, we will continue to press for that figure and do 
all we can to make sure the amount of money is available for fiscal 
year 2001.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank 
the gentleman for that commitment. The gentleman's assurance certainly 
gives me and my constituents in central Washington, and for that matter 
all of us in the Pacific Northwest, confidence that the final 
legislation will contain the full funding that has been identified for 
the work that is required this year.
  Finally, I wish to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) 
personally for all the efforts the gentleman has given on behalf of me 
and my constituents in my district. I want to associate myself with the 
remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and wish the 
gentleman the very best in his retirement.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a valuable member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I rise in support of our energy and water 
appropriation bill. I also wish to thank our chairman, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Packard), and ranking member, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their bipartisan approach to our bill.
  Unfortunately, this is our chairman's last year in Congress and his 
last energy and water bill. The gentleman from California has achieved 
many things during his tenure as chairman. He has been the driving 
force for reform of the Department of Energy. He has made sure that we 
honor our commitment to a balanced Federal budget and that we focus our 
scarce resources where they really need to go. I will miss the 
gentleman from California, as I am sure all of us will; and I want to 
thank him personally for his leadership, his friendship, and his very 
good nature.
  I want to also say a word to the staff of the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Water Development for their tireless work on all our behalf.
  Mr. Chairman, our bill addresses important national priorities at the 
same time it honors our commitment to a balanced Federal budget. As the 
chairman can attest, there are always more requests for funding than 
our budget allocation can provide for. The no new-start policy 
contained in this bill is difficult but necessary. We need to focus our 
dollars on ongoing projects that are on schedule and on budget. And 
even with this strict requirement, our bill provides funding for 
projects that will benefit virtually every congressional district in 
our Nation.
  This is in stark contrast to the President's budget request for the 
Army Corps of Engineers, which was wholly inadequate. It is a poor 
reflection on the White House that each and every year this committee 
must add funds for our Nation's waterways and coastal areas.
  This is particularly true for my home State of New Jersey, where we 
have 137 miles of ocean coast that we need to protect. In addition, New 
Jersey has experienced severe and devastating floods, and the only 
long-term solution is effective flood mitigation. Our State is also 
committed to the preservation of wetlands. All of these important 
priorities were shortchanged in the President's budget.
  For over 170 years, the Army Corps of Engineers has provided 
solutions to flooding, dredging and environmental problems, as well as 
shore and beach protection. Our bill also maintains funding for flood 
safety, coastal protection, dredging, and environmental restoration. It 
restores funds for these vital projects in order to protect lives and 
property.
  Our bill also provides funding for the Department of Energy. Most 
importantly, we have increased our commitment to scientific research, 
providing $2.8 billion for the Office of Science, a $43 million 
increase. With this funding, important scientific research will 
continue in the area of high energy and

[[Page 12563]]

nuclear physics, technology, basic energy sciences, biological and 
environmental research.
  I especially want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard), for his support of $255 million for fusion 
research and $25 million for laser research. While I would have 
preferred more funding for this, we did increase fusion research above 
the current level. Fusion energy has the potential to be an unlimited 
and ultraclean source of energy for the world. And after a number of 
years of declining budgets for this program, and with the chairman's 
help, this is the second year of increased funding for fusion research.
  The committee has also provided $19.6 million for the decommissioning 
of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton University. This 
decommissioning must stay on schedule and on budget, and this funding 
will allow us to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the bill. I thank the chairman, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their support.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr), a member of the committee.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I want to have a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, but I just noticed that both the chairman of the Whole House 
and the chairman of the subcommittee are both retiring this year, and I 
have to express my own personal regrets that they are retiring. They 
are both very distinguished gentlemen, and I have enjoyed serving with 
them.
  I have really enjoyed serving with the chairman of the subcommittee, 
not only as a fellow Californian; but we have been engaged together in 
issues for the State, and I remember when I was in the State 
legislature his work with the supercollider, where I really got to know 
him well; and I have appreciated his leadership here in the Congress.
  I want to thank him for the opportunity to discuss with him the 
funding for a critical project in my district, which is the central 
part of California. This is the second year I have sought 
appropriations to carry out a preconstruction engineering design of a 
flood control measure on the Pajaro River, which runs right through the 
City of Watsonville, California, as well as funding for the Pajaro 
River Basin Study. This is an area in my district with substantial 
flood control problems, which threatens homes and businesses in Santa 
Cruz and Monterey Counties. I have worked extensively with officials in 
both of these counties and the Corps of Engineers to resolve this 
problem in order to provide safety for the residents there.
  I recognize that the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development is 
under significant budgetary constraints this fiscal year and has thus 
adopted a policy to fund investigations at a level no higher than 
requested by the administration. The administration's request for 
investigations on the Pajaro River was $600,000, with an additional 
$50,000 request for the basin study. However, this request was prepared 
prior to the agreement between the Corps and the local sponsors, which 
subsequently set a higher level of funding for the project.
  The Corps has revised their earlier estimates, and has developed a 
new work plan and budget that calls for a total of $1.95 million in 
fiscal year 2001. They have submitted a revised estimate on their 
ability to spend which reflects this new higher amount. I would like to 
request that my good friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations, amend the 
amount as we go along to allocate to the investigations on the Pajaro 
River to reflect this agreement with the Corps and the new estimate of 
their ability to pay.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for 
yielding, and I want to state that I recognize the importance to his 
constituents to improve flood control on the Pajaro River. The Corps 
has demonstrated their ability to spend $1.95 million on the 
investigations of these two projects.
  Given the revision of the Corps's estimates since the submission of 
the President's budget, I pledge to do everything I can to help the 
gentleman receive additional monies from the Corps for purposes of 
implementing these worthy projects.
  Mr. FARR of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for working on this matter; and I look forward to working 
with him in the future.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire what time is remaining on 
each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) has 
15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), for the purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I hope I can do it in 2 minutes.
  Before I engage in a colloquy, I do want to associate myself quickly 
with all the outstanding comments that have been made about the 
brilliant political career, the public service, and especially the 
attitude of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). People from 
one end of this place to the other really appreciate the spirit of the 
gentleman from California. The gentleman from California has done a 
great job and brought so much to public service in this country. And I 
hope the gentleman enjoys the game of golf from this point on, because 
the gentleman deserves his retirement.
  Mr. Chairman, the Spallation Neutron Source is one of the most 
important science initiatives of our generation and represents a $1.4 
billion major construction project supported by the Department of 
Energy's Office of Science to build the world's's most powerful source 
of pulsed beams for scientific research and development.

                              {time}  1600

  With its advanced accelerator technology and world-class instrument 
design, SNS will be more than 12 times as powerful as the world's 
current leading neutron source in the U.K. and offer unprecedented 
research opportunities for up to 2,000 scientists each year. This 
research is crucial to supporting advances in biology, polymers, 
magnetic materials, superconductivity, and materials research that will 
continue to keep the U.S. economy strong and keep us at the forefront 
of scientific endeavors around the globe.
  SNS has been subject to many technical and management reviews in the 
past 4 years, including review by the DOE, several external independent 
review teams, the GAO, and the House Committee on Science. These 
reviews have shown conclusively that the technical basis of the SNS is 
sound and that the SNS management is on a solid path to complete the 
project within budget by 2006 as planned. All conditions prescribed in 
the committee report on last year's Energy and Water appropriations 
bill have been satisfied, and the House Committee on Science has 
recommended full funding of the SNS in fiscal year 2001.
  The SNS will fully obligate $190 million in this fiscal year, 
including the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $100 million in 
construction funds and $17.9 in R&D, plus the fiscal year 1999 balances 
brought forward of about $71.4 million. Significant design and 
construction activity has taken place in the last year, with most title 
I design completed, approximately $75 million in procurements being 
awarded and major excavation and grading of the 100-acre site well 
underway.
  Fully funding the fiscal year 2000 requested level is essential to 
maintain the current schedule to complete SNS in 2006 within the total 
project cost of $1.4 billion.
  I know how hard the chairman and his staff have worked to get this

[[Page 12564]]

project to where we are today, and I appreciate that. I acknowledge the 
budget constraints that we are currently under and that so far we have 
not been able to provide the necessary funding that this project needs 
to meet the necessary milestones over the next 12 months.
  I am asking the commitment of the chairman that, as we work together 
during conference, we will do everything possible to significantly 
increase the funding for the Spallation Neutron Source.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) 
for his response.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the request of the gentleman. 
I will certainly work in conference to adequately fund the Spallation 
Neutron Source and, of course, additional funds if that will help.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards) a member of the committee, as well as the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Packard) in a short colloquy.
  As the gentleman knows, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now has 
before it certain legal issues relating to the off-site disposal of 
FUSRAP material.
  My question to the chairman is, will the gentleman confirm that the 
Committee on Appropriations does not wish to influence the judgment of 
the Commission on those issues?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. If any committee 
of Congress wishes to take action regarding the off-site disposal issue 
the Commission is now considering, it ought to be the relevant 
authorization committee of the House that does it.
  I would have no objections to the authorizers of this body taking up 
such issues. But the Committee on Appropriations, appropriately, has 
chosen not to do so.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, even more importantly, I want to thank the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Packard) for a lifetime of service to his Nation. 
He served this country with great distinction in military uniform. And 
much like my mentor in politics, the late Olin E. ``Tiger'' Teague, who 
served this country in such a distinguished way for so many years, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) continued to serve his country 
after he took off the uniform and put on the civilian uniform of public 
servant.
  As someone who worked with the chairman both when he was chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on 
Appropriations, now the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, I want to say 
it was an honor to work with him, to work under him, and to know him. 
He gives the name ``public service'' the very best of meaning because 
of his lifetime of service to our country. And there are military 
families living in better housing today, there are people in 
communities that are less prone to flood control today, there are 
millions of American citizens who, whether they know the name of the 
gentleman or not, are living a better life today and for many years to 
come for their families because of the service of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard) to our country.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those kind 
remarks, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
the time, and I rise in very, very strong support of this bill.
  I wish good luck to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). He 
has done a great job here. We salute him.
  If the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) is still about, we 
salute him. And the staff has done a remarkable job, as well.
  The fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water appropriations bill is a 
balanced piece of legislation balancing the Corps of Engineers, the 
Department of Energy, along with important portions of the Department 
of Interior and other agencies. This is a good and fiscally responsible 
bill, with the non-defense portion of it being some $200 million below 
last area.
  The Nation's energy policy is a prime focus of this bill. We have the 
opportunity here to improve what we can all agree is a lacking and 
flawed energy policy on the part of the Clinton-Gore administration.
  The bill provides for a variety of important education funding for 
our universities, as well as research and development at our national 
labs which are related to the energy supply. This includes nuclear 
energy research under NERI, under NEPO, and under the NEER programs 
along with investment in the future energy source called fusion and the 
Advanced Scientific Computing Research initiative that will bridge the 
software gap, thereby substantially improving our scientific research 
capacity.
  This bill also contains some fantastic work, I believe, on nuclear 
fuel supply, from the beginning of the fuel cycle involving mining, 
conversion and enrichment, to the end of the fuel cycle involving Yucca 
Mountain.
  A new potential cancer cure is advanced in this bill.
  One of the most successful on-time, on-budget programs at the 
Department of Energy is the fusion energy program. Fusion energy is 
treated fairly.
  The cleanup, finally, of our World War II legacy, our nuclear waste 
sites, is another important priority in this bill. It contains some 
excellent work that will refocus the Department of Energy on its 
responsibilities with a new priority on accomplishments by 2010.
  We have all the various interests of the American people at heart 
when we all have programs we hope will be strongly supported. If we 
have more money at some future time, I cannot say at that time or at 
this time that we will, but I am confident we will have an even better 
bill.
  I urge support of this bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Energy and Water 
Development appropriations bill. I thank the distinguished chairman for 
recognizing the need for two flood projects in my area, the Elmsford 
Saw Mill River area and the Ramapo River area, and for providing 
adequate funding for these projects. We thank the distinguished 
chairman for his good work.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4733, the Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations bill, 2001 and want to thank the 
distinguished Committee chairman, the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Packard for his diligent work on producing this important bill.
  The Energy and Water Appropriations bill provides funding for the 
Army Corps of Engineers to provide necessary flood control protection 
against the devastating impact of flooding on lives and property.
  My constituents in Elmsford and Suffern, New York have and continue 
to suffer from the flooding of the Saw Mill River, as evidenced in 
1999, when Hurricane Floyd dropped over 11 inches of rain on my 
congressional district, creating a devastating impact on human life and 
property. Included in Floyd's destruction were constituents who were 
faced with flood waters from both the Saw Mill River and the Ramapo 
River in southwestern N.Y.--destroying homes, businesses and creating 
severe financial stress. After witnessing the destruction in my 
district first-hand, I contacted the U.S. Army Corps and Chairman 
Packard for assistance.
  Accordingly, Chairman Packard has provided the Army Corps with 
adequate funding to begin the phases necessary to prevent such 
destruction in the future.
  I look forward to continuing my work with Chairman Packard as the 
flood control work proceeds in both Elmsford and Suffern.

[[Page 12565]]

  I thank Chairman Packard for his efforts and I urge my colleagues to 
support this important measure.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very, very much. I 
rise today in support of this very excellent bill under tight budget 
constraints.
  I would like to also extend my thanks to the chairman. This is my 
first term on this subcommittee, and he has done an outstanding job, 
being actually new to the subcommittee himself. But the learning curve 
that I have had on this committee has been quite steep; and, with his 
leadership, it has made it much easier.
  And also, anyone who knows the chairman, much has been said about the 
golf, but he attacks his work the same way that he attacks the golf 
course and never stopping, and we have to be on our toes all the time. 
I just want to say how much I appreciate his friendship and really the 
honor of serving here with him.
  This bill is something under the tight budget constraints, like I 
said before, with no new starts as far as projects. The chairman is 
very well aware, and I think the Congress is, that there are scores of 
billions of dollars that are authorized in projects which are waiting 
to be started; and because of the tight constraints that we have, it 
was impossible to have any new starts.
  I also want to emphasize how important this bill is for the upper 
Midwest, for the State of Iowa, as far as the Army Corps of Engineers, 
the projects that they have to deal with in my district as far as 
navigation on the rivers, and what an excellent job I think that they 
do and the constraints that we have.
  If I have a disappointment in the bill, it is in the area of 
renewable energy and as far as biorenewable energy research that I 
think is so very, very important for the future.
  Just in closing, again, I want to thank the chairman and extend my 
gratitude for the great job that he has done.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me add my words of praise to the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Packard) for his great service to this county. He 
is a great man and a friend. I am sure not only his constituents 
appreciate his service, but all his colleagues here and people of this 
great country.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for giving me the 
opportunity to discuss a dredging project that is vital to the Port of 
New York and New Jersey. As the gentleman knows, the Arthur Kill 
channel serves the Howland Hook Marine Terminal on Staten Island, one 
of the United States Army's strategic seaports of embarkation. The 
present 35-foot depth of the Arthur Kill serves as a considerable 
obstacle to large commercial and military vessels that may forestall 
any future growth or endanger the existence of these seaport 
facilities.
  The Port of New York and New Jersey, the Eastern Seaboard's largest, 
is an economic engine for the region and the entire Nation. Locally, 
Port commerce serves as a consumer market of 18 million Americans and 
is estimated to provide 165,000 jobs and $20 billion in economic 
activity.
  As a result of its location, goods that enter the United States 
through the Port can reach the homes of 110 million Americans within 24 
hours. The New York site of the Arthur Kill was for years an eyesore, 
however, vacant of any real activity.
  Today, I am happy to note, that the New York-side is a vibrant and 
expanding area bursting at the seams with almost 1,000 good paying jobs 
and adding $20 million to the existing tax base. This new activity can 
all be predicated on the responsible measure to deepen the Arthur Kill 
channel, which will not only maintain the current business but will 
attract new businesses to the entire region, including New Jersey.
  The modernization and dredging efforts of the Arthur Kill is one of 
the most important economic issues for the New York and New Jersey 
region, as well as the entire Eastern Seaboard.
  In addition to the new jobs that will come with the adequate 
dredging, the completion of this project will help to ensure that the 
United States does not continue to lose more shipping business to 
Canadian shipping competitors in Halifax.
  Last year, the two largest shippers on the New York City side nearly 
relocated their operations to Halifax and have indicated they will do 
so unless considerable harbor improvements are completed by the year 
2009.
  The chairman and the committee have done an excellent job in putting 
this bill together and crafting what I think is a fiscally responsible 
bill and has taken the key step in recognizing the importance of the 
Port of New York and New Jersey by providing funding to dredge the Kill 
Van Kull in Newark Bay. This is welcome news, Mr. Chairman, but it does 
not go far enough to ensure that the Port maintains its position to 
provide millions of consumers with low-cost goods in a timely fashion.
  The Arthur Kill is a natural waterway and tributary to the Kill Van 
Kull. It is not only vital but common sense to begin construction to 
dredge the waterway since the Kill Van Kull is already being dredged 
today.
  The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 authorized the deepening 
of the Arthur Kill channel from 35 to 41 feet. This is prudent. 
Construction to deepen the channel has been included in the President's 
fiscal year 2001 budget for $5 million.
  The Army Corps and the Port Authority, which is the local partner in 
this project, estimate that they will be ready to begin construction in 
November. We have been waiting for years for this opportunity, and I 
think it would be a big mistake not to take action now.
  The chairman has been a terrific leader in all of this, and I would 
like to thank him for allowing me, again, this opportunity to discuss 
with him this important project vital to my district.
  I respectfully request that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Packard), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and other members 
of the Committee on Appropriations help to make this project a reality.

                              {time}  1615

  Before I hear from the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), I 
respectfully yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, first let me join in the encomiums to the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his great work over the 
years and the decades, and we will miss him.
  Let me say that it is true that part of the port of New York is now 
bustling again and part of it still needs major development. The 
channels we are talking about are in the district of the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Fossella), and I appreciate his leadership on this 
project.
  I rise on this because I believe this project is vital not only to 
the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) but to the 
entire port region of New York and New Jersey.
  The Kill Van Kull is the boundary between Staten Island on the south 
and Bayonne on the north and leads from New York Harbor to New York 
Bay, and we are presently dredging that to achieve a depth of 45 feet, 
blasting through solid rock to get to 45 feet.
  If achieved or when achieved, I should say, this will open up access 
to the ports of Newark and Elizabeth. The Arthur Kill is an extension 
of the Kill Van Kull where the shore of Staten Island turns a little 
south, and that has to be part of the same project. That will afford 
access to Howland Hook and Staten Island.
  Without that part of it, the Kill Van Kull project helps New Jersey 
but does not help New York.

[[Page 12566]]

  With that part, the Kill Van Kull project helps both States.
  It was always anticipated and intended that the ports of New York and 
New Jersey would be for the benefit of both States, and the little 
added piece of the Arthur Kill is critical to enabling the New York as 
well as the New Jersey side of the port to be accessed by the existing 
Kill Van Kull project.
  So this project has to be looked at as a unified whole, and the 
Arthur Kill as an extension of the existing Kill Van Kull project. When 
completed, the project together will afford the ability of bigger ships 
to get to New York, Elizabeth, and Howland Hook and will give us a leg 
up on retaining our port business in the United States as against the 
port of Halifax, Nova Scotia, which is not in the United States, 
obviously.
  So I appreciate the cooperation of the gentleman in helping us to 
achieve this dual nature project.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOSSELLA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Fossella), and I would like to say that I can see how a 
reasonable person would conclude that the Arthur Kill is an extension 
of the Kill Van Kull. I understand how the completion in totality of 
this project will benefit both New York and New Jersey.
  I thank the gentleman much for his efforts to ensure that this 
project moves expeditiously forward. I will do what I can in conference 
to find the funds to fund the project.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to 
thank Chairman Packard and the Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky, and the 
Members of the Committee, for their support of Sacramento flood control 
projects included in the FY 2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. 
Flooding remains the single greatest threat to the public safety of the 
Sacramento community, posing a constant risk to the lives of my 
constituents and to the regional economy. Thanks to your efforts and 
the efforts of this Committee, Sacramento can continue to work toward 
improved flood protection.
  With a mere 85-year level of protection, Sacramento remains the 
metropolitan area in this nation most at risk to flooding. More than 
400,000 people and $37 billion in property reside within the Sacramento 
flood plain, posing catastrophic consequences in the event of a flood. 
While Congress will continue to consider the best long-term solution to 
this threat, funding in this bill will provide much needed improvements 
to the existing flood control facilities throughout the region.
  Specifically, this legislation will allow for the continuation of 
levee improvements and bank stabilization projects along the lower 
American and Sacramento Rivers, increasing levee reliability and 
stemming bank erosion. Additionally, I greatly appreciate the 
Committee's willingness to provide funding for projects--including the 
Strong Ranch and Chicken Ranch Sloughs, and Magpie Creek--aimed at 
preventing flooding from a series of smaller rivers and streams that 
present substantial threats separate from those posed by the major 
rivers in the region. Importantly, the Committee's willingness to 
include funding for the American River Comprehensive Plan will allow 
for ongoing Corps of Engineers general investigation work on all area 
flood control needs, including a permanent long-term solution.
  As this legislation moves to a House and Senate conference committee, 
I also would like to ask conferees to support two ``new start'' 
projects of critical importance to the long-term safety of the 
Sacramento region that were included in the 1999 Water Resources 
Development Act. The first would make modifications to the outlet works 
on Folsom Dam, improving its flood control efficiency. The second would 
begin construction on the South Sacramento Streams, which will provide 
a 500-year level of protection for a portion of south Sacramento that 
has long been vulnerable to rising flood waters.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I have concerns about the impact of 
language in the House Energy and Water bill that requires competition 
for aspects of the Department of Energy's (DOE) nonproliferation 
programs. DOE serves a unique role in our nation's nonproliferation 
efforts, and these efforts could be threatened by micro-management that 
forces a piecemeal approach to nonproliferation. The DOE laboratories 
fulfill an essential role in developing and integrating advanced 
scientific techniques and equipment into large-scale prototype systems 
which are critically necessary for our nonproliferation efforts. Unlike 
the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Defense 
(DOD), the DOE selects lead laboratories to serve as overall 
coordinators to facilitate these large-scale development projects. The 
laboratories rely on universities and industry to provide their unique 
expertise to make these efforts successful. Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory (LLNL) out-sources approximately 20 percent of the funds it 
receives to universities and industry as appropriate with the sensitive 
nature of these projects. Many aspects of these projects are very 
sensitive and/or classified. Success requires a knowledge and focus on 
customer requirements, which may also be classified. They require a 
multi-disciplinary approach to accomplish deliverables to the 
intelligence and defense communities. DOE needs to maintain its 
flexibility in using universities and laboratories to meet its critical 
needs in this arena. This work is far too important to experiment with. 
Furthermore, we need to expeditiously pursue all possible advances to 
protect this nation against weapons of mass destruction. We need to 
empower the new National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 
Administrator, General John Gordon, and give him the necessary 
flexibility and the resources to strengthen our atomic energy defense 
and nonproliferation activities. We must give General Gordon the 
freedom to make the decisions he needs to make.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong concerns about 
a provision inserted in House Report 106-693, the report to accompany 
H.R. 4733, the Fiscal Year Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
bill. This provision, which relates to the Army Corps of Engineers' 
hopper dredge fleet, was not in the report considered by the House 
Appropriations Committee and was inserted at the last minute without 
any public debate.
  Although I plan to vote in favor of H.R. 4733, I am concerned about 
the Committee's statement of support for placing the hopper dredge 
McFarland in ready reserve, which was included in House Report 106-693. 
Placing the McFarland in ready reserve would be bad public policy and 
likely mean higher costs to taxpayers.
  The Committee justifies its support for placing the McFarland in 
ready reserve on a report recently issued by the Corps touting the 
success of placing another hopper dredge, the Wheeler, home-ported in 
Louisiana, in ready reserve in 1996. However, I am dubious about the 
validity of this report. An earlier draft of the report, prepared at 
the working level in the New Orleans District, directly contradicts the 
final report, revised at Corps headquarters, by recommending that the 
Wheeler be put back in active status and that no other hopper dredge be 
placed in ready reserve.
  The draft Wheeler report, authored by the New Orleans District office 
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers states, ``Based on the findings of 
this report, there is no other logical recommendation, except for the 
Secretary [of the Army] to report to Congress that the Dredge Wheeler 
is needed to be returned to active status and that no other Federal 
hopper dredges should be placed in ready reserve at this time.'' This 
is a compelling statement.
  The earlier, more substantive draft, found that keeping the Wheeler 
in ready reserve resulted in insufficient response times to meet port 
dredging needs and higher costs to taxpayers because of a lack of 
capacity and competitive bids. The final draft makes no mention of any 
of these problems and makes conclusions and assertions without 
supplying any supporting data or analysis.
  The final Corps report is seriously undermined by the substantive 
conclusions of the draft report. This raises serious questions that 
need to be fully investigated. The House Committee report should not 
rely on this final report as a basis for making further changes to the 
hopper dredge fleet.
  To remain competitive in world markets, to meet domestic 
transportation needs, and to serve the fishing industry, Northwest 
ports and their customers rely on hopper dredges for low-cost and 
timely completion of dredging projects. Without the McFarland to do 
needed work on the East Coast, the Northwest dredges might be obligated 
to meet needs outside the region.
  Timely availability of dredges to perform both planned and emergency 
dredging work remains a concern in the Pacific Northwest. Sufficient 
capacity must be available to conduct the necessary annual dredging at 
numerous ports during the short dredging season. In addition, emergency 
dredging is often needed to restore the federal navigation channel to 
allow commerce to pass. Shoaling can occur rapidly with potentially 
dangerous impact on export shipping and the sport and commercial 
fishing fleet. Shippers and ports cannot afford to wait several weeks 
or even months for

[[Page 12567]]

dredging while private contractors are engaged and move their dredges 
to the site of the work, often from long distances. Trade commitments 
and vessel safety are at risk. At this time, it does not appear that 
the private dredge industry has sufficient capacity to conduct all the 
needed dredging work in the Pacific Northwest.
  Even with expanded capacity, I am also concerned that the low number 
of private industry bids for work in the Northwest could force dredging 
costs higher without the availability of the federal dredges. In 1996, 
an Army's Audit Agency report raised serious questions about private 
dredge company bidding practices.
  In 1997, the Corps itself released a study outlining eight options 
for the future of its hopper dredge fleet. Of these options, the one 
that showed the lowest cost to the U.S. taxpayers required full active 
status of the Corps hopper dredge fleet. All the other options, while 
providing more work for the private industry, meant higher costs to the 
taxpayer.
  The federal dredges designed specifically for Corps navigation 
projects, are uniquely capable of performing the required maintenance 
dredging work at Northwest coastal ports. The experience of these ports 
is that when the private dredges have been contracted by the Corps, 
they have often not performed the work in a manner consistent with the 
navigation and operational needs of the local port authorities and port 
users. From reports that reach me from the field, the quality of the 
dredging work performed by the private dredges is not equal to the 
level of the federal dredges, resulting in disruption to navigation and 
port operations. In short, the private dredges have not shown that they 
can perform the work presently being performed by the federal dredges 
in the Northwest.
  For these reasons, it would be imprudent to make changes in the 
operation of the Corps minimum dredge fleet at this time. I hope that 
the provisions in the House Report will not be endorsed in the final 
product of this Congress.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the 
committee for providing $5 million for the Brevard County Beach 
Renourishment Project. This $5 million, when combined with the $5 
million we approved last year and the 37 percent local match will 
provide a total of $14 million in renourishment funding this year. 
Beginning in October, just a few short months from now, the contractor 
will move into place and begin placing sand on these beaches. This is a 
great accomplishment and everyone who has worked on this effort should 
be commended.
  This $5 million appropriation matches last year's earmark of $5 
million and moves the project forward. Last year's Water Resources and 
Development Act (WRDA) authorized more than 150 new projects; however, 
the bill before us does not provide funding for any of those new 
starts. This clearly demonstrates the difficulty in securing an 
appropriation for a new Corps project. We were successful in securing 
funding in the fiscal year 2000 budget and this additional funding 
builds on that success.
  This will help us make significant progress on the north reach of the 
renourishment project. This 9.4 mile stretch reaches from Patrick Air 
Force Base north to Canaveral Inlet.
  Clearly, a considerable amount of the erosion along Brevard's beaches 
south of Canaveral Inlet is due to the federal navigation inlet which 
has disrupted the natural southward flow of the sand. Corps studies as 
far back as the early 1960s have documented the severe loss of sand 
along Brevard's beaches. More recently, and with more years of measured 
losses available, the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers 
concluded, in June 1989, that ``the net loss of littoral material from 
the shore line to the south of the harbor is estimated to be between 
335,000 and 410,000 cubic yards a year.''
  Consistent with Section 227(A)(2) of WRDA '96, this Project should 
receive preference based on the mitigation of damages attributable to 
the Federal Navigation Project. The bill before us recognizes this 
preference. Over the 40 year history of the inlet, we have lost 
approximately 18 million cubic yards of sand along Brevard's beaches, 
primarily as a result of the federal navigation channel. Houses that 
once stood great distances from the shore now literally have waves at 
their doorstep. This funding will help us take some significant steps 
toward addressing this concern and will add another 75 to 100 feet of 
beach along Brevard's coast.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the chairman of 
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking 
member of the subcommittee for their exceptional work in bringing this 
bill to the Floor.
  This Member recognizes that extremely tight budgetary constraints 
made the job of the subcommittee much more difficult this year. 
Therefore, the subcommittee is to be commended for its diligence in 
creating such a fiscally responsible bill. In light of these budgetary 
pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation to the 
subcommittee and formally recognize that the Energy and Water 
Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 includes funding 
for several water projects that are of great importance to Nebraska.
  This Member greatly appreciates the $12 million funding level 
provided for the four-state Missouri River Mitigation Project. The 
funding is needed to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the 
federally sponsored channelization and stabilization projects of the 
Pick-Sloan era. The islands, wetlands, and flat floodplains needed to 
support the wildlife and waterfowl that once lived along the river are 
gone. An estimated 475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, 
Missouri, and Kansas have been lost. Today's fishery resources are 
estimated to be only one-fifth of those which existed in predevelopment 
days.
  In 1986, the Congress authorized over $50 million to fund the 
Missouri River Mitigation Project to restore fish and wildlife habitat 
lost due to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan 
plan.
  In addition, this bill provides additional funding for flood-related 
projects of tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's 1st 
Congressional District. Mr. Chairman, flooding in 1993 temporarily 
closed Interstate 80 and seriously threatened the Lincoln municipal 
water system which is located along the Platte River near Ashland, NE. 
Therefore, this Member is extremely pleased the committee agreed to 
continue funding for the Lower Platte River and Tributaries Flood 
Control Study. This study should help formulate and develop feasible 
solutions which will alleviate future flood problems along the Lower 
Platte River and tributaries.
  This Member is also particularly pleased that this bill includes 
$220,000 for the planning, engineering and design phase of the Sand 
Creek Watershed project in Saunders County, NE.
  Mr. Chairman, additionally, the bill provides $275,000 for the 
ongoing flood control project for Antelope Creek which runs through the 
heart of Nebraska's capital city, Lincoln. The funding is to be used 
for preconstruction engineering and design work. The purpose of the 
project is to implement solutions to multi-faceted problems involving 
the flood control and drainage problems in Antelope Creek as well as 
existing transportation and safety problems all within the context of 
broad land use issues. This Member continues to have a strong interest 
in the project since he was responsible for stimulating the city of 
Lincoln, the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, and the 
University of Nebraska-Lincoln to work jointly and cooperatively with 
the Army Corps of Engineers to identify an effective flood control 
system for downtown Lincoln.
  Antelope Creek, which was originally a small meandering stream, 
became a straightened urban drainage channel as the city of Lincoln 
grew and urbanized. Resulting erosion has deepened and widened the 
channel and created an unstable situation. A ten-foot by twenty-foot 
(height and width) closed underground conduit that was constructed 
between 1911 and 1916 now requires significant maintenance and major 
rehabilitation. The current situation represents a dangerous flood 
threat to adjacent public and private facilities.
  The goals of the project are to construct a flood overflow conveyance 
channel which would narrow the flood plain from up to seven blocks wide 
to the 150-foot wide channel. The project will include trails and 
bridges and improve bikeway and pedestrian systems.
  Finally, this Member is also pleased that the bill provides funding 
for the Missouri National Recreational River Project. This project 
addresses a serious problem by protecting the river banks from the 
extraordinary and excessive erosion rates caused by the sporadic and 
varying releases from the Gavins Point Dam. These erosion rates are a 
result of previous work on the river by the Federal Government.
  Again Mr. Chairman, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman 
from California (Mr. Packard), the chairman of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the 
subcommittee for their support of projects which are important to 
Nebraska and the 1st Congressional District, as well as to the people 
living in the Missouri River Basin.
  To Chairman Packard, who is retiring from Congress at the end of this 
term, this Member

[[Page 12568]]

wants you to know what your courteous and conscientious contact with 
this Member and all of our colleagues is very widely recognized. You 
and your contributions to the public interest through your service in 
the House will be greatly missed.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY 2001 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill.
  Once again, under the leadership of the chairman and the ranking 
member, we have before us a relatively well-balanced and bipartisan 
bill despite the restrictive allocations. I want to thank both of them 
for all of their hard work and time they have invested in this bill. I 
understand that they have not had an easy job, but they were able to do 
very well with what little they had. I also want to congratulate 
Chairman Packard for his years of public service and his leadership at 
the helm of the subcommittee during this Congress.
  These budgetary constraints, as my colleague from Indiana has pointed 
out before, does not keep pace with the growing water infrastructure 
needs of this nation. The Army Corps of Engineers has tremendous 
responsibilities across this nation, and this funding bill shortchanges 
a number of Corps water projects when money is needed the most.
  In my district, the Corps has a number of ongoing flood control 
projects. Unfortunately, this bill does not fully fund these important 
priorities. Ongoing flood control projects at Stoney Creek and Natalie 
Creek could provide meaningful and substantive protection from flooding 
to thousands of my constituents and save the communities from millions 
of dollars of potential damages. I believe that it is critical to 
ensure that these flood control projects proceed without unnecessary 
delays, and I will continue to work with the Corps of Engineers to make 
sure this happens.
  I hope that as this bill goes to conference, we can all work toward a 
final bill that will more accurately reflect the funding needs for our 
nation's water infrastructure and fully fund the important Corps water 
projects in my district.
  Again, I want to salute the chairman and ranking member for their 
dedication and hard work in bringing this bill to the floor. I look 
forward to working with them when this bill goes to conference.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4733, the FY 
2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I would first like to thank 
Chairman Packard and Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard work on 
this important legislation. I would also like to thank my good friend 
from Texas, Mr. Edwards, for all the help he and his office have 
provided me.
  I strongly support the decision of the Subcommittee on Energy & Water 
to ensure the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers receives adequate funding to 
continue their vital work in the areas of flood control and 
navigational improvement. I would also like to compliment the 
administration for their decision to fully fund the Corps' budget. This 
funding level recognizes the critical economic and public safety 
initiatives contained within the legislation. Because many flood and 
navigation projects located in my district are on accelerated 
construction schedules, full funding by the administration and the 
subcommittee will ensure the expedited completion at great savings to 
the taxpayers.
  I am very pleased by the support this legislation provides for 
addressing the chronic flooding problems of Harris County, TX. H.R. 
4733, includes vital funding for several flood control projects in the 
Houston area. These projects include Brays, Sims, Buffalo, Hunting, and 
White Oaks bayous.
  I am most gratified that the subcommittee, for the second consecutive 
year, decided to fully fund the Brays Bayou project at $6 million for 
FY 2001. This project is necessary to improve flooding protection for 
an extensively developed residential area along Brays Bayou in 
southwest Harris County. The project consists of 3 miles of channel 
improvements, three flood detention basins, and 7 miles of stream 
diversion and will provide a 25-year level of flood protection. The 
project was originally authorized in the Water Resources Development 
Act of 1990, as part of a $400 million federal/local flood control 
project.
  Subsequently, the Brays project as reauthorized was one of the 
original sites for a demonstration project for a new federal 
reimbursement program, as part of the Water Resources Development Act 
(WRDA) of 1996 based upon legislation drafted by Mr. DeLay and myself. 
This unique program has strengthened and enhanced the Corps/Local 
Sponsor role by giving the local sponsor a lead role and providing for 
reimbursement by the Federal Government to the local sponsor for the 
traditional Federal portion of work accomplished. Recently, the local 
sponsor, the Harris County Commissioners Court approved of the Brays 
redesign per WRDA '96 and now this project was moved forward with 
strong public support.
  I am also gratified that the subcommittee decided to fund the Sims 
Bayou project at $11.8 million, the level requested by the 
administration. This project is necessary to improve flood protection 
for an extensively developed urban area along Sims Bayou in southern 
Harris County. This project, authorized as part of the 1988 WRDA bill, 
consists of 19.3 miles of channel enlargement, rectification, and 
erosion control beginning at the mouth of the bayou at the Houston Ship 
Channel and will provide a 25-year level of flood protection. This 
ongoing project is scheduled to be completed 2 years ahead of schedule 
in 2004.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that this legislation provides $53.5 
million to fully fund continuing construction on the Houston Ship 
Channel expansion project. Upon completion, this project will likely 
generate tremendous economic and environmental benefits to the Nation 
and will enhance one of our region's most important trade and economic 
centers.
  The Houston Ship Channel, one of the world's most heavily trafficked 
ports, desperately needs expansion to meet the challenges of expanding 
global trade and to maintain its competitive edge as a major 
international port. Currently, the Port of Houston is the second 
largest port in the United States in total tonnage, and is a catalyst 
for the southeast Texas economy, contributing more than $5 billion 
annually and providing 200,000 jobs.
  The Houston Ship Channel expansion project calls for deepening the 
channel from 40 to 45 feet and widening it from 400 to 530 feet. The 
ship channel modernization, considered the largest dredging project 
since the construction of the Panama Canal, will preserve the Port of 
Houston's status as one of the premier deep-channel gulf ports and one 
of the top transit points for cargo in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I am also pleased that H.R. 4733 also reauthorizes the 
operation and utilization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through 
the end of FY 2001 and restores the President's authority to release 
oil from the reserve. In light of today's rising oil prices, it is 
imperative that the President has the power to access oil reserves paid 
for with taxpayer dollars.
  Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their support and 
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have no other requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time under 
general debate, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendment printed in House Report 106-701 may be offered only by 
a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in 
the reading of the bill, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4733

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2001, for energy and water development, 
     and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

       The following appropriations shall be expended under the 
     direction of the Secretary

[[Page 12569]]

     of the Army and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers for 
     authorized civil functions of the Department of the Army 
     pertaining to rivers and harbors, flood control, beach 
     erosion, and related purposes.

                         General Investigations

       For expenses necessary for the collection and study of 
     basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood 
     control, shore protection, and related projects, restudy of 
     authorized projects, miscellaneous investigations, and, when 
     authorized by laws, surveys and detailed studies and plans 
     and specifications of projects prior to construction, 
     $153,327,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That in conducting the Southwest Valley Flood Damage 
     Reduction, Albuquerque, New Mexico, study, the Secretary of 
     the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, shall 
     include an evaluation of flood damage reduction measures that 
     would otherwise be excluded from feasibility analysis based 
     on restrictive policies regarding the frequency of flooding, 
     the drainage area, and the amount of runoff.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hulshof

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Hulshof:
       In title I of the bill, under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF 
     DEFENSE--CIVIL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY--General 
     Investigations'' insert after the first dollar amount 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       In title I of the bill, under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF 
     DEFENSE--CIVIL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, General Expenses'' 
     insert after the first dollar amount ``(decreased by 
     $2,000,000)''.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, let me commence by also commending the 
chairman of the appropriations subcommittee and add my kudos to those 
that have been mentioned previously and wish him well as he begins his 
next chapter.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to increase the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers' general investigations account by $2 million. 
Funding for this amendment would be offset by a $2 million decrease in 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' general expense account.
  The intent of this amendment is to provide the Corps with adequate 
funding to begin its initial study of the Upper Mississippi River 
Comprehensive Plan.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, many Members who served this body back in 1993 and 
through 1995 remember the great flood, as we called it in the Midwest. 
The great flood of 1993 took 47 lives, left roughly 74,000 individuals 
homeless, and caused between $15 billion and $20 billion in damages. 
While existing flood control measures at the time did prevent nearly 
$19 billion in potential damages along the Upper Mississippi River 
Basin, an integrated flood control policy could have prevented further 
loss of life and property.
  The Upper Mississippi and Illinois River Valleys currently lack a 
coordinated approach to address navigation, flood control and 
environmental restoration. I would announce to the Chair that the 
comprehensive plan was authorized by section 459 of the Water Resources 
Development Act, otherwise known as WRDA 1999, and it would be the 
first to focus on developing and implementing a system for integrated 
river management.
  Specifically, the comprehensive plan will call for systemic flood 
control and flood damage reduction; continued maintenance and 
improvement of navigation; improved management of nutrients and 
sediment, including bank erosion; environmental stewardship and 
increased recreation opportunities in the Upper Mississippi and 
Illinois River Basins.
  The plan will be a collaborative effort among three core districts, 
specifically the St. Paul, Rock Island and Saint Louis Army Corps 
district offices; other Federal agencies, including the States of 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, and of course my home State of 
Missouri, and a host of other non-Federal organizations. A task force 
will be created to guide and coordinate development of the plan. The 
plan will identify future management actions and make recommendations 
for systemic improvement of the river basin again to provide multiple 
benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, to comply with House rules, I again want to reiterate 
that the $2 million increase in the Corps' general investigations 
account should be used to fund this comprehensive plan. Recognizing 
that we were not trying to legislate on an appropriations bill, we 
crafted it such. It is my understanding that within the general 
investigations account that $2 million for the comprehensive plan 
should be designated under the Illinois subheading on page 13 of the 
committee report.
  One other point I would like for this body to consider is that WRDA 
1999 gave the Army Corps of Engineers 3 years from its enactment to 
submit a project study on the comprehensive plan, and to the House 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. Chairman, WRDA 1999 was signed into law last August without 
adopting this amendment, this bipartisan amendment, I might add, 
cosponsored by my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), with support from the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). Without adopting this amendment, 
the Corps will not have the financial resources to do as required by 
law.
  To conclude, I do want to remind my colleagues that the comprehensive 
plan enjoys bipartisan support. This is not the locks and dams study, 
as some have asked. This is completely offset. I, along with the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the co-chair of the Mississippi 
River Caucus, proposed this amendment along with the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  The Mississippi River Caucus was formed back in 1997 with the 
expectation that those Members whose districts include and depend on 
the Mississippi River could work together in a bipartisan manner to 
help the Corps and those river stakeholders improve the Mississippi 
River system as a whole. This is exactly what the comprehensive plan 
would do, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hulshof amendment to the 
energy and water appropriations bill. The amendment provides $2 million 
to the Corps of Engineers so they can begin implementation of The 
Comprehensive Plan for the Upper Mississippi River Basin. This is 
something that was already authorized in WRDA 1999; but it has received 
no funding, so the implementation has yet to take place.
  The plan calls for the Corps to develop a coordinated basin-wide 
approach to flood control and flood damage reduction, and as a co-chair 
of the Upper Mississippi River Task Force, I have consistently worked 
to develop bipartisan support for Corps plans and projects that take a 
comprehensive and basin-wide approach and that support the vision of 
the Mississippi River as a complex, multiple-use resource. The 
Comprehensive Plan calls for the Corps to investigate the fullest range 
of flood control and damage reduction measures, including nonstructural 
approaches to flood control, management plans to reduce runoff from 
farm fields and city streets, and habitat restoration programs.
  These nontraditional approaches to flood control are particularly 
beneficial and cost effective. They protect farmers and city dwellers 
from floods at the same time that they improve water quality and 
restore the aquatic wetland and floodplain habitats that are so highly 
valued by fisherman, hunters, and recreationalists. The comprehensive 
plan embodies an approach to planning that I think should become the 
norm for the Corps of Engineers in future years.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and to the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for the work in 
increasing the funding levels for the Upper Mississippi River 
Environmental Management Program. The EMP is a cooperative effort among 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
the U.S. Geological Service and five Upper Mississippi River Basin

[[Page 12570]]

States to ensure the coordinated development and enhancement of the 
Upper Mississippi River system.
  The program widely cited as a model for inner-agency and interstate 
cooperation is designed to evaluate, restore and enhance riverine and 
wetland habitat along a 1,200 mile stretch of the Upper Mississippi and 
Illinois Rivers.
  In WRDA 1999, the EMP received permanent reauthorization at an 
increased funding level of $33.2 million, and while the Upper 
Mississippi River Task Force had requested $25 million for the EMP for 
this fiscal year, I recognize that the House's inadequate 302(b) 
allocations impose considerable restraints on the subcommittee and that 
the $3 million increase over the administration's request represents a 
significant, if still insufficient, increase in funding.
  Maintaining a proper balance between the economic growth and the 
environmental protection is essential to maintain the health of the 
Mississippi and Illinois Rivers and the communities within its 
watershed.
  Achieving this balance requires the innovative and cooperative 
efforts of the Federal, State, local interests. The comprehensive plan 
and the EMP program are core programs that embody this spirit. It is 
important for this Congress to show our support for programs that will 
work proactively and cooperatively to reduce flood damage, maintain an 
appropriate navigation infrastructure, and enhance the environmental 
qualities of the Mississippi River system for generations to come.
  Mr. Chairman, I for too long now have felt that the Mississippi 
River, America's river, has been the great natural resource cutting 
right through the heart of our country that has gone neglected as a 
national priority in this Congress. And working within the task force 
in a bipartisan fashion, we have been trying to coordinate our efforts 
between the north and south ends of the river to develop programs and 
to offer the support and resources we need to protect this very 
important natural resource.
  Why is this important? It is important because it is North America's 
largest migratory route. It is also the primary drinking source for 22 
million Americans, and for the Upper Mississippi region alone it has a 
$1.6 billion recreation impact as well as a $6.6 billion tourism impact 
for local communities. In fact, we have more visitors that come every 
year to visit the Upper Mississippi Wildlife Refuge than who visit the 
entire Yellowstone National Park system. So this is a very valuable 
resource that we need to do, as a body, a better job of providing 
resources.
  The comprehensive plan that my friend, the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Hulshof), is trying to fund with this amendment is a step in the 
right direction, along with other efforts that we have taken on the 
task force to draw more attention to programs that affect the 
Mississippi River Basin.
  So I would call upon my colleagues to look at this amendment and 
support it. I think the offset is something that is reasonable in 
working with the Corps of Engineers coming out of administrative 
expenses, and this is a step, a very important step, to developing the 
comprehensive plan on a basin-wide approach which is long overdue for 
the Mississippi River.
  I thank the gentleman again for offering the amendment.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, it is with great reluctance that I rise to 
oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). I 
have no problem with the project. In fact, if we would have had the 
funds, we would have liked to have funded the request of the gentleman, 
but because of a lack of funds, we treated every person's project 
equally in the bill.
  There were literally hundreds of projects that were authorized in 
WRDA 1999; and if we open up one project to funding, then we have to 
give equal treatment to all applicants for funding as a result of WRDA 
1999 authorizations, and it is for that reason, and that reason only, 
that I oppose the amendment.
  In fact, if the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) would withdraw 
his amendment, I will commit to do all I can to help find the funds as 
we go to conference. There is a hope that we might get additional funds 
before we go to conference, and if we do, we are hoping that we can 
fund some of the new starts.
  We have not even funded all of the ongoing projects in the bill this 
year, those that are already under construction and to fund a new 
project and not have the funds to complete existing projects, I think 
would be irresponsible.
  With that in mind, I would sincerely ask the gentleman to withdraw 
the amendment, with the assurance that I will do all I can to find the 
funds for him as we go to conference, otherwise I would have to oppose 
the amendment.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Again, with all the great respect for the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard), I consider him just that, a gentleman, in 
this body, were it not for the time limit on the authorization, and 
that is the clock is running on this authorized project and the fact 
that the Corps of Engineers is expected to report back in about a year 
and a half, I would accept the invitation of the gentleman, otherwise, 
I am afraid I am going to have to insist on my amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, if I can reclaim my time, I would simply 
like to ask Members then under the circumstances to vote against the 
amendment. Certainly it is at the expense of all other WRDA 1999 
authorized projects, if we fund one. It would not be fair to the rest 
of the Members of Congress that have asked for funding for authorized 
projects in WRDA 1999. I think it is imperative that we are fair to all 
Members.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Hulshof amendment. In fact, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and I have worked very closely 
with him on a number of things, and my good friend from Missouri, my 
neighbor, my good friend from Illinois, just across the river, 
``kattywompus'' as we say down our way, has a lot of concerns.
  I would say to the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard), we 
respect the gentleman's work on this very, very much, but this is not 
really a project in the sense that we think of projects. This involves 
the Mississippi. This involves the Illinois. This involves a great 
expanse, involving much more than any of us would have in an individual 
project, and our joint interest in this is for a number of reasons.
  We have worked very hard to get folks along the river to realize what 
a great resource it is in many, many ways. I think that the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Packard) recognizes and appreciates that. I 
have no doubt about that, but there is a lot of interest groups out 
there that have different opinions.
  Part of our process with our Mississippi River Caucus that the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) and I have cosponsored is to 
bring those folks together to see if we cannot work out how to take 
care of the navigation needs, the commerce needs, the things to do with 
recreation, the environment and so on, and we feel like we are making 
some progress.
  We feel good about it. Now, this plan is needed so we can proceed, so 
we can go forth. It has been authorized by WRDA, and we would like now 
to put the resource with it to make this happen. In fact, I say to the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) this very respectfully, we 
had hoped that if this would pass today that the gentleman would carry 
forth with the enthusiasm to conference to maybe restore that offset to 
keep things going.
  We would not want to put an idea in the gentleman's mind, but I will 
take that opportunity. So thanks so much for listening, but different 
things have been said about how people depend on that river for 
commerce. They depend on the river for recreation. They are concerned 
about preserving the environment and all these things, and we are, too.

[[Page 12571]]

  We are going forward with the premise with this study and what would 
bring to bear that we can put those kinds of folks together in the same 
room, so to speak, and we can work these things out. That is really 
what we are trying to do. It is not a project for me. It is not a 
project for the gentleman from Missouri (Congressman Hulshof) or the 
gentleman from Illinois (Congressman Shimkus) or anybody else, it is 
for the entire resource of the Mississippi and the Illinois. I think 
actually it will go on to be even beyond that.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, did the rule provide for a rolling of the 
votes to a later date if a vote is called for on any amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has the authority to postpone requests for 
recorded votes.
  Mr. PACKARD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, with reluctance I come to the floor also making an 
appeal to the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) to be 
supportive of this amendment, I do that with great respect to my 
friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell), the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), myself, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) 
who just spoke earlier.
  In our short 4 years of being Members of Congress, we have tried to 
marry the interests of a great diverse group of people who want to 
preserve this great national asset that we have, which is the 
Mississippi River, and preserve it for a lot of activities, a lot of 
things, from the transportation needs of our agricultural sector to get 
our goods south to take advantage of the world markets, to 
environmental stewardship of some of the greatest hunting and fishing 
locations in the country.
  In fact, in my district, Pike County, Illinois has the largest white 
tail deer population; and hunters come from all over which helps the 
farmers meet their ends in low commodity prices. We know of the problem 
in the Gulf of Mexico, and having a good plan to address the runoff 
issues is a good way to be environment stewards, increased recreational 
activities on the Mississippi.
  A lot of these groups that we have been dealing with for 4 years 
would not like to see any other group exist, but if we work with a 
plan, if we go in a manner to bring people at the table and work on a 
plan for the stewardship of this great national resource, then we have 
something that we cannot only benefit from, but that we can pass down 
to our families and our grandchildren.
  The Mississippi River Caucus' members stretch from Minnesota all the 
way down to Louisiana. We are concerned about the river. I think that 
the Hulshof amendment, which takes funds from just the core staffing to 
focus on the time-sensitive issue of getting this plan developed, is to 
be commended.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues who are concerned about our 
ability to compete in the world market, the agricultural sector of the 
world, environmental stewardship and creating recreational 
opportunities up and down the Mississippi to be in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is attempting to do 
with his amendment. I appreciate the need, and I also appreciate the 
comments of the Members who spoke before me. I would associate myself 
with the remarks of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and 
rise in opposition to the Hulshof amendment for three key reasons.
  One is we have worked very hard to wisely spend every penny of water 
money available in as fair a fashion as possible, and in making that 
money go as far as possible, we did not, in this bill, fund any new 
starts, any new reimbursements, any new studies. That is an arbitrary 
decision, but it is one that both sides have stuck to with a great deal 
of scrupulous care. I think at this late moment, understanding the 
need, coming from a Great Lakes State myself and the intercontinental 
United States, I would oppose, first of all, for that reason.
  Secondly, I am concerned that because we are taking money from one 
Army Corps account and moving it to another, we are simply obligating 
the Corps with an additional responsibility that we are not paying for 
with new money. The fact is, the account that the gentleman is taking 
the money from is at current level, there is no increase. It is $2\1/2\ 
million below the administration's request, and we would cut it by an 
additional $2 million.
  Finally, the obvious point, and that is that this would also then 
require a reduction in force at the very time when we are asking the 
Corps to assume greater responsibilities than ever before across the 
Nation.
  Again, it is out of no disrespect for the Member or the need of the 
constituents he represents or the other speakers, but I am adamantly 
opposed to his amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending 
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) 
will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilchrest

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest:
       Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(decreased by $100,000)''.

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the Corps of 
Engineer's General Investigation Account by $100,000, the amount 
provided to continue the study to deepen the C&D Canal in my district.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform the Members that this is a 
project that has been ongoing for most of the 1990s. And in 1996, in a 
meeting I had at the Corps of Engineers headquarters in Washington, 
with the Philadelphia Corps in my district in Chestertown, Maryland, we 
went over all of the numbers, the math and came to a very, very clear 
determination that the benefit-to-cost ration on this particular 
project in Maryland did not meet the threshold in order to be funded by 
the Federal Government because there was no benefit to the taxpayers.
  It is 4 years later. Every year since 1996, the Philadelphia district 
has come up with a benefit-to-cost ratio. Under scrutiny from the 
headquarters in Washington, it has always failed muster. We are not 
going to close the C&D Canal, there will be no decrease in commerce, 
but there is two things that we have seen very clearly, that to 
continue studying this issue that the Corps of Engineers has not been 
able to justify for most of the 1990s is a waste of the taxpayers 
dollars, so therefore we would like to cut $100,000 from any more study 
in this particular area.
  It does not reduce commerce in the C&D Canal. I want to make that 
very clear, that is in the Corps' own document. The Corps says if we 
deepen it, there will be no increase in commerce to the Port of 
Baltimore. The Port of Baltimore has a 50-foot deep channel right now 
to the Port down the Bay out into the ocean. It is not a matter of not 
being able to accommodate the number of ships that are necessary.
  In these studies, if we looked at it from an environmental 
perspective, deepening the canal will bring in more salty, polluted 
water from the Delaware River, into the sensitive spawning areas in the 
upper Chesapeake Bay.

                              {time}  1645

  But even more interesting than that, the environmental study has not 
been

[[Page 12572]]

concluded. Even though the Washington Corps asked it to go along with 
the feasibility study, the Philadelphia district did not do that. But 
there is something that we found out just a few months ago, which was 
rather astounding, in the study to determine whether there was going to 
be a change of water flow from the Delaware River or from the 
Chesapeake Bay.
  There is an organization in the Corps in Mississippi called the Water 
Environmental Studies, or WES. WES gave to the State of Delaware an 
environmental water flow study that showed the water flowing from 
Delaware to Maryland, and then WES gave a study to Maryland showing 
that the water, as a result of the deepening, would go from the 
Chesapeake Bay to the Delaware River. When we confronted them with this 
rather minor conflict, they said, well, we have to redo the study.
  Mr. Chairman, one other comment about the environmental aspect of 
this. The northern route, which is not necessary to increase commerce 
by deepening it, if it is deepened, will result in 18 million cubic 
yards of dredge material being dumped overboard into the Chesapeake 
Bay. Now, to use the Corps' own words, what does that mean as far as 
nutrients are concerned, and nutrients is really another word for 
pollution. By dumping 18 million cubic yards of dredge material 
directly into the Chesapeake Bay, a stone's throw north of the 
Chesapeake Bay Bridge, it means the equivalent of adding a sewage 
treatment plant the size of the City of Annapolis, dumping in an 
uncontrolled amount of 2 million pounds of ammonia, some people call 
that nitrogen, they are the same thing, and 700,000 pounds of 
phosphorous.
  Now, the average farmer in my congressional district is taking great 
pains to reduce the amount of silt or nutrients that they let into the 
Chesapeake Bay or its tributaries. A homeowner, if he wants to build a 
driveway has to put up a silt fence. The whole State of Maryland is 
going to great lengths to try to figure out how they can reduce the 
number of nutrients going into the Chesapeake Bay. All we want to do 
with this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is because the Corps has not been 
able to, in the decade of the 1990s, financially justify to the 
taxpayers of the United States this project and time and time and time 
again, every time it came up for scrutiny, the project was not 
justified, we want to save the taxpayers' dollars and cut $100,000 from 
this study.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I first heard about this amendment about 4 hours ago.
  Let me first put this in context for the Members. I believe that five 
Members of the Maryland delegation will rise in strong opposition to 
this amendment. Furthermore, while I have great respect for my 
colleague, we all adjoin the Chesapeake Bay, as a number of other 
districts adjoin parts of other waterways. We are talking about the 
waterways of Maryland. No particular one of us owns the waterways; they 
are common to all of us.
  The gentleman says this has been a controversy in the 1990s and that 
throughout the decade of the 1990s, the Corps has been unable to 
justify the costs of this project. Now, the gentleman has another 
amendment and we will be talking about it as well; but I want to call 
to the attention of the House of Representatives, my colleagues, a 
letter dated April 30, 1996. That letter was sent to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), chairman of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure. In it, the Maryland delegation, all eight Members, 
all 4 Republicans and all 4 Democrats, wrote to the committee stating: 
``We write to ask your committee's favorable consideration of 3 
important channel dredging projects affecting the welfare of the Port 
of Baltimore and the State of Maryland.''
  We went on to say in the next paragraph, ``We cannot stress enough 
the importance of these projects in maintaining the vitality of the 
port. In fact, the competitive position of the port could turn, in 
large measure, on their implementation.''
  That letter was signed by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), 
the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich), the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Wynn), myself, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). 
Why? Because we felt this was a vital project to our State and to the 
economic viability of our port on which thousands of persons rely. Now, 
my two colleagues from Baltimore will speak, I think, more pointedly to 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). The deepening of the C&D Canal is absolutely 
essential for the viability of Maryland's port. The Port of Baltimore 
operates in an increasingly competitive environment. Anybody who 
represents a port knows that to be the case. The C&D Canal is a major 
access route between the Port of Baltimore and the North Atlantic coast 
ports. Use of the canal saves shipping lines time and money, which 
means competitive positions. The size of ships entering North Atlantic 
coast ports, including Baltimore, are already outgrowing the depth of 
the C&D Canal.
  That is why this study is being conducted, and this $100,000 is 
absolutely essential to complete this study before this project can 
proceed. As container vessels outgrow their ability to safely use the 
C&D Canal because of sailing draft constraints, they will be forced to 
sale substantially greater distances, via Cape Henry between the Port 
of Baltimore and North Atlantic coast ports, or use another port. That 
is why we wrote this letter. All eight Members of the Maryland 
delegation signed this letter.
  The transfer of cargo jobs and taxes to other States will have an 
absolutely deleterious effect on the citizens of the State of Maryland. 
Moreover, although vessel services and cargo may be lost due to a 
failure to maintain competitive access channel depth, the substantial 
fixed costs of the port do not change for the smaller volume of 
remaining cargo. This will result in reduced port efficiency, increased 
Corps' costs of port improvements for the remaining users and, 
therefore, put us in an increasingly uncompetitive status.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Packard) that I would hope that he and the ranking member would oppose 
this amendment. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and I have 
talked about this amendment; the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) 
and I have talked about this amendment.
  I understand the gentleman's concern. The gentleman's concern is the 
dredging and where we put the spoil. That is a very significant issue 
that all of us are engaged in trying to figure out so that we do that 
correctly. But I would urge this body to reject this amendment, which 
stops the study. This does not deal with the dredging. The gentleman is 
correct, if we go ahead with a project, at some point in time we have 
to figure out where to put the spoil. I understand the gentleman's 
concern. Perhaps he did not have that concern in 1996 when he signed 
this letter.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 30 
additional seconds.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the argument as to where to dump the spoil 
will have to be debated at some point in time. I would suggest to my 
friend, for whom I have a great deal of respect, that now is not the 
time to join it. I know the gentleman wants to stop this project and 
other projects; the gentleman has had, presumably, a change of heart 
since the 1996 letter, but we have moved ahead as a united delegation 
on this. I cannot speak for our two colleagues in the Senate, but I 
know they support this project as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues in the Congress to reject 
this amendment and not stop the study from being completed. We will 
argue the issue of dredging at some later time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page 12573]]


  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gilchrest amendment. I hate to 
see time limited on a discussion of this very important amendment. I am 
supporting the amendment because I think the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest) has made a compelling case in support of his amendment. 
This is his congressional district. I do not think there is anyone in 
this Chamber that knows more about this project than the gentleman from 
Maryland.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear more from him about the amendment, 
so I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) at this time.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We do many things up here as Members of Congress that cause us to 
take awhile to begin to investigate and look deeper into a particular 
process. I certainly would like to continue the work in harmony with 
the Maryland delegation on numerous other projects. However, having 
spent literally years looking into the details of this particular 
issue, I have come full circle in realizing that not only is this 
project bad environmentally, not only because of the dredge material 
and where it is going to be disposed of, but because of the ground 
water and the aquifers when we deepen this canal and the problems that 
that will cause.
  Also, the reason the cost-benefit analysis, the reason we are here 
today, and the feasibility study did not go through in December of 1996 
was because we are spending money, Federal taxpayers' dollars, and we 
are getting no benefit. The argument that the Port of Baltimore 
desperately needs this goes counter to the records of the Corps of 
Engineers' evaluation that there will be no increase in commerce as a 
result of the deepening. Not only will there be no increase in 
commerce, there has been a steady decline of container cargo moving 
through the canal over the past 4 or 5 or 6 years.
  Mr. Chairman, most of the ships, 60 percent of the ships that can use 
the C&D Canal right now choose not to use it. Why do they choose not to 
use the C&D Canal if it is available to them right now? Well, number 
one, it saves them no time. Going through the canal saves no time as 
opposed to going around Cape Henry and up the Chesapeake Bay. Number 
two, it costs more to use the C&D Canal as opposed to going around 
through the Chesapeake Bay where there is a 50-foot deep channel. It 
costs more because of the pilotage fees. The third reason many captains 
on board these ships choose not to use the C&D Canal, whether it is 
deeper or not, is that it is a narrow channel and they simply prefer 
the wide expanse of the Chesapeake Bay than moving through the narrow 
channel.
  Now, I want to urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment because 
the Port of Baltimore is not at risk. No one will lose any jobs as a 
result of this measure. We are not closing the C&D Canal; it will 
remain open. Marsk and Sealand, if that issue comes up with their huge 
ships, could never, under any circumstances, no matter how deep it is, 
use the C&D Canal.
  The C&D Canal is a vital link for commerce. It is used by ships that 
have roll-on, roll-off trucks and tractors; it is used by bulk cargo; 
it is used by any one of a number of ships. The deepening of the C&D 
Canal is simply not necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal responsibility. 
Here is the interesting thing: this project, since it has been turned 
down by Corps' headquarters time after time because it does not meet 
the cost-benefit analysis, this project is probably never going to be 
approved by the Corps of Engineers through their own process, so there 
is no need to spend $100,000 again for a new study.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague 
for that explanation. As usual, he has done his homework, and he 
presents compelling evidence to support his position.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague from the Eastern Shore might represent the 
area around the C&D Canal, whereas I represent, along with the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) and the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Cummings), the Port of Baltimore. Although none of us can judge 
what the Army Corps will or will not do in their studies, we all 
acknowledge, those of us who represent the Port of Baltimore, how 
important it is to maintain and strengthen the entry into the Baltimore 
port.

                              {time}  1700

  The Baltimore port is unique. It is more inland than the East Coast 
ports, but because of that, it takes more time to get to the Port of 
Baltimore. The fact that we have two days to enter and exit the port is 
one of the key advantages to the Port of Baltimore.
  The maintenance of the C&D Canal is absolutely essential to the 
health of the Port of Baltimore. The Port of Baltimore represents 
18,000 direct jobs, 87,000 port-related jobs, 69,000 indirect jobs in 
our region, and $1.3 billion annually to Maryland. Business revenues 
are affected by the Port of Baltimore, $40 million in U.S. custom 
receipts.
  So, Mr. Chairman, the majority of our delegation, the overwhelming 
majority of our delegation, is going to ask this body to reject the 
Gilchrest amendment because it could jeopardize very much the health of 
the Port of Baltimore.
  As my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) pointed out, we 
authorized this project several years ago by unanimous support within 
our delegation. Democrats, Republicans, support the maintenance of our 
channels.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) mentioned 
the environmental issues, the Chesapeake Bay. We are all working very 
hard on the Chesapeake Bay, Mr. Chairman. I am proud of the work that 
my constituents are doing on the streams that lead into the Bay. We 
have worked very hard at the State level and the national level to deal 
with the Bay.
  But to raise the issue of maintaining decent entry or exits to our 
ports as compromising the Bay is an insult to the Army Corps, an insult 
to those of us who worked very hard on this issue.
  The Army Corps is going to release its report, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is absolutely correct. My colleague is more 
concerned, I think, about where the dredge materials are being placed 
than the actual dredging within the C&D Canal. All of us in our 
delegation strongly support the independence of the Army Corps in 
reaching the right decision as to the environmental risks involved.
  We also believe it is the Army Corps' responsibility to go through 
the economics of it and come out with the right conclusion. We set up 
the Army Corps as our agents in this matter, and now the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) is saying we cannot trust the Army Corps. Let 
us at least let the process move forward.
  This is not a local project that affects one congressional district 
in this country, this is a project that affects the health of our 
region. That is why we are going to find that the overwhelming 
majority, Democrats and Republicans, in our region, in our State, are 
going to oppose the Gilchrest amendment.
  We ask Members to respect our delegation's point of view, respect the 
fact that we need to maintain a healthy and competitive and safe port. 
Safety is very much at issue here. We will do nothing to compromise our 
environment. We are all committed to it. I urge my colleagues to reject 
the amendment.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment, and I yield to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, there are two other Republican Members in the Maryland 
delegation at this time that, as a result of new information, also now 
oppose this particular amendment.

[[Page 12574]]

  I would like to say that this entire project is in my congressional 
district, which gives me plenty of time when I go home to look into the 
details of the process. I am not about to insult the Corps of 
Engineers, I am not about to insult anybody. But we as Members of 
Congress have the responsibility of oversight of all Federal agencies. 
When we see some peculiar numbers in Federal agencies that are not 
correct, we investigate. That is what we have done.
  So the cost-benefit analysis in 1996, no; it was redone in 1997 and 
it was turned down; it was redone in 1998 and turned down by the 
Washington Corps; and it was redone in 1999 and also turned down. That 
is one of the oversight responsibilities that we have.
  We are not stopping maintenance of these channels to the Port of 
Baltimore. None of the maintenance will be stopped. The Corps says, and 
other agencies, but the Corps, who we are talking about here now, their 
numbers show, and we have checked them out, that there will be no jobs 
lost in the Port of Baltimore if we do not deepen the C&D Canal because 
there will be no commerce lost in the C&D Canal if it is not deepened 
because more than half, 60 to 70 percent of the ships that use that 
canal right now, with plenty of draft, choose not to use it.
  Mr. Chairman, let us go back to the Corps of Engineers. Why should we 
have oversight of the Corps of Engineers? One of my colleagues 
mentioned that I was concerned about where the dredge material is 
dumped. Yes, I am concerned about where the dredge material is dumped, 
because there is a little community in Cecil County, in the northern 
part of my district. No one in that community, no one in that town, can 
drink their water now. They all have wells and they cannot drink the 
water because the Maryland Department of the Environment says the 
dredge disposal site is leaching acid into the groundwater so they 
cannot drink their water.
  What does the Corps of Engineers say after the Maryland Department of 
the Environment says that any elementary school child that looked at 
the analysis of that dredge disposal site would say, yes, that is 
causing acidity in the ground water, so those people cannot drink their 
water?
  What does the Corps say to that? ``It is not our fault. We do not 
think that dredge disposal site is causing that problem.'' So what did 
the Maryland Department of the Environment say to the Corps of 
Engineers? You cannot dump that material here anymore. Should we have 
oversight of what the Corps does? Absolutely, yes.
  Now, there is another dredge disposal site a little further up the 
C&D Canal that we investigated, and we have found that the Corps did 
not put enough lime in the layers of that disposal site, either, so 
that is leaching acidity into the water of the C&D Canal, which has an 
impact on the fish.
  The other thing, the Corps, when they finally finished with that 
dredge disposal site, they put material on the top of that from sewage 
treatment plants. Well, there is some question about that. But if we 
deal with that correctly, and when we dump sludge from sewage treatment 
plants, there are a lot of heavy metals in that sludge.
  We found out that after they dumped the sludge on that dredge 
disposal site, they did not do anything to it. Half of the heavy metals 
from that sludge dumping leached into the C&D Canal where my 
constituents catch and eat fish. If we look on the Delaware side, 
Delaware has said, do not eat any fish in the C&D Canal.
  So is it our responsibility to have oversight over the Corps of 
Engineers and uncover some of these things. Whether they are innocent 
mistakes, whether it is incompetence, it is our responsibility as 
elected officials to conduct that oversight.
  One other thing with the Corps of Engineers. We have great respect 
for the Corps of Engineers because they do good work. But when there is 
a problem, I think we should deal with that problem. When they deepened 
the canal the last time more than 25 years ago, they cut the line, the 
sewer line.
  If we look at the C&D Canal, there is a little town there called 
Chesapeake City. Chesapeake City is divided by the C&D Canal. When they 
deepened the project the last time, Chesapeake City had one sewage 
treatment plant and one drinking water plant. Well, they cut those 
lines. Now, almost 30 years later, the Corps has never compensated that 
little town. That little town had to build another sewage treatment 
system. The people in that little town pay high rent for that.
  I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, as I sit here and I listen to the discussion, it just 
reminds me of why we need to study. My good friend, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), who I have the utmost respect for, and I know 
that this is a major, major issue for him, has stated a number of 
things just now. I do respect what he has said.
  He has talked quite extensively about the Corps of Engineers. But one 
of the things that he said just a moment ago is that the Corps does a 
good job. It is one of the last things he said. The fact is that the 
Corps should be allowed to continue its work with regard to this 
matter.
  I think the gentlemen from Maryland, Mr. Cardin and Mr. Hoyer, laid 
it out quite succinctly. While this may be an issue, and the issue 
arises out of the district of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest), it affects all of us in one way or another. That is why we 
all joined together not very long ago asking for the study, so we could 
move forward in a way that was very careful, in a way that we felt was 
prudent.
  Of course, our good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest), joined us on that occasion. We want to thank him for doing 
that. But there is something that is very important to all of us. That 
is, and we agree with the gentleman on the point that we want our tax 
dollars to be spent in a cost-efficient and effective manner, a cost-
efficient and effective manner. We are talking about $100,000 here. We 
are talking about a study. We are not talking about the end result, we 
are talking about a study.
  We have been going back and forth here about what the study may show. 
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) just spent the majority of 
the time that he just spent talking about the end result as far as the 
sludge material, where it would go. We are not at that point right now. 
I just think, in fairness to all of us from the State of Maryland, that 
we should be allowed to proceed with the study that all of us asked 
for.
  Some people may have changed their minds since then, Mr. Chairman, 
but the fact is that we have asked for this. I think we should proceed 
so that whatever we do, it is based upon some good, sound knowledge.
  I do not think that one day the Corps of Engineers are some of the 
worst people in the world and the next day they do good work. The fact 
is that I think we have all depended on them throughout these United 
States, and we have relied on them extensively. I would hope that we 
would let this study proceed.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and in respect to my 
colleagues from Maryland, who will be the experts in dealing with the 
Maryland problem, but I rise in support of the principle that we all 
have an obligation and responsibility to defend the interests of our 
own district. I have great respect for my friend, the gentleman from 
Maryland, who is doing that I think very eloquently.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to 
me, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland 
(Mr. Cummings), made some good comments about the importance of 
research and study. But I feel there is a point at

[[Page 12575]]

which the study finally does come to an end, because it cannot be 
proven.
  For example, the cost-benefit analysis which justifies the Corps 
continuing the project must show that there is a benefit to the 
taxpayers of the United States. It did not show that in 1996. The cost-
benefit analysis failed the Corps' own scrutiny in 1996. It failed the 
Corps' scrutiny in 1997. It failed again in 1998. It failed again in 
the spring of 1999.
  The Corps has spent hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars 
studying this issue. When do we say, there is no benefit to the 
taxpayers, no benefit to the Port of Baltimore, and the study comes to 
an end? I would say that that point of time is now.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not have a dog in this fight. This is a squabble 
within the Maryland delegation. However, generally we as a committee 
like to finish projects that have been started.
  The project does meet the cost-sharing responsibilities. That is 
economically favorable. It has been authorized. Under those conditions, 
we generally like to see the project funded. It is funded at the level 
that the administration has requested. I would hope that the debate can 
conclude and that we can move on and have a vote on this.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, real briefly, with great respect to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the author of the amendment, and our personal 
friendship, I am going to have a lot to say about the gentleman's next 
amendment, but for present purposes I will adopt the comments given by 
my colleagues, the gentlemen from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Cardin, and 
Mr. Cummings.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHRLICH. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate his comments.
  Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues, in listening to the 
debate of my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), what 
he is particularly animated about and what we all share his concern 
about is pollution, not only in the Chesapeake Bay but in its 
tributaries as well, that obviously run to and from the Bay, 
irrespective of studies that tell me it is running both ways.

                              {time}  1715

  That is a little perverse, and I share the gentleman's skepticism at 
this finding. But he is very concerned. And he has talked about the 
pollution in Chesapeake City, the pollution in other areas, the results 
of dredging, the results of spoil. That is the gentleman's issue. The 
issue is he does not want dredging. I understand that.
  Now, the gentleman has offered very frankly some comments about the 
studies: that the studies that he believes were done in 1997 and 1998 
are not accurate; that the Corps has asked for new studies, and that 
they are trying to complete this study.
  The gentleman wants to, in effect, preliminarily cut the head off of 
this item. And his staffer is shaking his head very vigorously, yes. 
That is what the gentleman wants to do. He wants to kill this project. 
I understand that.
  He did not want to kill it in 1996, when he signed a MD delegation 
support letter. Now, why do we have a joint letter? We had a delegation 
letter because we thought it was a State issue and all eight of us 
signed the letter. All eight of us, including the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) whose district does not touch the Chesapeake 
Bay, although his district does touch on the Potomac River, which does 
come into the Chesapeake Bay, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. 
Morella), whose district touches the Potomac River which connects to 
the Chesapeake Bay; myself and every other Member in the delegation 
signed the letter.
  The gentleman's concern is well understood in the delegation. He is 
very well-schooled on this and works hard on it, and I have the utmost 
respect for the work that he does and the work he expresses. But as the 
gentleman from Baltimore, Maryland (Mr. Cardin), pointed out, we are 
all concerned about that. All of us are very concerned about this 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I frankly will tell the gentleman that I have been 
involved in trying to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and support 
Chesapeake Bay cleanup programs since long before he was in office, 
when I was in the State Senate, as has the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin). The fact of the matter is that he is concerned about that.
  Now, we should allow the Army Corps of Engineers to complete this 
study. Then we can have the debate, because it will take money to 
dredge. Then we can have the debate. At this point in time I would 
assure my colleagues that this is a State issue, not a local issue. 
This is a State issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Baltimore County, Maryland 
(Mr. Ehrlich), who represents parts around Baltimore City, County and 
Anne Arundel County as well and Hartford County that all border the 
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries who himself has an interest in the 
Port of Baltimore, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would state that we 
pay these folks to do a job. If we do not trust them, we should not 
hire them. We should let them finish their job.
  However, I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) puts it very 
succinctly. Our respected colleague has a different view. In the 
interest of fairness, I will yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not only concerned about the Chesapeake Bay; I 
want to get involved in doing something about the Chesapeake Bay. Just 
speaking words does not have an impact on the ground.
  And as far as that letter was concerned, once we evaluated the 
process after we supported it in the beginning, we saw some oversight 
problems.
  I would rather be right than be consistent. And Abraham Lincoln said, 
``The foolish and the dead alone never change their mind.''
  Now, we all have disagreements on this, and I respect those 
disagreements. But not only is my issue dredging, and not only is my 
issue where to dispose of it and the environmental vulnerability of the 
Chesapeake Bay and its estuaries, but I am also concerned about jobs; 
and I would do nothing that would eliminate jobs in the City of 
Baltimore.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, I have closely monitored the progress of the Alabama-
Coosa-Tallapoosa, or ACT, and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint, or 
ACF, Tri-State Water Compact negotiations over the last 3 years. I am 
most concerned with a proposal that has recently and repeatedly 
surfaced concerning a major interbasin transfer of water from Lake 
Allatoona in northwest Georgia in the ACT river basin to Lake Lanier, 
which is in a completely different river basin, the ACF. The proposal 
calls for an authorization of up to 200 million gallons per day 
transfer of water from Lake Allatoona to Lake Lanier.

[[Page 12576]]

  Not only is this a strong point of contention in negotiations between 
Alabama and Georgia, but it is also causing a great deal of concern 
among Federal stakeholders and the many elected officials, local 
governments, water authorities, and other stakeholders within the ACT, 
and in particular the Coosa and Tallapoosa regions.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose any consideration of an interbasin 
transfer. It would seem, though, at a minimum, before such a proposal 
would be even considered as an option, this proposal should be both 
reviewed and studied by the authorizing and appropriations committees 
and subcommittees in the Congress.
  An interbasin transfer would have a major detrimental effect on the 
environment and the economic growth of Northwest Georgia.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia for 
bringing this issue to the attention of the committee.
  I understand the idea of an interbasin transfer has been discussed in 
Northwest Georgia, and I assure the gentleman from Georgia the 
subcommittee understands the serious nature of any interbasin transfer 
of this magnitude and would be very concerned should such proposals be 
considered precipitously or without full and exhaustive public study, 
consistent with all the Federal and State laws and regulations.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time only to thank 
the gentleman from California.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ehlers

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ehlers:
       Page 2, line 18, after ``$153,327,000'' insert ``(increased 
     by $100,000)''.
       Page 5, line 11, after ``$323,350,000'' insert ``(reduced 
     by $100,000)''.

  Mr. EHLERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, last year we passed the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1999, which included a provision directing the Corps 
of Engineers to inventory and report to Congress on the existing 
information base for the Great Lakes biohydrological system. The intent 
of this provision is that the Corps compile the information existing 
within the Federal Government, including other agencies, which is 
relevant to sustainable water use management.
  This information will be needed to make decisions about the 
appropriate sustainable use of Great Lakes waters. Building a 
comprehensive database, and identifying gaps in our knowledge, is 
especially critical at this time when the binational community in the 
Great Lakes Basin is taking a close look at water diversions and other 
consumptive use.
  And on that latter point, I also have legislation pending which would 
deal with the issue of diversions of water from the Great Lakes, not 
just within the 48 States, but also international diversions. I think 
everyone is aware that we had a situation last year where a ship was 
initially granted permission to load on water for transport to a 
faraway country to be used as fresh water supply there. In an effort to 
prevent those diversions, we need studies and the legislation I am 
preparing.
  This particular amendment would allocate $100,000, with an 
appropriate offset, to allow the Corps to begin what is authorized in 
the legislation we passed last year, that is, to provide an information 
base for the Great Lakes biohydrological system.
  This has been brought to the fore by an announcement just made 
yesterday that the Great Lakes governors have allocated from the Great 
Lakes Protection Fund $745,000 for the Great Lakes Commission to study 
and improve the amount and quality of information available to 
decision-makers and the general public regarding water resources of the 
Great Lakes. That program fits in directly with what we have asked the 
Corps to do.
  Now I do regret and apologize to the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Packard) for rushing to the floor at the last moment with 
this amendment, but it is because we have just received the information 
that the Great Lakes governors have released this funding. I would like 
to pursue the amendment; but out of consideration for the gentleman, I 
am quite willing to withdraw it if he can give me assurances that he 
will seek to address this funding matter in conference.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, we certainly do wish and we hope that we 
could take care of the gentleman's problem in conference, and I assure 
him that we will make every effort to do so. The $100,000 is not a 
great deal of money; and if we get additional funds, we may be able to 
take care of it.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his reassurances.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         Construction, General

       For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, 
     shore protection, and related projects authorized by laws; 
     and detailed studies, and plans and specifications, of 
     projects (including those for development with participation 
     or under consideration for participation by States, local 
     governments, or private groups) authorized or made eligible 
     for selection by law (but such studies shall not constitute a 
     commitment of the Government to construction), 
     $1,378,430,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such sums as are necessary for the Federal share of 
     construction costs for facilities under the Dredged Material 
     Disposal Facilities program shall be derived from the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund, as authorized by Public Law 104-303; 
     and of which such sums as are necessary pursuant to Public 
     Law 99-662 shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust 
     Fund, for one-half of the costs of construction and 
     rehabilitation of inland waterways projects, including 
     rehabilitation costs for the Lock and Dam 12, Mississippi 
     River, Iowa; Lock and Dam 24, Mississippi River, Illinois and 
     Missouri; Lock and Dam 3, Mississippi River, Minnesota; and 
     London Locks and Dam, and Kanawha River, West Virginia, 
     projects; and of which funds are provided for the following 
     projects in the amounts specified:
       San Timoteo Creek (Santa Ana River Mainstem), California, 
     $5,000,000;
       Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana, $7,000,000;
       Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky, $4,000,000;
       Clover Fork, Middlesboro, Town of Martin, Pike County 
     (including Levisa Fork and Tug Fork Tributaries), Bell 
     County, Martin County, and Harlan County, Kentucky, elements 
     of the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper 
     Cumberland River, Kentucky, $19,000,000: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
     is directed to proceed with planning, engineering, design and 
     construction of the Town of Martin, Kentucky, element, in 
     accordance with Plan A as set forth in the preliminary draft 
     Detailed Project Report, Appendix T of the General Plan of 
     the Huntington District Commander: Provided further, That 
     using $900,000 of the funds appropriated herein, the 
     Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
     is directed to undertake the Bowie County Levee project, 
     which is defined as Alternative B Local Sponsor Option, in 
     the Corps of Engineers document entitled Bowie County Local 
     Flood Protection, Red River, Texas, Project Design Memorandum 
     No. 1, Bowie County Levee, dated April 1997.

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

       For expenses necessary for prosecuting work of flood 
     control, and rescue work, repair, restoration, or maintenance 
     of flood control projects threatened or destroyed by flood, 
     as authorized by law (33 U.S.C. 702a and 702g-1), 
     $323,350,000, to remain available until expended.

                   Operation and Maintenance, General

       For expenses necessary for the preservation, operation, 
     maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood 
     control, and related works, including such sums as may be 
     necessary for the maintenance of harbor

[[Page 12577]]

     channels provided by a State, municipality or other public 
     agency, outside of harbor lines, and serving essential needs 
     of general commerce and navigation; surveys and charting of 
     northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; 
     clearing and straightening channels; and removal of 
     obstructions to navigation, $1,854,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which such sums as become 
     available in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to 
     Public Law 99-662, may be derived from that Fund, and of 
     which such sums as become available from the special account 
     established by the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, 
     as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l), may be derived from that account 
     for construction, operation, and maintenance of outdoor 
     recreation facilities.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilchrest

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest:
       Page 5, line 22, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $6,801,000)''.

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would decrease the Corps of 
Engineers' operations and maintenance account by $6,801,000 for the 
Tolchester S-turn straightening project in my district.
  Mr. Chairman, similar to the amendment that we debated just a few 
minutes ago, this particular project, this straightening of a natural 
channel, would cost the taxpayers $13 million. Now, as the Corps has 
run through its process to analyze the cost benefit to the taxpayers in 
this country, this particular project in the First Congressional 
District of Maryland dealing with the Tolchester Channel does not meet 
the Corps' own justification to do. The Corps of Engineers has not met 
the threshold to benefit the taxpayers in the United States.
  So my colleagues have come to Congress to get this project, I guess I 
would say, pushed through. This project, the Tolchester S-turn, does 
not meet the cost-benefit analysis to benefit the taxpayers anywhere, 
including Baltimore City. The project, therefore, is not necessary.
  Let us take a look at the environmental impact of this particular 
project. The channel right now is a natural channel. It is the old 
Susquehanna Riverbed that flows from Pennsylvania out to the Chesapeake 
Bay. This is a natural-flowing channel. There is a natural scouring in 
this particular area, so very little dredging is necessary. If we 
straighten the Tolchester Channel, the likelihood of an increased cost 
for dredging is there.
  Now, when the channel is straightened, it will change the direction 
of the flow of water. And when the direction of the flow of water is 
changed, great damage will be done to one of the largest oyster bars in 
the Chesapeake Bay. This oyster bar just off Tolchester is 300 acres, 
and it is a very active site.

                              {time}  1730

  When one changes the flow of the water, one will slow the water down 
over the oyster bed. That means it will silt up. Now, if one 
straightens the channel and ships can flow faster through this channel, 
which they will do, one will increase the wake. When one increases the 
wake, one will do several things.
  One, it will cause more erosion on the shore. It has already caused 
significant damage to people's property, whether it is a garage, cars, 
docks, you name it. But the third thing, which is really a safety 
hazard, the wake will increase the danger of children playing on the 
beach that have already found it difficult to play on the beach. When 
one of the ships goes by, these young people could be washed into the 
Chesapeake Bay and potentially drown.
  Now, the question will arise that we are dredging this new channel 
for safety purposes that has been asked for by the Coast Guard, the 
Corps of Engineers. When that issue comes up, let me say this, I had a 
direct face-to-face conversation with the Corps of Engineers, the 
District Engineer in the City of Baltimore. I asked them that question: 
Does this rise to the threshold of a safety hazard for shipping through 
the Tolchester Channel. The answer, Mr. Chairman, was no, it does not 
rise to a safety hazard through the Tolchester Channel.
  The only reason we are dredging the Tolchester Channel is because we 
are dredging the whole northern route, the Brewerton Extension, the 
Tolchester Channel, the C&D Canal.
  We have already talked about the C&D Canal, and we know that is not 
necessary to dredge. So if it is not necessary to dredge the northern 
route, if it is not a safety hazard, which the Corps of Engineers in 
Baltimore said it is not a safety hazard, and the Coast Guard if you 
ask them direct, the Coast Guard will say that the Tolchester S-turn, 
since over 6,000 ships have passed through there in the last 6 years 
with no incident, that the Tolchester S-turn does not rise to the level 
of a safety hazard with their office.
  Now, can one make it safer? Sure. Can one dredge the Tolchester S-
turn and make it a straight channel? Sure. Would it be safer if it were 
straight? Sure. But what damage will be done if one does that if it is 
not a safety hazard? The damage that will be done as a result of that 
S-turn is great.
  I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, very quickly, this is about dredging. It is contrary to 
the letter that all of us signed receiving it as a State project in 
1986. No doubt about it. This was not perceived by any of the 
delegation to be a local project. It was a Statewide project, which is 
why all eight Members of the delegation signed.
  In the letter that I reference, we also strongly supported and urged 
the inclusion of the straightening of the S-turn, the Tolchester 
Channel. Why did we do that? July 14, 1998, the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest) says he has talked to the Coast Guard. Now, with all 
due respect to the gentleman, until 4 hours ago, I did not know of any 
of this. My office was not talked to. I got no information. I did not 
know about his conversations with the Coast Guard. I do not think the 
committee knew about his conversations with the Coast Guard. Maybe they 
did.
  But at any event, let me read a letter, 26 August 1994, signed by 
Rear Admiral Eckart of the United States Coast Guard, Commander of the 
Fifth Coast Guard District. I quote a part of that, Mr. Chairman. ``The 
S-turn in Tolchester Channel presents one of the most difficult 
navigational challenges to a large ship within the Fifth Coast Guard 
District, not just within Maryland, not just within the Chesapeake Bay, 
but within the entire district.'' Yes safety is going to be raised.
  Now, July 14, 1998, some 2 years later, this is a Vice Admiral, 
United States Coast Guard, then Commander, I am not sure whether he is 
still Commander of the Fifth Coast Guard District. A letter referring 
to the Tolchester Channel. ``With increases to vessel size, the 
severity of the turns have caused difficulty with maneuvering. The 
Coast Guard would prefer to be proactive in preventing any potential 
serious mishaps. The removal of the S-curve in the Tolchester Channel 
would be a significant step.''
  Now, I do not have a subsequent letter from the Coast Guard saying, 
no, we did not mean that. Apparently they have had a personal 
conversation with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) who 
claims this is in his district. Technically I suppose, if one surrounds 
waterways, they are in one's district, but the fact of the matter is I 
would again reiterate this is perceived by the State legislature, by 
the governor, and by the majority of our delegation as an issue of our 
State and of our port.
  Mr. Chairman, the 1996 water bill directs the Corps to expedite 
review of potential straightening of the channel, Tolchester Channel S-
turn. It came out of a committee of which the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest) was a member.
  If determined to be feasible and necessary for safe and efficient 
navigation, and I have just read my colleagues two letters of the Coast 
Guard that indicated it was necessary for the safe and efficient 
movement of vessels through this channel, to implement such 
straightening as part of the project maintenance.
  Now, earlier the gentleman said he was not opposed to maintenance 
dredging. Now, I am not sure what maintenance dredging he refers to, 
but the

[[Page 12578]]

fact of the matter is he tried by saying that, if we had ships going 
through, then children were going to drown. I do not know that any 
children had drowned, and that would be a serious problem we would have 
to protect against, apparently in anticipation of the safety argument 
that somehow making the water flow faster could be dangerous. I have 
not heard the oyster problem before, but we ought to look at that 
problem as well.
  But the fact of the matter is this is essential. In two letters from 
the Coast Guard, I do not have a more recent letter telling me they 
were wrong, the 1994 and 1998 letters say it is a safety issue. It is a 
problem. It is not only a problem, it is the worst problem in the Fifth 
Coast Guard District. That is why they believe this project is 
absolutely critical.
  I know the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) is going to speak on 
this. We have a bipartisan position on this issue, I think. In fact, 
the committee has included this money at the request of the 
administration, this is not an add-on project, this has been a planned 
project that is moving ahead to provide for safer navigation. It is 
essential.
  We would ask our colleagues to reject this amendment which, again, is 
designed to stop dredging. I understand that that is the objective of 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). I agree with him to stop 
dredging if it is entirely harmful. But until that finding is made, 
then we need to proceed to make sure, A, the economic viability of the 
port and, B, directly related to that the safety of the vessels using 
the channels that access and egresses the port of Baltimore.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), and I would like to ask him a 
question, and then I would like to have him expound a little bit more 
on that.
  I ask the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), is there an 
environmental impact statement on this project, because that is 
something that should concern us all.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) 
for a response to that question.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) for yielding to me.
  There has been no environmental impact statement done on this 
particular project. I have talked to the Corps of Engineers from 
Baltimore City, along with the Coast Guard, along with numerous other 
people involved in this in Chestertown, Maryland once again, and the 
Corps cannot tell us how high the wake will be when it hits the shore 
except that it is going to be higher.
  The Corps cannot tell us whether or not that slow down in the current 
will have an impact on those oysters because they have not done the 
study.
  I would like to, if I may, just respond to some of my colleague's 
comments. This is not a maintenance project. We do maintain the 
Tolchester Channel. The Tolchester Channel is maintained on a regular 
basis. This amendment has no impact on normal maintenance of the 
Tolchester Channel. This is considered new work.
  Now, the Corps of Engineers has stated that this is not appropriate 
nor proper when considering it as a safety project. Because since 1994, 
there has been 6,700 ships pass through the Tolchester S-turn without 
an incident. There has been some groundings north of the Tolchester S-
turn and there has been some groundings south of the Tolchester S-turn, 
but there has been no groundings in the Tolchester S-turn.
  Now, as far as the Coast Guard saying that this is the biggest 
navigation challenge in this particular Coast Guard district, well, 
that is correct. This is a challenge. But apparently the pilots and the 
captains have met that challenge, and they have not had an incident in 
the Tolchester S-turn.
  So since they have not had an incident, a safety hazard incident in 
the Tolchester S-turn, what are we talking about here? We are talking 
about straightening the channel where there has been no incidents of 
safety problems reported.
  Then we are creating a safety hazard for people on the banks that are 
less than 1,000 feet from these huge ships that pass by that cause 
major wakes and potential problems with young children on the shore. 
Plus the fact we are then going to increase the cost to homeowners' 
property. Remembering now there is no safety hazard in the S-turn, 
there is a challenge to the pilots, they pass through there all the 
time. But a safety hazard, has it risen to the legality of a safety 
hazard by the Coast Guard or Corps of Engineers? The answer is no in 
their documents.
  So I would urge the Members of this House to think two ways, to think 
fiscally, conservative, as to why we do not want to throw good money 
down a sink hole when a project is not necessary; and when a project is 
not necessary, why do we do it to create another safety hazard and 
another environmental hazard?
  So I would urge my colleagues in the House to vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, again, with great deference and respect to the 
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Speaker, countries probably watching, 
tuning in today are saying ``S-turn, what S-turn?''
  This S-turn is important in Tolchester Channel because it is part of 
the approach to the Canal, the C&D Canal. Ships change course five 
times within 3 miles, often beginning a new turn sometimes in the 
opposite direction before completing the previous turn. With ships 
approaching 1,000 feet in length, it is becoming increasingly difficult 
to navigate the channel, especially in winter, especially in poor 
weather with the wind and tide conditions.
  The gentleman from Maryland talked about pilots and the pilots 
association. Well, the pilots association is on record. It has urged 
for a number of years that this channel S-turn be modified as soon as 
possible to avoid potential ship groundings.
  As my friend from southern Maryland has stated on numerous occasions 
in this year's Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, Congress 
appropriated $6 million for the S-turn.
  The project was also authorized in 1999 as part of the operations and 
maintenance program. In order to complete the job, we need $6.8 million 
dollars. The project is totally 100 percent Federally funded.
  Now, we have talked about safety, and that is the primary reason to 
get this job done. We can reduce the likelihood of an accident. But the 
project also produces economic benefits, many economic benefits.
  The economic consequences of a serious accident, for instance, were 
one to occur, would be significant, something we certainly do not want 
to visit. Accordingly, the avoidance of such an accident, while not 
easily quantifiable, contains economic benefits.
  Moreover, Mr. Chairman, since this project was approved by the Corps 
and authorized by this Congress, the Corps has reserved the 
environmental assessment. In fact, the Corps is finishing the 
environmental assessment for the project. It will be circulated in July 
and approved in settlement or October at or near the beginning of 
fiscal year 2001.

                              {time}  1745

  My friend and colleague from Maryland is someone for whom I have 
great respect on these issues. We disagree from time to time when it 
comes to dredging issues. But the majority of the Maryland delegation 
is letting this House know that this is an important project for the 
economic engine, which is the Port of Baltimore, the economic engine 
that drives the State of Maryland.
  Congress recognized this fact by appropriating these funds last year, 
and all we are asking this House to do is to complete the job. 
Accordingly, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the Gilchrest 
amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHRLICH. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I have a map here, and the gentleman 
represents, am I correct, Baltimore County?

[[Page 12579]]


  Mr. EHRLICH. That is correct.
  Mr. HOYER. And the Tolchester Channel is essentially southeast of the 
gentleman's congressional district and northeast of the district of the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest)?
  Mr. EHRLICH. That is correct.
  Mr. HOYER. Whose district is it in? It is in the middle of the water; 
is that correct?
  Mr. EHRLICH. That is correct.
  Mr. HOYER. So because it borders the district of the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) and it borders his district, both gentleman can 
equally claim it; am I correct?
  Mr. EHRLICH. I certainly claim economic benefits to be derived from 
this project.
  Mr. HOYER. I just wanted to make sure that we understood.
  Mr. EHRLICH. In fact, the map is up.
  Mr. HOYER. Good. We have all got maps.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. QUINN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding. I just wanted to make a couple of points very quickly, if I 
can.
  The last comment: Whose district is the Tolchester Channel in? I do 
not think it really makes a difference whose district the Tolchester 
Channel is in. It happens to be in my district, though, and I will show 
my colleagues on the map. Not the district of the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Ehrlich) and not the district of the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  If my colleagues will look at this map, it is a little busy, a little 
hard to see, but if we look at the map, the C&D Canal channel comes 
down the eastern side of the Chesapeake Bay along the Eastern Shore, 
and the area we are talking about is Kent County on the Eastern Shore. 
Following this line coming down here, we can see the C&D Canal approach 
the channel. Down in this area, what do we have right here, less than a 
thousand feet off the shores of Kent County, in a pretty little place 
called Tolchester? The Tolchester Channel.
  Now, in the Tolchester Channel is the Tolchester S-turn, which we 
have already concluded is not classified as a hazard but a challenge. 
So just a quick clarification. The Tolchester Channel, the Tolchester 
S-turn is contained within the first congressional district.
  Now, since we are reading letters, I want to read something from the 
report of the Corps of Engineers that was recently put out about the 
Tolchester S-turn. Here is what it says. ``The benefit for 
straightening the Tolchester S-turn is based solely on transit time 
savings.'' It might be a challenge to get through the Tolchester S-
turn, but well over 6,000 ships have done it since 1994 without one 
incident in the Tolchester S-turn.
  What are the hazards for straightening the Tolchester S-turn? As we 
can see right along here, the shores of Kent County in the first 
congressional district, the hazards apply to the people on the shore. 
The hazards apply to those watermen who want to catch the few remaining 
oysters in the Chesapeake Bay that will be silted over, which is about 
the largest oyster bar in the Chesapeake Bay, well over 300 acres.
  One last comment. The only reason they would straighten the 
Tolchester Channel, the Corps of Engineers, is if it was a benefit to 
the taxpayers; and they have concluded that it is not a benefit to the 
taxpayers. There is no financial justification for it. And the other 
one, is it really a safety hazard? And we have concluded that it is a 
challenge. The safety hazard lies with those residents on the 
shoreline.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate 
time on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 10 
minutes, equally divided.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, is that 10 minutes per side, proponents 
and opponents? Mr. Chairman, there was 20 minutes total on this 
amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. I adjust the unanimous consent request to 10 minutes 
each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) each will control 10 minutes.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, who controls the time in support of the 
amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mr. CARDIN. I seek time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, first let me say to my friend, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), if we get a ship that is moving through the 
S-turn that happens to go aground and starts spilling oil, I think then 
all of us are going to say why did we let this happen.
  I am thinking about what I can say to my colleagues who are listening 
to this debate to try to impress upon them why they should reject this 
amendment. Sure, I can go through the safety considerations, and we 
have gone through that. I can read to them a letter signed by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) that says the Tolchester 
project involves safety-related modifications of the existing channel 
which makes five course changes within 3 miles. The Corps of Engineers 
is completing a safety-related study of the project. We request that 
the committee indicate support for the execution of the project as a 
safety improvement using operation and maintenance funding authority. 
This was signed by our entire delegation, including the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  I could tell my colleagues that this does meet the standards to be 
funded, otherwise the distinguished chairman and ranking member would 
not have included it in the bill they brought forward. The 
administration would not have included it in its funding. This is not 
an add-on. This is authorized funding and has met all of the standards.
  I could talk about the need, about the pilots, the bay pilots that 
have been in my office that tell us of the safety hazards and the time 
delays that are caused because of the S-turn and how this change should 
be made from the point of view of the efficiency and safety of our 
port.
  I could tell my colleagues about the environmental issues; that all 
of us are very concerned about the environment and we have worked very 
hard. Our entire delegation will stand by the Army Corps' findings. And 
if this is not consistent with the environmental standards, that we are 
not going to support any type of activity that jeopardizes the progress 
that we have made in the last 25 years for the Port of Baltimore.
  I could tell my colleagues all these things, but let me just maybe 
make one point. This has followed the orderly process. And if my 
colleagues believe there should be a process in approving these 
projects, reject the gentleman's amendment. We have four Members of our 
delegation on the floor that represent this area, two Democrats, one 
Republican, opposing the gentleman's amendment.
  We all are concerned about the area; but we recognize that in order 
to make progress, in order for safety, in order for the efficiency of 
this port and in order for the environment of our area, we must reject 
the gentleman's amendment. As well intended as it is, the

[[Page 12580]]

gentleman is opposed to dredging. He is opposed to any new dump sites. 
I understand his position, but it is not the orderly process that we 
followed.
  We have complied with all of the requests that have been asked of us. 
Allow the study to go forward. Let the Army Corps reach its judgment. 
We are all satisfied to be controlled by how the Army Corps reaches 
that decision.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just make some comments. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cardin) said we stand by the Corps' findings. The Corps found that the 
benefit for the straightening is based solely upon time saving. It is 
not economically justified. And the Corps' findings go on to say, 
``Based on our information, general funding for this purpose,'' 
straightening the Tolchester S-turn, ``is not considered feasible or 
appropriate.'' That is what the Corps of Engineers said.
  Now, the gentleman is saying that we did not follow an orderly 
process. Well, we did follow an orderly process. The orderly process 
rejected the widening and the straightening of the Tolchester S-turn by 
the Corps of Engineers. What we are doing here is interrupting, we are 
bypassing, we are leapfrogging the orderly process with this 
appropriation of $6 million for what the Corps of Engineers said was 
not a necessary project.
  Now, at this point I would like to wax a little bit philosophical 
with Justice Felix Frankfurter's statement, which goes and I quote, and 
this has to do with the letter that I signed approving this project 
some years ago. And after some investigation and a closer look at the 
project, I would like to quote Justice Felix Frankfurter. Here is what 
he said: ``Wisdom so often never comes. When it does, we ought not to 
reject it merely because it's late.'' And in this particular situation, 
I think that is appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Cummings), my colleague from Baltimore.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise to strongly oppose the gentleman's 
amendment to strike the funding to straighten the S-turn in the 
Tolchester Channel leading to the Port of Baltimore.
  The straightening of the Tolchester S-turn is critical to maintaining 
navigational safety and economic viability of the Port of Baltimore. 
Nearly 8,000 Baltimore City residents are directly employed by port 
businesses and as many as 30,000 additional city residents have jobs 
related to port activities.
  The S-turn poses a serious problem with regard to safety risks, as my 
colleagues on this side stated a little bit earlier. Ships often have 
to change course five times within 3 miles to navigate the turn. With 
vessels nearly a thousand feet in length, it is difficult to safely 
navigate the channel, particularly in poor weather conditions.
  The straightening of the turn has been recommended and supported by 
the State of Maryland, the Maryland Port Administration, the Fifth U.S. 
Coast Guard District, and the Maryland Pilots Association.
  And speaking of the Maryland Pilots Association, in a letter dated 
April 26, 2000, written by Captain Michael Watson to Colonel Berwick of 
the Army Corps of Engineers, and I quote this because this is a very 
interesting statement and it goes to that whole issue of safety, and we 
are talking about the pilots who are out there every day, it says: 
``Tolchester Channel was originally designed to utilize deep water in 
order to minimize dredging costs and allow for increases in vessel 
loads. This resulted in the creation of the S-turn at the northern end 
of the channel. As vessel size has increased, the S-turn has become 
more difficult and groundings have resulted. Subsequent modifications 
and additional buoys have addressed the problem, but only in part. 
Pilots,'' and I emphasize pilots, ``continue to report close calls and 
near misses, especially during periods of reduced visibility during 
winter ice. A straightened channel will have many advantages, 
increasing navigational safety, reducing the protection for maritime 
accidents, and thereby helping to protect the Chesapeake Bay 
environment.''
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair tell me how much time I 
have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) has 8 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) has the 
right to close.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment about the S-turn and the 
pilots. The S-turn was not made to accommodate ship traffic. The S-turn 
is a natural channel, as the old Susquehanna River bed that is a 
natural channel. It is naturally deep.
  Now, when we straighten out that S-turn, we are going to do a number 
of things, one of which is to increase the cost of dredging because 
many of those areas will be filled in.
  Now, we are talking about $6 million, $13 million dollars, to 
complete a project that we asked the Corps to look into. When the Corps 
looked into this project, their answer to do this project was no. It is 
written down no. I have talked to Colonel Berwick that the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) has referred to, and Colonel Berwick, from 
the Baltimore district, said, number one, it does not rise to a safety 
hazard, it is a challenge to get through there, but it is not a safety 
hazard for ships to pass through and this particular channel is an 
environmental problem if we dredge this channel.
  So the Corps of Engineers said no. So what does Congress say if this 
amendment fails? The Corps of Engineers, through their study that we 
say we ought to trust, we hold on to their study, the Corps says no, 
for sound fundamental reasons. Congress says yes.
  I strongly urge my colleagues in the House to be fiscally 
responsible, environmentally smart, and consider the safety hazard of 
the people on the shore because of the increasing wake that will result 
from these bigger ships that will go faster through this straightened 
Tolchester channel.
  One other quick comment. There is at this point in time no 
Environmental Impact Statement that has been concluded by the Corps of 
Engineers on this project.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will my friend, the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest), yield on that issue?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I know 
he has mentioned that a couple of times.
  As I think he knows, that is not a unique situation of this project, 
but that statement is applicable to a number of the safety-related 
projects in this bill as well as previous bills.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, and I will close 
with this comment, the other problem with this, it is a much broader 
issue than the Sandy Canal or a safety concern for the Tolchester area.
  The whole northern route that would be dredged by my colleagues would 
involve 18 million cubic yards of dredge material being dumped 
overboard in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay just north of the 
Chesapeake Bay Bridge.
  I guess we could get into a dispute whether or not that is actually 
in my district or in the district of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cummings) or anybody else's district. It does not matter. That 18 
million cubic yards is 2 million pounds of ammonia, 700,000 pounds of 
phosphorus. It is the equivalent of putting a sewage treatment plant 
the size of the city of Annapolis right there in the middle of the 
Chesapeake Bay, and I do not think that is what we want to do.

[[Page 12581]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Packard), the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the Gilchrest amendment seeks to zero out 
funding for the Baltimore Channel and Channels navigation channel 
maintenance and straightening project. This is an ongoing project which 
was funded in the current fiscal year, and the proposed funding is to 
complete the project in fiscal year 2001.
  The committee included report language to address the apparent 
concerns of the gentleman which involves environmental analysis and 
effects of proposed dredged-material disposal sites.
  On this point, we have stated in our report our expectation that the 
Corps of Engineers will comprehensively consider alternative disposal 
sites in its ongoing Environmental Impact Statement which is to be 
released as a revised document later this year.
  It is inappropriate to pre-judge the outcome of that analysis as 
being unsatisfactory; and, therefore, I reluctantly oppose the 
amendment of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Maryland for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to join most of my Maryland colleagues 
certainly in strongly opposing this amendment. We have looked at this 
issue thoroughly and, as has been indicated through today's testimony, 
we are near unanimous agreement that this amendment is inappropriate.
  We have here fundamental safety issues with respect to Tolchester, 
and we ought to acknowledge that fact and then act upon it and not 
implement this amendment, which would, in effect, overturn a lot of the 
work that has already been done.
  This is a channel that has many shifts and turns in order to 
accommodate the traffic and, also, to accommodate safety concerns. 
Straightening the channel is a desirable objective. That is an 
objective that we are pursuing through, I say, the majority of the 
Maryland delegation. We have studied this issue thoroughly. As was 
indicated, Environmental Impact Studies are underway and we certainly 
cannot pre-judge them to be in the negative.
  Under the circumstances, I think it is both prudent and sound that we 
proceed with the position that the delegation has taken and reject this 
amendment. I would urge the membership to do so.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this project was approved by Congress even though the 
Corps said in their analysis it did not rise to the cost benefit 
analysis that was necessary to do a project like this. But, 
nevertheless, this has been approved by Congress. But we have not 
started this project. We continue the maintenance of the Tolchester 
Channel, but we have not started this new work project which I am so 
adamantly opposed to.
  Now, I do want to sincerely thank the chairman of this committee, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), for working with me on this 
issue and many other dredging issues in the past dealing with the 
Chesapeake Bay.
  I wish the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) a long, 
successful, joyous retirement. And at this particular point, I am 
thinking about that myself. So if I am ever out in San Diego, Mr. 
Chairman, I would like to do a little kayaking in the Pacific Ocean out 
there. But I do want to thank the chairman for being a gentleman with 
all these various issues.
  Now, as far as the delegation is concerned, the delegation is not 
united on this. There is no unanimous agreement on this particular 
issue. The gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), and myself are all opposed to this particular 
project. We are going forward with the maintenance of the Tolchester 
Channel, but we do not want to deal at this point, because all the 
evidence points against it, with the widening of the Tolchester S-turn; 
and we do not want to do that because there is no need to dredge the 
northern route at this point because it is not a safety hazard, it is 
not necessary for increasing commerce, it has nothing to do with jobs 
in the city of Baltimore.
  This has everything to do with spending the taxpayers' dollars 
unwisely. This has everything to do with an environmental project that 
is not wise to do and all the environmental groups are opposed to it.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that I ask my colleagues to support the 
chairman of the subcommittee, to support the majority of the Maryland 
delegation, and to support common sense and fair play and allow this 
project to move forward and reject the Gilchrest amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the dean of the Maryland delegation.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue on which Maryland is not 
divided. The Governor of Maryland opposes this amendment. The State 
Legislature opposes this amendment, not because they voted on this 
particular amendment, but because they support the Tolchester Channel 
straightening.
  Why? Because it is a safety issue.
  The pilots have been lobbying this very heavily. The Coast Guard, in 
two letters I read to my colleagues, said this is a significant safety 
issue, it needs to be resolved.
  The gentleman says we have not had any accidents. Well, the Exxon 
Valdez had an accident where there had been no accident. Very frankly, 
we have a pipeline down on the Patuxent River which for 40 years 
carried oil without an accident. But there is going to be an accident 
here, and the consequences may be very significant.
  The chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee 
have heard this issue, they have gone the regular process, and they 
have approved this project. The majority of the Maryland delegation 
opposes the amendment of the gentleman.
  One of our former colleagues has worked very hard on this issue, 
Helen Bentley, a Republican; and I, as a Democrat, have worked hard on 
this issue. I share absolutely the concern of the gentleman about the 
environmental impact of dredging. We ought not to dredge if we cannot 
do so environmentally safely, period. That is a given.
  But we ought not to by this amendment with, and I reiterate, 4 hours' 
notice to the Maryland delegation that this amendment was going to be 
offered, defeat this project, which has been worked on since 1996, 
actually before that, with the participation of the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Now he has changed his mind. Let us not change our minds. Oppose the 
Gilchrest amendment. Support the Maryland delegation, the bipartisan 
Maryland delegation.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in our closing comments, when we look at each issue of 
dredging or straightening or deepening one at a time, it is not an 
environmental problem. When we take the cumulative impact of all of 
these projects throughout the Chesapeake Bay, it is an environmental 
problem.
  And, no, there are many people throughout the State of Maryland that 
oppose this particular issue. Every environmental group in the State of 
Maryland opposes this widening. My constituents, especially those that 
have property on the shoreline, oppose this widening and straightening 
of the Tolchester S-turn. And, believe it or not, my colleagues, the 
Corps of Engineers opposes this straightening with their cost benefit 
analysis because it does not rise to the threshold necessary to benefit 
taxpayers.
  The Environmental Impact Statement is not complete and there are many 
environmental hazards that we are considering.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) mentioned the problem with 
the oil tanker, the Exxon Valdez. 6,700

[[Page 12582]]

ships have passed through here in the last 6 years without one 
incident. And there are no rocks here. One of the reasons the Corps of 
Engineers said it was not necessary and one of the reasons the Coast 
Guard says it is a challenge but it is not a safety hazard is because 
there is nothing but sand here, nothing but sand and mud.
  If anything runs aground, and they have not, they will slowly move 
into the sand bar and it is probably because the tide is down and when 
the tide comes up, they will move along.
  This is not about safety, my colleagues. This is about convenience. 
This is about convenience.
  The Corps of Engineers, in their statement, said this is about time 
saving. And so, we have not paid enough attention as Members of 
Congress, as our oversight responsibility, to some of these issues.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for fiscal responsibility, to vote 
for an environmentally sound amendment, and to vote for the average 
constituent that needs a voice in the U.S. House of Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1815

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                           Regulatory Program

       For expenses necessary for administration of laws 
     pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands, 
     $125,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers, is directed to use funds appropriated herein to: 
     (1) by March 1, 2001, revise the report, Cost Analysis For 
     the 1999 Proposal to Issue and Modify Nationwide Permits, to 
     reflect the Nationwide Permits actually issued on March 9, 
     2000, including changes in the acreage limits, 
     preconstruction notification requirements and general 
     conditions between the proposed rule and the rule promulgated 
     and published in the Federal Register; (2) by September 30, 
     2001, prepare, submit to Congress and publish in the Federal 
     Register a Permit Processing Management Plan by which the 
     Corps of Engineers will handle the additional work associated 
     with all projected increases in the number of individual 
     permit applications and preconstruction notifications related 
     to the new and replacement permits and general conditions so 
     that within two years the number of pending individual 
     permits shall not be greater than the number of said permits 
     pending at the end of fiscal year 1999. The Permit Processing 
     Management Plan shall include specific objective criteria by 
     which the Corps of Engineers progress towards reducing any 
     permit backlog can be measured; (3) beginning on December 31, 
     2001, and at the end of each quarter thereafter, report to 
     Congress and publish in the Federal Register, an analysis of 
     the performance of its program as measured against the 
     criteria set out in the Permit Processing Management Plan; 
     (4) implement a one-year pilot program to publish quarterly 
     on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's Regulatory Program 
     website all Regulatory Analysis and Management Systems (RAMS) 
     data for the South Pacific Division beginning within 30 days 
     of enactment of this Act; and (5) publish in Division Office 
     websites all findings, rulings, and decisions rendered under 
     the administrative appeals process for the Corps of Engineers 
     Regulatory Program as established in Public Law 106-60: 
     Provided further, That Corps shall allow any appellant to 
     keep a verbatim record of the proceedings of the appeals 
     conference under the aforementioned administrative appeals 
     process: Provided further, That within 30 days of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
     Chief of Engineers, shall require all U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineers Divisions and Districts to record the date on which 
     a Section 404 individual permit application or nationwide 
     permit notification is filed with the Corps of Engineers: 
     Provided further, That ``filed'' shall mean the date an 
     applicant first submits its application or notification to 
     the Corps and not the date the application or notification is 
     deemed complete.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert:
       Page 6, line 12, strike ``revise'' and insert 
     ``supplement''.
       Page 6, line 17, strike ``proposed rule'' and insert ``rule 
     proposed on July 21, 1999,''.
       Page 6, line 19, after ``(2)'' insert ``after consideration 
     of the cost analysis for the 1999 proposal to issue and 
     modify nationwide permits and the supplement prepared 
     pursuant to this Act and''.
       Page 6, line 25, strike ``so that within'' and all that 
     follows through ``1999'' on page 7, line 3.
       Page 7, line 4, after ``specific objective'' insert ``goals 
     and''.
       Page 7, line 5, strike ``Engineers progress'' and insert 
     ``Engineers' progress''.
       Page 7, line 7, strike ``at the end of each quarter'' and 
     insert ``on a biannual basis''.
       Page 7, line 15, insert ``and North Atlantic Division'' 
     after ``South Pacific Division''.
       Page 7, line 20, insert after ``Public Law 106-60: Provided 
     further, That'' the following: ``, through the period ending 
     on September 30, 2003,''.
       Page 8, line 4, strike ``That `filed' shall mean'' and all 
     that follows through ``deemed complete.'' on line 7 and 
     insert the following:
     That the Corps of Engineers, when reporting permit processing 
     times, shall track both the date a permit application is 
     first received and the date the application is considered 
     complete, as well as the reason that the application is not 
     considered complete upon first submission.

  Mr. BOEHLERT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask that the 
amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward and 
noncontroversial. I believe it not only has the support of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky) and other members of the Committee on Appropriations, 
but also the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and other 
members, on a bipartisan basis, of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  It also accomplishes something that is relatively rare in this day 
and age. We have support for the amendment from those within both the 
environmental community and the regulated community.
  I have details on the amendment. Both the chairman and the ranking 
member have the details, and I would have them inserted into the Record 
at the end of this statement.
  What does this noncontroversial, but important amendment do? It 
updates and revises the authorizing language included by Chairman 
Packard in his Subcommittee relating to the Corps wetlands permitting 
program--specifically nationwide permits and administrative appeals.
  The general intent of my amendment is two-fold: (1) to increase the 
public's and the regulated community's right to know about the Corps 
wetlands permitting program; and (2) to remove provisions that might 
cause unnecessary controversy or debate.
  While I'm including a detailed summary of the amendment in my written 
statement, let me highlight its major features. First, it removes the 
reference to the number of pending individual permits at the end of FY 
99 as the performance measure of the proposed Permit Processing 
Management Plan (PPMP). It shouldn't be necessary to legislatively 
require that the Plan revolve around a chosen prior fiscal year. I 
would note, however, that there is legitimate concern that the new 
nationwide permit restrictions and conditions will create an 
unmanageable workload for processing individual permits. To be 
effective, the Plan must address this concern head-on; in the context 
of its Plan, the Corps may certainly want to look at the number of 
pending individual permit applications in FY 99.
  The other major highlight of the amendment is to modify provisions on 
recording the filing of permits so as to require the Corps to track 
both the date of permit application is received and the date the 
application is considered complete, as well as the reason the 
application is not considered complete upon first submission. This 
should go a long way in providing useful information to help resolve 
the never-ending debate over the length of time it takes a review and 
approve or deny wetlands permit applications.
  Chairman Packard is to be commended for his overall efforts in 
developing and advancing this year's bill. He has done a good job 
balancing the need for increased knowledge about wetlands permit 
processing times, workload impacts, and administrative appeals.
  My modest, yet important amendment will improve the language in the 
bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to accept it.

[[Page 12583]]

  Deletes the reference to the number of pending individual permits at 
the end of FY 99 as the performance measure of the Permit Processing 
Management Plan (PPMP) for future years, It shouldn't be necessary to 
legislatively require that the Plan revolve around a chosen prior 
fiscal year.
  Modifies the performance measures report to Congress (and publication 
in the Federal Register) from being quarterly to bi-annual (i.e. twice 
a year). This should help address concerns about ``excessive'' 
reporting and paperwork burdens.
  Expands the one-year pilot program for the South Pacific Division to 
include the North Atlantic Division. Increased geographic diversity 
should increase the value of the pilot program.
  Modifies provisions on recording the filing of permits to require the 
Corps to track both the date a permit application is received and the 
date the application is considered complete, as well as the reason the 
application is not considered complete upon first submission.
  Sunsets after 3 fiscal years the proviso allowing appellants to keep 
verbatim records of appeals conference proceedings. This should provide 
ample time to determine if such verbatim records help or hinder 
equitable and just resolutions.
  Makes technical and clarifying amendments.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert) yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is a very good amendment, and I 
am very pleased to accept the amendment. I appreciate the fact that he 
has offered it.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise not to object to the Boehlert amendment. I will 
not do so, but I do think it is imperative that the House understand 
the situation relative to funding for the Army Corps of Engineers.
  A year ago on this floor, in considering the bill, we had several 
very serious controversies relative to wetland regulation. When the 
budget was sent to the United States Congress in January of this year, 
those rules were not yet in effect. Subsequent to that period of time, 
they went into effect, and the Army Corps of Engineers has estimated 
that the additional cost to ensure that there is no delay to developers 
and contractors and members of the general public would be 6 million 
additional dollars over and above the budget request. Those $6 million 
are not contained in this bill.
  To add further to the Corps' problem, in the subcommittee mark there 
were additional requirements placed on the Corps to the tune of a March 
1, 2001, revised report cost analysis for a proposal to issue modified 
nationwide permits: to wit, by September 30, the year 2001, prepare and 
submit to Congress and publish in the Federal Register a permit 
processing management plan; to wit, beginning on December 31, 2001, at 
the end of each quarter thereafter, and I would acknowledge the 
gentleman has lengthened this to a biannual report, report to Congress 
and published in the Federal Register an analysis of the performance of 
its programs as registered against the criteria set out in the permit 
processing management plan; and, four, implement a 1-year pilot program 
to publish quarterly on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' regulatory 
program for the South Pacific Division.
  Additionally, how we compute time relative to delays that had been 
complained about was changed in the subcommittee mark. That was an 
additional burden. We then went to the full committee. The chairman of 
the committee offered an amendment that was ultimately adopted that 
further increased that burden by requiring that the Corps Division 
Office publish on its Web site all findings, rulings and decisions. 
Additionally, a provision that I do think can potentially have a 
chilling impact on the appellate procedure that the Corps shall allow 
an appellant to keep a verbatim record of the proceedings of the 
appeals conference under the aforementioned administrative appeals 
process.
  The gentleman has now come forth and, as I indicated, changed a 
quarterly reporting to biannual. That is an improvement. There were 
several other improvements, but it also did place another burden on the 
Corps by also now including the North Atlantic Division as far as those 
reporting requirements.
  So I do not object to what the gentlemen has done. He has added a 
burden but he has improved the legislation that was reported by the 
committee.
  The Corps does not have the money, and I would just want to emphasize 
I would hope at some point we have corrected that procedure so there is 
no delay to those who seek permits.
  Finally, I do think the gentleman has made one important change, and 
that is that we do continue the current counting period as far as when 
an application for a permit is considered to have been received, 
because my concern as expressed in the full committee, and would be 
here, that 12 months from now, 24 months from now when the wetlands 
issue is potentially debated again, people will come in and say we told 
you so. If it was not for those two changes in the year 2000, we would 
not have had this additional delay, not because of any failing of the 
Corps or the contractor or developer, but because we changed how those 
dates are computed. The gentleman in his amendment would compute them 
in both fashions, the previous fashion as well as the new fashion 
contained in the committee bill.
  So I did want to make sure that people understand for the record that 
is the situation we find ourselves in. I do not object to what he wants 
to do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the Members, we would like to now 
offer a motion that will allow us to offer a unanimous consent request 
that will put some limitations and some controls on the balance of the 
evening, and hopefully shorten the debate.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Quinn) having assumed the chair, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, 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. 
4733) making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________