[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12584-12623]
[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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4733.

                              {time}  1826


                     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 further 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 CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) had 
been disposed of, and the bill was open for amendment from page 6, line 
6 through page 8, line 7.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: amendment No. 5 by the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Hulshof); amendment by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest); a second amendment by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first in this series.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hulshof

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165, 
noes 262, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 334]

                               AYES--165

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Carson
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Crane
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Foley
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Riley
     Rogan
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stark
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wynn

                               NOES--262

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Everett
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly

[[Page 12585]]


     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cook
     Hinojosa
     Lazio
     Markey
     McIntosh
     Thomas
     Vento

                              {time}  1852

  Messrs. SMITH of Washington, CUMMINGS, HALL of Texas, LEWIS of 
California, KUCINICH, WEYGAND, ACKERMAN, ALLEN, ROHRABACHER, CONYERS, 
MEEKS of New York, TOWNS, HAYWORTH, FORD, CROWLEY, HERGER and MEEHAN, 
and Ms. SANCHEZ, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, and Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BARR of Georgia, BURTON of Indiana, EVANS, DeFAZIO, COBURN, 
LEWIS of Georgia, DAVIS of Illinois, SABO, MINGE, TIAHRT, SPENCE, FARR 
of California, UDALL of Colorado, McNULTY, and BERMAN, and Ms. LEE 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                announcement by the chairman pro tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution 
532, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes 
the period of time within which a vote by electronic device will be 
taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed further 
proceedings.


                   amendment offered by Mr. gilchrest

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153, 
noes 273, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 335]

                               AYES--153

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Archer
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ewing
     Farr
     Foley
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Spence
     Stump
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wolf

                               NOES--273

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cook
     Hinojosa
     Knollenberg
     Lazio
     Markey
     McIntosh
     Thomas
     Vento

                              {time}  1900

  Mrs. NORTHUP changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. GRAHAM, ROYCE, and COOKSEY changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.

[[Page 12586]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to allowed to speak out of 
order for 1 minute.)


  Expressing Gratitude for Support of Members of Congress and People 
              Across America During Recent Family Tragedy

  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak out of order for a 
few minutes to express my gratitude to the Members of this 
distinguished body and to the thousands of individuals and families 
across my district and in this great Nation who have offered my family 
and me their support, prayers, and love for the loss of our son and 
brother, B.J.
  It is often said that the true measure of any institution is how it 
comes together for one of its own in times of trouble. As I stand here 
tonight with a broken heart, I am reminded of the strength and 
greatness in each of the Members, their congressional staffs, and the 
men and women who work each day with us in the U.S. House of 
Representatives.
  Not only have they displayed their kindness to Laurie, Ken, and me, 
but also to the Menominee community when so many Members traveled to 
our hometown to attend B.J.'s funeral. While Members' trips have been 
reported as a Who's Who in Congress, led by the Speaker, the Democratic 
leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and Tipper Gore, 
the newspaper failed to mention the personal sacrifice each Member 
made, failed to mention that a number were left standing on the tarmac 
because there was no room on the plane. The newspaper failed to 
recognize the kindness of this House, which is found in its Members.
  B.J. realized the greatness of the U.S. House of Representatives, as 
he often told me that I could not leave the House until he was 25, so 
he could succeed me. B.J. knew that Article 1, Section 2 of the United 
States Constitution states, ``No person shall be a representative who 
shall not have attained the age of 25 years.''
  He told Laurie shortly before he died that he felt he could be an 
even better Congressman than his dad. I am sure he could have been. 
Earlier today when I announced my reelection plans for a fifth term, I 
know B.J. was pleased.
  We have received thousands of calls and letters from Members and 
their families, friends, neighbors, even complete strangers. This 
outpouring of support has given us strength. It has renewed our faith 
in the goodness of people and in the love of friends and neighbors. The 
love, support, and understanding that we have received and still 
continue to receive are blessings for which we will be forever 
grateful.
  I would like to take a moment and thank the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Largent), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp), and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci), who came to 
Michigan immediately after B.J. died. These Members and I, we all live 
together here in D.C., not as Democrats or Republicans, but as 
individuals who have profound respect and love for one another. They 
are a great source of comfort for me, Laurie, and Ken.
  My family and I ask that each Member also keeps in mind and close to 
heart the friends and classmates of B.J. at Menominee High School as 
they deal with this tragedy. They need all our love, care, and support. 
B.J. was their class leader. He would have been president of the 
student body this coming year.
  B.J. was concerned when the student leadership team could not attend 
out-of-town functions or conferences because there was never enough 
money in the student government budget. So in B.J.'s memory we have 
established the B.J. Fund, to finance in part student participation in 
leadership programs.
  Through the generosity of many individuals, organizations, and some 
Members of this House, I am proud to say we have over $35,000 in the 
B.J. Fund. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to make my son larger than what 
he was in life, but B.J. was one of those people who we remember they 
were here. He was blessed with a personality, charm, and charisma. That 
was B.J. His life is a harsh reminder of how fragile life is, for we do 
not know what life holds for any of us.
  For Laurie, Ken, and me, B.J. will be forever in our hearts, on our 
minds, and on our lips. Tonight we would like to express our heartfelt 
thanks for Members' support.


                Announcement by the Chairman pro tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Without objection, the next 
vote will be 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilchrest

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145, 
noes 281, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 336]

                               AYES--145

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ewing
     Farr
     Foley
     Fossella
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ose
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Traficant
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--281

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)

[[Page 12587]]


     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cook
     Hinojosa
     Lazio
     Markey
     McIntosh
     Moakley
     Peterson (PA)
     Vento

                              {time}  1914

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further 
amendments shall be in order except pro forma amendments offered by the 
chairman and the ranking member or their designees and the following 
further amendments which may be offered only by the Member designated 
in the order of the House or a designee, or the Member who has caused 
it to be printed or a designee, shall be considered read, debatable for 
the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for a division of the question:
  The amendment printed in House Report 106-701;
  The following additional amendment, which shall be debatable for 30 
minutes: Mr. Salmon, regarding solar energy;
  The following additional amendments, which shall be debatable for 20 
minutes:
  Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin regarding National Ignition Facility; and
  The amendment printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII, and numbered 1;
  The following additional amendments, which shall be debatable for 10 
minutes:
  Mr. Gekas, regarding energy independence;
  Mr. Stearns, regarding Secretary of Energy travel;
  Mr. Stearns, regarding Secretary of Energy travel before January 20 
of 2001;
  Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin regarding construction of National Ignition 
Facility;
  Mr. Hansen, regarding nuclear waste storage;
  Mr. Camp, regarding Strategic Petroleum Reserve exchanges;
  Mr. Ryun of Kansas, regarding compensation of Department of Energy 
employees;
  Mr. Ney, regarding the Appalachian Regional Commission;
  Ms. Brown of Florida, regarding alternative energy sources; and
  The amendments printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII, and numbered 2, 
3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of title I be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to 
amendment at any time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 8, line 8, through page 10, line 18, 
is as follows:

            Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

       For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites 
     throughout the United States resulting from work performed as 
     part of the Nation's early atomic energy program, 
     $140,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                            General Expenses

       For expenses necessary for general administration and 
     related functions in the Office of the Chief of Engineers and 
     offices of the Division Engineers; activities of the Coastal 
     Engineering Research Board, the Humphreys Engineer Center 
     Support Activity, the Water Resources Support Center, and 
     headquarters support functions at the USACE Finance Center, 
     $149,500,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no part of any other appropriation provided in title I 
     of this Act shall be available to fund the activities of the 
     Office of the Chief of Engineers or the executive direction 
     and management activities of the division offices: Provided 
     further, That none of these funds shall be available to 
     support an office of congressional affairs within the 
     executive office of the Chief of Engineers.

                             Revolving Fund

       Amounts in the Revolving Fund are available for the costs 
     of relocating the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers headquarters 
     to office space in the General Accounting Office headquarters 
     building in Washington, D.C.

                       Administrative Provisions

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

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

       Sec. 101. 16 U.S.C. 777c(a) is amended in the second 
     sentence by striking ``2000'' and inserting ``2001''.
       Sec. 102. (a) The Secretary of the Army shall enter into an 
     agreement with the City of Grand Prairie, Texas, wherein the 
     City agrees to assume all of the responsibilities of the 
     Trinity River Authority of Texas under Contract #DACW63-76-C-
     0166, other than financial responsibilities, except as 
     provided for in subsection (c) of this section. The Trinity 
     River Authority shall be relieved of all of its financial 
     responsibilities under the Contract as of the date the 
     Secretary of the Army enters into the agreement with the 
     City.
       (b) In consideration of the agreement referred to in 
     subsection (a), the City shall pay the Federal Government a 
     total of $4,290,000 in two installments, one in the amount of 
     $2,150,000, which shall be due and payable no later than 
     December 1, 2000, and one in the amount of $2,140,000, which 
     shall be due and payable no later than December 1, 2003.
       (c) The agreement executed pursuant to subsection (a) shall 
     include a provision requiring the City to assume all costs 
     associated with operation and maintenance of the recreation 
     facilities included in the Contract referred to in that 
     subsection.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for purposes of a colloquy.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the able gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have risen to engage the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations, in a colloquy. As the gentleman and 
the ranking member knows, I have an ongoing interest in the enlarged 
use of biomass materials as a source of domestic energy. Serving on the 
Subcommittee on Agriculture Appropriations, I have always been somewhat 
puzzled that biomass fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel have not 
become a more substantial energy resource for our country to displace 
our unwise reliance on imported sources of energy.
  Mr. Chairman, it appears that we have a win-win-win situation if 
biomass fuels can provide a domestic energy source to help relieve our 
dependence on foreign oil, if we maintain it as a renewable resource 
that will last as long as we can grow crops, and it will provide a new 
and substantial market

[[Page 12588]]

for our farmers, especially if linked to on-farm storage of inputs and 
broadly competitive processing and distribution arrangements.
  One issue that seems to stand in the way of additional progress in 
the development of biomass fuels is the reluctance of the Departments 
of Energy and Agriculture to work together to move biofuels research 
and development forward. I assume that that lack of coordination is the 
product of bureaucratic inertia and can be overcome with some well-
directed prodding by this Congress.
  So if the Chairman and ranking member agree, I hope that our two 
subcommittees and we as leaders in the Congress can work together to 
find ways to encourage cooperation between the Departments of 
Agriculture and Energy in the development of biomass fuels. I would 
suggest we ask the Departments to report back to the committee before 
we consider next year's appropriation bill on suggested initiatives 
that can be undertaken to increase the production and use of biofuels, 
including recommendations for engaging more broadly the U.S. farm 
sector in the storage, production, processing, and distribution of 
biofuel inputs and outputs.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, we would be very happy, and I would be 
very happy, to work with the gentlewoman on this issue and, of course, 
with the committee upon which she serves.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his willingness 
to work with me. I want to again thank the able gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky), ranking member, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for purposes 
of a colloquy.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), our ranking member, for yielding me this time for purposes 
of a colloquy. As the ranking member and the chairman of the 
subcommittee understand, I have been a strong proponent of the 
Environmental Management Program for the Upper Mississippi River Basin. 
This is a program that has habitat restoration and long-term resource 
monitoring to better preserve and protect the Mississippi River Basin.
  I had originally intended to offer an amendment with appropriate 
offsets in order to increase funding for this vitally important 
program, but out of the respect for the committee and the work that 
they have done, and the 302(b) allocations that they have had to work 
within, and the difficulty, frankly, of finding appropriate offsets 
without impinging upon other vitally important programs in this bill, I 
decided not to offer the amendment.
  We do have allies on the Senate side that are also very strong 
proponents of the Environmental Management Program. As the ranking 
member and chairman undoubtedly recall, EMP was permanently 
reauthorized last year; and it was authorized from a $19 million level 
up to $33 million. This year, the committee I think did a wonderful job 
of trying to increase funding from $19 million for this fiscal year up 
to $21 million that is contained in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, we were hoping as part of the bipartisan Mississippi 
River Caucus to get the funding up to around $24 million, $25 million, 
which we feel would be sufficient for the program to absorb the new 
cost, yet still be able to accomplish the objectives that exist under 
the program; and that is still our goal. We are hoping that given the 
greater flexibility over the allocation numbers as they are in the 
Senate, we are going to be able to achieve increased funding from that 
side. Based on conversations I have now had with the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and also the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Packard), ranking member and chairman of the subcommittee, we are 
hoping to get a more favorable outcome in conference, if we are more 
successful on the Senate side for EMP.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIND. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I have discussed this 
previously, and we certainly would like to work with the gentleman in 
trying to find additional funds for this project in conference with the 
Senate. If the Senate has a higher figure, there is a good chance that 
we could find a way to come up from what the House level is.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman's commitment to the program, his leadership on the issue, and 
look forward to working with the gentleman in the future on this.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIND. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would also agree. Obviously, there is 
no guarantee at all because the budget is so very tight. But I do 
appreciate the commitment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). 
And as the chairman indicated, we would be happy to try to work with 
the gentleman.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) for yielding me this time. I appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems like I go these long spells and do not say 
much, but today I come asking for the consideration of the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Packard). I had intended, I had hoped today, to 
offer an amendment which would have added $4.3 million to the 
Environment, Health, and Safety section of title III of the bill. This 
addition would have matched the administration's request for important 
health screening and treatment for workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition 
Plant in Burlington, Iowa, which I am proud to represent. 
Unfortunately, this was not accepted by the committee. I know, from 
what we have discussed earlier, I understand the dilemma that the 
committee is in.
  Mr. Chairman, I will say that from 1946 until 1975, the U.S. Atomic 
Energy Commission operated a portion of this plant near Burlington to 
assemble nuclear weapons, employing approximately 4,000 people, 4,000 
workers. A recent review by the EPA of documents provided by the 
Department of Energy has revealed the release of radioactive isotopes 
and hazardous chemicals at the plant during this time period. This 
development raises serious concerns regarding the health and welfare of 
the workers at the plant. There is a tremendous need for this funding 
to properly screen and treat those that were exposed to harmful 
elements.
  Funding for screening and treatment at this plant at Burlington is 
not the only important screening activity which will not be funded in 
this bill. Medical monitoring of more than 1,000 workers who were 
employed at Amchitka, Alaska, during the time that the U.S. Government 
maintained a nuclear testing facility on the island will be canceled. 
The project identifies, locates and provides targeted medical screening 
for those workers.
  Other sites such as Pantex in Texas and Los Alamos in New Mexico will 
not be able to begin medical monitoring projects because the funding is 
not available.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I ask of the gentleman from California (Chairman 
Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking 
member, and so on and all the rest, that when they go to conference, 
and any other opportunity that they may have, I ask that they consider 
the service the workers in these ammunition plants, these tests sites, 
did for our country during this Cold War period. Their noble service is 
as responsible as some of us who wore the uniform, some of us that make 
the decisions we have to make in operations such as this now.

[[Page 12589]]

  Mr. Chairman, these Cold War warriors need our country's help to deal 
with the health problems they have incurred due to their service. So I 
hope that these gentlemen and my colleagues in the House will work with 
me and others to get this restored during conference committee or any 
other possible opportunity. That is my request that I come to the floor 
with today.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOSWELL. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and particularly 
his concern over the health and safety of those who have worked in his 
district and continue to do so. I for one, and I think the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Packard) shares my concern, appreciate the 
gentleman bringing it to the committee's attention.
  As I indicated to the gentleman from Wisconsin, there is no guarantee 
in this process, except the sincerity of our efforts. And I do 
appreciate the gentleman's commitment very much.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response, 
and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for his nodding 
response.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE II

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project


                central utah project completion account

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah 
     Project Completion Act, $38,724,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $19,158,000 shall be deposited into 
     the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account: 
     Provided, That of the amounts deposited into that account, 
     $5,000,000 shall be considered the Federal contribution 
     authorized by paragraph 402(b)(2) of the Central Utah Project 
     Completion Act and $14,158,000 shall be available to the Utah 
     Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission to carry 
     out activities authorized under that Act.
       In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying 
     out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the 
     Interior, $1,216,000, to remain available until expended.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

       The following appropriations shall be expended to execute 
     authorized functions of the Bureau of Reclamation:


                      water and related resources

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For management, development, and restoration of water and 
     related natural resources and for related activities, 
     including the operation, maintenance and rehabilitation of 
     reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling 
     related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and 
     related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with, 
     State and local governments, Indian tribes, and others, 
     $635,777,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $1,916,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper 
     Colorado River Basin Fund and $39,467,000 shall be available 
     for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development 
     Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary may be 
     advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund; and of which not to 
     exceed $200,000 is for financial assistance for the 
     preparation of cooperative drought contingency plans under 
     Title II of Public Law 102-250: Provided, That such transfers 
     may be increased or decreased within the overall 
     appropriation under this heading: Provided further, That of 
     the total appropriated, the amount for program activities 
     that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund or the Bureau of 
     Reclamation special fee account established by 16 U.S.C. 
     460l-6a(i) shall be derived from that Fund or account: 
     Provided further, That funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 
     are available until expended for the purposes for which 
     contributed: Provided further, That funds advanced under 43 
     U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to this account and are 
     available until expended for the same purposes as the sums 
     appropriated under this heading: Provided further, That funds 
     available for expenditure for the Departmental Irrigation 
     Drainage Program may be expended by the Bureau of Reclamation 
     for site remediation on a non-reimbursable basis: Provided 
     further, That section 301 of Public Law 102-250, Reclamation 
     States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991, as amended, is 
     amended further by inserting ``2000, and 2001'' in lieu of 
     ``and 2000'': Provided further, That the amount authorized 
     for Minidoka Project North Side Pumping Division, Idaho, by 
     section 5 of Public Law 81-864, is increased by $2,805,000: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     Act may be used by the Bureau of Reclamation for closure of 
     the Auburn Dam, California, diversion tunnel or restoration 
     of the American River channel through the Auburn Dam 
     construction site.


               bureau of reclamation loan program account

       For the cost of direct loans and/or grants, $8,944,000, to 
     remain available until expended, as authorized by the Small 
     Reclamation Projects Act of August 6, 1956, as amended (43 
     U.S.C. 422a-422l): Provided, That such costs, including the 
     cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended: 
     Provided further, That these funds are available to subsidize 
     gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans 
     not to exceed $27,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the program for direct loans and/or grants, $425,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of the total 
     sums appropriated, the amount of program activities that can 
     be financed by the Reclamation Fund shall be derived from 
     that Fund.


                central valley project restoration fund

       For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, and habitat 
     restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $38,382,000, to be 
     derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central 
     Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d), 
     3404(c)(3), 3405(f ), and 3406(c)(1) of Public Law 102-575, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau 
     of Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full 
     amount of the additional mitigation and restoration payments 
     authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575.


                       policy and administration

       For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and 
     related functions in the office of the Commissioner, the 
     Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, to remain available until expended, 
     $47,000,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be 
     nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That 
     no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be 
     available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and 
     administration expenses.


                        administrative provision

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

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       Sec. 201. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act may be used to pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel to purchase or lease water 
     in the Middle Rio Grande or the Carlsbad Projects in New 
     Mexico unless said purchase or lease is in compliance with 
     the purchase requirements of section 202 of Public Law 106-
     60.
       Sec. 202. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to 
     assess and collect annually from Central Valley Project (CVP) 
     water and power contractors the sum of $540,000 (June 2000 
     price levels), and to remit that amount annually to the 
     Trinity Public Utilities District (TPUD). This assessment 
     shall be payable 70% by CVP Preference Power Customers and 
     30% by CVP Water Contractors. The CVP Water Contractor share 
     of this assessment shall be collected by the Secretary 
     through established Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) 
     Operation and Maintenance ratesetting practices. The CVP 
     Power Contractor share of this assessment shall be assessed 
     by Reclamation to the Western Area Power Administration, 
     Sierra Nevada Region (Western), and collected by Western 
     through established power ratesetting practices. The 
     authorized amount collected shall be paid annually to the 
     TPUD.

  Mr. PACKARD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the title II be considered as read, 
printed in the Record, and open for amendments at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               TITLE III

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

                             Energy Supply

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for energy supply, and uranium 
     supply and enrichment activities in carrying out the purposes 
     of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 
     et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any 
     real property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion; and the purchase of 
     not to exceed 17 passenger motor vehicles

[[Page 12590]]

     for replacement only, $576,482,000 to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That, in addition, royalties received to 
     compensate the Department of Energy for its participation in 
     the First-Of-A-Kind-Engineering program shall be credited to 
     this account to be available until September 30, 2002, for 
     the purposes of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology 
     activities.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Salmon

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Salmon:
       Page 16, line 18, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $40,000,000)''.
       Page 21, line 19, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $46,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Udall) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, before I begin I would like to express my gratitude to 
the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) for graciously 
accepting this amendment. He and his staff have been more than generous 
with their ideas, their time; and thanks to their efforts, we have 
agreed to fund renewable energy programs well above this year's 
subcommittee mark and above final funding levels for the last 2 years.
  This is particularly notable given this year's limited House Energy 
and Water budget allocation. Again, I thank the gentleman. We will go 
golfing together when we get out of here.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to offer special thanks to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for his assistance and support of 
this amendment. His outstanding work is much appreciated by the 
renewable energy community, and myself, and the future of this planet. 
I thank the gentleman very much.
  The amendment that the gentleman from Colorado and I are proposing 
today is a timely and responsible effort to increase funding for 
renewable energy for research and development programs. The amendment 
adds $40 million to the renewable energy budget. This funding is 
necessary to ensure continued quality research and development that is 
so vital to our national security.
  The amendment is offset by a reduction in contractor travel. Though 
the committee cut funding for this program last year, abuses still 
persist. Additionally, given the choice between travel dollars for 
contractors and research dollars for the future of America, it is clear 
that we must choose the latter.
  Today, I urge my colleagues to join me in declaring that the time for 
renewable energy is now. Americans are paying more for fuel right now 
than at any time in our history. Dependency on foreign oil is at all-
time highs. We fought a war less than 10 years ago over threats to our 
oil supply, and we agreed then we had to decrease our reliance on 
foreign oil. Domestic oil production is down 17 percent since the start 
of the current administration.
  Mr. Chairman, we must now work to diversify our energy portfolio and 
draw on domestic renewable energy resources that, given the funding and 
priority they deserve, will provide much- needed reliable, affordable 
energy to American homes, businesses, and industry, and free us from 
foreign control.
  The urgency of this situation is most clearly illustrated by the 
recent gas prices. Climbing fuel costs across the Nation have served as 
a painful reminder of our overdependence on foreign oil. For over a 
year, countries from the OPEC cartel and other oil-producing countries 
have conspired to steal from Americans by artificially inflating the 
price of oil. These hikes have had a dramatic effect on the life of 
every American and threaten the state of our economy.
  Clearly, we rely too heavily on unreliable foreign oil supply from 
the world's most volatile region. We must lessen our dependence on 
foreign oil and recognize renewable energy as a vitally important and, 
I believe, undervalued component of responsible energy.

                              {time}  1930

  This morning, Secretary Richardson spoke before the Committee on 
International Relations and commented that our increased technology and 
renewable energy will be one of the factors that will bring oil prices 
back down and lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
  Despite exciting advances and promising advantages, renewable energy 
has been underfunded in comparison to competing energy programs. From 
1973, when Federal funding for renewable energy technologies started in 
earnest, through fiscal year 1996, in real 1977 dollars, the Federal 
Government has spent $42 billion for research and development in 
nuclear and $19 billion for fossil fuels.
  Contrast those figures with the $11 billion spent for renewable 
energy research and development and $7 billion for energy efficiency. 
Clearly, renewable energy technologies need and deserve more comparable 
support, particularly in light of the fact that we are losing the 
technology race to other countries, causing an even greater imbalance 
in trade.
  Countries like Germany and Japan are placing much higher priority on 
funding renewable energy research and development, posing the risk of 
U.S. technology advancement being lost to overseas competition.
  Despite the financial inequity of research and development funding, 
renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies have made 
impressive progress. Take, for example, the advances being made in my 
home State of Arizona. Arizona recently became the first State to 
require that a certain percentage of our electricity come from solar 
sources and one of 27 States to require derivation of energy from 
renewable sources, including landfill gas, wind and biomass generators.
  These renewable energy technologies are steadily gaining acceptance 
and are just beginning to deliver on the promise of clean, abundant, 
reliable and increasingly competitive renewable energy. I am confident 
that with consistent, healthy funding, renewable energy technologies 
will continue to faithfully deliver on that promise.
  As my colleagues know, or many of them know and probably are happy 
about this, this is my final term, and the close of my service as 
chairman of the House Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus. I 
am very pleased at the progress that renewables have made during my 
stewardship. House caucus membership is at an all-time high of 160 
Members. Senate caucus membership has grown to an impressive 26 
Members. Nationwide support for renewable energy is strong and growing, 
and funding levels are back on the rise.
  I am optimistic about this year's House and Senate funding levels and 
hope that, as more funds become available, the conference bill will 
further boost appropriations for renewable energy and energy efficiency 
programs.
  I urge my colleagues to support renewable energy and energy 
efficiency research and development. Together, we can ensure a secure, 
abundant, clean and promising renewable energy future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment with the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) who chairs the House Caucus on Renewable 
Energy and Energy Efficiency, and with the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). I especially want 
to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for working with me on 
this amendment. This is our second joint effort in the last 2 years.
  I join with many of my colleagues in saying we will miss the 
leadership of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) on this issue. We 
look forward to working with him from his home

[[Page 12591]]

State of Arizona, and who knows what the future may hold.
  I do also want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman 
Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), ranking 
member, for agreeing to accept this amendment.
  The amendment will add $40 million to solar and renewable energy 
programs in fiscal 2001 and will offset this sum with Department of 
Energy contractor funds. While this increase is not even close to the 
levels of the request, it is a good start, and I hope it can begin a 
trend toward increased funding for these programs in future years.
  After all the rhetoric we have been hearing in the last few weeks in 
the newspapers, on the talk shows, and on the floor about our lack of 
an energy policy, I am glad to have this opportunity today to rise 
above recrimination to get to the heart of the problem.
  I want to talk about the importance of agreeing on a long-term energy 
policy, one that requires us to think beyond today's gasoline prices 
and beyond the elections in November. I want to talk about the real 
crisis that will develop in 10 or 20 years from now when oil prices 
will probably go up permanently as a result of increasing global demand 
and of passing the peak in global petroleum production.
  We have not done enough to prepare for this eventuality. But we might 
have the opportunity to do so now. If there is a silver lining to the 
current crisis in oil prices, it is that we are being forced to 
consider alternative energy sources.
  The Department of Energy has been looking into these alternatives for 
years. Twenty years after research on clean energy technologies began, 
these technologies are becoming a part of the solution to concerns 
about the quality of our water and air and changes in our climate.
  DOE's renewable energy programs are vital to our Nation's interests, 
helping to provide strategies and tools to address the environmental 
challenges we will face in the coming decades. By reducing air 
pollution and other environmental impacts from energy production and 
use, these programs also constitute the single largest and most 
effective Federal pollution prevention program.
  Investments in sustainable energy technologies meet multiple other 
public policy objectives. Far from decreasing, U.S. dependence on 
imported oil has actually increased to record levels over the past 25 
years. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and I are old enough to 
remember the gas lines and the early crisis of the early 1970s. These 
programs are helping us to reduce our reliance on oil imports, thereby 
strengthening our national security, and also creating hundreds of new 
domestic businesses, supporting thousands of American jobs, and opening 
new international markets for American goods and services.
  It is estimated that the world market for energy supply and 
construction over the next 30 years will be in the range of several 
hundred billion dollars per year. America currently leads the world 
technologically in developing advanced renewable instruments and 
products; and we cannot, I say cannot, afford to surrender this lead to 
our foreign competitors.
  Past Federal support for sustainable energy programs has been key to 
the rapid growth of these emerging renewable technologies. Solar, wind, 
geothermal, and biomass technologies have together more than tripled 
their contribution to the Nation's energy mix of our Nation over the 
last two decades. Including hydropower renewables, renewables now 
account for over 10 percent of domestic energy production, and 
approximately 13 percent of domestic electricity generation.
  While these technologies have become increasingly cost-competitive, 
the pace of their penetration into the market will be determined 
largely by government support for future research and development as 
well as by assistance in catalyzing public-private partnerships, 
leading to full commercialization.
  Not only economic independence, but also environmental health and 
lower energy costs are advanced by our investment in renewable energy. 
But for our investment in these technologies to pay off, efforts must 
be sustained over the long term. It is time for us to recognize the 
value of clean energy research and development to our communities and 
to our world and to commit to sustaining our investment in clean energy 
in the years to come.
  Our amendment does not quite do all that should be done, but it does 
greatly improve the bill. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
from Arizona for yielding me this time. I thank him and congratulate 
him on his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, there has never been a time when this country should be 
ready for alternatives. There has never been a time when we should be 
working together to solve our energy problems in this country and start 
moving away from a 60 percent dependency. It is bad enough to be 60 
percent dependent, but worse when one is dependent on unstable parts of 
the world, some parts of it who desperately do not like us.
  On the renewable side, I think one part I want to emphasize on is the 
hydrogen side. One of the most renewable resources in this country is 
hydrogen. I believe it has been undervalued as a potential. I believe 
it has not received, for a long time, the support it should.
  This is why I have such a strong interest in the potential for the 
evolution of a hydrogen economy, an economy where hydrogen can compete 
and win both as an energy supplement, a pure energy commodity rather 
than simply as a chemical. Rather than suffering a dependency upon 
imported energy sources, we can use hydrogen produced here at home as 
an abundant, efficient energy source with the capacity to increase U.S. 
competitiveness, bringing high-salaried jobs to this country.
  Secondly, hydrogen is abundant. It can be produced from a variety of 
renewable resources, and it has many uses, offering the promise of 
significant benefits to the agricultural, manufacturing, 
transportation, and service sectors of our economy. Our aerospace and 
chemical industries are ready right now to implement significant 
increases in the production, distribution, and storage of hydrogen as 
an energy commodity.
  Also, hydrogen is a proven, effective carrier of energy. Today, our 
cars are fueled with hydrogen-enriched gasoline. Our automobile 
industry is developing fuel-cell powered cars, and researchers are 
closing in on ways to power entire communities with hydrogen 
technology.
  There are many who feel that the Third World developing countries 
will be able to utilize it before us. We can create it and sell it to 
them, another way to increase American jobs.
  I am told that hydrogen can be combined with gasoline, ethanol, 
methanol, or natural gas. Just adding 5 percent hydrogen to the 
gasoline/air mixture in an internal combustion engine can reduce 
nitrogen oxide emissions from 30 to 40 percent. An engine converted to 
burn pure hydrogen produces mostly clean water as exhaust.
  For example, NASA, in addition to using hydrogen to propel the space 
shuttle, uses hydrogen to provide all the shuttles electric power in 
on-board fuel cells, whose exhaust, pure water, is used to drink by 
those who are on the trip.
  While this is no secret, some people might be surprised to know that 
the largest user of hydrogen is the petrochemical industry which 
infuses oil with growing amounts of hydrogen in order to meet 
environmental regulations. Hydrogen also improves the potency and 
lowers emissions of natural gas. I believe this is one of the most 
immediate targets of continuing opportunity for our industry.
  Our economy is a fossil fuel-based economy, and we should be thankful 
for the success we have had there. But hydrogen, not only is an energy 
itself, but is an enhancer of the current fossil fuels.

[[Page 12592]]

  I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I urge a stronger emphasis 
be put on hydrogen. There is no downside to hydrogen. It is what we 
should put our investment in. I believe it will be the fuel that will 
operate our future economy.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, before yielding to my colleague from Ohio, to speak to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and tell him that I was very 
interested to hear his remarks and I look forward to working together 
with him on this exciting potential that hydrogen does offer to us.
  As the gentleman points out, it may well be the fuel economy of the 
future, and it has very clean by-products and has applications across 
all the energy needs we now have in our society. So I look forward to 
working with the gentleman to promote the use of hydrogen for the long 
term.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Udall) for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert) for their cosponsorship of this very important 
amendment.
  I want to also thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Packard), and the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their cooperation. Because when this 
legislation was considered in the full Committee on Appropriations, I 
offered an amendment to make sure that we did not spend any less this 
coming year than we did the current year, and the original bill that 
came to us was about $12 million under what we were spending for this 
area of renewables and solar. In fact, it was $106 million under the 
administration's request. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) 
very willingly tried to work with us and to tick up this account a bit.
  Certainly in light of rising fuel prices in this country, we really 
thank the chairman for his cooperation and interest, and I sincerely 
hope as this bill progresses farther down the appropriations process in 
our work with the other body we will be able to find additional dollars 
for this important addition to America's energy security.
  Every person in this Chamber and every American listening tonight 
knows that this is the right direction for America, and that in fact 
America's chief strategic vulnerability now is our energy dependence. 
To see American diplomats on their knees to the leaders of other 
countries, oil producing states, asking them to try to take care of us 
and to increase their production, is not a position America wants to be 
in at the beginning of this new millennium.
  We spend over $50 billion a year on imported petroleum products and 
crude. And when we go and pump gasoline in our tanks, over half of 
every dollar that we spend goes in the pocket of a leader of business 
in some other nation, not this one. To put it in perspective, America's 
farmland and our farmers, our agriculture infrastructure, can produce 
enough energy to replace half of our Nation's gasoline usage and all of 
our nuclear power supply. And we can do so without a major impact on 
food prices. That is how productive agricultural America can be if 
given this challenge.
  Imagine taking that $50 billion we pay to someone else and putting it 
to work here at home for domestic investment in rural America, in terms 
of jobs created for production, harvesting, storage of biofuel inputs, 
and industrial growth with the creation of facilities for the 
conversion of biomass to fuel. What an energy boost, in fact, this 
would be and an income boost for so many communities across this 
country.
  I have been very surprised at how slow we have made progress in this 
area. Progress has come, but not in as fast a way as we have seen 
progress, for example, in our space program. So I rise in very strong 
support of the amendment. This is the right direction for America, the 
right direction for the future, and I commend both gentlemen.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), who not only talks the talk, he 
walks the walk. He has a convertible so that he does not have to use 
his blow dryer in the morning and saves on energy that way.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the personal 
observation of the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. Chairman, I first want to salute the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur), who just made some very, very important statements. I think it 
is important for America to note the strongest Nation on Earth, the one 
everyone comes to for aid and assistance, is on bended knee at OPEC 
headquarters pleading for lower fuel prices. The United States of 
America, who when asked to defend other nations is the first to 
respond, sends its emissaries to plead with the oil emirates to please 
bring down our prices, our voters are upset.
  This amendment goes a long way to rectifying not only the pleadings 
but, hopefully, the passage of a new era in seeking alternative fuels 
that will not degrade the environment, that will be available, and will 
create opportunities and jobs. So I applaud the gentleman from Arizona 
and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for their leadership on 
this initiative. I do think it is important.
  Mr. Chairman, we flick on switches and electricity immediately comes 
on. We start our cars; we drive. We immediately have access to 
virtually anything we want in this country. Yet at the end of the day 
we are indeed dependent on other people to supply the basic resources 
of this country to run our operations. Let us not continue to find 
ourselves at this place at this time. Let us support this amendment, 
let us move forward, let us strive in the 21st century to bring about 
technologies that will improve the quality of life, that will improve 
the quality of the atmosphere and make our lives less dependent on 
outside and external forces.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume to respond to my colleague from Florida that I agree with 
him; that this is an issue of national security at its core. It is also 
an issue of great economic opportunity. And in an interesting way, it 
is an issue that could provide more freedom to every American.
  If we think about it, we bring our oil from all over the world, and 
we have to centralize the production of it and the distribution of it. 
If we move in the direction that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) 
and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) are providing leadership 
in, we can be producing these fuels in our home areas and in ways that 
provide maximum freedom to all our citizens.
  It is an interesting thought and an exciting one, I thank the 
gentleman for his leadership on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Udall) for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this 
alternative energy amendment.
  In the past few months, gasoline prices have skyrocketed, with my 
western Wisconsin constituents paying nearly $1.90 per gallon for 
conventional gasoline, not the reformulated gasoline, but conventional 
gasoline. Unfortunately, many elected officials, from both sides of the 
political aisle, would rather play politics with this issue and blame 
someone else for the problem rather than work to find answers and fix 
the problem for the future.
  Many of my colleagues claim that the current gasoline prices are the 
result of an inadequate national energy policy. To them, however, 
increased domestic drilling and greater reliance on oil seems to be the 
panacea for decreasing the rising prices at the pump. Other Members 
believe the big oil companies and refiners are gouging consumers with 
inflated gasoline prices, leading to a 512 percent profit margin for 
the oil industry in this year alone.

[[Page 12593]]

  While the arguments of both parties may well have some merit, it is 
undeniable this Nation needs to invest more in renewable and 
alternative energy technologies that are more environmentally friendly. 
Wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and hydropower are important 
components in our Nation's energy mix. Unfortunately, between fiscal 
year 1973 and fiscal year 1995, renewable energy technologies accounted 
for approximately 10 percent of all Federal Government research and 
development spending. Private sector energy R&D declined 42 percent 
between 1985 and 1994. In fact, it has continued, this downward 
decline.
  Investments in efficient and renewable energy sources deliver value 
for taxpayers by lowering our energy demand while developing additional 
domestic energy sources that strengthen our national security, spur new 
high-tech jobs, boost world economic development, and help protect the 
environment.
  My constituents are currently suffering from inordinately high gas 
prices. And while it is important that we find out the causes for the 
regional differentials in gas prices as they exist today, especially in 
the upper Midwest region, we must also use this opportunity to advance 
a proactive and more sustainable long-term energy policy so we are in 
more control of our own energy needs in the future. This amendment 
helps us get there, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Salmon-
Udall amendment to increase funding for renewable programs. Renewables 
are a clean energy source and renewables are good for our environment.
  It is no secret that current sources of energy, nuclear and fossil 
fuel-burning power plants, produce emissions and pollutants. These 
harmful by-products include long-lived radioactive wastes, greenhouse 
gases, and the air pollutants responsible for acid rain. By increasing 
our support for renewable energy sources to meet our Nation's electric 
needs, we can significantly reduce our contribution to the release of 
these pollutants.
  Supporting renewable energy is a powerful and direct way to help 
protect the environment, and it is also a way to make a long-lasting 
commitment to our children's future and to the future of our planet. It 
is only responsible, and it is prudent that we support the 
technological development of renewable energy sources, especially in 
light of the current oil price crisis we are all experiencing across 
this Nation.
  I firmly believe that we already rely too heavily on foreign oil. We 
must develop a responsible domestic energy policy. We must shift our 
focus to domestic fuel sources, like wind, like solar and geothermal; 
and we must assure a guaranteed supply of available and affordable 
energy. Yet in order for us to have options other than foreign-produced 
fossil fuel in the future, we must have genuine investments in 
renewables today.
  This amendment is a key step in that direction. It is also a 
statement of what our energy priorities must and should be. Mr. 
Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We must 
develop renewable sources of energy that our children can depend upon.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Again, I want to just close and thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), for all his terrific work in this regard 
over the last couple of years. I do look forward to working with him in 
the future.
  I might leave the discussion with a couple of additional thoughts. I 
was reminded that just 100 years ago humans depended on three sources 
of energy: their own muscle power, that of animals, and wood. And over 
the last hundred years we have created an immensely powerful supply of 
energy that is based on petroleum and fossil fuels. When that potential 
energy source became apparent, the Federal Government was very involved 
in the research and development that occurred that determined and 
explored and discovered all these terrific uses for petroleum.
  Now we are on the cusp of a new age, and I think it is very 
appropriate that we continue this kind of involvement as we move into a 
new energy century and we explore all the great possibilities of clean 
energy that involves biomass, solar, hydrogen, and the like. This is 
something that will be exciting, that will be great for our economy and 
great for our environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and would simply like to concur with the gentleman from Colorado.
  We have a very exciting opportunity right now. We are on the cusp of 
some things that are very great. We can stay at the leading edge on 
technology, or we can move to the back of the pack. I propose that we 
are doing the right thing tonight by moving one step closer on this 
commitment toward renewable energy.
  I thank the gentleman for his tireless commitment. It has been an 
honor and a privilege to work with him on this.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2000


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Foley

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Foley:
       Page 16, line 18, insert after ``$576,482,000'' the 
     following: ``(reduced by $22,500,000) (increased by 
     $13,000,000) (increased by $6,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Foley) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Packard) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity to thank the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Packard) for his hard work on this 
legislation before us today. I am proud of the work he has done to help 
preserve our water resources, particularly in the Everglades in 
Florida.
  This is probably one the most important bills Members deal with 
relative to their legislative responsibilities because it clearly works 
within the districts and the multitude of projects that make America 
the great Nation it is.
  I join my colleague today the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey). He is unavoidably detained or he would be here today at this 
moment to argue with us the importance of this amendment.
  But I think we can do more to preserve those truly important 
resources while ending some of the wasteful spending and corporate 
welfare in so many of the programs brought before this Congress.
  The amendment I am offering today would shift funding from the 
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, or NERI, to renewable energy 
research, which is truly a clean renewable source of energy.
  After pouring more than $47 billion into the nuclear power industry 
over the last 50 years, this industry is still attempting to have the 
taxpayers fund its research and industry improvement efforts. Included 
in the fiscal year 2001 funding for the Department of Energy, the 
nuclear power industry will still get another $22.5 million in Nuclear 
Energy Research Initiative subsidies.
  I think this is wrong, Mr. Chairman. The money goes to such corporate 
giants as Westinghouse and General Electric. Why does this mature 
industry need the help of the American taxpayers to develop and design 
the next generation nuclear reactors?
  I would ask my colleagues, are any planned in their hometown or 
community? Probably not. But we are still

[[Page 12594]]

spending money on research. Six of the nine largest investor-owned 
utilities by revenue were nuclear energy in 1998. They made profits of 
nearly $200 billion last year. Yet, the American people must continue 
to fund them.
  Westinghouse and General Electric have been in the business for more 
than 40 years, and it is their turn to lead and to use their huge 
profits to advance their own industry.
  The American taxpayers have over the last 50 years put $47 billion, 
again, $47 billion into nuclear subsidies. They should not have to 
subsidize this giant of an industry any longer.
  Again, the amendment I am offering today with my colleague, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), would ensure this money is 
used to support clean renewable energy. We would further help this 
emerging industry reinforce their infrastructure and keep it a reliable 
source for the future.
  It is projected that voting for this amendment could save the 
American people at least $95 million over the next 5 years.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this common sense initiative. We would 
move out of the $22.5 requested in the cut, $13 million to wind energy 
and $6 million to Electric Energy Systems account, with the remaining 
$3.5 million to be returned to the Treasury for debt reduction.
  I believe this is a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) would pull the rug out from under the Department of 
Energy's important Nuclear Research Initiative, NERI, as it is called.
  This chart behind me represents the latest data from the Energy 
Information Agency. There are 103 operating nuclear power plants in 
this country. They provide 23 percent of the Nation's electricity, more 
than ever before in our history. Think about it, almost one quarter 
comes from nuclear. Nuclear is clean and it is green and it is 
emissions free.
  I implore every Member with a nuclear-related university or industry 
in their district to think about this. Regardless of whether it is a 
university program or nuclear engineering, a national laboratory or one 
of those 103 power plants, the NERI program provides vital information 
to support innovative research in nuclear technology.
  This program is reinvigorating the Department of Energy's nuclear 
energy R&D based upon competitive and, more importantly, peer-reviewed 
projects. Even the President's very own committee of advisors says that 
PCAST as it is called, recommended in 1997 that further nuclear energy 
research and development is absolutely necessary to maintain the 
Nation's energy mix.
  So it is absolutely amazing to me that someone would want to cut the 
modest amount of funding for the NERI program and instead send it to 
fund solar and renewables.
  Let us take a look at this chart for a little bit. This is 1999. In 
1999, 22.78, almost 23 percent, more than it was 10 years ago, more 
than it was 20 years ago. And guess what? The very things that my 
colleagues are talking about, such as the renewables, we can hardly 
find them on here.
  When my colleagues turn the switch on in their house, where do they 
think the power comes from? It does not come from solar. It does not 
come from biomass or wind. In fact, the gentleman over here said 13 
percent of it was all wrapped up in renewables. He is counting hydro. 
Hydro is a part of this. Hydro is clean.
  But look at this. This is 1999. In 1990, it was the same thing, with 
nuclear down about 2 percent. In 1980, about the same thing. In the 30 
years we have been funding this renewable program, we have seen very 
little gain.
  I am not suggesting we drop it. I am suggesting we balance it. Do not 
take away funding that is needed. There are kids that want to go to 
school to learn how to keep these things going in the new generation of 
these nuclear plants that is coming on line.
  Would my colleagues believe that nuclear plants can operate at a 100 
percent capacity. Do they know that wind cannot get above 28? They talk 
about 100 percent capacity. Look, the wind does not blow all the time. 
Do not let that word fool us. Solar. The sun does not shine all the 
time.
  So they said 100 percent capacity. No such thing, my colleagues. It 
is way below 28 percent, down around 20 percent. So keep that in mind 
when we are talking about dropping this program.
  I admit I, too, like the solar. But let us not kill what works. We 
have got to prove this thing works. And it does not yet, the way 
nuclear does--reject the Markey-Foley amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong, strong opposition to this amendment.
  Students and teachers and universities are the issue here.
  Students are endangered by Mr. Foley and Mr. Markey. They're 
threatening the education of real live students. Students, as a part of 
their education, engage in research. This scientific research enables 
them to get their degrees. In fact, without this research, these 
students don't get their degrees.
  Let's take real, live students and professors in the state of 
Massachusetts where Mr. Markey lives and the interests of which he 
supposedly represents.
  The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) happens to be in 
Massachusetts. In fact it is about one mile from the edge of Mr. 
Markey's congressional district. The Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology has been awarded eleven NERI grants. These grants are 
awarded on a competitive, peer-reviewed, sound scientific basis by a 
panel of expert scientists.
  At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, fully 20 students and 
eight professors thus receive the very funds that Mr. Markey is trying 
to take away and benefit from the very program that Mr. Markey is 
destroying.
  For example, let's take two students at the Massachusetts Institute 
of Technology: Jini Curran and Martin Busse. These students are 
studying engineering and they have chosen to study the specific 
discipline of nuclear engineering. Jini and Martin are doing research 
under the guidance of a particular Professor Mujid Kazimi.
  Without the funding that the NERI program provides, Jini and Martin's 
NERI research will have to be stopped and the future of their education 
is in doubt.
  Professor Kazimi's research here will cease. Substantial financial 
resources that now go to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology will 
be stopped dead by Mr. Markey. MIT's Nuclear Engineering Department 
will therefore be diminished.
  When these students Jini and Martin and the other eighteen students 
at MIT are hurt by Mr. Markey, and when Professor Kazimi and the other 
seven professors at MIT are hurt by Mr. Markey, and MIT's Nuclear 
Engineering Department is diminished in this way by Mr. Markey, then 
indeed the city of Boston and the state of Massachusetts themselves are 
hurt by Mr. Markey.
  Rest assured that if they are not already aware of the damage Mr. 
Markey seeks to do here today, I will work to make sure that all of the 
students and the professors and the universities all across this great 
nation will be made fully aware of his actions and the effects of his 
actions.
  Perhaps some of these twenty student and these eight professors live 
in Mr. Markey's congressional district. Thus, perhaps they are thus his 
constituents.
  For the sake of the Jini and Martin and professor Kazimi and all of 
the students and professors and universities across the nation, Mr. 
Markey and this amendment must be stopped.
  A vote for the amendment advocated by Mr. Markey and Mr. Foley is a 
vote against education.
  Vote no on the Foley/Markey amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise against the amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and 
would add my voice to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my first concern is that we have just had a vote on 
this

[[Page 12595]]

floor to, essentially, increase funding for renewables by $40 million. 
And secondly, I do think under the NERI program we are doing very 
important research. We are looking to continue to improve efficiency 
and reliability and to reduce the cost of existing nuclear energy 
applications. We are looking for proliferation resistant reactors in 
fuels. We are looking for new reactor designs with improved safety, 
higher efficiency, and lower costs that would be competitive in the 
global market. And we are looking for new technologies for nuclear 
waste management and investigations into fundamental nuclear science.
  I do oppose the amendment put forth and would encourage my colleagues 
to vote against it.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply have to oppose this amendment because it 
totally eliminates the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, which I 
think would be a terrible mistake. This has been an initiative very 
modestly funded while essential to keep nuclear energy safe and to 
continue nuclear energy as a viable part of our energy resources.
  It is clean. It is proven to be safe. It is 20 percent of our 
Nation's electricity. And to eliminate the entire NERI project I think 
would be absolutely unconscionable.
  We have beefed up, as has already been said just in the previous 
amendment tonight, $40 million additional to renewable energy 
resources. And we think that that is even beyond what is necessary, but 
certainly we are willing to do that. But to add $19 million more to 
that I think would not be appropriate.
  And so, I urge all Members to vote against the amendment to cut 
nuclear R&D.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the NERI R&D program at DOE is an 
innovative program to spur new thinking at DOE labs, the nation's 
universities and in industry. The NERI program represents a 
revitalization of the Department's nuclear energy research program.
  Begun two years ago, these awards also represent excellence. Out of 
120 proposals received by DOE, only 10 were selected, including one 
from Texas A&M University.
  Through NERI, the Department has ushered in a new management approach 
to long-term nuclear energy research that applies the competitive, 
peer-reviewed selection of investigator-initiated R&D proposals.
  Through NERI, the Department has initiated an R&D effort focused on 
resolving barriers to the future expansion of nuclear energy--including 
proliferation, economics and nuclear waste.
  Through NERI, we are maintaining our seat at the table of the 
international discussion on the future of nuclear energy. This is 
critical if we are to participate in discussions on clean air, climate 
change and energy security.
  Advancing the state of nuclear science and technology, resolving key 
technology issues, and engaging the international community will all 
contribute to enabling the United States to reassert its leadership 
role in the development of nuclear energy technologies.
  I am therefore pleased to support NERI and oppose the Foley amendment 
that would eliminate this vital program at DOE.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, a few summers ago a boondoggle was born: 
the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative--NERI. When I think of this 
program, I can't help but think ``There's something about NERI. Just 
like the movie from which it was inspired, this program is a bad 
spoof--it passes itself off as a necessary research initiative to 
maintain the viability of the nuclear power industry. But it is really 
nothing more than the same subsidy for the nuclear power industry that 
Congress cut in 1998.
  It is amazing that such a mature, established industry still has a 
subsidy from the federal government. In the last few years, the nuclear 
power industry has been a $140 billion dollar a year industry. In fact, 
the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the industry trade group for the 
revenue were nuclear utilities. That hardly sounds like a fledgling 
industry in need of government subsidy.
  But that is exactly what the industry would have you think. They will 
tell you we need this money to conduct research into new reactor 
designs. The problem is this research helps the industry improve the 
economic performance of existing facilities. I don't think an industry 
that already produces 20% of the nation's electricity needs any more 
help from the federal government to improve the performance of its 
facilities. The industry has the resources and expertise to deal with 
those issues on its own.
  Before you think this is important academic research let me remind 
you that NERI awarded grants to Westinghouse and General Electric to 
develop new advanced reactor designs. These are companies that have 
been designing and building equipment for the nuclear industry for over 
40 years. They should know by now how to develop new generations of 
reactors. More importantly, they have the resources to carry out that 
research.
  Mr. Chairman, this industry has received $47 billion dollars in 
subsidy over the last fifty years. That's close to $1 billion dollars a 
year! Imagine what wind, solar or other clean renewable energy projects 
could do in fifty years if they received subsidies of $1 billion per 
year.
  The time to be subsidizing this industry is over. The nuclear energy 
film is on the last reel and it is time to begin making room for the 
digital age of electricity generation--multiple, reliable, clean 
renewable energy generating sources integrated into a seamless 
transmission network.
  So with the funds available from NERI, we will take $6 million form 
the NERI program and put it into research into the reliability of the 
electricity transmission system. Brownouts and blackouts are looming 
this summer. This research will help keep the lights on and the air 
conditioners running. In addition, the research will examine how to 
ensure that the clean, renewable distributed generating facilities can 
be integrated into the transmission infrastructure.
  In addition, we will increase wind power research and development by 
$13 million to bring it closer to the Administration request level. 
This is a true, clear renewable energy source. With the research the 
Department of Energy is conducting, the industry will ensure wind 
energy a viable alternative to other forms of electricity generation.
  We have decided to make regarding the future of our electricity 
generating facilities. I encourage members to put a stop to subsidies 
for mature industries. Instead give the new industries a chance to 
research their potential to deliver clean, renewable energy for the 
future.
  I urge members to vote yes on the Foley Amendment.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Foley/Markey amendment to eliminate the Nuclear Energy Research 
Initiative, or NERI.
  I support both renewable energy research programs and nuclear energy 
research programs, but the numbers speak for themselves.
  This bill already provides $350 million for solar and renewable 
energy programs compared to $40 million for nuclear energy research and 
development.
  With passage of the Salmon amendment earlier this evening, funding 
for solar and renewable research programs has increased to almost $400 
million.
  Funding for solar and renewable energy research now dwarfs funding 
for nuclear energy research. In this situation, it makes no sense to 
eliminate what little funding exists for research aimed at an energy 
source that provides 20 percent of the nation's electricity. In my home 
state of Illinois, that percentage is even higher.
  Again, the numbers speak for themselves. In FY 1999, 91 percent of 
NERI's funding went to independent, peer-reviewed research projects at 
America's research universities and national laboratories, including 
Argonne National Laboratory, a Department of Energy multi-program 
laboratory located in the district I represent. Only 9 percent went to 
private sector entities.
  I would encourage my colleagues to remember that we are talking about 
a source of energy that does not produce harmful air emissions. Again, 
the number speak for themselves. At least 165 million metric tons of 
carbon are not emitted each year because of this country's operating 
nuclear power plants.
  Mr. Chairman, as electricity demand grows, we cannot ignore a viable 
and significant source of electricity like nuclear energy, especially 
one that does not dirty the air. I support nuclear energy research and 
development, and would urge my colleagues to oppose the Foley/Markey 
amendment.
  Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Foley-Markey 
amendment with transfers funds from nuclear energy research to 
renewable energy programs.
  As a follow-up to the Budget Committee's hearing on my legislation, 
the Corporate Welfare Reform Commission Act, I continue to support 
efforts to root out corporate welfare. While my legislation is a 
comprehensive approach to get at all corporate welfare in the federal 
budget and tax code, I have been looking closely at programs funded 
through the appropriations bills that provide unnecessary and wasteful 
subsidies to industry.

[[Page 12596]]

  Over the past fifty years, the nuclear power industry has received 
$47 billion in subsidies from the American taxpayers. The nuclear power 
industry is now a mature industry with over $140 billion in revenues 
last year alone. Funding under the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative 
(NERI) is funneled to some of the largest corporations in the country. 
These very successful companies can stand to do without the support of 
the American taxpayer.
  This amendment also has the benefit of transferring this money to a 
more deserving cause which is in the early stages of development and 
which provides a truly clean source of energy: wind power research. 
Some of the funds transferred under this amendment would also go to 
research on other renewable, cleaner forms of energy.
  I urge the House to support the amendment by Mr. Foley and Mr. 
Markey.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) will 
be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read, as follows:

                  Non-Defense Environmental Management

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for non-defense environmental 
     management activities in carrying out the purposes of the 
     Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction or expansion, $281,001,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

             Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to maintain, decontaminate, 
     decommission, and otherwise remediate uranium processing 
     facilities, $301,400,000, of which $260,000,000 shall be 
     derived from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
     Decommissioning Fund and of which $12,000,000 shall be 
     derived by transfer from the United States Enrichment 
     Corporation Fund, all of which shall remain available until 
     expended.

                                Science

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for science activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or 
     expansion, and purchase of not to exceed 58 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, $2,830,915,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                         Nuclear Waste Disposal

       For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the 
     purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the 
     acquisition of real property or facility construction or 
     expansion, $213,000,000, to remain available until expended 
     and to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That 
     not to exceed $2,500,000 may be provided to the State of 
     Nevada solely for expenditures, other than salaries and 
     expenses of State employees, to conduct scientific oversight 
     responsibilities pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 
     1982, Public Law 97-425, as amended: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed $5,887,000 may be provided to affected units of 
     local governments, as defined in Public Law 97-425, to 
     conduct appropriate activities pursuant to the Act: Provided 
     further, That the distribution of the funds as determined by 
     the units of local government shall be approved by the 
     Department of Energy: Provided further, That the funds for 
     the State of Nevada shall be made available solely to the 
     Nevada Division of Emergency Management by direct payment and 
     units of local government by direct payment: Provided 
     further, That within 90 days of the completion of each 
     Federal fiscal year, the Nevada Division of Emergency 
     Management and the Governor of the State of Nevada and each 
     local entity shall provide certification to the Department of 
     Energy that all funds expended from such payments have been 
     expended for activities authorized by Public Law 97-425 and 
     this Act. Failure to provide such certification shall cause 
     such entity to be prohibited from any further funding 
     provided for similar activities: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds herein appropriated may be: (1) used directly or 
     indirectly to influence legislative action on any matter 
     pending before Congress or a State legislature or for 
     lobbying activity as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1913; (2) used for 
     litigation expenses; or (3) used to support multi-state 
     efforts or other coalition building activities inconsistent 
     with the restrictions contained in this Act: Provided 
     further, That all proceeds and recoveries by the Secretary in 
     carrying out activities authorized by the Nuclear Waste 
     Policy Act of 1982 in Public Law 97-425, as amended, 
     including but not limited to, any proceeds from the sale of 
     assets, shall be available without further appropriation and 
     shall remain available until expended.

                      Departmental Administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy 
     necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the 
     purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and official reception and representation expenses 
     (not to exceed $35,000), $153,527,000, to remain available 
     until expended, plus such additional amounts as necessary to 
     cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for 
     others notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency 
     Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That such increases 
     in cost of work are offset by revenue increases of the same 
     or greater amount, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That moneys received by the Department for 
     miscellaneous revenues estimated to total $111,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2001 may be retained and used for operating 
     expenses within this account, and may remain available until 
     expended, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238, 
     notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by 
     the amount of miscellaneous revenues received during fiscal 
     year 2001 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2001 
     appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more 
     than $42,527,000.


                      Amendment Offered by Mr. Ney

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ney:
       Page 20, line 8, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 2D, line 25, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $3,000,000).''
       Page 33, line 13, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, today I wanted to offer an amendment that 
would increase funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission. 
However, it is my intention to withdraw my amendment and ask the 
distinguished chairman the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) if 
he would instead enter into a colloquy with me in regard to this 
matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) 
that I have offered my amendment today and have withdrawn it in order 
to bring attention to the funding level contained in the Energy and 
Water appropriations bill for the Appalachian Regional Commission.
  I assure the gentleman it is with my utmost respect to the chairman 
and members of the subcommittee and full committee that I bring this 
matter to the attention of the House because I am fully aware of the 
constraints placed on them with regard to the 302(b) allocation made to 
it.
  I commend the chairman and ranking member on the fine job they have 
done on this bill, considering the funding levels with which they have 
had to work.
  Unfortunately, because of the funding restraints placed on the 
subcommittee, the Appalachian Regional Commission is being funded at a 
level that is $3.149 million less than the appropriation in fiscal year 
2000. That funding is also nearly $8.4 million less than was requested 
in the President's budget.
  As Members of Congress and as a Member of Congress that represents 
counties that have some of the highest unemployment rates in the State 
and are indicative of conditions within Appalachia, I believe it is 
important to properly and adequately fund the ARC so that these 
depressed counties can take advantage of the economic development 
opportunities that ARC provides.
  It is my understanding that the chairman, along with other members of 
the subcommittee, including the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky

[[Page 12597]]

(Mr. Rogers) who is also well aware of the needs of Appalachia 
residents, would consider increased funding for ARC should the 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation be increased.
  I ask the gentleman, am I correct in assuming that?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, yes, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) is 
correct in assuming this. Should the committee receive a revised 302(b) 
allocation which increases our funding level, then our effort will be 
to consider increasing funding for the ARC to at least the fiscal year 
2000 funding level.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  It is also my understanding that the other body intends on 
appropriating a level for ARC which is higher than the level proposed 
in this bill. As a result, I would like to inquire further of the 
chairman if it would be his intention during conference negotiations 
that he could support an agreement to increase this funding for ARC at 
least to the fiscal year 2000 levels even if an increase in the 302(b) 
allocation is not made?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
yes, in response to his question, I am prepared to work with the other 
body during the conferencing of the bill to negotiate funds to fund for 
the ARC at a minimum of the fiscal year 2000 level.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
entering into this colloquy. I appreciate all of his hard work on this 
bill and for taking the time to speak with me on a matter that affects 
really millions of people in Appalachia.
  I look forward to seeing this bill advance as the process moves along 
and offer any assistance that I can.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2015

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

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $31,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Kingston

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

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Kingston:
       Page 21, line 5 insert ``, including conducting a study of 
     the economic basis of recent gasoline price levels'' after 
     ``until expended''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know if there is anybody opposed to this or 
not. I hope this is a constructive amendment. All it simply asks is 
that the Office of Inspector General give us a study of the economic 
basis of the recent gasoline price increases, and this is just because 
we are not exactly sure what all caused the increases from the $1.20 
range as high as the $2.80 per-gallon range. And that is all we are 
trying to do, not fingerpoint.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment. 
We think it is a very good amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston) yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, I am not opposed 
to the gentleman's amendment but would simply point out that we are now 
applying an additional responsibility to the Inspector General's office 
and not providing any additional funds; and the fact is the funding for 
the Inspector General in this bill is $1.5 million less than the 
administration request.
  The final observation I would make is obviously we are dealing with 
the Department of Energy. The gentleman is very concerned, as we all 
are, about the high price of gasoline; but I do not know whether the 
expertise to do the best job possible in the Department of Energy 
resides with the Inspector General.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, let me say this, that we will be happy to 
work with this committee as the process continues to make sure that 
there are enough funds to do this, because we think that it is 
important. I know the gentleman has been a leader in this also. So we 
will be glad to work with him.
  We do have another amendment that affects the Secretary of Energy in 
a similar way.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                           Weapons Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion; and the purchase of 
     passenger motor vehicles (not to exceed 12 for replacement 
     only), $4,625,684,000, to remain available until October 1, 
     2003.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary for atomic 
     energy defense and defense nuclear nonproliferation 
     activities to carry out the Department of Energy Organization 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including acquisition (by 
     purchase, condemnation, construction, or otherwise) of real 
     property, plant and capital equipment, facilities, and 
     facility expansion, $861,477,000, to remain available until 
     October 1, 2003: Provided, That not to exceed $7,000 may be 
     used for official reception and representation expenses for 
     national security and nonproliferation (including 
     transparency) activities in fiscal year 2001.

                             Naval Reactors

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval 
     reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or 
     otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment, 
     facilities, and facility expansion, $677,600,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                    OTHER DEFENSE RELATED ACTIVITIES

         Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense 
     environmental restoration and waste management activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion; and the purchase of 30 passenger motor vehicles 
     for replacement only, $4,522,707,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That any amounts appropriated under 
     this heading that are used to provide economic assistance 
     under section 15 of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land 
     Withdrawal Act, Public Law 102-579, shall be utilized to the 
     extent necessary to reimburse costs of financial assurances 
     required of a contractor by any permit or license of the 
     Waste Isolation Pilot Plant issued by the State of New 
     Mexico.

                  Defense Facilities Closure Projects

       For expenses of the Department of Energy to accelerate the 
     closure of defense environmental management sites, including 
     the purchase, construction and acquisition of plant and 
     capital equipment and other necessary expenses, 
     $1,082,297,000, to remain available until expended.

             Defense Environmental Management Privatization

       For Department of Energy expenses for privatization 
     projects necessary for atomic

[[Page 12598]]

     energy defense environmental management activities authorized 
     by the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 
     et seq.), $259,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                        Other Defense Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense, other 
     defense activities, in carrying out the purposes of the 
     Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $592,235,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

       For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the 
     purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the 
     acquisition of real property or facility construction or 
     expansion, $200,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                    POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

                  Bonneville Power Administration Fund

       Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund, 
     established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for 
     the Nez Perce Tribe Resident Fish Substitution Program, the 
     Cour D'Alene Tribe Trout Production facility, and for 
     official reception and representation expenses in an amount 
     not to exceed $1,500.
       During fiscal year 2001, no new direct loan obligations may 
     be made.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy, including transmission wheeling and ancillary 
     services, pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the 
     Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the 
     southeastern power area, $3,900,000, to remain available 
     until expended; in addition, notwithstanding the provisions 
     of 31 U.S.C. 3302, amounts collected by the Southeastern 
     Power Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act to 
     recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be 
     credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain 
     available until expended for the sole purpose of making 
     purchase power and wheeling expenditures as follows: for 
     fiscal year 2001, up to $34,463,000; for fiscal year 2002, up 
     to $26,463,000; for fiscal year 2003, up to $20,000,000; and 
     for fiscal year 2004, up to $15,000,000.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy, and for construction and acquisition of 
     transmission lines, substations and appurtenant facilities, 
     and for administrative expenses, including official reception 
     and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500 
     in carrying out the provisions of section 5 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the 
     southwestern power area, $28,100,000, to remain available 
     until expended; in addition, notwithstanding the provisions 
     of 31 U.S.C. 3302, not to exceed $4,200,000 in 
     reimbursements, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That amounts collected by the Southwestern Power 
     Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act to recover 
     purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to 
     this account as offsetting collections, to remain available 
     until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power 
     and wheeling expenditures as follows: for fiscal year 2001, 
     up to $288,000; for fiscal year 2002, up to $288,000; for 
     fiscal year 2003, up to $288,000; and for fiscal year 2004, 
     up to $288,000.

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

       For carrying out the functions authorized by title III, 
     section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7152), and other related activities including conservation 
     and renewable resources programs as authorized, including 
     official reception and representation expenses in an amount 
     not to exceed $1,500, $160,930,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $154,616,000 shall be derived from the 
     Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That 
     of the amount herein appropriated, $4,036,000 is for deposit 
     into the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account 
     pursuant to title IV of the Reclamation Projects 
     Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992: Provided further, 
     That amounts collected by the Western Area Power 
     Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 and 
     the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to recover purchase power 
     and wheeling expenses shall be credited to this account as 
     offsetting collections, to remain available until expended 
     for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
     expenditures as follows: for fiscal year 2001, up to 
     $35,500,000; for fiscal year 2002, up to $33,500,000; for 
     fiscal year 2003, up to $30,000,000; and for fiscal year 
     2004, up to $20,000,000.

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

       For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the 
     hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams, 
     $2,670,000, to remain available until expended, and to be 
     derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance 
     Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in 
     section 423 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
     Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and 
     representation expenses (not to exceed $3,000), $175,200,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed 
     $175,200,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and 
     other services and collections in fiscal year 2001 shall be 
     retained and used for necessary expenses in this account, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated from the General Fund shall be 
     reduced as revenues are received during fiscal year 2001 so 
     as to result in a final fiscal year 2001 appropriation from 
     the General Fund estimated at not more than $0.

  Mr. PACKARD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the bill through page 29 line 5 be considered as read, 
printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments at this point?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

       Sec. 301. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used to award a management and operating contract 
     unless such contract is awarded using competitive procedures 
     or the Secretary of Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, a 
     waiver to allow for such a deviation. The Secretary may not 
     delegate the authority to grant such a waiver.
       (b) At least 60 days before a contract award, amendment, or 
     modification for which the Secretary intends to grant such a 
     waiver, the Secretary shall submit to the Subcommittees on 
     Energy and Water Development of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     a report notifying the subcommittees of the waiver and 
     setting forth the reasons for the waiver.
       Sec. 302. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used to award, amend, or modify a contract in a manner 
     that deviates from the Federal Acquisition Regulation, unless 
     the Secretary of Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, a 
     waiver to allow for such a deviation. The Secretary may not 
     delegate the authority to grant such a waiver.
       (b) At least 60 days before a contract award, amendment, or 
     modification for which the Secretary intends to grant such a 
     waiver, the Secretary shall submit to the Subcommittees on 
     Energy and Water Development of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     a report notifying the subcommittees of the waiver and 
     setting forth the reasons for the waiver.
       Sec. 303. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to--
       (1) develop or implement a workforce restructuring plan 
     that covers employees of the Department of Energy; or
       (2) provide enhanced severance payments or other benefits 
     for employees of the Department of Energy,
     under section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2644; 42 
     U.S.C. 7274h).
       Sec. 304. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to augment the $24,500,000 made available for obligation 
     by this Act for severance payments and other benefits and 
     community assistance grants under section 3161 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 
     (Public Law 102-484; 106 Stat. 2644; 42 U.S.C. 7274h).
       Sec. 305. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals (RFPs) for 
     a program if the program has not been funded by Congress.


                   (transfers of unexpended balances)

       Sec. 306. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
     provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to 
     appropriation accounts for such activities established 
     pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred may be merged 
     with funds in the applicable established accounts and 
     thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time 
     period as originally enacted.

[[Page 12599]]

       Sec. 307. Of the funds in this Act provided to government-
     owned, contractor-operated laboratories, not to exceed 4 
     percent shall be available to be used for Laboratory Directed 
     Research and Development.
       Sec. 308. (a) Of the funds appropriated by this title to 
     the Department of Energy, not more than $150,000,000 shall be 
     available for reimbursement of management and operating 
     contractor travel expenses.
       (b) Funds appropriated by this title to the Department of 
     Energy may be used to reimburse a Department of Energy 
     management and operating contractor for travel costs of its 
     employees under the contract only to the extent that the 
     contractor applies to its employees the same rates and 
     amounts as those that apply to Federal employees under 
     subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, or 
     rates and amounts established by the Secretary of Energy. The 
     Secretary of Energy may provide exceptions to the 
     reimbursement requirements of this section as the Secretary 
     considers appropriate.
       Sec. 309. No funds are provided in this Act or any other 
     Act for the Administrator of the Bonneville Power 
     Administration to enter into any agreement to perform energy 
     efficiency services outside the legally defined Bonneville 
     service territory, with the exception of services provided 
     internationally, including services provided on a 
     reimbursable basis, unless the Administrator certifies that 
     such services are not available from private sector 
     businesses.
       Sec. 310. None of the funds appropriated in this or any 
     previous Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act for 
     payment into the Department of Energy Working Capital Fund 
     may be used to pay salaries and expenses of any employee of 
     the United States Government.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Kingston

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

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Kingston:
       Page 33, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 311. Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall transmit 
     to the Congress a report on activities of the executive 
     branch to address high gasoline prices and to develop an 
     overall national energy strategy.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is somewhat similar to the last amendment which 
asks the Inspector General's office to come up with a report on what 
the economic basis for the gas price increase so rapidly was and/or has 
been, and this is similar to that in that it asks the Secretary of 
Energy to transmit to the Congress a report on the activities of the 
executive branch and, of course, the agency, the Department of Energy, 
does serve at the will, it is an executive agency; and this just asks 
for a report within 30 days and what activities the executive branch is 
doing to address the high gasoline prices.
  I know, having served on the Subcommittee on the Interior of the 
Committee on Appropriations and having had the Secretary of Energy come 
before our committee, they have been working on this. So I hope this is 
not anything new. It should not be expensive for them just to give us 
the report of what they have been up to.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, as with the gentleman's earlier 
amendment, I am not going to rise in opposition to it but would again 
point out an additional burden has now been placed on the Department of 
Energy with no additional funding for it, and just want to state that 
for the membership.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I do think that this probably is going to 
be a lot easier for the Secretary of Energy than the other one was for 
the Inspector General. We will work with the committee, obviously, and 
follow their wisdom on it; but we just want to make sure that we in 
government on the legislative branch, on the executive branch, we are 
doing everything we can to address this situation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                TITLE IV

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

       For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized 
     by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as 
     amended, for necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman 
     and the alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission, for 
     payment of the Federal share of the administrative expenses 
     of the Commission, including services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     $63,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
     Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456, 
     section 1441, $17,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out 
     the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as 
     amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
     including official representation expenses (not to exceed 
     $15,000), $481,900,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That of the amount appropriated herein, $21,600,000 
     shall be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided 
     further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection 
     services, and other services and collections estimated at 
     $457,100,000 in fiscal year 2001 shall be retained and used 
     for necessary salaries and expenses in this account, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That $3,200,000 of the 
     funds herein appropriated for regulatory reviews and 
     assistance to other Federal agencies and States shall be 
     excluded from license fee revenues, notwithstanding 42 U.S.C. 
     2214: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated 
     shall be reduced by the amount of revenues received during 
     fiscal year 2001 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2001 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $24,800,000.

                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $5,500,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That revenues from licensing fees, 
     inspection services, and other services and collections 
     estimated at $5,500,000 in fiscal year 2001 shall be retained 
     and be available until expended, for necessary salaries and 
     expenses in this account notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be 
     reduced by the amount of revenues received during fiscal year 
     2001 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2001 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $0.

                  NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical 
     Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section 
     5051, $2,700,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund, 
     and to remain available until expended.

                          TITLE V--RESCISSIONS

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                       Interim Storage Activities


                     (including transfer of funds)

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds appropriated in Public Law 104-46 for interim 
     storage of nuclear waste, $85,000,000 are transferred to this 
     heading: Provided, That such amount is hereby rescinded.

                      TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence 
     congressional action on any legislation or appropriation 
     matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to 
     Members of Congress as described in section 1913 of title 18, 
     United States Code.
       Sec. 602. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
        (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice

[[Page 12600]]

     describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
        (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 603. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be used to determine the final 
     point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis 
     Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the 
     water quality standards of the State of California as 
     approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis 
     drainage waters.
       (b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program 
     and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 
     shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as 
     reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully 
     repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program--Alternative 
     Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP--Alternative Repayment 
     Plan'' described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report, 
     Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley 
     Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department 
     of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future 
     obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or 
     providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the 
     San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit 
     beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal 
     Reclamation law.
       Sec. 604. Section 6101(a)(3) of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2214(a)(3)) 
     is amended by striking ``September 30, 2000'' and inserting 
     ``September 30, 2001''.
       Sec. 605. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall 
     be used to propose or issue rules, regulations, decrees, or 
     orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation 
     for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol which was adopted 
     on December 11, 1997, in Kyoto, Japan at the Third Conference 
     of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on 
     Climate Change, which has not been submitted to the Senate 
     for advice and consent to ratification pursuant to article 
     II, section 2, clause 2, of the United States Constitution, 
     and which has not entered into force pursuant to article 25 
     of the Protocol.


               Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Visclosky

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

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Visclosky:
       Page 39, line 5, insert after the period the following:
     The limitation established in this section shall not apply to 
     any activity otherwise authorized by law.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the Kyoto Protocol that has 
been debated a number of times on the House floor within literally the 
last several days, as well as committee; and I would simply want to 
point out several things.
  One is, Kyoto did not simply come full clothed from the Clinton 
administration but rather from negotiations begun under President 
Bush's administration pursuant to a treaty that President Bush signed 
on June 1, 1992.
  There was a Kyoto Protocol subsequent to that, and concerns have been 
expressed as far as various administration agencies engaging in actions 
that are not authorized.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has made a point of 
this, and I would simply indicate that the concern I have is we have 
legitimate authorized programs that the various departments in this 
case, the Department of Energy, should pursue and they should not in 
any way, shape or form be precluded from doing so because 
coincidentally they also happen to have been mentioned in the Kyoto 
Protocol.
  I would agree with the concerns expressed on previous occasions by 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) that the Kyoto Treaty is 
not the law of the land. We should not be implementing it; but because 
there are diversions and parallel tracks in many programs, I do want to 
make sure that we are clear that we are not in any way inhibiting duly 
authorized programs from proceeding.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise in opposition. In fact, on 
the contrary, I am willing to accept the amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, today the House Appropriations 
Committee accepted my amendment to the Foreign Operations 
Appropriations bill. The amendment that the gentleman from Indiana now 
offers is exactly the same wording as what I offered and what was 
accepted this morning in the full House Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this amendment regarding the 
Kyoto Protocol offered by me earlier and now by Mr. Visclosky cannot, 
under the Rules of the House of Representatives, authorize anything 
whatsoever on this Energy and Water Appropriations bill, H.R. 4733, 
lest it be subject to a point of order.
  This amendment shall not go beyond recognition of the original and 
enduring meaning of the law that has existed for years now--
specifically that no funds be spent on unauthorized activities for the 
fatally flawed and unratified Kyoto Protocol.
  Mr. Chairman, the whole nation deserves to hear the plea of this 
Administration in the words of the coordinator of all environmental 
policy for this administration, George Frampton, in his position as 
Acting Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. On March 1, 2000, 
on behalf of the Administration he stated before this appropriations 
subcommittee, and I quote, ``Just to finish our dialogue here, my point 
was that it is the very uncertainty about the scope of the language . . 
. that gives rise to our wanting to not have the continuation of this 
uncertainty created next year.''
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Obey when he stated to the 
Administration, ``You're nuts!'' upon learning of the fatally flawed 
Kyoto Protocol that Vice President Gore negotiated.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for his focus on the 
activities of this Administration, both authorized and unauthorized.
  This amendment shall be read to be fully consistent with the 
provision that has been signed by President Clinton in six current 
appropriations laws.
  A few key points must be reviewed:
  First, no agency can proceed with activities that are not 
specifically authorized and funded. Mr. Chairman, there has been an 
effort to confuse the long-standing support that I as well as other 
strong supporters of the provision on the Kyoto Protocol have regarding 
important energy supply and energy conservation programs. For example, 
there has never been a question about strong support for voluntary 
programs, development of clean coal technology, and improvements in 
energy conservation for all sectors of our economy. Notwithstanding 
arguments that have been made on the floor in recent days, I have 
never, ever tried to undermine, eliminate, delete, or delay any 
programs that have been specifically authorized and funded.
  Second, no new authority is granted.
  Third, since neither the United Nations Framework Convention on 
Climate Change nor the Kyoto Protocol are self executing, specific 
implementing legislation is required for any regulation, program, or 
initiative.
  Fourth, since the Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified and 
implementing legislation has not been approved by Congress, nothing 
contained exclusively in that treaty is funded.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Administration negotiated the Kyoto 
Climate Change Protocol sometime ago but has decided not to submit this 
treaty to the United States Senate for ratification.
  The Protocol places severe restrictions on the United States while 
exempting most countries, including China, India, Mexico, and Brazil, 
from taking measures to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. The 
Administration undertook this course of action despite unanimous 
support in the United States Senate for the Senate's advice in the form 
of the Byrd-Hagel resolution calling for commitments by all nations and 
on the condition that the

[[Page 12601]]

Protocol not adversely impact the economy of the United States.
  We are also concerned that actions taken by Federal agencies 
constitute the implementation of this treaty before its submission to 
Congress as required by the Constitution of the United States. Clearly, 
Congress cannot allow any agency to attempt to interpret current law to 
avoid constitutional due process.
  Clearly, we would not need this debate if the Administration would 
send the treaty to the Senate. The treaty would be disposed of and we 
could return to a more productive process for addressing our energy 
future.
  During numerous hearings on this issue, the administration has not 
been willing to engage in this debate. For example, it took months to 
extract the documents the administration used for its flawed economics. 
The message is clear--there is no interest in sharing with the American 
public the real price tag of this policy.
  A balanced public debate will be required because there is much to be 
learned about the issue before we commit this country to unprecedented 
curbs on energy use while most of the world is exempt.
  Worse yet, some treaty supporters see this as only a first step to 
elimination of fossil energy production. Unfortunately, the 
Administration has chosen to keep this issue out of the current debate.
  I look forward to working to assure that the administration and EPA 
understand the boundaries of the current law. It will be up to Congress 
to assure that backdoor implementation of the Kyoto Protocol does not 
occur.
  In that regard I would like to include in the Record a letter with 
legislative history of the Clean Air Act reported by Congressman John 
Dingell who was the Chairman of the House Conference on the Clean Air 
Act amendments of 1990. No one knows the Clean Air Act like Congressman 
Dingell. He makes clear, and I quote, ``Congress has not enacted 
implementing legislation authorizing EPA or any other agency to 
regulate greenhouse gases.''
  In closing, I look forward to the report language to clarify what 
activities are and are not authorized.

                                                  October 5, 1999.
     Hon. David M. McIntosh,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural 
         Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on 
         Government Reform, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that you have asked, based 
     on discussion between our staffs, about the disposition by 
     the House-Senate conferees of the amendments in 1990 to the 
     Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding greenhouse gases such as 
     methane and carbon dioxide. In making this inquiry, you call 
     my attention to an April 10, 1998 Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) memorandum entitled ``EPA's Authority to 
     Regulate Pollutants Emitted by Electric Power Generation 
     Sources'' and an October 12, 1998 memorandum entitled `The 
     Authority of EPA to Regulate Carbon Dioxide Under the Clean 
     Air Act' prepared for the National Mining Association. The 
     latter memorandum discusses the legislative history of the 
     1990 amendments.
       First, the House-passed bill (H.R. 3030) never included any 
     provision regarding the regulation of any greenhouse gas, 
     such as methane or carbon dioxide, nor did the bill address 
     global climate change. The House, however, did include 
     provisions aimed at implementing the Montreal Protocol on 
     Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
       Second, as to the Senate version (S. 1630) of the proposed 
     amendments, the October 12, 1998 memorandum correctly points 
     out that the Senate did address greenhouse gas matters and 
     global warming, along with provisions implementing the 
     Montreal Protocol. Nevertheless, only Montreal Protocol 
     related provisions were agreed to by the House-Senate 
     conferees (see Conf. Rept. 101-952, Oct. 26, 1990).
       However, I should point out that Public Law 101-549 of 
     November 15, 1990, which contains the 1990 amendments to the 
     CAA, includes some provisions, such as sections 813, 817 and 
     819-821, that were enacted as free-standing provisions 
     separate from the CAA. Although the Public Law often refers 
     to the `Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,' the Public Law 
     does not specify that reference as the `short title' of all 
     of the provisions included in the Public Law.
       One of these free-standing provisions, section 821, 
     entitled `Information Gathering on Greenhouse Gases 
     contributing to Global Climate Change' appears in the United 
     States code as a `note' (at 42 U.S.C. 7651k). It requires 
     regulations by the EPA to `monitor carbon dioxide emissions' 
     from `all affected sources subject to title V'' of the CAA 
     and specifies that the emissions are to be reported to the 
     EPA. That section does not designate carbon dioxide as a 
     `pollutant' for any purpose.
       Finally, Title IX of the Conference Report, entitled `Clean 
     Air Research,' was primarily negotiated at the time by the 
     House and Senate Science Committee, which had no regulatory 
     jurisdiction under House-Senate Rules. This title amended 
     section 103 of the CAA by adding new subsections (c) through 
     (k). New subsection (g), entitled `Pollution Prevention and 
     Control,' calls for non-regulatory strategies and 
     technologies for air pollution.' While it refers, as noted in 
     the EPA memorandum, to carbon dioxide as a `pollutant,' House 
     and Senate conferees never agreed to designate carbon dioxide 
     as a pollutant for regulatory or other purposes.
       Based on my review of this history and my recollection of 
     the discussions, I would have difficulty concluding that the 
     House-Senate conferees, who rejected the Senate regulatory 
     provisions (with the exception of the above-referenced 
     section 821), contemplated regulating greenhouse gas 
     emissions or addressing global warming under the Clean Air 
     Act. Shortly after enactment of Public Law 101-549, the 
     United Nations General Assembly established in December 1990 
     the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that ultimately 
     led to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was 
     ratified by the United States after advice and consent by the 
     Senate. That Convention is, of course, not self-executing, 
     and the Congress has not enacted implementing legislation 
     authorizing EPA or any other agency to regulate greenhouse 
     gases.
       I hope that this is responsive.
       With best wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                                  John D. Dingell,
                                                   Ranking Member.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, if there are no further speakers, I 
yield back the balance of my time
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) will state 
his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk to 
section 607, which would be inserting at line 19, and I am not certain 
if I am in order now or if the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) or 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) would be first.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will have to read the next section first 
before the Committee gets to that point.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) to 
discuss his upcoming amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Packard) for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say, first of all, I certainly appreciate the 
hard work that the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and the 
ranking member have done on this bill.
  This bill is extremely important to all of the 435 Congressional 
districts, and we all appreciate their work. I represent coastal 
Georgia and do a lot of Corps of Engineer-type projects in our area. 
None of those are easy, they all can be controversial. I appreciate the 
way, the delicate touch that the ranking member and the chairman have 
when dealing with this.
  The amendment that I have deals with the Secretary of Energy's 
Department, not the Secretary of Energy, but it deals with some of the 
recent, I am not going to use the word scandal, but some of the recent 
concern that has gone on at the Los Alamos labs, which this Congress, 
has on a bipartisan basis, tried to address and do our best to work 
with it.
  It appears that there are certain employees who have decided that 
well, it is good enough to take a government paycheck, the government 
is not good enough to require that they take a polygraph test. I stress 
that we do not randomly ask people to take polygraph tests, but when 
there has been an apparent disappearance of highly-sensitive nuclear 
secrets, then if there are employees who are not necessarily even under 
suspicion, but in the category where it is possible they could have 
some knowledge on it, then it is appropriate for the U.S. government in 
a highly-sensitive nuclear lab to go out and ask some questions and, 
unfortunately, some employees are far from that investigation.
  Mr. Chairman, that is what we will be dealing with on this amendment 
when the appropriate time comes, and I will be glad to deal with the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) if he wanted to comment on

[[Page 12602]]

that, because I know the gentleman has been very concerned about 
security at Los Alamos.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston) for this effort. We are embarking on a long national 
nightmare about security in this area. It is not a Republican problem 
or a Democratic problem. It is a national problem. It deserves a 
heightened degree of attention, and I commend my friend, the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for giving it that attention.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) will state 
his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, at what point in the bill is the Clerk now 
reading?
  The CHAIRMAN. We are to the point where the Clerk will read section 
606.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 607; is 
that in order at this time?
  The CHAIRMAN. After 606 is read it would be in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 606. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by amending section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246) to read as 
     follows:


                   ``authorization of appropriations

       ``Sec. 166. There are authorized to be appropriated for 
     fiscal years 2000 and 2001 such sums as may by necessary to 
     implement this part.'';
       (2) in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251) by striking ``March 31, 
     2000'' both places it appears and inserting ``September 30, 
     2001''; and
       (3) in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285) by striking ``March 31, 
     2000'' both places it appears and inserting ``September 30, 
     2001''.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Andrews

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Andrews:
       Page 39, after line 19, insert the following:
       Sec. 607. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to carry out the project for navigation, Delaware 
     River Mainstem and Channel Deepening, Delaware, New Jersey, 
     and Pennsylvania, authorized by section 101(6) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4802), as 
     modified by section 308 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 300), before the June 1, 2001.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) will control 10 minutes and a 
Member opposed will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which is cosponsored by the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), my very able colleague, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), is a sensible due diligence 
amendment, and here is what it says. The bill proposes to spend 
approximately $30 million of our constituent's money to pursue a 
project to deepen the main channel of the Delaware River which divides 
the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania and which empties into a bay 
which sits next to the State of Delaware.
  We believe that there are significant unanswered questions about this 
project, and the purpose of our amendment is to be sure that there is 
adequate time for this Congress to first get the facts, and then decide 
whether to spend the $30 million of our respected taxpayers' money.
  There are questions in this project about environmental concerns 
which is why the amendment is supported by the League of Conservation 
Voters, the Sierra Club, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the 
National Wildlife Federation and Friends of the Earth.
  There are questions about the economics of this project, which is why 
the amendment is supported by Citizens Against Government Waste and 
Taxpayers for Common Sense. Finally, there are questions about the 
equity and feasibility of the plan to distribute the dredged spoils 
from this project.
  Due diligence requires that we gain the answers to these questions, 
and that is the way this amendment works. It says that funds for this 
deepening project are prohibited to be spent before June 1 of 2001 so 
that this Congress and the executive branch can answer these kinds of 
questions.
  Environmentally, is this project going to be a significant threat to 
the drinking water and the natural resources of the Delaware River and 
bay system? The proponents would say that the environmental impact 
statement answers that question.
  I think the environmental impact statement raises more questions. The 
method that is used with respect to toxic and polluted sediment is to 
average the presence of those sediments in the river bed, but that does 
not allow for toxic hot spots which could arise.
  It does not deal with the question of the environmental consequences 
that could be done to the dredged disposal sites, and it does not deal 
with the consequences of the dredging that would take place for berths 
next to oil refineries, if they are ever dredged, that are relevant to 
this project. There are too many environmental questions to go forward 
with this project at this time.
  On the economics, the proponents of this project, the Army Corps of 
Engineers, say that 80 percent of the economic benefit derives from 
being able to get more crude oil to six oil refineries along the 
Delaware River at a cheaper rate which then lowers production costs. 
Mr. Chairman, that requires those oil refineries to make a commitment 
with their money to dredge their berths and make themselves available 
for this crude oil before we spend $30 million of the public's money.
  The record though shows that Best One Company has committed to make 
that investment; the others have not. They have given us words. They 
have given us gestures. They have not given us commitment or money. Mr. 
Chairman, this project proposes to build a superhighway with no exit 
ramps. A $311 million superhighway without an exit ramp.
  Mr. Chairman, finally, there is the question of the equity of dredged 
disposal sites. This project calls for 10 million cubic yards of 
dredged material to be distributed on the beaches of Delaware, but the 
Army Corps has refused to cooperate with the Delaware environmental 
agency and get the appropriate permits which is why Senator Roth and 
Senator Biden in the other body have urged that this project not be 
funded at this time.
  The project takes the remaining 22 million cubic yards of material 
and proposes to put it all in southern New Jersey, which is why elected 
officials, Republican and Democrat, State, local, and county throughout 
southern New Jersey have objected to this project. We need due 
diligence here, Mr. Chairman. We need to look at the essentials of this 
project when it comes to environment, economics and dredged disposal 
before we commit $30 million of the public's money to this project, 
which is why environmental groups and taxpayer groups support this 
amendment and why I urge my colleagues to do so as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Andrews amendment. Quite 
frankly, I make no apologies for fighting for our State, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and my State and our priorities. I do so 
within the spending restraints of the Balanced Budget, and I have 
looked and investigated closely the actual nature of each of these 
types of projects in the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development.

[[Page 12603]]

  Let me say I do not and have not supported any project in New Jersey 
that would harm my State's environment. The Delaware Deepening project 
meets all environmental standards and has been approved by the 
Environmental Protection Agency. Since some groups in the sponsor have 
raised the prospect that this project is nonenvironmently justified, I 
decided to contact the Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 Office, 
the agency required under the Federal law to review the project.
  Mr. Chairman, I asked if the EPA had any outstanding environmental 
concerns over the deepening of the Delaware River. The EPA's response 
was no.
  I have also heard the argument that the State of New Jersey is 
opposed to the project. Let me state very clearly to all Members that 
the State of New Jersey supports the project and Governor Whitman has 
written to me to express her support. She writes, and I quote her 
letter of June 5, ``given the importance of this project to New 
Jersey's economy and Pennsylvania's willingness to work with us to 
ensure that they accept a more equitable share of the dredged 
materials, I support Congress funding this project in the fiscal year 
2000 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.''
  In addition to Governor Whitman, our senior senator from New Jersey, 
Senator Lautenberg, supports this project.
  Dredging on the Delaware River is not new. The U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers has dredged the river every year for generations. The 
shorelines of both sides of the river and bay contain dirt and sand 
removed from the river. None of the dire environmental consequences 
predicted as a result of the project have ever occurred. My colleague 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has repeatedly stated in letters and 
other things that the dirt and sand taken from the Delaware River is 
dangerous. It is not. The EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the New 
Jersey DEP, the Pennsylvania DER have studied the project. Surely one 
of these agencies after years of review would have raised some 
objection.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment most strongly.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Frelinghuysen), that the New Jersey legislature has failed to yet 
appropriate its match for this project because of the very concerns 
that I made reference to.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest), my friend and coauthor. The gentleman from Maryland is one 
of the leading environmentalists of this Congress who will reflect some 
of the reasons that the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, 
the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, National Wildlife Federation 
and others so strongly support this amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I will make a comment about the State of Delaware and 
the State of New Jersey supporting this project. There are numerous 
agencies within each of those States, and the State of Delaware has a 
problem with this dredging from the governor to the two senators, to 
the Member of Congress from that State.
  The issues that they have had are environmental issues, and those 
environmental issues deal with the toxins that are in these regions of 
the river that is going to be dredged. They have a problem with the 
dredged spoil that is supposed to be considered clean, which, in fact, 
when we move tiny particles of dredged material, each of those grains 
of sand, because of the physical nature of that structure, when it is 
moved, exposed to air, deposited someplace else, releases nitrogen and 
phosphorus. Those are concerns.
  Delaware does not want this project to go forward, because of the 
environmental concerns that the Corps of Engineers have been asked to 
address, and they have not addressed those issues.

                              {time}  2045

  The other issue my colleague from New Jersey talked about, when they 
dredge this channel in the river from 40 to 45 feet, it is going to 
cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. Well, what good is that dredged 
deeper channel going to do when we do not dredge the equivalent depth 
to the berths where the ships are going to dock? And almost all of 
those ships are owned by somebody. Whether it is an oil company or a 
foreign steamship company, they have intimated that they are not going 
to dredge from the channel to the berths.
  Now, why are we dredging? I think that is the question that needs to 
be asked. What are we dredging? We are dredging for fundamentally two 
reasons. One so that we can get a 6-pack of Heineken for a couple of 
pennies less. That is what it amounts to.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge support for the Andrews amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Funding should not be withheld, and this project should not be 
delayed.
  Issues raised by the opponents to the project have been adequately 
addressed during the planning stages and appropriate analyses and 
project modifications have been made to ensure the environment is 
protected. This project is included in the President's budget request; 
it is supported by the governors of both States, New Jersey and 
Pennsylvania, as well as numerous Members of this body.
  The project will deepen the Delaware main shipping channel from the 
existing 40 feet to 45 feet and will provide substantial benefits. I 
urge all of the Members to support the project and to oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the former governor of the State of Delaware and 
a supporter of the amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I would point out to my colleagues than there are three States 
involved in this. The State of Delaware actually runs the whole length 
of this Delaware River and our State, at this moment, at least, opposes 
this particular measure to dig this channel deeper, and we support the 
Andrews amendment.
  There are various reasons for that. One could argue waste or whatever 
it may be, because this is an expensive project. But in Delaware, we 
are trying to determine the environmental impact, as has been stated by 
several speakers here, whether it will cause undue harm to Delaware's 
natural resources.
  Last year I supported funding because it moved the process forward 
and we could find out more. Then we tried to work with the Army Corps 
of Engineers in the course of this year, and the Army Corps of 
Engineers and our Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 
Control began negotiations about how the environment would be 
guaranteed: would it be through a State permit or some memorandum of 
agreement. It is my opinion that the forum is not as important as the 
substance. Any agreement needs to be mutually acceptable, legally 
enforceable, and allow for meaningful public participation.
  Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that I would be able to come to the floor 
tonight saying these conditions have been met, but I cannot do that; 
they have not been met. Given the lack of assurances from the Corps to 
my State's environmental agency, I cannot support funding for this 
project this year, and that is exactly what the gentleman from New 
Jersey's amendment does, it delays it for a year. I think the wiser 
course of action today is to delay funding for actual dredging until 
this issue is resolved.
  In fact, many in my State thought that that was the Corps' position 
too. This spring, a Corps spokesman stated to the Delaware press that 
the Corps had all the necessary permits, and it had addressed all of 
the environmental concerns created by the dredging

[[Page 12604]]

project. The very next day the Corps reversed itself and stated that we 
are not going to start dredging without resolving the permit issues 
first, admitting they did not have it resolved. Sadly, a few weeks ago 
when I gave the Corps the opportunity to support my efforts to put 
their promise in writing and delay actual dredging funds, they 
declined.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder citizens in Delaware do not trust the 
economic justifications and environmental propositions the Corps makes. 
It is no wonder our Department of Natural Resources insists on a 
legally enforceable agreement with the Corps. I know we all hope the 
DNREC, our environmental people and the Corps can reach a mutually 
acceptable, legally enforceable agreement before the fiscal year 2001 
begins; but until that time, I urge the House to withhold funding for 
this project.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski).
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment from 
the gentleman from New Jersey and in strong support of the Delaware 
River main channel deepening project. This project was included in the 
President's fiscal year 2001 budget and is supported by Governor Ridge 
and Governor Whitman.
  In the early 1980s, Congress directed the Army Corps to study the 
viability of modifying the channel. We authorized this and funded it in 
1992. The final Environmental Impact Statement was filed by the Corps 
in 1997; and it was approved by EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the 
U.S. Geological Survey.
  The Corps has spent $7 million on numerous studies over the past 6 
years. Reports have been submitted on salinity, shellfish, sediments, 
wetlands, groundwater, and oil spills; and all of these reports have 
shown no significant impact on these areas of concern.
  As for economic benefits, the Army Corps cost-benefit ratio is $1.40 
for every dollar invested. There is also an unprecedented level of 
involvement by beneficiaries. It is not only the oil companies who will 
benefit, even though Sunoco and Valero have expressed support for this 
project and are ready to take advantage of a deeper tier channel. 
Additionally, there are almost 1,200 groups that support the deepening 
of the Delaware River to 45 feet. They range from labor to shippers to 
port groups. Virtually every facet of the community that benefits from 
port commerce is supportive of this project.
  Why does the Port of Philadelphia need to go to 45 feet? Because the 
trend in the world is towards bigger ships. If we do not deepen the 
Delaware, the region will be severely affected. We will lose jobs and 
our port will become less competitive.
  In addition to benefiting labor, oil companies, and shippers, 
deepening only 5 more feet can potentially benefit consumers from Maine 
to Maryland. Because of reduced transportation costs associated with 
the deepening, oil companies could very well pass these lower costs on 
to consumers in order to stay competitive. These savings by oil 
companies can translate into reduced home heating oil and gas prices 
for consumers.
  As to the environmental issues associated with this project, first, 
less lightering gives less of a chance for oil spills. Second, this 
project provides for wetland restoration and beach fill projects built 
with clean sand.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey has requested a 
GAO report. He has asked that the money for this project be delayed 
until a report is finished. However, my experience with the GAO as a 
former chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight 
leads me to believe that this is beyond the purview of the GAO. 
Typically, the GAO conducts more broad-based reviews which are 
requested by committees of jurisdiction or mandated by law. The GAO 
does not have the resources to respond to individual Member requests; 
and it is highly unlikely, in my view, that a report would be available 
within a year.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
New Jersey, and I offer my strong support for this important project.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would simply conclude our side of the debate, Mr. Chairman, by 
indicating that I respect the gentleman from New Jersey and those who 
have spoken on his side very much, both in terms of their intelligence, 
their passion on the issue, and their commitment for their 
constituents. I happen, in this instance, however, to seriously 
disagree with them. I believe that we have an authorized program, the 
procedures and laws of this country have been followed; and I do think 
that we ought to proceed. I do oppose the Andrews amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  The bill as it presently is constituted is spend first, think later. 
I think we should do the opposite, think first and then maybe spend 
later.
  We are being asked to invest nearly $30 million into a project that 
is not economically proven, that is environmentally risky, and that is 
fundamentally unfair to the people of southern New Jersey. Think first, 
then maybe spend later. Join with us and join with the League of 
Conservation Voters, Citizens Against Government Waste, Republicans and 
Democrats in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point I will insert into the Record reports 
from the GAO which study other similar projects.

Report by the Comptroller General of the United States: Montana's Libby 
     Dam Project: More Study Needed Before Adding Generators and a 
                            Reregulating Dam

       The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has not shown that its 
     proposed project to add more generators to the Libby Dam and 
     a reregulation dam downstream is economically justified or 
     the best alternative for meeting Pacific Northwest 
     electricity peaking needs:
       GAO questions the Corps method of calculating the project's 
     benefits. The Corps plans to reassess the benefit-cost ratio 
     using a better method and submit the results to the Congress 
     by early 1980.
       Neither the Corps nor the Bonneville Power Administration 
     has adequately studied other was of meeting forecasted peak 
     power shortages. Combustion turbines, cogeneration, power 
     exchanges, load management, and peak pricing options should 
     be evaluated before the proposed project proceeds.
       This report responds to a request from Senator Baucus.
                                  ____


Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States: 
     The Tennessee Valley Authority's Tellico Dam Project--Costs, 
                       Alternatives, And Benefits

       In January 1977 the nearly completed $116 million Tellico 
     Dam project was stopped because it would harm the habitat of 
     the snail darter--an endangered species of fish. Several 
     alternatives to the project have been proposed. However, 
     neither the current project nor alternatives are supported by 
     current benefit-cost analyses.
       The Tennessee Valley Authority should update the remaining 
     benefit-cost data for the Tellico project and alternatives to 
     it. The Congress should prohibit the Authority from further 
     work on the project and should not act on the proposed 
     legislation to exempt the project from the Endangered Species 
     Act until more current information is received.
                                  ____


 Report by the U.S. General Accounting Office: Information on Corps of 
       Engineers' Clarence Cannon Dam and Mark Twain Lake Project

       This report discusses the 1981 flooding along the Salt 
     River in northeast Missouri and the resulting damages above 
     and below the Corps of Engineers' Clarence Cannon Dam 
     project. It further discuses the potential impact hydropower 
     operations of the dam will have on downstream landowner, and 
     the current cost and schedule estimates for completing the 
     project.
                                  ____


     Report to the Honorable George Miller, United States House of 
Representatives by the U.S. General Accounting Office: Proposed Pricing 
   of Irrigation Water From California's Central Valley New Melones 
                               Reservoir

       The New Melones Reservoir in California is the latest 
     addition to the Bureau of Reclamation's vast network of dams, 
     reservoirs, canals, and pumping stations known as the Central 
     Valley Project. Since New Melones is part of the CVP, the 
     Bureau adds its irrigation construction, operation, and 
     maintenance costs to other CVP costs. The entire irrigation 
     costs are then used in calculating rates for water repayment.
       As a result, New Melones irrigation rates are lower than 
     they would be if its water

[[Page 12605]]

     users had to repay construction and operating costs of the 
     reservoir. Costs associated with New Melones will eventually 
     cause the rates of other CVP users to increase. Because of 
     existing long-term contracts, however, the increased rates 
     cannot be passed on to other users until their contracts 
     expire or are amended.
                                  ____


Report to the Honorable James H. Weaver House of Representatives by the 
  Comptroller General of the United States: Corps of Engineers Should 
         Reevaluate the Elk Creek Project's Benefits and Costs

       The Corps of Engineers' fiscal year 1982 estimates of 
     benefits and costs for the Elk Creek project, under 
     construction in Jackson County, Oregon, show an excess of 
     benefits over costs.
       This report questions most of the Corps' estimates of 
     benefits to be obtained from the project's flood control, 
     water supply, recreation, irrigation, and area redevelopment 
     purposes. It also questions some of the Corps' project cost 
     estimates. These issues affect the benefit cost value 
     reported to the Congress in support of the project's economic 
     feasibility.
       GAO recommends that the Corps resolve these matters and 
     recalculate project benefits and cost.

Report to the Congress of the United States by the Comptroller General: 
 Congressional Guidance Needed on Federal Cost Share of Water Resource 
           Projects When Project Benefits Are Not Widespread

       Many water resource projects provide benefits to large 
     segments of the country; however, the Corps of Engineers and 
     the Soil Conservation Service have built some projects that 
     primarily benefit only a few landowners or businesses.
       For Corps and Service projects, the non-Federal entity is 
     seldom required to share a larger portion of project cost to 
     compensate for these special benefits, such as land 
     enhancement or increased local taxes. The Congress needs to 
     clarify its intent regarding cost sharing on such projects.
       Non-Federal entities provide land, easements, rights-of-
     way, and relocate utilities. The estimated costs of such 
     items are shown as the non-Federal cost share in project 
     feasibility studies. GAO found that the estimated non-Federal 
     cost share for Service projects usually contained extraneous 
     cost items which are not actual project costs. Such costs 
     inflate the total project cost and also make the non-Federal 
     ``share'' appear much higher than it actually is. GAO says 
     this practice should be stopped.
                                  ____


   Chapter 3: Some Water Resource Projects Do Not Provide Widespread 
                                Benefits

       The Corps and SCS, after congressional approval, finance, 
     construct, and often maintain water resource projects. In 
     some instances, these projects have only one primary 
     beneficiary or provide special localized benefits--such as 
     increased earning potential or extraordinary land 
     enhancement--to certain groups, businesses, or individuals 
     primarily at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. However cost 
     sharing between Federal and non-Federal entities for these 
     projects is generally the same as for other projects 
     providing more general widespread benefits.
       Legislation and procedures generally require local project 
     sponsors to provide the necessary land, easements, rights-of-
     way, and utility relocations for most projects except flood 
     control reservoirs. For projects providing benefits such as 
     beach erosion control, the local sponsor is also required to 
     contribute a designated percentage of the total project 
     construction cost. If the land, easements, and rights-of-way 
     do not fulfill the required non-Federal contribution, cash 
     contributions are required. The traditional formulas 
     establishing the required non-Federal share have evolved over 
     the years as new agencies, programs, and project purposes 
     have been authorized by the Congress.
       Although many variations in the traditional cost-sharing 
     formulas exist, the requirements are reasonably well defined 
     and are usually met.
       However, when the projects benefit only a small group or 
     yield significant secondary or special localized benefits, 
     the Federal Government rarely requires a larger percentage of 
     project cost from local sponsors. Corps policies and 
     procedures (as discussed in ch. 2) address limited 
     beneficiary situations, but their requirements are vague and 
     inconsistently applied at the various districts. Although SCS 
     recognizes that these situations occur, their policies and 
     procedures do not address these issues.
       Consequently, some project beneficiaries have reaped 
     significant special localized benefits at the Federal tax-
     payers' expense. The following synopses briefly identify and 
     discuss several water resource projects which we believe 
     provide significant special or localized benefits to 
     identifiable beneficiaries. Additional information concerning 
     each project is included in appendix I.


              SOME PROJECTS HAVE ONLY A FEW BENEFICIARIES

       In 4 of the 14 cases we reviewed a high percentage of 
     project benefits went to only a few people or businesses. 
     Estimated project costs ranged from about $7 million to $111 
     million.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Federal
   Project name; purpose and      Total cost      cost       Number of
            location             (thousands)  (thousands)  beneficiaries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue River Channel Flood            111,000       94,100       \1\ 281
 control, Missouri.............
Hendry County Flood control,         17,719       13,190        \2\ 21
 Florida.......................
Southern Branch of Elizabeth          7,634        5,282             2
 River Navigation, Virginia....
York and Pamunkey Rivers             50,500       47,200         \3\ 3
 Navigation, Virginia..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One company will receive 55 percent of total project benefits.
\2\ Four landowners have control over 61 percent of benefited area.
\3\ One company will receive 86 percent of total project benefits.

     York and Pamunkey Rivers Navigation Project
       The York and Pamunkey Rivers Navigation Project in Virginia 
     is an example of a proposed project which will benefit a 
     limited number of identified users. (See p. 61). The project 
     was internally approved by the Corps in 1973, but has not yet 
     been authorized by the Congress. Although it is expected to 
     provide transportation savings to only three users, 
     additional non-Federal contributions were not recommended.
       The recommended plan provides a two-lane navigation 
     channel. The estimated total project cost is $50.5 million of 
     which the non-Federal share is estimated at $3.3 million (6.5 
     percent). The non-Federal share is for lands, levees, 
     spillways, relocations, berthing areas, and access channels.
       The project has only three identified users, two of which 
     are expected to receive 98.5 percent of the total project 
     benefits. It provides a more economically efficient method of 
     transporting oil to the American Oil Company and the Virginia 
     Electric and Power Company. It is also expected to maintain 
     depth in the York River entrance channel sufficient for 
     present and future use by the Navy.
       The estimated annual benefits for each project beneficiary 
     are shown below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Beneficiary                       Amount      Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Oil Company............................   $17,013,800      86.4
Virginia Electric and Power Company.............     2,386,200      12.1
U.S. Navy.......................................       300,000       1.5
                                                 -----------------------
      Total.....................................    19,700,000     100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Additional non-Federal contributions were not recommended 
     by the Corps despite the fact that the project is expected to 
     benefit only three users and one user is expected to receive 
     86 percent of the estimated annual savings. One of the 
     beneficiaries, American Oil Company, could completely repay 
     the project cost in 3 years with its annual transportation 
     savings. Instead, the Nation's taxpayers, if this project is 
     approved, would have to pay for 98.5 percent of the project.


    IDENTIFIABLE BENEFICIARIES SHOULD MAKE ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS

       Some projects built by the Corps and SCS provided 
     significant special localized benefits to direct, 
     identifiable beneficiaries. These benefits can accrue in the 
     form of increased earning potential, land enhancement, or in 
     the case of a State or local entity, increased local real 
     estate and income tax bases.
       In these situations, the Federal Government is subsidizing 
     individuals or groups of individuals who often have the 
     ability (because of increased earnings) to make additional 
     contributions.
     Pohick Watershed Flood Prevention Project
       The SCS Pohick Watershed project in Fairfax County, 
     Virginia, provides significant increased income to housing 
     developers and increased tax revenue to Fairfax County. (See 
     p. 69.) The project is creating choice lakefront property 
     within 17 miles of Washington, D.C. SCS did not require any 
     additional non-Federal contributions for these benefits.
       The Pohick Watershed was the first SCS flood prevention 
     project undertaken in a watershed being totally converted 
     from rural to urban land use. It was authorized in 1968 
     because of the anticipated rapid change in land use. The plan 
     was to supplement an overall development plan for an area 
     rapidly converting from nearly natural cover conditions to an 
     area of intensive urbanization.
       In June 1970, SCS estimated the project construction and 
     installation would cost $1,878,520 with the Federal share 
     being $904,142 and the non-Federal share $974,378. The 
     project consists of seven floodwater retarding structures and 
     is about 70 percent complete.
       The project provides special local benefits to a small 
     number of housing developers. After the SCS project was 
     authorized and construction started, developers began 
     building large subdivisions in this formerly undeveloped 
     area. In addition to the homesites surrounding the lakes, 
     many sites are directly on the lakeshores. At project 
     completion, the seven lakes formed by the floodwater 
     retarding structures will create 571 choice lakefront 
     homesites. Subdivisions have already been completed around 
     four of the seven lakes. According to local real estate 
     agents and county officials, homes in Fairfax County with a 
     lake view sell at a $2,000 premium; therefore, the developers 
     could receive additional income of $1,142,000 because of the 
     lakefront sites. One development company building a 
     subdivision around one of the lakes paid $104,000 to increase 
     the lake size. The subdivision has 150 lakefront homesites, 
     and as a result of the sites, the

[[Page 12606]]

     company received additional gross income of $300,000.
       The Fairfax County real estate tax base has increased 
     greatly during the period 1970 to 1979. Overall, the total 
     county assessed value has increased 146 percent while the 
     value in the Pohick Watershed area has increased about 1,800 
     percent. County officials did not know how much the project 
     contributed to the 1,800-percent increase in value. However, 
     with the advent of the SCS project and a county sewage system 
     the project area developed rapidly. Real estate values in the 
     project area increased $1.1 billion from 1970 to 1979 
     resulting in additional annual county tax revenues of 
     approximately $17 million.
       SCS has not required additional non-Federal contributions 
     to compensate for these special localized benefits. We 
     believe the local sponsor should have contributed more 
     because there were readily identifiable beneficiaries who 
     receive significant secondary benefits because of the 
     project.
     Hendry County Flood Control Project
       In Hendry County, Florida, the Corps has planned a $17.7 
     million flood control and water supply project which will 
     benefit a total of 21 local farmers/corporations--four owners 
     control 61 percent of the benefited land (See p. 46.) 
     Although the Corps considers this project a flood control 
     project, it will also provide major drainage benefits to vast 
     amounts of marginal grassland which can then be used for more 
     intensified ranching and farming operations (land 
     enhancement). It also will increase the county's tax revenue. 
     Even though the project had identifiable beneficiaries and 
     may result in substantial land enhancement, the Corps did not 
     request additional non-Federal contributions.
       Special localized benefits will accrue to identifiable 
           beneficiaries
       The Corps analysis of future land use acknowledges that the 
     project will permit 5,400 acres--presently used for pasture, 
     rangeland, woodland, and truck crops cultivation--to be 
     upgraded for sugarcane production. The four largest 
     landowners have stated that once the project is complete, 
     they plan to grow sugarcane on land that was previously less 
     productive. The largest landowner, a corporation that owns 34 
     percent of the project land, stated that the project will 
     greatly improve its economic potential because an additional 
     3,200 acres of sugarcane could be grown on land previously 
     used for a less productive purpose. A large sugar company, 
     the second largest landowner, plans to move current cattle 
     operations to its 17,846 acres in the water supply area. This 
     move will allow them to develop their present ranch near 
     Clewiston, Florida, into sugarcane, which they indicated 
     would be more profitable. The largest family farm landowner 
     also plans to convert 960 acres of land from cattle to 
     sugarcane when the project is completed. Another rancher 
     indicated plans to produce sugarcane on land currently used 
     as pasture but has not determined the exact acres involved.
       In addition, the project could provide a large land 
     development company an estimated additional $18 million gross 
     income from sales. In 1975 the company transferred 2,560 . . 
     .

                           *   *   *   *   *



                              conclusions

       When Federal Water resource developments were first 
     authorized, the programs were designed to encourage 
     transportation, settlement, and economic development of the 
     Nation. As early as 1920 the Congress recognized that some 
     water resource projects provided a high percentage of 
     ``special local benefits,'' and in the 1920 River and Harbor 
     Appropriation Act voiced its intent to require a higher non-
     Federal cost share for projects with a high percentage of 
     special local benefits.
       Conditions have since changed. Much of the Nation is now 
     highly developed and new national concerns and priorities 
     have surfaced (energy and the environment) and there is 
     increasing competition for the Nation's resources. Because of 
     these changing priorities it is even more important that the 
     Federal agencies carefully evaluate the local versus the 
     national benefits provided by each proposed project and 
     consider this when recommending to the Congress the non-
     Federal cost share.
       Both the Corps and SCS have financed, constructed, and 
     sometimes maintained water resources projects which benefit a 
     very few individuals or businesses or provide a significant 
     special or localized benefits to an identifiable group of 
     beneficiaries.
       Although both agencies recognize these situations, they 
     have rarely required additional non-Federal contributions 
     (over and above established standard cost-sharing formulas) 
     as compensation. Consequently, the Federal taxpayer, most of 
     whom will receive no direct project benefit, pays for most of 
     the associated project cost. We believe the Corps and SCS 
     should have required additional non-Federal funds for each of 
     the projects discussed in this report.
       As discussed in chapter 2, the law requires that the Corps 
     identify and discuss the national project benefits vs. 
     limited special benefits and recommend appropriate non-
     Federal cooperation.
       While section 2 of the 1920 River and Harbor Appropriation 
     Act literally only requires that the Federal agency include 
     its findings of local versus national benefits and recommend 
     what the local cost share should be on the basis of these 
     benefits, its purpose is to secure a higher non-Federal 
     contribution under certain circumstances. We believe that the 
     Corps' multiple use policy (discussed in ch. 2) does not 
     fully conform with the intent of section 2. Further the Corps 
     did not specifically compare local versus national benefits 
     in each of the studies we reviewed. We believe that a 
     separate discussion of these benefits should be included in 
     each feasibility study to fully inform the Congress of the 
     nature of the project benefits and any additional non-Federal 
     contributions which should be required.
       The Secretary of Agriculture also has discretionary 
     authority under the Watershed Protection and Flood Protection 
     Act of 1954 to require additional non-Federal contribution 
     for projects with limited benefits. (See p. 13.)
       We believe that the Federal agencies should require local 
     sponsors to share a larger percentage of project cost when 
     significant special local benefits (secondary benefits) 
     accrue to project beneficiaries.
       In our draft report we proposed that the secretary of the 
     Army direct the Corps to provide the Congress more detailed 
     information concerning the nature of project benefits as 
     required by section 2 of the River and Harbor Appropriation 
     Act. We also proposed that the Corps clarify its procedures 
     and establish more specific criteria to help the District 
     offices determine when a larger non-Federal share of project 
     cost should be required.
       Further, in our draft report we proposed that the Secretary 
     of Agriculture use his discretionary authority under the 
     Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of 1954 and 
     collect additional non-Federal funds for projects with 
     limited benefits. We recommended that the secretary direct 
     the SCS Administrator to prepare regulations which recognize 
     ``special beneficiary situations,'' and ensure that each 
     office applies these regulations when preparing future 
     studies.


                   agency comments and our evaluation

       On August 7, 1980, we met with Corps officials to obtain 
     oral comments because the agency could not respond within the 
     30 days allowed for submitting written comments. However, in 
     a September 8, 1980, letter (see app. II), the Corps provided 
     written comments on our draft report. The Corps did not 
     concur with out recommendations, providing the following 
     overall comments.
       The Corps stated that:
       ``The Flood Control Act of June 22, 1936, recognized that 
     fact that flood damages destroy portions of the national 
     wealth and adversely affect national productive capacity. 
     That recognition has been followed by all studies since that 
     time. Flood damages to anyone in the nation are measured and 
     counted as benefits in this national program. The present 
     term for these types of benefits as approved by the United 
     States Water Resources Council, is ``National Economic 
     Development Benefits'' (NED). Your report does not follow 
     this definition for national benefits, and thus gives rise to 
     considerable confusion. It also suggests implicitly the 
     allocation of costs to beneficial outputs which are not now 
     recognized in the computation of benefit-cost ratios or in 
     the Federal decision process.''
       We are familiar with the Water Resources Council's 
     terminology but chose not to use it for several reasons.
       First, many of the ``National Economic Development'' 
     benefits discussed in the report are secondary type benefits 
     which directly accrue to individuals, businesses, or 
     communities around a project, such as land enhancement and 
     intensified or changed land use. Granted, such benefits also 
     tend to increase the economic value of the national output, 
     but the impact of such benefits is much greater for those 
     beneficiaries whose land or income is directly affected or 
     improved.
       We believe that the report message is more clearly 
     communicated to most readers by stressing the immediate 
     impact these benefits have on the direct beneficiaries. 
     Therefore, the report addresses these as special localized or 
     secondary benefits (benefits which go beyond project 
     purposes). For example, the Corps letter points out that 
     flood damage destroys portions of the national wealth and 
     adversely affects national wealth and national productive 
     capacity. Projects are authorized and built to prevent such 
     damage. However, in addition to flood damage prevention, the 
     same projects often provide substantial secondary benefits 
     which go beyond the authorized project purpose. In addition 
     to flood damage prevention (a NED benefit which is related to 
     the project purpose), secondary benefits such as significant 
     land enhancement and changed or intensified land use accrue 
     to individuals, businesses, and communities located around a 
     project. These benefits also contribute to increased national 
     productivity; however, the impact of the benefit is much 
     greater to the individual whose income or property is 
     directly affected or improved.
       Secondly, many of those who read our reports are not 
     necessarily familiar with the Council's precise definitions 
     which Federal agencies use in their planning.


[[Page 12607]]


  Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote; and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gekas

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gekas:
       Page 39, after line 19, insert the following new title:

                     TITLE VII--RESOURCE GOVERNANCE

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``National Resource 
     Governance Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 702. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) energy prices have risen dramatically, leading to 
     significant harm to particular sectors of the economy;
       (2) an affordable domestic energy supply is vital to the 
     continued growth and vitality of our Nation's economy;
       (3) an uninterrupted supply of oil and other energy is 
     necessary to protect the United States national security 
     interests; and
       (4) the United States continued dependence on foreign 
     sources of energy, particularly on the Organization of 
     Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), for the majority of its 
     petroleum and energy needs is harmful to our national 
     security and will not guarantee lower fuel prices and protect 
     our economy.

     SEC. 703. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       There is established the National Energy Self-Sufficiency 
     Commission (in this title referred to as the ``Commission'').

     SEC. 704. DUTIES OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Duties.--The duties of the Commission are--
       (1) to investigate and study issues and problems relating 
     to issues involving the importation of and dependence on 
     foreign sources of energy;
       (2) to evaluate proposals and current arrangements with 
     respect to such issues and problems with the goal of seeking 
     out ways to make the United States self-sufficient in the 
     production of energy by the year 2010;
       (3) to explore whether alternate sources of energy such as 
     ethanol, solar power, electricity, natural gas, coal, 
     hydrogen, wind energy, and any other forms of alternative 
     power sources should be considered, including other potential 
     and actual sources;
       (4) to investigate the affordability of oil exploration and 
     drilling in areas which currently are not being used for 
     drilling, whether because of the cost of doing so, because of 
     current law, or because of environmental regulation that may 
     prohibit such drilling;
       (5) to appear at any congressional oversight hearing before 
     the proper congressional oversight committee to testify as to 
     the progress and operation of the Commission and its 
     findings;
       (6) to consider tax credits and other financial incentives, 
     along with expanded drilling in areas such as the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge and offshore, to help promote and 
     establish the viability and research of alternative forms of 
     energy and domestic oil exploration;
       (7) to prepare and submit to the Congress and the President 
     a report in accordance with section 709; and
       (8) to take into account the adverse environmental impact 
     of its proposals.
       (b) Limitation.--This title shall not permit the Commission 
     to recommend an increase in taxes or other revenues or import 
     restrictions on oil or other commodities.

     SEC. 705. MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) Number and Appointment.--The Commission shall be 
     composed of 9 members as follows:
       (1) 3 members appointed by the President, 1 of whom shall 
     be designated as chairman by the President.
       (2) 2 members appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate.
       (3) 1 member appointed by the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate.
       (4) 2 members appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (5) 1 member appointed by the Minority Leader of the House 
     of Representatives.
       (b) Term.--Members of the Commission shall be appointed for 
     the life of the Commission.
       (c) Quorum.--5 members of the Commission shall constitute a 
     quorum, but a lesser number may conduct meetings.
       (d) Appointment Deadline.--The first appointments made 
     under subsection (a) shall be made within 60 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (e) First Meeting.--The first meeting of the Commission 
     shall be called by the chairman and shall be held within 90 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (f) Vacancy.--A vacancy on the Commission resulting from 
     the death or resignation of a member shall not affect its 
     powers and shall be filled in the same manner in which the 
     original appointment was made.
       (g) Continuation of Membership.--If any member of the 
     Commission who was appointed to the Commission as a Member of 
     Congress or as an officer or employee of a government leaves 
     that office, or if any member of the Commission who was not 
     appointed in such a capacity becomes an officer or employee 
     of a government, the member may continue as a member of the 
     Commission for not longer than the 90-day period beginning on 
     the date the member leaves that office or becomes such an 
     officer or employee, as the case may be.

     SEC. 706. COMPENSATION.

       (a) Pay.--
       (1) Nongovernment employees.--Each member of the Commission 
     who is not otherwise employed by the United States Government 
     shall be entitle to receive the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which he or she is engaged in the actual performance of 
     duties as a member of the Commission.
       (2) Government employees.--A member of the Commission who 
     is an officer or employee of the United States Government 
     shall serve without additional compensation.
       (b) Travel.--Members of the Commission shall be reimbursed 
     for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses 
     incurred by them in the performance of their duties.

     SEC. 707. STAFF OF COMMISSION; EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS.

       (a) Staff.--
       (1) Appointment.--The chairman of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate an executive director and such other 
     personnel as are necessary to enable the Commission to 
     perform its duties. The employment of an executive director 
     shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission.
       (2) Compensation.--The chairman of the Commission may fix 
     the compensation of the executive director and other 
     personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to classification of positions and General Schedule 
     pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive 
     director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable 
     for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of 
     that title.
       (b) Experts and Consultants.--The Commission may procure 
     temporary and intermittent services of experts and 
     consultants under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States 
     Code.

     SEC. 708. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings and Meetings.--The Commission or, on 
     authorization of the Commission, a member of the Commission 
     may hold such hearings, sit and act at such time and places, 
     take such testimony, and receive such evidence as the 
     Commission considers appropriate. The Commission or a member 
     of the Commission may administer oaths or affirmations to 
     witnesses appearing before it.
       (b) Official Data.--The Commission may secure directly from 
     any Federal department, agency, or court information 
     necessary to enable it to carry out this title. Upon request 
     of the chairman of the Commission, the head of a Federal 
     department or agency or chief judge of a Federal court shall 
     furnish such information to the Commission.
       (c) Facilities and Support Services.--The Administrator of 
     General Services shall provide to the Commission on a 
     reimbursable basis such facilities and support services as 
     the Commission may request. Upon request of the Commission, 
     the head of a Federal department or agency may make any of 
     the facilities or services of the agency available to the 
     Commission to assist the Commission in carrying out its 
     duties under this title.
       (d) Expenditures and Contracts.--The Commission or, on 
     authorization of the Commission, a member of the Commission 
     may make expenditures and enter into contracts for the 
     procurement of such supplies, services, and property as the 
     Commission or member considers appropriate for the purposes 
     of carrying out the duties of the Commission. Such 
     expenditures and contracts may be made only to such extent or 
     in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts.
       (e) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     Federal departments and agencies of the United States.
       (f) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.

     SEC. 709. REPORT.

       The Commission shall submit to the Congress and the 
     President a report not later than 2 years after the date of 
     its first meeting. The report shall contain a detailed 
     statement of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, 
     together with its recommendations for such legislative or 
     administrative action as it considers appropriate.

[[Page 12608]]



     SEC. 710. TERMINATION.

       The Commission shall cease to exist on the date that is 30 
     days after the date on which it submits its report under 
     section 709.

     SEC. 711. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated $3,500,000 to carry 
     out this title for each fiscal year for the duration of the 
     Commission.

  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) reserves a 
point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair, but I do not thank my 
friend, the gentleman from California, for reserving a point of order, 
but I understand.
  There is no question about it, I say to my colleagues, that the 
current crisis and all the crises that came before it with respect to 
the rising tide of prices for gas at the pump have come about because 
of our dependence on foreign oil. That is the short and the tall of it. 
We are dependent for our sustenance in this country on foreign oil; 
more than 55 percent of it comes from other countries.
  What does that mean? It means that our energy policy as a Nation is 
reduced to sending an ambassador to the foreign countries involved, to 
OPEC in particular, to beg them to produce more oil. Our policy is, 
please sell us more oil. Please produce more oil. That is intolerable, 
and it is embarrassing to the greatness of our Nation to have to so 
depend.
  So my amendment is one which will allow ourselves to pledge as a 
Nation that within 10 years, we will become self-sufficient in energy. 
How? By appointment now of a nine-member, blue ribbon commission, much 
like the one that was appointed and worked to save Social Security in 
the 1970s and 1980s and which did save the then tottering Social 
Security program. This blue ribbon commission would be empowered to 
look at every conceivable source of domestic, self-induced and self-
prepared energy for the use of our people. This would include, of 
course, the Alaskan oil fields, the ANWR reserves. It would include tax 
incentives for domestic drilling. It would include exploration of 
natural gas and solar energy and water energy and ethanol and every 
other conceivable type of energy that has been proved to be somewhat, 
if not greatly, sufficient and efficient for the uses of our people.
  This commission would report back, and then we would be on the road 
to self-sufficiency within 10 years. Does that sound spectacularly 
narrow in its scope within 10 years to be self-sufficient? We went to 
the moon in 10 years; we now have discovered there is water on Mars, 
and no one can tell me that if we did not focus on this crisis after 
crisis type of situation, that we could not complete a program within 
10 years and recommend it to the Congress and bring it about so that 
our people will have no need any longer to depend on foreign oil.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one that is bred of common sense. I 
have noticed that over the last 6 or 7 weeks, piece by piece, the 
administration is moving ever more closely to the adoption of some of 
the facets of what I have been speaking of.

                              {time}  2100

  For instance, right after I introduced a bill and others started 
talking about Alaskan exploration, Joe Lockhart of the White House 
denounced it as being something that the White House would not be 
interested in developing.
  Very recently, little bits and pieces have come out of the White 
House where the exploration of ANWR seems more feasible now. Where 7 
months ago and a year ago there was no talk of tax credits for domestic 
drilling, now dribbles of information coming out of the White House 
indicate that they could, yes, indulge in some tax credits for domestic 
drilling.
  We can do it, I say to my colleagues. We can enforce a speed-up 
program of development of our own resources, and fairly soon we will 
see that OPIC will be out of the question as a menacing feature of our 
existence today, because that is what it is. It is endangering our 
national security, it endangers our domestic security, and prevents us 
from doing what Americans do best, to be self-sufficient, to be 
independent of foreign influences, to be independent of the need to 
look to other countries to sustain our way of life.
  Our way of life is important enough and precious enough that if we 
can put our minds to it, we will preserve it and enhance our way of 
life with energy independence for all time.
  I ask the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) to reconsider his 
intention to raise a point of order. This is too vital for that.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) insist 
on his point of order?
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I must insist on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized to speak on 
the point of order.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, this is absolutely legislating on an 
appropriations bill. I make a point of order that the amendment 
violates clause 2(c) of rule XXI, which provides that an amendment to a 
general appropriations bill is not in order if it changes existing law.
  The rule states very clearly, ``An amendment to a general 
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' 
The amendment authorizes the creation of a new commission, and is 
clearly in violation of the rule.
  Therefore, I must insist on the point of order. I hate to do that to 
one of my dear colleagues and classmates, but if I made an exception 
here, I would have to make it in many, many other cases.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on the point of order?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may be heard.
  Mr. GEKAS. I may be heard, but I may be heard agreeing with the 
gentleman from California, that it indeed is out of order.
  So, with a song in my heart, I withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to use this time to engage in a colloquy with 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
that I am going to withdraw, but I hope that the ranking member and the 
committee will work with me to get it in conference.
  I have had several Members call me concerning my amendment because 
they think it is so appropriate at this time. I would like to take a 
moment to discuss this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, independent truckers in my home State of Florida have 
experienced difficulty earning an honest living as a result of the 
escalating gas prices. The average independent truckers earn roughly 
$35,000 a year. With the cost of the fuel skyrocketing, these 
independent truckers spend approximately $15,000 a year on fuel. As a 
result, they are faced with making incredibly tough decisions that 
impact their ability to take care of their families. Almost half of 
their income goes to gas.
  As recently as last week, a constituent called my office to tell me 
that his truck will be repossessed soon. It is sitting in the front of 
his house idle because he simply cannot afford the cost of the fuel. At 
one point his wife, who was a homemaker, had to leave their children 
and take a second job just so her husband could afford to purchase 
fuel.
  This amendment is an attempt to emphasize the importance and urgency 
of the problem. In addition to giving the President the authority to 
tap into the petroleum reserve, we should be aggressively engaging in 
research that allows us to use cost-efficient alternative energy. The 
intent is to decrease our dependency on foreign oil so in the future 
Americans will not be subject to the ups and downs of the crude oil 
market.

[[Page 12609]]

  As the administration pointed out, with mounting evidence of global 
climate change and concerns over oil prices, the DOE's renewable energy 
budget is $11 million below the current appropriation, and $106 
million, or 23 percent, below the President's request. This 
shortsightedness undercuts our Nation's efforts to implement a 21st 
century energy policy.
  I understand that the point of order is important, but we have a 
responsibility in Congress to do our part to make sure that our energy 
policy is pro-American, and making sure that we are not dependent upon 
foreign oil.
  I thank the gentleman very much for giving me the opportunity to 
discuss this issue. I am hoping that on this amendment, we can work as 
we go to conference and it can be included.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentlewoman's commitment to her 
constituents, and also, in terms of her attempt in trying to begin to 
solve the energy crisis we face in this country. I do look forward to 
working with the gentlewoman on this issue as we approach conference, 
but obviously I cannot make a commitment to the gentlewoman here on the 
House floor. Again, I do appreciate the gentlewoman raising the issue 
this evening.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Sherwood

  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment printed in House Report 106-701 offered by Mr. 
     Sherwood:
       Page 39, lines 6 through 19, amend section 606 to read as 
     follows:
       Sec. 606. (a) Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     Amendments.--The Energy Policy and Conservation Act is 
     amended--
       (1) by amending section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246) to read as 
     follows:


                   ``authorization of appropriations

       ``Sec. 166. There are authorized to be appropriated for 
     fiscal years 2000 through 2003 such sums as may be necessary 
     to implement this part.'';
       (2) in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251) by striking ``March 31, 
     2000'' both places it appears and inserting ``September 30, 
     2003''; and
       (3) in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285) by striking ``March 31, 
     2000'' both places it appears and inserting ``September 30, 
     2003''.
       (b) Purchase of Oil From Marginal Wells.--
       (1) Purchase of oil from marginal wells.--Part B of Title I 
     of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6232 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding the following new section after 
     section 168:


                 ``purchase of oil from marginal wells

       ``Sec. 169. (a) In General.--From amounts authorized under 
     section 166, in any case in which the price of oil decreases 
     to an amount less than $15.00 per barrel (an amount equal to 
     the annual average well head price per barrel for all 
     domestic crude oil), adjusted for inflation, the Secretary 
     may purchase oil from a marginal well at $15.00 per barrel, 
     adjusted for inflation.
       ``(b) Definition of Marginal Well.--The term ``marginal 
     well'' means a well that--
       ``(1) has an average daily production of 15 barrels or 
     less;
       ``(2) has an average daily production of 25 barrels or less 
     with produced water accounting for 95 percent or more of 
     total production; or
       ``(3) produces heavy oil with an API gravity less than 20 
     degrees.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The table of contents for the 
     Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 168 the following:

       ``Sec. 169. Purchase of oil from marginal wells.''.
       (c) Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.--
       (1) Amendment.--Title I of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act is amended by--
       (A) redesignating part D as part E;
       (B) redesignating section 181 as section 191; and
       (C) inserting after part C the following new part D:

              ``Part D--Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve


                            ``establishment

       ``Sec. 181. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, the Secretary may establish, maintain, and operate in 
     the Northeast a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. A Reserve 
     established under this part is not a component of the 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve established under part B of this 
     title. A Reserve established under this part shall contain no 
     more than 2 million barrels of petroleum distillate.
       ``(b) For the purposes of this part--
       ``(1) the term `Northeast' means the States of Maine, New 
     Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, 
     New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey; and
       ``(2) the term `petroleum distillate' includes heating oil 
     and diesel fuel.


                              ``authority

       ``Sec. 182. To the extent necessary or appropriate to carry 
     out this part, the Secretary may--
       ``(1) purchase, contract for, lease, or otherwise acquire, 
     in whole or in part, storage and related facilities, and 
     storage services;
       ``(2) use, lease, maintain, sell, or otherwise dispose of 
     storage and related facilities acquired under this part;
       ``(3) acquire by purchase, exchange (including exchange of 
     petroleum product from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve or 
     received as royalty from Federal lands), lease, or otherwise, 
     petroleum distillate for storage in the Northeast Home 
     Heating Oil Reserve;
       ``(4) store petroleum distillate in facilities not owned by 
     the United States;
       ``(5) sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of petroleum 
     distillate from the Reserve established under this part; and
       ``(6) notwithstanding paragraph (5), on terms the Secretary 
     considers reasonable, sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of 
     petroleum distillate from the Reserve established under this 
     part in order to maintain the quality or quantity of the 
     petroleum distillate in the Reserve or to maintain the 
     operational capability of the Reserve.


                     ``conditions for release; plan

       ``Sec. 183. (a) The Secretary may release petroleum 
     distillate from the Reserve under section 182(5) only in the 
     event of--
       ``(1) a severe energy supply disruption;
       ``(2) a severe price increase; or
       ``(3) another emergency affecting the Northeast,
     which the President determines to merit a release from the 
     Reserve.
       ``(b) Within 45 days of the date of the enactment of this 
     section, the Secretary shall transmit to the President and, 
     if the President approves, to the Congress a plan 
     describing--
       ``(1) the acquisition of storage and related facilities or 
     storage services for the Reserve;
       ``(2) the acquisition of petroleum distillate for storage 
     in the Reserve;
       ``(3) the anticipated methods of disposition of petroleum 
     distillate from the Reserve; and
       ``(4) the estimated costs of establishment, maintenance, 
     and operation of the Reserve.
     The storage of petroleum distillate in a storage facility 
     that meets existing environmental requirements is not a 
     `major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of 
     the human environment' as that term is used in section 
     102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.


              ``northeast home heating oil reserve account

       ``Sec. 184. (a) Upon a decision of the Secretary of Energy 
     to establish a Reserve under this part, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall establish in the Treasury of the United States 
     an account know as the `Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve 
     Account' (referred to in this section as the `Account').
       ``(b) The Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit in the 
     Account any amounts appropriated to the Account and any 
     receipts from the sale, exchange, or other disposition of 
     petroleum distillate from the Reserve.
       ``(c) The Secretary of Energy may obligate amounts in the 
     Account to carry out activities under this part without the 
     need for further appropriation, and amounts available to the 
     Secretary of Energy for obligation under this section shall 
     remain available without fiscal year limitation.


                              ``exemptions

       ``Sec. 185. An action taken under this part--
       ``(1) is not subject to the rulemaking requirements of 
     section 523 of this Act, section 501 of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act, or section 553 of title 5, United 
     States Code; and
       ``(2) is not subject to laws governing the Federal 
     procurement of goods and services, including the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (including 
     the Competition in Contracting Act) and the Small Business 
     Act.''.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     part D of title I of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) and a Member opposed each 
will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply substitutes the language in Section 
606, which contains a 1-year reauthorization of the Strategic Petroleum 
Reserve, with the text of H.R. 2884, which passed the House 416 to 8.
  This House-passed bill reauthorizes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve

[[Page 12610]]

through fiscal year 2003. Additionally, it provides new discretion for 
the Secretary of Energy to purchase oil from marginal domestic wells 
known as stripper wells when the average market price falls below $15 
per barrel.
  Finally, it provides new authority for the Secretary of Energy to 
disburse home heating oil from any future Northeast Home Heating Oil 
Reserve during a national emergency, a regional emergency.
  The Northeast Heating Oil Reserve, which will be a separate entity 
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, will be authorized to contain no 
more than 2 million barrels of petroleum distillate. Additionally, the 
reserve may be employed during severe energy disruptions, extreme price 
hikes, or when the President determines an energy emergency merits its 
use in the Northeast.
  The bottom line is that this amendment will help to preserve and 
enhance our domestic energy-producing infrastructure, and help provide 
reasonably-priced home heating fuel oil during supply shortages.
  It is simple, having more domestic oil production and supply capacity 
will result in lower prices at the pump and less dependence on foreign 
oil.
  This last winter we in the Northeast were feeling the economic sting 
of an oil crisis due to high heating oil and diesel prices. That was 
our first warning. Now, with severely increased gasoline prices across 
the Nation, the rest of the country is feeling the pain that we in the 
Northeast have experienced for several months.
  The question on everyone's mind is, why did we not see this coming, 
and why were we not prepared to meet it? I am here today to work with 
the Members in this Chamber to find the answers to these questions; 
also, to make sure that we will never be held hostage again by Middle 
East oil princes. These are the same friends for whom a decade ago we 
risked the lives of our sons and daughters to protect against Iraqi 
aggression.
  The bottom line, and this is probably the most important thing that 
will be said tonight, is that we lack a coherent national energy policy 
to insulate us from the volatility of these markets.
  During the 1998-1999 time frame, our Nation lost 500,000 barrels of 
production capacity every day due to the failure of marginal stripper 
wells to be economically viable. This amendment allows the Secretary of 
Energy to purchase oil from stripper wells when prices are low so they 
can adequately operate during extreme price drops, and our Nation's new 
heating oil reserve can be filled more cheaply.
  This is an excellent bill which will help maintain the Nation's oil 
production capacity when prices are low, and provide relief to 
homeowners when heating prices are high and in short supply. I strongly 
urge the Secretary of Energy to utilize the new authority given him 
with the establishment of the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve and the 
reauthorization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to use these 
reserves as pressure release valves during energy crises.
  Support of this measure is a step in the right direction towards 
solving our current gas price crisis, which we are all suffering 
through. It is simple: The more domestic oil supply capacity we can 
maintain, the lower the prices will be at the pump.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan, prudent, and timely 
measure so that relief can be brought to the pocketbook of the American 
consumer.
  In closing, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for all their 
hard work in crafting this legislation, and the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) for his leadership on the issue.
  I urge passage of this very commonsense, bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would seek to claim the time, on the 
understanding that no other Member is seeking the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) is recognized for 15 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I indicated on the remarks on the rule earlier, we 
find ourselves with an amendment that I do support that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) has offered. But I would want to 
remind Members of the history of this House in legislative action over 
the last several weeks.
  First of all, we had an amendment that was offered by the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) to the Interior bill about a week ago. His 
proposal was essentially to fund the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve 
that the gentleman would seek authorization for in his legislation. The 
amendment of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) was defeated by 
two votes in this body literally a week ago.
  Additionally, this body has essentially already passed through the 
authorization process the amendment that the gentleman has already put 
forth, so we are for a second time now stating a proposition that to 
date the majority in the other body has refused to act on.
  I would further point out that in full committee, when the energy and 
water bill was considered during the past week, the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), in trying to break this logjam, whether it 
be in this body or in the other body, offered an amendment for a 1-year 
extension of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that was essentially 
unanimously agreed to by the committee.
  Under the amendment, her language stripped out ``and a full 3-year 
authorization is entered into.''
  Again, I support what the gentleman is doing. I would simply 
encourage people to remember that the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Kilpatrick) was active on this issue and offered her amendment a week 
ago. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) was denied on a two-vote 
margin in this House funding for one of the propositions the gentleman 
put forth, and a majority in the other body, again, refuses to act.
  I appreciate again the gentleman's initiative, but there is, again, 
bipartisan support for what is taking place here tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for offering this amendment. It is similar to an amendment 
that we reported out of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Mr. Chairman, it was debated and voted on in the House, and passed I 
think in the neighborhood of 400 votes for and five or six votes 
against. It is an amendment that is in conference now with the Senate 
on the reauthorization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the 
Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1992.
  It is a classic compromise in that it has the heating oil reserve in 
the Northeast, which would be filled most likely with fuel oil. It has 
for the Southwest in the production region the ability for the 
Secretary of Energy to purchase stripper well oil, which is oil that 
comes from wells that produce less than 10 barrels a day when the price 
of oil falls below $15 a barrel on the world market, if that would ever 
happen again.

                              {time}  2115

  So we get something for the production sector; we get something for 
the consuming sector. It is bipartisan. It passed the House 
overwhelmingly earlier this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend again the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Sherwood) for offering it tonight, and I hope that we would adopt 
it unanimously.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

[[Page 12611]]


  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sherwood-
Markey-Barton Energy and Water amendment. It just makes so much sense. 
I would say in a Nation like ours where we had a condition like we did 
this past winter, shame on us for not having something available that 
could meet the urgent and pressing needs of American families.
  In the Northeast, it was devastating. We had families that could not 
afford to pay the heating bill. We had families that were suffering 
because of the failure on the part of so many who they have every right 
to expect to be responsive to their needs; and quite frankly, we just 
were not.
  This is an amendment that will address that need in a very 
responsible way. And as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), my 
friend who preceded me, said, this is a delicate compromise that has 
been worked out on a bipartisan basis. It is something that, for all 
the right reasons, deserves our very strong support. I ask my 
colleagues to do just that, give it strong support.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this winter we had severe price disruptions in the 
Northeast that would be almost unbelievable if we had not experienced 
them. In a period of 60 days, home heating oil, which all the old 
people depend on in the Northeast, we do not have any gas mains and 
home heating oil is the heating source of choice, went from 80 cents a 
gallon to $1.80 a gallon. People could not fund that in their budgets.
  Diesel fuel for trucks and tractors and farm equipment and 
snowmobiles and school buses went from $1.30 to $2.60 per gallon. Now, 
there is no real understandable reason for a price spike of this 
magnitude. What happened, we had a little shortage and then because 
there was a shortage, they got speculating on the New York Merc and 
this price was run up to double its historic record and double what we 
were expecting for the winter.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to put some things in 
place that will help this from happening again. If we could keep these 
stripper wells in production during low-price periods, we will have 
that much more domestic production. If we can have the Northeast 
Heating Reserve, that will be some hedge against this happening again.
  These are things that we need to do. We need to become more self-
sufficient. I think that is a much bigger discussion for another day. 
But we have to look at our drilling policies and find out how we got in 
this position where we have all of these reserves, but we do not have 
refinery capacity enough and we do not have drilling capacity enough. 
We need to look these policies over down the road and develop a very 
comprehensive energy policy.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is going to be a national debate that is going to 
take awhile. Tonight might be the start of that. People in my district 
certainly cannot put in another winter like we had last winter. I do 
not think people in Chicago want to put in another summer like they are 
having right now with $2.50 gasoline. We do not want to go back to 
$2.60 diesel fuel. These are problems that we have got to address.
  We have got to make sure that we do not have artificial barriers to 
the movement of product throughout the various regions of the country. 
The reformulated product for different air quality standards has made 
it very difficult for the big oil companies to move product from one 
part of the country to the other, and that leads to regional 
dislocations like we have in Chicago at the present time.
  We have to have more refinery capacity. Some of our areas of the 
country that are complaining about high heating oil prices and high 
gasoline prices have not allowed refineries to be built. So we have to 
have a comprehensive discussion that includes the environmentalists, 
includes the oil companies, includes the consumers and distributors so 
that we get a comprehensive national oil policy.
  We are being held hostage now to some items that have come up, 
because we have not addressed them for the future. It will take awhile, 
but we cannot just blunder off into the future like we have in the last 
few years.
  I think we were lulled to sleep by the fact that world demand was 
low, and we had historically low oil prices here in the U.S. Because we 
had historically low oil prices, nobody wanted to do anything about a 
policy. Well, that bit us this winter. It is biting us this summer. And 
if we do not get a comprehensive policy, we will continue to have these 
oil spikes.
  The two features of my amendment will help. But we need to do more 
than that. We need to have a comprehensive policy. I appreciate this 
opportunity this evening to speak on this issue. It is something that 
we need to continue to discuss, and we need to get our national oil 
policy that brings all the stakeholders into play so that when this 
comes together, it will make sense. It will make sense environmentally, 
and it will make sense to the producers and the consumers in the 
country.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am just reading the handout that our 
colleagues will be getting as this vote is taken, and I want to call 
everyone's attention to a particular paragraph. It reads: ``When prices 
are high in the northeast, which uses a lot of home heating oil, the 
Secretary of Energy may,'' not must, but may, ``disburse home heating 
oil from a reserve.''
  This reserve, as we all know all too well, does not exist today, 
although current law allows it. This amendment would authorize the 
creation of a Northeast reserve of up to 2 million barrels and allow it 
to be tapped during a regional emergency. And I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. That is a very important observation.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Sherwood) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Lazio).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I assume the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
has the right to close. So he would use his time to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) 
has the right to close.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood) for his leadership on this issue which 
addresses a crisis that is facing the Northeast: high gas prices and 
high fuel prices.
  We experienced this during the winter when many of our most 
vulnerable citizens, our seniors, our disabled, those in rural America 
were suffering the most. Many of us have been calling for immediate 
relief, including the rollback of the 4.3-cent Clinton-Gore gas tax at 
the gas pump.
  But this method of creating a regional reserve will help address an 
issue, that has been a dramatic problem, in the years ahead. The 
ability to try and provide more liquidity in the market, to lance the 
boil of insufficient supply of oil, especially in our Northeast area 
that is so dependent on both oil for transportation and for home fuel 
oil.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I 
urge our colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Maloney).
  Mr. MALONEY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Indiana for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for this amendment,

[[Page 12612]]

which is modeled in large part after legislation that I and many of my 
colleagues introduced earlier this year.
  This amendment will not only provide relief to residents in the 
Northeast through the creation of a regional home heating oil reserve, 
it will give the President the authority he needs to release oil from 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to have an impact on the market price.
  As the price of gasoline reaches $2 a gallon in Connecticut and $2.50 
across the Midwest, there is no better time to address this issue. My 
constituents and families across the Northeast have been hit with high 
gasoline prices; and if we do not act, they will face high heating 
bills during the cold winter months ahead. If this crisis is not 
addressed now, the situation will only become worse. Most importantly, 
the seniors and others in my district who live on fixed incomes cannot 
afford these high prices. Having to choose between heating their home 
and other life necessities is simply unacceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, this crisis has gone on already 
far too long. We have the means; we have the ability to solve this 
problem. Let us act, and let us act now.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

                              {time}  2130

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this past winter, families across the 
Northeast saw their budget stretched to the limit by skyrocketing home 
heating oil costs. Over 50 percent of families in Connecticut depend on 
oil to heat their homes in the winter months. For middle-class working 
families in my State and throughout the Northeast, the increase in home 
heating oil prices broke the bank.
  I received thousands of calls from my constituents asking for help. 
For example, I received a call from Thomas Marcarelli of East Haven. He 
has a family with four children, ages three, six, seven and nine. In 
order to pay for heating oil, he has had to send in his mortgage 
payment late, cut back on his family's groceries, and drop his 
thermostat by 10 degrees with children in the house to stretch out his 
supply.
  It appears that Mr. Marcarelli and his family and families across the 
Northeast may face another very cold season. This winter they are 
estimating that home heating oil will increase by another 10 percent.
  My concern is, and I support this amendment, but we had an 
opportunity several weeks ago with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders) when he offered such an amendment and was defeated by two 
votes. In terms of allowing the President the authority to release the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Kilpatrick) offered this amendment in committee just a few days ago.
  I support this amendment, but my concern, as always, is that we try 
to play politics with these issues when families in my part of the 
country and families in other parts of the country are suffering 
because, in fact, the Republican leadership has not allowed us to 
create an energy policy in this country. It fails to reduce our 
dependence on oil.
  That is the direction that we need to move in. We need to support 
this amendment tonight. But we also need to do something about solar 
renewable energy. We also need to do something about providing the 
opportunity for an energy policy that meets the needs of the people in 
this country.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and myself in support of the Sherwood-
Markey-Barton amendment to reauthorize the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act and establish the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
  On April 12 of this year, the House overwhelmingly approved the 
Energy Policy Conservation Act reauthorization by a vote of 416 to 8. 
This bill included language that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) authored to provide for the establishment of the heating oil 
reserve in the Northeast. Unfortunately, these provisions have 
languished at the hands of the Republican leadership in the Senate. The 
administration supports these provisions, and these provisions have 
bipartisan support here in the House.
  The Democrats and some House Republicans are working to address our 
high gas and heating oil prices by crafting bipartisan solutions. 
Unfortunately, some members of the Republican leadership are using 
tactics to prevent this Congress from implementing a long-term energy 
strategy, one that will provide real energy security for all Americans.
  This legislation would give the President the flexibility that he 
needs to create a Northeast heating oil reserve and release the heating 
oil from this reserve in the event we have a repetition of the type of 
severe price spikes, supply disruptions or severe weather situations 
that we saw last winter which drove home heating oil prices way up.
  This provision helped assure that as we are reauthorizing EPCA, that 
we are addressing both the needs of the producing States, who are 
worried about what happens when prices go too low, and the consuming 
States, who worry about what happens when prices get too high.
  So if my colleagues voted aye for H.R. 2884, the EPCA reauthorization 
to create a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, they should vote aye 
today to assure that we can make the Reserve a reality.
  I urge adoption of this bipartisan amendment.


                Announcement By The Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair was in error a 
minute ago in stating that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) 
had the right to close. Since he is not opposed to the amendment, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania has the right to close.
  Without objection, the Chair will extend to each side 1 additional 
minute. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), at the 
conclusion, will have 1 minute remaining to close. We will add 1 minute 
on the time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), so he has 8 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, that is perfect. I appreciate the 
Chair's courtesy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Markey amendment, 
and I certainly believe that this is a step in the right direction.
  Exorbitant gasoline prices are clearly a problem as we begin the 
summer season. I am even more concerned about home heating oil costs 
for next winter. In fact, the current inventory for home heating oil on 
the East Coast is 40 percent lower than at this time last year.
  We Democrats have called for urgent action on several fronts. We have 
asked the Federal Trade Commission to expedite its investigation into 
price gouging on the part of oil companies. Major oil companies have 
nearly tripled their profits as a result of these price increases, from 
$4.5 billion in profits in the first 3 months of 1999 to more than $12 
billion in the same period this year.
  Democrats have also urged the Republican leadership and Congress to 
show some leadership and renew the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is 
a key tool in our Nation's energy security, and the President must have 
the authority to release or exchange oil reserves from the SPR.
  Finally, we have called on the Congress to authorize the Northeast 
Oil Reserve.
  I am glad that we have finally gotten our colleagues in the majority 
to move in this direction, despite all of our previous efforts to get 
them to move in that direction. But we must also understand that the 
Republican leadership is also responsible and has failed to provide 
Americans with energy security. It has failed to reauthorize the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to date. It has failed to fund research and 
development into alternative fuels and energy efficiency.

[[Page 12613]]

  In fact, in the past 5 years, Republicans in Congress have funded 
only 12 percent of the administration's request for new investments in 
renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency initiatives. This 
measly and irresponsible level of funding has been nearly $2 billion 
short of the administration's request.
  When they were not funding the requests, they were out trying to get 
rid of the Department of Energy and selling off the reserve policy 
itself. That would have been extremely detrimental if carried out as 
proposed.
  So I am glad that we begin on a course tonight that works with the 
Democratic proposals that we have talked about and that clearly have 
been copied here in the context of the work of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and to begin to work on energy security for 
American families before we enter into a winter of discontent.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sherwood-Barton-Markey 
amendment to replace section 606 of this bill with the text of H.R. 
2884, which passed the House by a vote of 416 to 8 on April 12.
  Among its provisions, H.R. 2884 authorized the creation of a two 
million barrel home heating oil reserve in the Northeast.
  Winter is a perennial event. It is sensible to prepare for the cold 
weather, regardless of external circumstances.
  We can help ensure stable home heating oil, diesel fuel, and jet fuel 
prices by creating a two million barrel reserve of home heating oil 
that can be drawn down when fuel prices rise dramatically, as they did 
last winter.
  The recent increase in oil prices led fuel costs in some areas of the 
Northeast to reach their highest point since the Gulf War. This winter 
it cost some Connecticut residents as much as $2 for a gallon of home 
heating oil, approximately double the cost of a year ago.
  We should not force families to choose between heating their homes 
and buying food during the winter months.
  Establishing a home heating oil reserve in the Northeast, much like 
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to help stabilize prices when fuel 
costs rise dramatically, will ensure consumers have access to home 
heating fuel at predictable, affordable prices.
  I commend my colleagues for their hard work and leadership on this 
issue.
  Many industry experts agree an influx of home heating oil into the 
market would drive prices down and allow families access to affordable 
home heating oil in times of drastic price increase.
  According to a 1998 Department of Energy report, the creation of a 
home heating oil reserve will be an effective method of stabilized home 
heating oil prices in the future, and the use of a Government-owned 
reserve in the Northeast would provide benefits to consumers in the 
Northeast and to the Nation at large.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we move forward with this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this effort to ensure consumers have an adequate supply of home 
heating fuel at reasonable, predictable prices throughout the year.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana, the 
ranking member, for giving me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this amendment 
authored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood), the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey), authorizing the establishment of a Northeast Home Heating 
Oil Reserve.
  This amendment is very similar to freestanding legislation which I 
have authored which has some 98 cosponsors and similar to an amendment 
that passed this body as part of a larger bill a little while ago.
  What is important to understand is that we not only have to pass this 
amendment tonight, but that we must go forward to adequately 
appropriate money to make sure that this Northeast Home Heating Oil 
Reserve becomes a reality.
  We had a vote last week where we lost by two votes, but I think a 
majority of the Members actually support it, and I hope we will support 
the roughly $10 million that we need for appropriations.
  It is no secret to anybody that this country is facing an energy 
crisis from one end of the Nation to the other. We are seeing gasoline 
prices skyrocketing. We know that the price of crude oil has more than 
tripled since last year and is the highest that it has been since the 
Gulf War. The reason that prices are high is because the supply for 
gasoline is low. That obviously can mean only one thing; and that is, 
if we do not adequately prepare now for next winter, we will have a 
home heating oil disaster on our hands. That is why we have got to move 
very quickly on this Home Heating Oil Reserve.
  Let me just quote what USA Today said yesterday. USA Today yesterday 
said, ``Those who heat with oil will shiver this winter, and pay a 
premium. Just 15.3 million barrels of heating oil are stockpiled for 
the East Coast, which uses 75 percent of the Nation's heating oil in 
the winter. That's well down from the 41.3 million barrels on hand last 
June.''
  Mr. Chairman, we all know what happened last year. Home heating oil 
prices were the highest they have ever been in history. Now we are 
faced with a home heating oil stockpile that is 37 percent lower than 
last year. It does not take a genius to figure out that we are setting 
ourselves up for a huge heating oil crisis next year unless Congress 
acts now.
  I do not believe that the Home Heating Oil Reserve is going to solve 
all of the problems. Far from it. But it is an important step forward. 
We have got to do all that we can to make sure that the huge increase 
in home heating oil prices that we experienced last winter does not 
happen again. Too many elderly people, too many people on fixed incomes 
just cannot afford to pay a doubling of the price that they paid the 
previous year for oil.
  I urge support for this very important amendment and thank the 
sponsors of it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) 
has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bipartisan, indeed tripartisan 
amendment. It does some very important things. It reauthorizes the 
strategic petroleum reserve through 2003. It is new discretion for the 
Secretary of Energy to purchase oil from domestic stripper wells when 
the price falls below $15, and it is new discretion for the Secretary 
of Energy to disburse home heating oil for many future Northeast Home 
Heating Oil Reserves upon a regional emergency.
  But more than that, we need to keep alive this bipartisan debate of 
how we will have a coherent energy policy in this country, the 
drilling, the refining, the production, and the distribution so that we 
will not be held hostage again.
  People do not want to put up with this forever. There is no reason in 
this country that we have to. I urge passage of this amendment.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the Sherwood amendment. But I must ask why this House continues to 
debate this issue? On April 13th of this year we voted 417-8 in favor 
of H.R. 2884 a bill that would provide for a Northeast Home Heating Oil 
Reserve.
  This legislation, calls for the federal government to create a two 
million barrel home heating oil reserve in New York--which could be 
released by the President when oil prices rise sharply.
  It's now 75 days later and the only thing that has happened is that 
our gas prices have continued to rise.
  We have been working hard to make sure that our neighbors and family 
do not have to spend another winter being gouged by home

[[Page 12614]]

heating oil prices--which is why the Senate must act today.
  Today I again ask for swift passage of H.R. 2884.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I support the Sherwood-Markey-Barton 
amendment to reauthorize the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and 
establish a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.
  On April 12th of this year, the House approved the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act reauthorization by an overwhelming vote of 416 to 8. 
This bill included language that I authored to provide for the 
establishment of a heating oil reserve in the Northeast.
  What we did on that legislation was to work out an agreement with the 
Chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee (Mr. Barton) that 
constructed a kind of a classic Austin-Boston piece of legislation. The 
gentleman from Texas was concerned about the fate of certain marginal 
oil producers that operate so-called stripper wells. He noted that 
during the 1998-1999 price drop, these domestic producers had the 
proper set of incentives in order to continue to keep their wells open. 
As a result, our Nation lost at least 500,000 barrels per day due to 
the closure of hard-to-reopen stripper wells.
  So, what the legislation says is that when the price of stripper well 
oil goes below $15 a barrel, that there would be an authorization for 
that oil to be purchased in order, one, to fill up the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve but, secondly, in order to keep the price of stripper 
well oil high enough so that there is an incentive for that industry to 
continue to make the proper investment in maintaining them as viable 
domestic sources of energy for our country.
  As well, the legislation made it possible for there to be constructed 
a Regional Home Heating Oil Reserve in the northeastern part of the 
United States. That is very important to those of us that live within a 
region that does have, on an ongoing basis, the threat that we are 
going to be cut off from that home heating oil supply. Last winter, our 
region experienced a very severe spike the price of home heating oil, 
and supplies were so tight that had the bad weather continued we faced 
the very real prospect of being just a few days away from having no 
supply on hand to meet the needs of our constituents. This was simply 
unacceptable.
  Now, maybe over the next 20 years, as Sable Island, this rich 
resource of natural gas off of the Newfoundland coast comes on line, 
and as our constituents convert over to gas, we may not need this kind 
of protection. But that is not really going to be possible for another 
5, 10, 15 years before it fully penetrates the entire Northeast. And by 
the Northeast, I also mean Eastern Pennsylvania, all of New Jersey, and 
the State of New York. Those are the parts of our country that are very 
much dependent upon imported oil for home heating.
  Now, we have, without question, the need to give the President the 
flexibility that he needs to release the heating oil from the reserve 
in the event we have a repetition of the type of severe price spikes, 
supply disruptions or severe weather situations that we saw last winter 
which drove home heating oil prices over the $2 a gallon level. This 
provision helped assure that as we are reauthorizing EPCA, that we are 
addressing both the needs of the producing States, who are worried 
about what happens when prices go too low, and the consuming States, 
who worry about what happens when prices get too high.
  Now, H.R. 2884 is currently sitting over in the other body. So far, 
the leadership in that body has failed to take any action on the bill. 
I am informed, however, that there may be some efforts underway to work 
out an agreement on both the stripper well and the Northeast Home 
Heating Oil Reserve provisions that will be acceptable to various 
Senators and to the Administration. If so, perhaps we can soon send the 
EPCA reauthorization to the President's desk that contains both the 
stripper well and regional reserve provisions.
  But what we also need to do, and what the amendment that gentleman 
from Pennsylvania, the gentleman from Texas, and myself would 
accomplish, is to demonstrate to the other body that this House is 
seriously committed to an EPCA reauthorization that contains both the 
Northeast Home Heating Oil and stripper well provisions. And so, if you 
were one of the 416 Members who on April 12th of this year voted for 
H.R. 2884, the EPCA reauthorization to create a Northeast Home Heating 
Oil Reserve, you should vote ``aye'' today to assure that we can make 
the Reserve a reality. At the same time, I would hope and expect that 
the Appropriators would recognize the urgent need to provide the 
estimated $10 million in funding needed to get the Northeast Reserve up 
and running. We cannot afford to wait and delay on this matter any 
loner. It is time to act now.
  I urge adoption of this bipartisan amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Sherwood) will be postponed.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage 
in a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the 
gentleman from Indiana for allowing me to take these 5 minutes and to 
speak relatively out of order.
  I do not have an amendment, but I want to speak about a very, very 
real and growing problem in my district back home dealing with water. 
In almost any part of Texas, drive into a rural area and look for a 
large pond; and when one finds one, it is likely to have been built, 
funded and managed through a unique coalition of Federal, State, and 
local agencies.
  These projects provide many benefits, including flood control and 
bettering water quality, but more importantly the improve water 
availability in areas of perpetual drought.
  No resource is more crucial than water. There is an increasing need 
for water as the population and economy continues to grow rapidly. 
Water shortage problems arise primarily as a result of limited access 
to supplies and uneven distribution of water resources. It is these 
small watershed projects that provide many communities the means to 
maintain a viable water supply and literally keep the community alive.
  Unfortunately, many of these projects do not always find their way to 
completion on a smooth road. Time and time again I have seen projects 
back home held up by multiple bureaucratic hurdles that in the end 
seriously impact the health, safety, and welfare of the community 
involved.

                              {time}  2145

  For example, the City of Stamford, Texas, is facing a very serious 
water availability problem in which the Army Corps of Engineers was 
involved as required by law. The population of Stamford is 
approximately 3,300. However, the city provides water to 10,000 
residents in the area.
  Lake Stamford is the sole source of water supply for the city, as 
well as several surrounding communities and West Texas Utilities' 237 
megawatt Paint Creek Steam Electric power station. The city is 
operating under a 1-year supply of water.
  A diversion project was formulated to supplement the inflow to Lake 
Stamford. The diversion project would be located on Paint Creek and 
would consist of a pump station, a pipeline and a channel dam, creating 
a detention pond along the stream channels.
  The city began by requesting a pre-application meeting to speed up 
the process. However, this request was denied by the Corps on the 
grounds that dams generally destroy and/or degrade riverine systems, 
even those that do not permanently impound water.
  As such, they should be avoided when a practical alternative exists. 
The applicant, City of Stamford, should evaluate alternatives to 
supplementing its water supply. Obviously, the authors of this 
regulatory requirement have never set foot in west Texas, as finding an 
alternative water source is about as likely as finding an udder on a 
bull.
  After 6 months of jumping through hoops and over hurdles, including 
the proposed mitigation of 2,200 acres of mesquite trees, a species and 
often eradicated throughout the State, the city was faced with their 
next obstacle, an on-site assessment of the project area to evaluate 
the culture resource sites identified through a required archeological 
survey which was requested

[[Page 12615]]

to discuss the project's potential impact on the aquatic environment 
and formulate possible alternatives that might help reduce the 
project's adverse environmental impact.
  As expected, a site was identified, a site which if left alone would 
continue to wash away as a result of normal creek flow regardless of 
whether or not this project was implemented. However, the city is now 
required to mitigate this site as a mandate by the National Historic 
Preservation Act. As a result of this untimely process, and because of 
some recent spring rains as recorded by the USGS, the City of Stamford 
has missed out on a 2-year water supply increase of approximately 4,400 
acre feet of water because the infrastructure was not in place.
  Opportunities to collect water come rarely in west Texas, and it is 
painful for those of us from the area to watch the opportunities flow 
away from us unnecessarily.
  Now, Stamford is not alone in this problem. Most, if not all, of the 
communities in my district are facing serious water availability 
concerns. The cities of Throckmorton and Winters have a 118-day supply 
of drinking water remaining with no other options, and the cities of 
Abilene and Snyder are currently working on potential solutions to 
their water shortage problem.
  Each of these cases will likely involve the Corps, as well as the 
numerous laws and regulations that require the Corps to dot every ``I'' 
and cross every ``T.''
  Granted, it is important to carefully scrutinize projects ensuring 
that the requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species 
Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act are fulfilled; but 118 
days does not allow much room for bureaucratic red tape, especially 
when one is dealing with an emergency situation involving the economic 
stability of a community, in addition to people's lives and well-being.
  The situation at hand is not entirely the fault of the Corps. We in 
Congress need to be mindful of the legislation passed. It is not 
implemented in a vacuum. A common sense approach to emergency 
situations like this, I hope, will get the attention of this committee 
and the committees of jurisdiction so that we might in fact find a 
solution to a very, very real problem in the near future.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hansen

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hansen:
       Page 39, after line 19, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 607. No funds appropriated under this Act shall be 
     expended for the purpose of processing, granting, or 
     otherwise moving forward a license, permit, or other 
     authorization or permission for the interim storage of spent 
     nuclear fuel, low-level radioactive waste, or high-level 
     radioactive waste on any reservation lands of the Skull 
     Valley Band of Goshute Indians.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is very interesting that we just had an 
amendment earlier in the day about sludge going into a certain State. 
It was amazing how many people stood up and were incensed at the idea 
that they may have sludge go into their State.
  I find it interesting the State of Utah right now a lot of people 
want to put in high-level nuclear waste, and why is that? That is 
because many of us voted in both Houses to put a permanent place for 
nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain. However, the President chose to veto 
this bill, another example of the poor, irresponsible program that they 
have.
  So where do we go now? We do not have a place to put it, because the 
President, after we spent literally billions of dollars, determined, 
oh, I am going to veto this. Obviously, for political reasons; but I 
guess he has a right to do that. So a group of five big polluters 
called the Private Fuel Storage, who have all of their stuff in the 
East right now, decided what they would do is they would go to the 
West.
  So they went to a place called the Goshute Indian Reservation, that 
is Skull Valley. Maybe some of my colleagues think it is a God-forsaken 
place, but a lot of folks live out there. We have a lot of military 
issues out in that particular area. And they decided that they could go 
in there and put a temporary site down.
  What is temporary? Four hundred years? I have never seen one of these 
temporary sites that ever stayed temporary, at least not in my 
lifetime. Maybe that will happen.
  Now in this situation, they decided what they are going to do. Did 
anyone check out the water source to see if any of these aquifers would 
fill up? No, not anybody.
  What about the idea that the Utah Testing and Training Range, one of 
the largest testing and training ranges in the world, is right there? I 
want to point out that 1 mile away from this site a cruise missile 
crashed not too long ago. Numerous F-16s, F-4s and others have crashed 
there. It does not seem to bother these people who have gotten these 
things in the East.
  Now as I look at my friends in the East, I find it very interesting 
that they have never been to our State, but they want to put bills in 
to tell us how much wilderness we can have. They want to tell us where 
we can have legacy highways. They want to tell us where we can do 
various other things, but no one bothers to come out and see it or even 
care. But now that we have the trash, they want to get rid of their 
nuclear waste. Let us put it out in Utah; that is a great place to put 
it. Forget about these other things. Let us put it there.
  Now it just seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it is about time that the 
people out there had a say in their own destiny, that they would have 
the opportunity to say what they want and what they do not want.
  I find it interesting that of these five big polluters, this Private 
Fuel Storage, not one volt from those areas goes into the West. It all 
goes east of the Mississippi River. So they get the advantage of the 
wattage, they get the advantage of the volts, and we get the crap that 
is left over, if I may say that.
  So it comes down to the idea, Mr. Chairman, I personally feel that 
this amendment is worth doing; but my good friend, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Packard), has convinced me that maybe I ought to give 
it some thought, and so I am thinking about it.
  Let me say this: the solicitor general of the Department of Interior 
has made a ruling that says the language we put in the authorization 
bill last year prohibits any of these things from happening until the 
Department of Interior and the Department of Defense gives a study to 
this. So why are they even looking at it? That has not been 
accomplished. In fact, it has not even been started.
  Let me add one other thing. I am asking the IG of the Department of 
Interior to look into this thing. I think they are taking advantage of 
some of our Indian friends out there. In my opinion, there are some 
financial irregularities, and I want a full investigation of it before 
they move out on this particular area.
  So, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, I would hope that people from the 
East who love to tell the West how to run our affairs, what we can do, 
how we can handle our land but they never bother to come out, I wish 
they were all standing here now saying the beautiful area that we put 
all these bills in is now going to be inundated with high-level nuclear 
waste. I do not see them here, but I guess that is their privilege.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HANSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Hansen) yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I do consider him one of my dear friends here, but I 
have to oppose the amendment and would urge him to withdraw the 
amendment.
  We should not prevent the NRC from licensing nuclear waste disposal 
sites.

[[Page 12616]]

It is very difficult to find suitable sites, and in this instance we 
should certainly not interfere with the established procedures of the 
NRC. I would hope that the investigation that has been mentioned by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) would shed light on where we should go 
with this in the future, but let us not kill it tonight.
  Mr. HANSEN. Would the gentleman like to have it in his district?
  Mr. PACKARD. I do not know that there is any room in my district for 
it. It is already filled with houses.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Utah?
  There was no objection.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for construction of the National Ignition Facility.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and a Member opposed will each control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a co-sponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Ryan-
Kucinich amendment. I rise in support of nuclear nonproliferation and 
concern for U.S. taxpayers.
  The National Ignition Facility, NIF, is planned to be the most 
powerful laser in the world, a super laser designed to test U.S. 
nuclear weapons through laboratory simulations of nuclear explosions.
  The construction of this facility will promote the expansion of 
nuclear weapons testing at a time when the United States should be 
working toward nonproliferation both here and internationally.
  I strongly support cutting $74.1 million, the construction budget for 
the National Ignition Facility. This investment in nuclear weapons 
research capabilities runs counter to achieving a comprehensive test 
ban treaty and undermines efforts worldwide to reduce the spread of 
nuclear weapons.
  The NIH would enhance the capability for design of new nuclear 
weapons and modification of existing weapons. Laboratory directors 
might then agree that some of the new nuclear weapons cannot be 
reliably certified without full scale nuclear testing, providing a 
rationale for future testing.
  The creation of new nuclear weapons may serve to ignite a new arms 
race.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this project has been underway for 5 years now. To 
interrupt the ongoing construction project, I think, would be very 
inappropriate, would be a very wasteful effort with monies that have 
already been expended. I would strongly urge that we oppose the 
amendment and allow us to continue the project. The committee has 
provided $80 million for the National Ignition Facility in this bill. 
This is less than the Department of Energy wanted. The Department 
requested $95 million, but the committee did not believe that the 
Department had provided sufficient information on the new cost 
schedule. Therefore, we funded it, however, at $80 million. We 
certainly are not passing judgment on the quality of the project at 
this time, but we should not take the money away from it.
  I also understand that there are several Members that wish to speak 
on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Packard) for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kucinich-Ryan 
amendment. This amendment would eliminate funding for construction of 
the National Ignition Facility, called the NIF, at the Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory. It would waste nearly $1 billion that 
has already been spent on development of this important project. It 
would contradict the action this House took last month when we 
authorized $175 million for the NIF.
  Most importantly, this amendment would severely cripple our Nation's 
arms control and nonproliferation efforts.
  The United States has made a commitment to end nuclear testing, and 
that commitment is a fundamental tenet of our national security. In the 
absence of testing, Mr. Chairman, the only way to maintain an 
effective, secure, reliable nuclear deterrent is through a science-
based stockpile stewardship program.
  Mr. Chairman, the NIF is the cornerstone of that program. The NIF is 
the best way to ensure the safety and reliability of our nuclear 
weapons and to promote arms control and nonproliferation.
  I urge my colleagues very strongly to oppose the Kucinich-Ryan 
amendment.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this NIF project is over budget. It is behind schedule. 
It has experienced several technical difficulties and problems. It has 
been criticized by the other labs, and it has been plagued with 
mismanagement.
  For example, first in the FY 2000 energy and water appropriations 
bill, the committee asked the DOE for a rebaselining of costs by June 1 
of 2000 for this year's appropriations. However, the DOE has pushed off 
this deadline until mid-September, conveniently past the appropriations 
date.
  Given the fact that the GAO report has cited so many problems with 
the management and the construction of this facility, which DOE 
acknowledges, these overruns should not be continued. Congress should 
not appropriate these funds until we have that rebaselining report.
  Second, a GAO report again was requested by the House Committee on 
Science last September in 1999. However, we still do not have this 
report yet, but we have found some preliminary findings from the draft 
report which is imminently due, yet not in time for this appropriations 
bill.
  It shows that the cost estimates are still being overrun. It shows 
that a project management assessment was required as part of the DOD 
authorization bill in this year, and that has not been done.
  It shows that this project began as a $1.2 billion project in 1997 
and then slipped to $2.1 billion in the year 2000, according to the 
DOE. Now the GAO is telling us this thing is going to cost us between 
$3.6 billion and $4 billion.

                              {time}  2200

  This has tripled in costs over the last 3 years alone, the management 
problems, the cost overruns, the fact that the other laboratories, 
Sandia specifically, is saying this ought to be scaled back, because it 
does pilfer from other laboratory programs, which seeks to serve the 
same purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, the NIF is esoteric physics, but it is 
essential to the quest for reliability of nuclear weapons. If my 
colleagues believe, as I do that we should forebear testing and one day 
ratify the comprehensive test band treaty, believe me canceling NIF is 
not the way to do it.
  What does the NIF do? The NIF essentially creates the conditions 
inside of a thermonuclear weapon to an extent we have never been able 
to explore before, and it helps us to ensure the reliability of our 
nuclear weapons to

[[Page 12617]]

validate these complex computer models that we have developed and know 
that they are reliable.
  Mr. Chairman, if we ask anyone to list the challenges to our 
security, almost everyone will say that this spread of fissile 
materials and nuclear weapons leads to less. One way to curb the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons is to stop the testing that proves 
unfeasible, but it is hard for us to advocate that others should not 
test if we test.
  The CTBT, therefore, is one of the key pieces to this puzzle, but 
politically, the CTBT is unlikely to be ratified in country until we 
are satisfied that our arsenal is reliable and secure and to that end, 
the NIF is essential; that is why we must proceed with this project and 
defeat this amendment.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan) for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, many experts agree that the National Ignition Facility 
has no relevance to its goal of maintaining the nuclear arsenal. Edward 
Teller, better known as the Father of the Atomic Bomb when asked about 
the NIF's usefulness in maintaining nuclear weapons he replied, none 
whatsoever.
  Los Alamos's theoretical weapon physicist Rod Schultz wrote that the 
NIF supposed importance to the weapons stockpile does not reflect the 
technical judgment of the nuclear weapons designed community. 
Eliminating funding for the National Ignition Facility does not cut 
funding for research and development for any future commercial energy 
technology.
  Mr. Chairman, our future energy path is clearly in renewable 
technologies, such as fuel cells, wind and solar power. As the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has said, NIF is a budgetary black 
hole. The Department of Energy's initial estimate of NIF's cost 
overruns were about $350 million, but current cost overruns estimates 
from the DOE stand between $750 million to $1 billion, 100 percent more 
than originally estimated.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the amendment. I do think 
the NIF is an important program. Clearly there have been some very 
serious problems that have angered everyone in this body, and clearly 
have angered the Secretary of Energy; that is why a penalty was 
imposed, that is why $55 million of the proposed $95 million additional 
investment that needs to be made is going to come out of the hide of 
the contractor essentially Lawrence Livermore.
  I do think that the Department of Energy, finding a very serious 
problem, is trying to take the appropriate corrective action, I do not 
believe the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is in 
the best interests of our national security or the testing program and 
do oppose the amendment.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It does not cut off the 
research and development. I am not suggesting that I am opposing the 
goal of this project, what it does it says do not go forward with the 
construction because of these amazing mismanagement problems, because 
of these phenomenal cost overruns, because of the fact that this 
project has been delayed in its implementation due to these problems 
for years.
  What this amendment does, it says if you cannot build the 
construction, work on the R&D. Mr. Chairman, $914 million has been 
spent on this, yet 5 percent of the infrastructure and the laser 
components are completed.
  This amendment simply says let us watch our taxpayers' dollars. 
Congress asked the DOE to actually take a look at this. Congress asked 
the GAO to get back to us to see if these problems had been dealt with.
  We have not heard from the DOE. We have not heard from the GAO yet. I 
would suggest that on behalf of our taxpayers that we represent, let us 
wait till we hear from them before obligating this money, and let us 
spend it on research and development in the meantime.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Ryan amendment would take $74 million from the National Ignition 
Facility and terminate the project; that is premature. We are aware 
that the project has not run smoothly, and that it has had its problems 
both management and fiscally on schedule, but some of this funding will 
be needed, whether the committee agrees to complete NIF or not.
  If the decision is made to cancel NIF, the funds will be needed for 
termination costs.
  For the last remaining few seconds that I have, I will yield to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment offered by my 
friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) because of the effect it would have on the nuclear 
deterrent power of the United States.
  The National Ignition Facility is a cornerstone requirement of the 
stockpile stewardship program and the only facility that would allow 
the experimental study of fusion burning in the laboratory. The 
capability is an essential element of our ability to maintain our 
nuclear deterrent into the future.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that let us not kill the project 
tonight; the jury is still out on it. I urge a no vote on the 
amendment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Ryan-Kucinich 
amendments to cut construction funds for the National Ignition 
Facility.
  Every time this project comes before us, its costs rise and its 
scientific rationale grows more dubious.
  Criticism of NIF has come from groups as diverse as the Friends of 
the Earth and the Armed Services Committee.
  This project has already sucked up billions of taxpayer dollars while 
endangering our environment and sabotaging efforts to reduce nuclear 
proliferation.
  The National Ignition Facility represents the flagship of the 
Stockpile Stewardship nuclear weapons program. That is no great honor.
  This project, together with National Missile Defense, symbolizes the 
American failure to lead the way on global nuclear arms control.
  If the National Ignition Facility continues to fail to achieve its 
stated goal of ignition, it will remain a financial quagmire that has 
depleted badly needed financial resources. If it succeeds, it threatens 
to send the arms race spiraling to an ever higher level.
  Now is the time to seriously evaluate this program. We should not put 
more money into construction for a project that is neither necessary 
nor productive.
  This project is now approximately one billion dollars over budget. It 
is 5 years behind schedule.
  Ultimately, there are economic, geopolitical, and environmental 
reasons to oppose continued construction of the National Ignition 
Facility.
  Economically, NIF is over budget and over due.
  Geoplitically, this effort to create thermonuclear explosions in a 
laboratory setting undermines U.S. efforts to reduce nuclear weapons 
across the globe.
  Environmentally, Californians are already justifiably concerned about 
the release of tritium into their environment. Increasing nuclear waste 
is not the solution.
  I repeat, it is time to seriously reevaluate this program. I urge 
your support for the Ryan-Kucinich amendments.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Kucinich. It is simply too early 
to cut funding for the National Ignition Facility. We all realize that 
there are problems with the project. I am just as concerned as my 
colleagues here with the troubles that have beset this project. The 
subcommittee Members and myself are keeping a watchful eye on each and 
every development at NIF. The Department of Energy has indeed 
determined that NIF will take longer than projected and cost more than 
originally expected. But the final cost and schedule are yet to be 
determined.

[[Page 12618]]

  Those increases must be viewed in light of the fact that the National 
Ignition Facility is a key component of our stockpile stewardship 
program. With over 60 times the energy of any laser in existence, NIF 
will provide us with unprecedented insights into the science of nuclear 
fusion. The NIF project will provide vital information on our weapons 
stockpile that would have previously required expensive underground 
testing. In addition, NIF will offer us some exceptional science 
related to the underlying physics of nuclear fusion--a source of power 
that could potentially fuel our future.
  The Department of Energy is working hard to straighten out the 
difficulties with the NIF project. It is currently undertaking a 
thorough evaluation of this project and considering every alternative. 
It has already been determined that the underlying science associated 
with NIF is sound.
  Until DOE's investigation is complete, it is premature to cut funding 
for this program. We need to get all the facts before proceeding--
especially when the issue is the security of our national defenses. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Kingston

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

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Kingston.
       Page 39, after line 19, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 607. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used to pay the salaries of employees of the 
     Department of Energy who handle classified information 
     related to computer equipment containing sensitive national 
     security information at Los Alamos, New Mexico, and have 
     refused to take a lawfully authorized lie detector test 
     related to their official duties.


        Modification to Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Kingston

  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to change 
Amendment No. 10 to another amendment that is at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Kingston:
       Page 39, after line 19, add the following new section:
       ``Sec.   . None of the funds in this Act may be used to pay 
     the salary of any employee of the Department of Energy at the 
     Los Alamos National Laboratory who has failed to undergo a 
     polygraph examination pursuant to section 3154(e) of Public 
     Law 106-65.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the modification to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston)?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is modified.
  Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is part of the continuing effort of this House on 
a bipartisan basis to reign in maybe the loose security or the mistakes 
we have all made in the security at the Los Alamos lab, and this is not 
directed at anything. This is supposed to be a constructive amendment.
  The idea behind it is, we had the situation, as all Members of the 
House well know and all Members of the House are concerned about, that 
has to do with the disappearance of two highly sensitive disks, 
computer disks, that contained nuclear secrets. The disks disappeared 
and reappeared, and during that period of time, we are not exactly sure 
what happened.
  We do know that they searched behind a copying machine, and then 
later, they researched behind there and found out that they were there. 
It appears that they were kind of stuck in after the search. What we 
are trying to do as a Government is to investigate this and yet much to 
our dismay, I believe on a bipartisan basis, we have employees out 
there who have refused to take a polygraph test.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a precedent now. We have a law that can require 
employees in sensitive areas to take polygraph tests and certainly 
employees who are dealing with nuclear secrets are in highly sensitive 
areas, and what this simply says is that if you will not take a 
polygraph test and you are working in a highly-sensitive area, we are 
not going to pay you. We are urging employees and have the lawful right 
to do that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the Kingston 
amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I think it is 
probably micromanaging to a degree, but I am willing to accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) to speak on this amendment, who is a member of 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to rise in support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston). Let me just say there are 
people, a number of people, at the laboratories who have clearances and 
access to classified material; that is, nuclear material or nuclear 
design material. Also what we know is special access programs, it is 
absolutely imperative that we have the right to polygraph those folks, 
and it is absolutely equitable and fair that those who would refuse to 
take the polygraphs cannot be paid, cannot be employed in this 
capacity.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman. I think it is an excellent 
amendment. I thank the subcommittee for agreeing to accept this 
amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunt) and I 
thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, for their 
support of this amendment.
  I want to say that what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, on a 
bipartisan basis is send a signal out to any employee who works at Los 
Alamos in a sensitive area who refuses to take a polygraph test that we 
believe the security of our Nation is more important than their 
personal pride or whatever conflict they may have that prevents them 
from doing this. We are just saying, you have to do it, that is part of 
taking care of our nuclear secrets.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered 
by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. (a) In General.--None of the funds made available 
     in this Act may be used to pay any basic pay of an individual 
     who simultaneously holds or carries out the responsibilities 
     of--
       (1) a position within the National Nuclear Security 
     Administration; and
       (2) a position within the Department of Energy not within 
     the Administration.
       (b) Exceptions for Administrator for Nuclear Security and 
     Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors.--The limitation in 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to the following cases:
       (1) The Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security 
     serving as the Administrator for Nuclear Security, as 
     provided in section 3212(a)(2) of the National Nuclear 
     Security Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 2402(a)(2)).
       (2) The director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program 
     provided for under the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Executive 
     Order serving as the Deputy Administrator for Naval Reactors, 
     as provided in section 3216(a)(1) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 
     2406(a)(1)).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) and a

[[Page 12619]]

Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Nuclear Secret Administration was put in 
place by this Congress to be an independent agency within the 
Department of Energy; their sole purpose was to secure our most vital 
national nuclear secrets.
  My amendment does one simple thing, it requires the Secretary of the 
Energy to properly implement the National Nuclear Security 
Administration. It does so by prohibiting the practice of dual hatting 
that the Secretary of Energy engaged in to circumvent the law that this 
Congress passed and that the President signed last year.
  Dual hatting involves the giving of titles and responsibility for the 
National Nuclear Security Administration to current employees of the 
Department of Energy, thereby removing the independent status of the 
agency.
  Removing dual hatting is an idea that the Committee on Appropriations 
was leading toward in its own report. The report says that the 
committee encourages the new administrator and deputy administrator for 
defense programs to review the urgency for organization and management 
changes in the NNSA headquarters and field structure. It goes on to say 
that simply renaming the same employees to the same organizational 
structure, the same management culture will not address the fundamental 
program that Congress sought to address by creating this new entity.
  Finally, the committee strongly urges the new administrator and 
deputy administrator to use this opportunity to make bold and strategic 
improvements.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, believe that we should not focus on the recent 
security failures within the current nuclear laboratories complex. 
Instead, I believe we should focus on strengthening the Department of 
Energy's ability to protect this Nation's national security.
  We must manage the risks associated with the development of the 
nuclear technology. Mr. Chairman, the other body recently approved a 
new administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration. I 
urge my colleagues to join me and give him the tools needed to 
effectively protect our Nation's most vital nuclear secrets.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition to the amendment. This is 
an issue that should be addressed and has been addressed by the 
authorizing committee. The House Committee on Armed Services did not 
include this provision in the bill that passed this House recently.

                              {time}  2215

  The Senate has included the provision in the Defense authorization 
bill; and, therefore, it will clearly be a conferencible item between 
the House and Senate on the defense authorization bill. This House 
should not preempt the conference committee in doing their job. Let us 
leave it to those that have the responsibility, and that is the 
authorizers.
  We believe this amendment should be addressed by the authorizing 
committee, it will be addressed in the conferencing of the Defense 
authorization bill, and for that reason, I urge the Members to allow 
that process to take its rightful place; and I urge the Members to vote 
against the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Ryun 
amendment, which would restrict the ability of the Department of Energy 
to maintain the country's nuclear stockpile. The amendment would 
prohibit the Department from dual-hatting certain senior physicists and 
nuclear weapon designers and would mandate certain job functions 
encompassed in the requirement of the Defense authorization bill to 
split the Department of Energy into two independent organizations.
  The practical problem inherent in the gentleman's amendment is that 
it is not enforceable. Less than 20 Federal employees are currently 
dual-hatted in the Department of Energy. These officials are the core 
of the nuclear weapons program, and these scientists and military 
officers are not attempting to politicize the Department; they are men 
and women who won the Cold War.
  What the amendment is attempting to do is to set a date certain by 
which these people must be replaced. Hiring permanent replacements for 
these officials is not a frivolous issue. Replacing nuclear weapon 
experts takes time and very careful consideration.
  Earlier this month, the Senate confirmed the new chief of the 
National Nuclear Security Administration, General Gordon. General 
Gordon has a Ph.D. in nuclear physics and is a former deputy director 
of the Central Intelligence Agency. General Gordon should not be forced 
to hire 18 new senior government executives in literally the next 30 to 
60 days. I do not believe that it is a sound proposition, and I am 
opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that the 
House Committee on Armed Services does not oppose this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the Chairman of the National Security Special 
Oversight Panel of the Department of Energy Reorganization, who has 
been a leader in this effort, watching over our nuclear secrets.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kansas for 
yielding me this time and for all of his contributions to the special 
oversight panel.
  Mr. Chairman, when Congress passed the bill to reorganize the 
Department of Energy last year, it was clear from the language of the 
law and the intention behind the law that we intended to have some 
separation between the nuclear weapons complex and the rest of the 
Department of Energy. That is exactly what the President's foreign 
intelligence advisory board recommended as well as many other studies. 
We did exactly what his commission recommended.
  Yet, in implementing the law, the current Department has dual-hatted 
several positions. What that means is they give one person two jobs, 
one job inside the nuclear weapons complex and one job outside the 
nuclear weapons complex. I would tell my friend from Indiana, it is not 
nuclear weapons experts. These are procurement people, they are 
lawyers, they are security and counterintelligence people.
  The American Law Division at CRS has said that this dual-hatting 
practice is against the law we passed, period. The Ryun amendment 
simply enforces the law that we passed. The gentleman is correct, it is 
less than 20 people that this applies to, but let me tell my colleagues 
who one of those persons is.
  In the bill that we passed last year, we created a Chief of Defense 
for Nuclear Security whose job explicitly in the law is to set up 
policies and implement security policies at our nuclear laboratories 
and plants. That position has been held by a part-time person. That 
position has been held by a guy who has a job inside and a job outside 
in the rest of the Department of Energy.
  Now, I would suggest that that is partly responsible for the serious 
security problems that we have had. We have not had a full-time person 
looking at security inside the NNSA.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment stops dual-hatting. It says we have to 
have a full-time person dealing with security; we have to have a full-
time person dealing with counterintelligence, a full-time procurement 
officer, a full-time lawyer inside the NSA.
  I would also say to my friend from Indiana that I suggest General 
Gordon looks forward to the opportunity of putting his own people in 
here so that he can have them devoted fully to the nuclear weapons 
complex, rather than have other responsibilities in the rest of the 
Department.

[[Page 12620]]

  Mr. Chairman, this nuclear security breach at Los Alamos is a very, 
very serious matter. Certainly, there are other proposals to deal with 
it, but I think we have to be very careful and be responsible in what 
we do. Knee-jerk reactions are not appropriate.
  It is true that the authorizers are dealing with several provisions 
associated with this, but we should not miss any opportunity to stand 
up and say, when Congress passes a law and the President signs a law, 
it ought to be enforced. We should not allow any administration to get 
away with not enforcing the law, particularly when it has such serious 
security consequences for our country.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment ought to be passed, and it ought to be 
passed strongly.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to simply reiterate this is being done and taken care of by the 
authorizers both in the House and the Senate. Let us leave it to them 
to do it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) will 
be postponed.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  For the benefit of the Members, I believe this is the last business 
before we call for the series of votes. I am not aware of any other 
amendments, but I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee, for a very short colloquy.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I report to the gentleman that today 
it was emphasized to me that the Department of Energy is readying a 
``Power Scorecard'' that disparages energy produced by nuclear means, 
coal and natural gas. I ask that as we move forward to and through the 
conference that the matter be investigated and addressed, if necessary.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman bringing that to our attention, and we will certainly look at 
the issue as we go into conference; and hopefully, we can resolve it.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order: amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Foley of 
Florida; amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Andrews of New Jersey; an 
amendment by Mr. Sherwood of Pennsylvania; and an amendment by Mr. Ryun 
of Kansas.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Foley

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 71, 
noes 356, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 337]

                                AYES--71

     Abercrombie
     Blumenauer
     Capps
     Capuano
     Conyers
     Cox
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Deutsch
     Doggett
     Eshoo
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Gilman
     Goodling
     Goss
     Green (WI)
     Hoeffel
     Horn
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     Lazio
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pombo
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shays
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thune
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Waters
     Wexler
     Woolsey

                               NOES--356

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cook
     Lantos
     Markey
     Martinez
     McIntosh
     Stark
     Vento

[[Page 12621]]



                              {time}  2248

  Messrs. GANSKE, WISE, LEVIN, and WAXMAN, Ms. BERKLEY and Ms. DeGETTE 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HOEFFEL, TIERNEY, McGOVERN, METCALF, KUCINICH, BLUMENAUER, 
GILMAN, INSLEE, OWENS, SUNUNU, DELAHUNT, PAYNE, COX, UDALL of Colorado, 
McDERMOTT, LEWIS of Georgia and OLVER, Mrs. MALONEY of New York, Ms. 
ESHOO, Ms. SANCHEZ, Ms. PELOSI, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Ms. McKINNEY, and Ms. 
WATERS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 532, the Chair announces 
that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within 
which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each amendment on 
which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Andrews

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by a voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 249, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 338]

                               AYES--176

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bono
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Capps
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cox
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Ford
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Horn
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Kelly
     Kingston
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Norwood
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Porter
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Woolsey

                               NOES--249

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coburn
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bonior
     Cook
     Ganske
     Markey
     Martinez
     McIntosh
     Stark
     Taylor (MS)
     Vento

                              {time}  2257

  Mr. KUCINICH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2300

  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to speak out of order for 
one minute.)


                           Baseball Practice

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, to all my colleagues on the Democratic side 
who were planning to be at baseball practice at 7:00 in the morning, 
our first practice will be at 7 a.m. on Thursday morning, not 7 a.m. 
tomorrow morning.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
The good news on the Republican side, we will not practice tomorrow 
morning due to wet ground.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Sherwood

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Sherwood) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 393, 
noes 33, not voting 8, as follows:

[[Page 12622]]

                             [Roll No. 339]

                               AYES--393

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

                                NOES--33

     Ballenger
     Burton
     Coble
     Coburn
     Cox
     Cunningham
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Goss
     Gutknecht
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hostettler
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Paul
     Pease
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Souder
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Toomey
     Walden
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Barcia
     Cook
     Ganske
     Markey
     Martinez
     McIntosh
     Stark
     Vento

                              {time}  2305

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Ryun of Kansas

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 187, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 340]

                               AYES--239

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--187

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers

[[Page 12623]]


     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cook
     Ganske
     Lantos
     Markey
     Martinez
     McIntosh
     Stark
     Vento

                              {time}  2312

  Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BOEHLERT and Mr. ENGLISH changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. PACKARD. 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. 
Pease) 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.

                          ____________________