[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21411-21421]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



     CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2311, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 272, I call 
up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2311) making appropriations 
for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2002, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 272, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
October 30, 2001, at page H7418.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) 
and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 
minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House the conference 
report on H.R. 2311, the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act.
  At the outset, I would like to state how pleased I am that the 
conference committee was able to work out the dramatic differences 
between the House and Senate bills so amicably and to such a positive 
effect. Given the great divide over the House and Senate priorities, 
many concluded that we would never be able to resolve our differences. 
Not only did we resolve those differences, we did so in such a way that 
the critical priorities of the House and Senate were carefully 
protected.
  I am proud of the agreement struck between the House and Senate on 
energy and water development programs. It was a difficult and arduous 
negotiation, but the product of our deliberations is a package that 
will help strengthen our defense, rebuild our critical infrastructure, 
and increase our scientific knowledge.
  The total amount included in the conference agreement for energy and 
water programs is $24.6 billion. This is $891 million over the amount 
included in the House-passed bill and about $2.1 billion over the 
budget request.
  I am especially pleased with the level of funding we have recommended 
for the civil works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. At 
$4.5 billion, the recommended funding is $586 million higher than the 
administration's inadequate budget request. The majority of this 
increase, about $391 million, is in the Corps' construction program. 
While that may sound like a large increase, the amount we have 
recommended is about the same as the amount the Corps spent in fiscal 
year 2001 on construction. If we had funded the construction program at 
the level requested by the administration, the result would have been 
schedule delays, increased project costs, and the loss of project 
benefits.
  For the Bureau of Reclamation, we have provided $914 million, which 
is $95 million above the budget request.
  For the nondefense programs of the Department of Energy, we were able 
to provide modest increases over the last year for several programs. 
The basic research performed by the Department of Energy has led to 
many of the technological breakthroughs that have helped our economy 
grow. These programs will even be more important as we move into the 
21st century.
  I am pleased to report that the additional allocation we received has 
enabled us to fund these programs slightly above the levels requested 
by the administration. For renewable energy programs, we were able to 
provide about $19 million over the House-passed level.
  For the Atomic Energy Defense Programs of the Department of Energy, 
the conference agreement includes $14.7 billion, a significant increase 
of almost $1.2 billion over the budget request. These funds will ensure 
that we have a reliable and safe nuclear weapons stockpile, continue to 
fund important nuclear nonproliferation programs to secure nuclear 
materiels in Russia, and meet our commitments to communities throughout 
the United States to clean up the damage done to the environment over 
the past 40 years.
  I want to thank my Senate counterpart, Chairman Harry Reid, and his 
ranking minority member, Senator Pete Domenici, for their cooperation 
and hard work. Moreover, I would like to expression my sincere 
appreciation to my colleagues on the House Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development, whose devoted efforts made this conference report 
possible.
  I am especially grateful to my good friend and ranking member, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). I want to thank our full 
committee chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for their cooperation in enabling 
us to bring this conference report before the House today.
  Finally, I would like to express my deep appreciation and sincere 
gratitude to the House Appropriations staff for the Subcommittee for 
Energy and

[[Page 21412]]

Water Development: Bob Schmidt, Jeanne Wilson, Kevin Cook, Paul 
Tuminello, Tracey LaTurner, Dave Killian, Rich Kaelin, Jennifer 
Watkins, and my personal staff, Mike Sharp and Nancy Tippins.
  Their expertise, knowledge, and negotiating skills have helped 
produce the bipartisan product that we present for Members' 
consideration today, and each is to be commended for their fine effort. 
Additionally, I would like to thank each of them for making my first 
session as chairman of this subcommittee an extremely pleasurable 
experience.
  I believe the conference agreement is balanced and fair, and I would 
urge a unanimous support of the House for its adoption. I would hope 
that we could quickly conclude action on this conference report so that 
we can get this bill to the White House for the President's signature.

[[Page 21413]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01NO01.001



[[Page 21414]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH01NO01.002



[[Page 21415]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and 
congratulate him on the work product that the subcommittee has brought 
before the House today. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) is 
the chairman, but he is also my classmate from the class of 1984 and 
also my good friend. He has been a delight to work with. He is very 
serious about the work product, but not serious about himself. He is 
very deliberate, and he is very conscientious. He has done a very good 
job.
  The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) also enumerated by name 
each member of the staff on both sides of the aisle, and I would like 
to add my own personal gratitude for the work that the staff has done. 
We would not be here today without them.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very good solid work product. It is good for 
the American economy. It is good for the national security. I would 
hope that all Members of this body do support this bill.
  I do, however, want to make two comments. One is that I would hope as 
the administration looks at its budget request for 2003, that it send a 
realistic budget for our investment in our economic infrastructure and 
our national security.
  On the economic front, I would point out that while we did the 
absolute best that we could with the resources possible, in constant 
dollars in fiscal year 2002, the appropriations for the Army Corps of 
Engineers civil works has drastically declined. In fiscal year 2002, we 
appropriated $4.486 billion compared to $7 billion in constant dollars 
for 1967.
  Additionally, a similar ratio would exist for the general 
construction dollars. I would point out that backlog for the Army Corps 
of Engineers totals about $40 billion, and backlog for operation and 
maintenance for this year alone is estimated to be about $835 million. 
I hope as the administration and as the Congress looks ahead to the 
next year, that we recognize a greater investment in our economic 
infrastructure is going to be necessary.
  There has also been a lot of debate on the House floor in the last 
several days as far as nuclear nonproliferation; and within our 
financial limitations, we tried to do the best job possible, but there 
remains problems.
  As we look towards a supplement for the coming year and again in 
investment in ensuring that these weapons of mass destruction cannot be 
proliferated world-wide, we will have to make a greater investment, and 
again would call upon the administration. I would call upon the 
Congress to do a better job in a comparative fashion in fiscal year 
2003.
  At this time, however, the chairman has covered the elements of the 
bill. He has done it well. It is a good bill, and I ask my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, regarding the comment the gentleman made about the 
submission this year by the administration for these very important 
projects that are included in this bill, the gentleman is exactly 
right. In defense of the administration, they only had a couple of 
weeks to prepare for the submission of the budget that they sent to the 
House. In subsequent discussions with both the director of OMB and the 
President, I recognize that they had to submit something. But along 
with the gentleman from Indiana, I would like to invite him to come 
with me to the White House between now and the end of the year so we 
can have a discussion with the President and with the director of OMB 
to submit to this body a more realistic proposal for the energy and 
water needs of this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I have served on this 
subcommittee for 10 or 12 years at least. I know how difficult it is to 
balance the needs of the Members of this body and the needs of the 
Nation, frankly, and these vital programs that this bill covers.
  I have to tell Members that the maiden voyage that the captain has 
steered us on this bill has been masterfully done.

                              {time}  1130

  This is the first bill that Chairman Callahan has had the opportunity 
to work on. This is a tough bill. You have got the nuclear weapons 
program, of course, in this bill; all of the energy issues of such 
vital importance to the Nation at this time. The security issues, of 
course, this year are very important; and also the work of the Corps of 
Engineers and all of the programs that Members are so vitally 
interested in. It is a tough bill to try to weigh all of those 
interests and find enough funds with which to do the necessary work. I 
want to compliment the chairman and the ranking member for working 
together as they do, and have, and working with all the Members in such 
a nice spirit.
  I was hopeful in this bill that we could have had some more money for 
those Krispy Kreme doughnuts, but I do not guess we are going to get 
that this time. But I want to compliment Chairman Callahan and Ranking 
Member Visclosky for a great job, salute them on the work that they 
have done, and wish them well.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and dear friend 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for recognizing me and 
supporting our efforts to ban oil drilling in the Great Lakes.
  I might say, Mr. Speaker, together this is a bipartisan effort. When 
we passed the amendment in the House of Representatives, we garnered, I 
think, somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 Republican votes on this 
issue and we have worked hard and long on this issue. Today we will 
have achieved an important bipartisan victory for both the House and 
the Senate. Today, that work that we have devoted over a period of 
years has paid off.
  I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) 
and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. LaTourette) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) and 
others on the other side of the aisle who have worked to make this 
amendment happen. I want to thank all of my friends who came together 
on this issue. In the other body, Senators Debbie Stabenow and Peter 
Fitzgerald were very helpful in their efforts as well.
  This legislation is a terrific victory for the people of Michigan and 
all of the Great Lakes States. Elementary school science will teach you 
that oil and water do not mix. One quart of oil could contaminate 2 
million gallons of drinking water. The Great Lakes contain nearly a 
quarter of the world's fresh water and 95 percent of all the fresh 
water in the United States. An accident in a contained system would 
indeed be catastrophic. We cannot afford the risk of drilling.
  Michigan, my home State, is a land of breathtaking beauty. The Great 
Lakes define our communities, our recreation, our tourism, our 
landscape, our commerce. It is an integral part of who we are and what 
we are about in our history. Michigan lakes are not oil fields. Our 
shorelines are not pipelines. Michigan families deserve clean water and 
beaches free from oil rigs. We have an enormous amount of people who 
come into our State, Mr. Speaker, every year who visit, who come and 
camp. They do not come to see oil wells. They do not come to see oil 
derricks. They come to use our beaches, to use our sand dunes, they 
come to swim in our beautiful lakes. This crucial environmental 
protection will keep big oil and reckless drilling out of our lakes.
  This is a victory for Michigan, a victory for the environment, and a 
victory for future generations who deserve clean drinking water and an 
unspoiled landscape. I thank my colleagues for

[[Page 21416]]

their help on this issue. I urge the House to pass the conference 
report.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), who is a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time. I rise in support of our energy and water appropriations bill.
  Let me first thank Chairman Callahan for his forceful leadership of 
our committee's work and also the ranking member's leadership on this 
bill, and my thanks to the very forceful leadership, and to thank our 
subcommittee staff for their tireless efforts to put this bill 
together.
  While much public attention is rightly focused on the war abroad, our 
committee continues to do its part to protect our Nation's security at 
home. The issue of energy security is now clearly before us. Our energy 
facilities must be safe and secure and we must continue the critical 
work of the Department of Energy to research and develop domestic 
sources of energy of all types and to protect our nuclear stockpile.
  On another front, Chairman Callahan has produced a bill, insisted on 
a bill, in fact, that continues the Federal commitment to work in 
partnership with our States and local communities to address such vital 
needs as flood control, shore protection, environmental restoration and 
improving our Nation's waterways.
  I especially want to thank the chairman for his support of top 
priorities in my home State of New Jersey. Keeping our ports open for 
business is critical to our regional economy and the nearly 230,000 
jobs related to port activity in both New York and New Jersey. 
Protecting and restoring our shoreline is also vital. This bill 
continues to protect communities from natural disasters such as 
flooding and continues New Jersey's special role to provide a future 
energy source that is clean and unlimited. That is the special work of 
the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab.
  I also thank the chairman for working with me to consolidate the port 
dredging projects within the New York and New Jersey commercial 
waterways into one single project to expedite dredging to the 
recommended 50-foot depth. Combining these projects and expediting this 
critical work is a huge victory for our regional economy and for the 
environment and for the taxpayer at a time when our people are 
suffering and thousands of jobs have been lost in our area.
  Finally, I want to pay special tribute to the Army Corps of Engineers 
for their response to the September 11 attack in Lower Manhattan and at 
the Pentagon. While we know the Army Corps does fantastic and 
important, essential work during war and in peacetime with flood 
control and dredging and other projects, many are not aware that the 
Army Corps acts in very important ways during times of disaster and 
national crisis. Since the day of these tragedies, the Corps has 
assisted in the Federal national response both in Lower Manhattan and 
at the Pentagon. They have worked tirelessly to do emergency dredging, 
debris removal and to address complex engineering and structural 
security issues in Lower Manhattan besides looking after thousands of 
people who needed transportation.
  After visiting ground zero, Army Secretary White commented on the 
Corps effort and said, ``While your history is impressive, given the 
current situation your finest hour is a chapter yet to be written.'' I 
am sure we would agree with him.
  I want to personally thank the Army Corps for all their work to meet 
the needs of our citizens and our communities when we needed it the 
most. I know our committee also shares my pride in their 
professionalism. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank my good friend from Indiana for 
yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, regarding the Corps of Engineers small flood control 
projects, also called section 205 projects, am I right in understanding 
that the conference report directs the Corps to proceed with all the 
projects listed in both the House and Senate reports?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. So that would mean the conferees intend for 
the Corps to proceed with the Van Bibber-Arvada Plaza drainage project 
in Colorado as specified in the House report?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, few people ever get to witness a conference committee 
meeting. Generally it is in a late-night session, either in the 
basement of the House or the Capitol. That is where all of the serious 
negotiations take place rather than on the floor or even in a committee 
meeting. I wish the American people could have seen the professionalism 
and the dedication that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) had in 
trying to correct and trying to preserve some concerns that he had over 
the Missouri River project. He along with the gentlewoman from Missouri 
(Mrs. Emerson), who is also a member of our subcommittee, should have 
made the people of Missouri and Iowa proud.
  I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham), a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for those kind words 
and also want to certainly thank the chairman for doing a fabulous job 
leading our subcommittee on these very, very important issues and the 
ranking member and the cooperation that we have on this subcommittee, 
and certainly the staff did an outstanding job and we really appreciate 
all of their efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill has a very broad jurisdiction but 
extraordinarily important when we talk about our nuclear arsenal, when 
we talk about research, trying to make America independent in its 
energy needs. This is the place where that type of research is done, 
and I am very pleased with the funding levels. We could always find 
more uses for more money, obviously, but the chairman and ranking 
member did an outstanding job.
  I would also like to say that this bill does a lot for Iowa. We have 
flood control projects in Sioux City, the Perry Creek ongoing project; 
in Denison, Iowa, where the floods were so devastating in 1993, the 
levee project there is funded to our request; and a couple of very, 
very important projects in Fort Dodge, Iowa, the river enhancement, in 
trying to make sure that that community can handle not only flood 
control but also have enhancement of the livelihood in Fort Dodge 
itself; and Webster County with their flood control concerns they have 
downriver on the Des Moines River.
  The chairman brought up the issue of the Missouri River. I was 
somewhat disappointed in the results in this bill. Obviously the 
special interests upstream, upriver had a major influence, especially 
in the other body, but I think working in a cooperative basis that we 
can be successful in the future if we all use some common sense to 
bring this issue finally to closure so that we can all proceed and not 
destroy the livelihood and endanger the lives of the people downstream.
  I again thank the chairman very much for the opportunity and for his 
great work.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. 
Let me thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee 
for the work that they have done on this bill. I also want to thank my 
fellow Texan and our colleague the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) 
for the help that he has provided.

[[Page 21417]]

  Once again this bill provides necessary funds for a number of water 
projects in the Greater Houston Area. In particular, it provides $4 
million for the Brays Bayou project which is a precursor to a large 
Federal-local flood control project that borders up against the Texas 
Medical Center, which is the largest medical center in the world; and 
it includes $9 million for the Sims Bayou project, which is a Federal-
local project that is halfway through construction.
  Last summer, as Members know, all of southeast Texas but in 
particular in the Greater Houston Area, we suffered a very catastrophic 
flood event through Tropical Storm Allison. In fact, this was somewhat 
of a 100-year event. We had over 70,000 homes which had water damage. 
We had floodwaters come out of the banks of most of the bayous and 
watersheds in the area. The total cost of the storm is estimated to be 
in excess of $5 billion, close to $2 billion of that occurring in the 
Texas Medical Center with the 45 institutions that are included within 
that center. The four major hospitals in the Houston area were closed 
down for some period of time as a result of that storm as well. The 
funding that is in this bill will go a long way in helping to try and 
address and alleviate that situation for future storms.
  While we would like to get more money, obviously that is true for 
every Member, I believe we were treated fairly in this. We also have to 
do this in a fiscally responsible way. I know that the chairman and the 
ranking member are committed to these projects for the long haul.
  I would also just add that I appreciate the fact that the committee 
provided about $34 million for the ongoing Houston ship channel 
project, the deepening and widening project which will allow the Port 
of Houston to maintain its status as one of the powerful economic 
engines in the Greater Houston Area. I appreciate the work of the 
committee.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, putting together a bill such as this is 
not something one man can do. I thanked the staff earlier for their 
tremendous professionalism. But it also requires a lot of dedicated 
time and effort on the part of the subcommittee members as well as the 
full committee members.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Wicker), who has dedicated untold hours and tons of professionalism 
towards the drafting of this bill.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for those kind remarks. 
I rise in strong support of this bill. It is a pleasure to be on this 
subcommittee.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make three points about this legislation 
which, of course, will pass overwhelmingly in just a few moments.
  First of all, the chairman and the ranking member mentioned the Corps 
of Engineers construction account. My chairman mentioned that the 
administration's request was, frankly, inadequate when it came to us. 
Certainly there may be reasons for that, the lack of time the 
administration had in being able to put the budget together. My friend 
from Indiana, the ranking member, called on Members to speak to the 
administration about the fact that, frankly, the request was 
unrealistic, and perhaps we can do a better job of communicating with 
the administration in the future about this.
  But this has happened year in and year out, Mr. Speaker. It is not 
just the Bush administration, and it was not just the Clinton 
administration. Year in and year out, Democrat and Republican 
administrations have cut needed funds from the Corps' budget request, 
knowing full well that this House of Representatives and the other body 
would have to restore those funds in order to meet the needs.
  There is a simple principle that applies to everyone's home, or if 
you are in a business it applies to the businesses, and it is so simple 
it almost goes without saying. That principle, Mr. Speaker, is that 
oftentimes you can spend a little money today in order to save the 
expense of a whole lot of money tomorrow.
  If there is a problem with the seal around your front door, if you 
just spend a little money and it keeps the water from coming in, you 
are saving yourself from having to replace a whole bunch of carpet and 
a whole bunch of things inside the building later on. If you own a 
business and that roof needs to be repaired, I think all of my 
colleagues would agree you better go ahead and spend the little money 
now to repair the roof, rather than to spend all the money that it will 
take to correct the situation once it gets out of hand.
  That is why we needed the plus-up; and that is why I commend the 
leadership of the committee, both in the House and in the Senate, for 
putting the adequate money in there and addressing the need, so we 
could save money tomorrow.
  Now, let me just also mention a second point. Waterways are national 
issues. Our Nation's waterways do not recognize State lines. For 
example, over 40 percent of our Nation's water flows by the borders of 
my home State of Mississippi. So flood control and maintaining 
navigable waterways is a national issue, and I am pleased that this 
subcommittee and this bill makes the needed infrastructure investments 
for those activities.
  Finally, I would join the rest of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, in 
commending the leadership of this committee, my chairman and my ranking 
member, for working on a bipartisan basis. This is a bipartisan effort, 
and this is the sort of way in which our House of Representatives 
should conduct itself.
  I urge overwhelming support for this legislation.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the next gentleman, I would want to 
agree with the points that the previous speaker, my good friend the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), made and particularly the 
point that this was not just a failure of the current administration, 
whatever the circumstances, as far as timing, or the Clinton 
administration, and would reiterate in my opening remarks I mentioned 
in constant dollars since 1967 we have seen the Corps budget drop from 
$7 billion to $4.48 billion, so that clearly is a generational failure 
by administrations and Congresses of both parties.
  It is time we all collectively come together to come to grips with 
this and make a solid investment in the United States of America. So I 
appreciate the gentleman's comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member and also 
our Chair of the committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the energy and water conference 
report, and particularly appreciate the hard work of my friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from my home State of Texas (Mr. Edwards), and 
appreciate his advice during the process. I also appreciate the 
chairman of the committee and our ranking member, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the conferees saw fit to boost funding 
for the Houston-Galveston Navigation Channel and the Port of Houston by 
$3 million, to $33,785 million. The Houston Ship Channel and the Port 
of Houston are vital not just to the economy of Houston but to our 
national economy. It is the second largest port in America and the 
largest in the Nation in foreign tonnage. It is also critical to our 
Nation's energy industry.
  In addition to this channel project, I appreciate the conferees' 
efforts on the flood control projects in my districts. The importance 
of flood control to Houston was highlighted by the disastrous flooding 
caused by Tropical Storm Allison in June 2001. Total damages from this 
storm are estimated to be $5 billion.
  One of these projects is Greens Bayou, which I wish I could say was 
named after me, but was there long before I came around, which the 
committee saw fit to fund at $377,000; and I appreciate the work of the 
committee

[[Page 21418]]

to provide this continuing funding. Greens Bayou alone was responsible 
for nearly half of the nearly 30,000 homes that were flooded by 
Tropical Storm Allison's heavy rains.
  The other major project in my district is Hunting Bayou, which was 
unfortunately not included in the conference report; and I will take a 
minute later to clear up some confusion. Hunting Bayou was mistakenly 
listed by the Corps as a new start, and thus would have been funded out 
of the fiscal 2002 construction general account. What the Corps should 
have requested was the project continue to be funded under general 
investigation as it had been over the last 3 years.
  While Hunting Bayou is progressing at a reasonable pace, it is not 
ready for a new start designation until fiscal year 2003, and I want to 
make sure this point is clear because of the critical public safety 
implications that we have for East Harris County.
  Hunting Bayou, which flows through East Harris County, was again hit 
hard by Tropical Storm Allison. Approximately 7,500 homes were flooded, 
with damage estimated at $250 million. This total does not count the 
millions of dollars that were lost to businesses in the area through 
the loss of sales and cost of repairs.
  Currently, the Hunting Bayou project is 80 percent through its 
general evaluation phase; and when the construction on this project is 
finished, it will reduce the number of structures subject to the 100-
year flooding from 7,300 to 1,000. According to the estimates, this 
project could deliver $8.2 million per year in flood protection, and 
the minimum estimated life of this project would be at least 50 years, 
so it makes good sense.
  I would like to engage in a brief colloquy with the chairman and 
ranking member to clear up any of the further issues with the project 
and seek commitment next year that we will continue to work on this 
important project.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my deep gratitude for the 
hard work you and your ranking member and staffs put on this 
legislation. I know you each had difficult decisions to make, and the 
bill we have before us today is a fair compromise for all concerned.
  I just want to take the opportunity to clean up some confusion about 
the Hunting Bayou project created through the Corps of Engineers and 
maybe even our own problems.
  In my earlier statement, I mentioned the Corps mistakenly classified 
the project as a new start under the construction account, when in fact 
it should have been listed as continuing investigation. Is that your 
understanding, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and want 
to say his understanding is identical to mine.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to 
thank the chairman and my ranking member, and know that we will be back 
next year seeking a new start for Hunting Bayou, and with the cost-
benefit analysis. I certainly will appreciate your support at that 
time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to continue to work with 
the gentleman on the matter.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman 
of this committee for a fine, fine bill and for working with me on 
several issues, and the ranking member as well.
  I regrettably stand here today and tell you that I will have to vote 
``no.'' There is a provision in this bill that I think is extremely 
dangerous. The gentleman from Michigan, a previous speaker, spoke very 
eloquently about protecting the Great Lakes and all that are right with 
our precious resources and that 20 percent of the fresh water of the 
whole world that resides there. I could not agree more with his intent. 
I could not agree more with his heart. I could not disagree more with 
the policy, as I think it is extremely dangerous.
  In this bill, there is a section that was not added by the Members of 
this body, but came out of that conference committee, that has the 
single largest encroachment over control of the Great Lakes that I have 
ever seen. It says to the Great Lakes Governors and the Great Lakes 
legislators that we know better in the United States Congress how to 
protect your resources, a place of previous jurisdiction that they had 
themselves.
  As a matter of fact, the last time Congress tried this, they exempted 
in navigable waterways ballast water. Now do you know what the number 
one threat is in our Great Lakes? It is non-native species that came to 
us because of that ballast water that the great wisdom in the halls of 
Washington, D.C. gave us.
  Mr. Speaker, this is very, very dangerous stuff. What we have done 
now is we have taken control of the Great Lakes and given it to the 
majority of the southwest States that are thirsty, that see the Great 
Lakes as a great opportunity to water their lawns, to make their golf 
courses green. We have given the control of the Great Lakes to the oil-
producing States that outnumber us in the Great Lakes; and believe me, 
there have been attempts in the past to drill on our Great Lakes. 
Something that started out I think pure of heart, is extremely 
dangerous.
  The Governor, who I happen to disagree with on his position on angle 
drilling in the Great Lakes, is working on this issue. But both bodies 
of the legislature are acting, and acting now to stop angle drilling in 
the Great Lakes, a place, Mr. Speaker, where it ought to be debated.
  We are telling the people who are debating now, the Speaker of the 
House of the State of Michigan in a bipartisan way is working to stop 
angle drilling in Michigan; but we are going to stand here today and 
say Mr. Speaker, back there in Michigan, you do not know what you are 
doing. You cannot protect your Great Lakes. We are the Federal 
Government. Trust us.
  We did that before, Mr. Speaker; and we have the greatest threat, and 
I am going to say it again, to the Great Lakes, an act given to us by 
the United States Congress by not regulating ballast water, that gave 
us non-native species that are damaging and harming our Great Lakes 
today.
  People who do not live there, people who do not work there, people 
who do not raise their children there, people who do not live there in 
February, and, believe me, Mr. Speaker, that is a trick, ought not to 
be making decisions about how to best protect our Great Lakes. This is 
the wrong direction. I think their intent is pure, but I think the 
results are disastrous.
  I would urge those who believe that the States, our Great Lakes 
Governors, and Great Lakes legislators ought to control this issue, to 
vote ``no'' on the bill. I again regrettably, because there are a lot 
of good things in this bill, Mr. Speaker, will be voting ``no'' for 
that very specific reason.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this energy and water 
appropriations conference report. I want to begin by extending my 
sincere gratitude to the chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan), for all of his work and for the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for his great work in drafting 
a solid bipartisan piece of legislation, a bill that will meet many of 
the needs pertaining to important energy and infrastructure needs 
throughout our entire Nation.
  Particularly, I want to thank both gentlemen for including in this 
bill $4.4 million for the cleanup of Flushing Bay and Creek in my 
congressional district. For those of you who may not be familiar where 
Flushing Bay is, when you

[[Page 21419]]

land at LaGuardia Airport, between Shea Stadium and LaGuardia airport, 
that is Flushing Bay.
  It is a gaping wound within the estuary of the Long Island Sound. For 
many, many years it has been in need of cleanup. The funding that will 
be provided here will be used to dredge parts of this water body, to 
clean up old sediment and other debris built up in the bay and creek 
for many years. The pollution built up in Flushing Bay has resulted in 
foul odors and water discoloration, making this a blight on the Borough 
of Queens. But this investment by the committee in the cleanup effort, 
as well as other infrastructure investments in the area, surrounding 
this water body, will make this portion of Flushing Sound and Creek 
what I believe will be the pride of Queens County.
  There is a great deal of work that needs to be done. They are 
finishing the study stage, and we are grateful to the work of the Army 
Corps of Engineers; but we need to move beyond the study stage. We 
believe that will happen very soon, and a large portion of this $4.4 
million will go towards actually dredging and cleaning up this bay, 
which is in desperate need of it, to bring it back to life for the 
people not only of my Borough of Queens County, but for all the city 
and all those people who visit our city on a daily basis and fly over 
Flushing Bay and wonder what that exactly is.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers, so I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, there is much that is good in this bill, and I 
would commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for a good bipartisan effort. 
But I would like to draw attention to a serious shortcoming in the 
bill.
  This bill provides $69 million less than in fiscal year 2001 for 
nonproliferation programs to stop the development of nuclear weapons 
and to stop the spread of nuclear materials around the world. Is there 
a person in America who thinks we should be doing less this next year 
than this year to keep nuclear materials out of the hands of 
terrorists? There are at least 14 documented instances over recent 
years of diversion of nuclear materials from the Soviet Union. We think 
we have caught most of them.
  On the front page of the New York Times on September 11 was an 
article about attempts to smuggle nuclear materials out of the Soviet 
Union. This is a real threat. Right now, because of new access and good 
agreements with the Soviet Union, we have a particularly good window of 
opportunity to put in place antiterrorist safeguards at numerous 
nuclear sites in Russia and the former Soviet Union. I do not see how 
we can look Americans in the face and say that we are going to 
shortchange this important program.
  I would like to see the bill returned to committee so that we could 
make these very important changes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a very valuable member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his time and for 
his leadership, along with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). 
The primary statement I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, at this moment 
is that I deeply appreciate the very bipartisan, fair, conscientious 
leadership of this subcommittee through the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). The work of 
this subcommittee, Mr. Speaker, is often passed over by members of the 
press in Washington, D.C., but to the communities who are affected by 
floods, devastated by floods, this bill is as important as any that 
will ever be considered in this House. To communities that benefit from 
the infrastructure commitments of that bill, this legislation, is 
terribly, terribly important.
  This bill deals with important university research across our 
country; it provides Department of Energy funding to protect American 
citizens from the threat of nuclear attack, terrorists; it deals with a 
whole range of issues that have a direct impact on the quality of life 
of American citizens. It is a pleasure as a member of this subcommittee 
to see its leadership work in a totally fair, totally nonpartisan 
manner.
  I also want to compliment the staff for their work on dealing with 
unlimited numbers of very legitimate requests from flood control to 
energy projects, to research, yet making logical, carefully drawn out, 
fair decisions on how to allocate our limited resources.
  A lot of people do not understand, Mr. Speaker, that this 
subcommittee, as a part of the Committee on Appropriations, does not 
make the decision on how big the pie is we spend under which 
committee's jurisdiction; the Committee on the Budget and other 
decisionmakers give us a size of the pie and the committee then has to 
decide how to divide it up. I think they have done excellent work.
  The chairman and others know of my great concern about the overall 
lack of commitment of actual funds in this Congress to nuclear 
nonproliferation, and I frankly do wish we had been successful in 
convincing our colleagues in the other body in this bill that we should 
have spent somewhat less on strengthening the finest offensive nuclear 
arsenal in the world and spent significantly more using those dollars 
on protecting American citizens from the threat of terrorists getting 
their hands on nuclear material. But we did the best we could, and the 
leadership of this committee by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) deserve great 
credit for stopping a proposed reduction of $100 million in nuclear 
nonproliferation programs.
  I look forward to joining with them in their efforts to convince 
others in this body and in the other body in the Capitol that we have 
an obligation to the American people to put homeland defense as our 
first priority, not as our second, third or last priority. I am 
confident that will happen in the days ahead with the leadership of the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky). I again want to thank them and their staff for their 
tremendous effort in putting together this very important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I simply 
would conclude by again thanking the gentleman for a terrific work 
product, and that it is very pleasing to me that the Alabama-Indiana 
connection has been reestablished on this subcommittee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to make just a couple of comments before I yield back my time, and that 
is we mentioned the work of the subcommittee members and the staff 
people and all of that, but also the individual Members of Congress who 
have come to us as members of this subcommittee throughout the year 
explaining their projects and doing it very well, of protecting their 
home districts.
  There are some in this country, mostly neophytes; George Wallace, 
when he was governor of Alabama, used to talk about those people that 
cannot park their bicycles straight in pointed-toe shoes, but we have 
some people in this country that think a great deal of this bill has to 
do with pork, and that is just not the fact. Actually, less than one-
fifth of this bill even has to do with the Corps of Engineers. I mean 
this issue, this measure today is the protection for the American 
people for all of our nuclear programs, the safeguarding of our nuclear 
missiles, the safeguarding of nuclear disposal needs, the 
nonproliferation programs, reclamation, all of these things are always 
overlooked by these prognosticators of the news, and they are the ones 
who complain about this bill containing so much pork.
  But that, in this country, is what we are all about. They have that 
right for

[[Page 21420]]

their viewers. But I do wish once in a while they would take the time 
to look at the important issues that we address here.
  Also, I mentioned the fact that many Members call on us about their 
issues, and one of these Members was the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Houghton), who is very disrupted because his office is in the Longworth 
Building and he does not even have an office in this Capitol, yet he 
has made numerous trips back to this Capitol to talk with me and 
others, and it is solely because of the gentleman's efforts that we 
have corrected a portion of the bill that some people in New York were 
concerned about. Had it not been for the gentleman's efforts on the 
West Valley project, the measure would have been right where it was 
when it left the House, but because of his efforts, we reinstated his 
requested language. One of those reporters wrote that he had nothing to 
do with it and gave the Members of the Senate credit for it from New 
York. Well, I never even heard from the Members of the Senate, I only 
heard from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and, as a result, 
we corrected the bill, as per his request.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I thank all of those involved.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2311, 
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 
2002.
  As a new member of the Energy and Water Subcommittee this year, I 
enjoyed working with Chairman Sonny Callahan, ranking Member Peter 
Visclosky and the other subcommittee members in support of projects and 
activities that are important to California and the nation.
  Although more than two-thirds of the spending in our bill is for the 
Department of Energy, the important work done by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers and Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation 
demands much of our attention as our constituents request funding that 
will help our ports, waterways and communities.
  In Los Angeles, a project to deepen the main channel of Los Angeles 
Harbor is key to economic activity throughout southern California. The 
Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have increased container traffic by 
40 percent in just one year, and it is expected to double again in the 
next 10 years. I am pleased that our bill contains $2.825 million to 
complete the pre-construction, engineering and design for this 
important project and immediately move forward to the construction 
phase.
  The Energy and Water Appropriations Bill has also provided a 
mechanism for solving a severe problem affecting the drinking water 
supply for millions of southern Californians. Last year, the San 
Gabriel Restoration Fund was established in order to assist the San 
Gabriel Water Control Authority and the Central Basin Municipal Water 
District with cleaning up contamination in the groundwater basins they 
administer. Unfortunately, $23 million sat in the fund all year while 
contamination seeped into the Central Basin from the San Gabriel Basin 
at a rate of nearly three feet per day.
  Working with Congressman David Dreier, we included statutory language 
that will permit clean-up of the San Gabriel and Central Basins to get 
underway almost immediately. We will accomplish this by transferring 
administration of the San Gabriel Restoration Fund to the Bureau of 
Reclamation, which is better suited to administer grants for these 
clean-up activities. Clean drinking water is far too important to my 
constituents and other southern Californians to let bureaucratic hang-
ups get in the way, so I am pleased that this project can now begin to 
move forward.
  The Title XVI projects administered by the Bureau of Reclamation are 
also very important to southern Californians. These projects, where 
costs are borne primarily by the local water authorities, have been one 
of the keys to enabling southern California to grow over the past 15 
years without requiring any additional supplies of water. By taking 
water that has already been used by residences or businesses and 
treating it again, this water can then be used for any industrial or 
municipal use that doesn't require drinking grade quality. Although the 
treatment costs can be considerable, this still saves businesses money 
when they use the recycled water for industrial purposes, and they 
enjoy the water supply reliability that results from this process. Many 
municipalities are also investing in recycled water to cut their costs 
by using reclaimed water to keep parks and golf courses green. Nearly 
one-third of Los Angeles County's water is recycled now, and with 
sufficient investment, that percentage can grow further, providing 
significant help with our water supply needs. I am pleased that 
$740,000 is included for the Los Angeles Area Water Reclamation/Reuse 
Project, and a number of other southern California projects are also 
going forward with funds in this bill.
  Another key to clean drinking water for southern Californians is a 
clean Colorado River, which is a major source of drinking water for the 
entire southern California region. Within the Department of Energy, $2 
million has been included to begin clean-up of a uranium mine tailings 
site in Moab, Utah that is perilously close to the Colorado River. This 
project is long overdue. Fortunately, no contamination has been 
detected in the Colorado River, but if it was to occur, the clean-up 
would be far more costly than removing the pile of tailings.
  The impact of commercial marine activity, flooding, and dispersal of 
pollutants from contaminated coastal sites upon the southern California 
shoreline is of enormous importance. The Corps of Engineers has been 
given $400,000 to complete a study of the Los Angeles County shoreline 
and to determine any needs for beach nourishment based on erosion and 
other factors.
  The scope of the bill's funding for programs of the Department of 
Energy is very wide and include activities vital to our national 
defense such as uranium facilities maintenance, nuclear waste disposal 
and funding for the new National Nuclear Security Administration which 
works to keep our nuclear stockpile safe. We also provide funding for 
important energy supply activities such as research into renewable 
energy technologies including biomass, biofuels, solar energy and wind 
energy. These energy sources will play a significant role in meeting 
the nation's energy needs of tomorrow.
  I also want to take particular note of the extensive research that is 
conducted by our national energy laboratories, including the Lawrence 
Livermore and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories in California. Whether it 
is high-energy physics, nuclear physics or basic energy sciences such 
as materials, chemical, engineering and geosciences, these laboratories 
are on the cutting edge of scientific breakthroughs. Our national 
laboratories are a valuable national resource.
  My only regret in the bill is that we didn't do more for non-
proliferation activities. I supported the effort made by Congressman 
Chet Edwards at the House-Senate conference committee to provide 
additional resources for our non-proliferation program. The report 
issued by Howard Baker, Lloyd Cutler, and Sam Nunn on the DOE's 
nonproliferation programs with Russia said:

       The most urgent unmet national security threat to the 
     United States today is the danger that weapons of mass 
     destruction of weapons-usable material in Russia could be 
     stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and 
     used against American troops abroad or citizens at home.

  Unfortunately, the conference amendment to transfer funds from some 
of our nuclear maintenance programs to this non-proliferation effort 
was unsuccessful. However, I am glad that House and Senate leaders of 
the Energy and Water Subcommittee gave their commitment to pursuing 
significant funds in a supplemental appropriations bill to address this 
continuing threat to the security of the U.S. and the world.
  It has been a delightful and satisfying year working with Chairman 
Callahan and Ranking Democrat Visclosky, and I look forward to years of 
service on this subcommittee and to working with these important 
agencies as they carry out their missions in service to our nation.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2311, the 
Energy & Water Appropriations Conference Report. The bill contains 
important funding for America's waterways, irrigation infrastructure, 
flood control and programs administered by the Department of the 
Energy.
  While I will support the conference report, I am disappointed that 
the conferees chose not to include an increase in borrowing authority 
for the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) to fund critical 
transmission improvements. The Northwest is still experiencing an 
electricity crisis caused by a shortage of new development, the failed 
attempt by California to achieve deregulation and a severe drought. 
Additional generation is under construction and on the drawing board. 
More than 3,000 megawatts of generation is now fully permitted in the 
Northwest with 20,000 more megawatts in the regulatory pipeline. BPA 
will need increased Treasury borrowing authority to assist the agency 
in upgrading and building transmission lines. Without additional 
transmission capacity in the Northwest, additional generation coming 
online may not be able to reliably reach consumers.

[[Page 21421]]

  BPA's transmission investments will easily pay for themselves in the 
long run and are essential in order to improve wholesale electricity 
markets in the Western United States, and to maintain the basic 
reliability of our region's electrical system. The increase is 
supported by the Northwest Energy Caucus, consisting of every House 
Member from Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana. We will continue to 
pursue an increase in BPA's borrowing authority through other venues.
  I am pleased that the Conference Report continues funding for the 
Inland Northwest Natural Resources Research Center at Gonzaga 
University, albeit at a substantially lower level of funding than was 
provided by the Energy and Water Appropriations Conferees for fiscal 
year 2001. I will work to ensure that funding is provided in future 
years to allow for the smooth continuation of this project.
  $1 million was provided at my request for the Walla Walla River 
feasibility study, the same level as was included in the House bill. 
The Walla Walla basin has established a successful broad-based 
watershed planning/HCP process. This formal process includes 
participation by federal, state, and local governments and the 
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). It also 
includes participation by local and regional environmental groups and 
stakeholders representing local businesses, agri-business, 
recreational, and cultural interests. At its core, the watershed 
planning/HCP effort focuses on restoring adequate flows for listed 
species.
  To insure that the federal funding provided does not create a 
parallel process to the existing process underway, it is the intent of 
Congress that the Crops shall integrate its activities into the 
framework of the existing watershed planning/HCP process already 
established in the basin. In addition, to maintain the success of the 
efforts underway, it is the intent of Congress that the Corps shall not 
develop an instream flow target that is inconsistent with flow targets 
set through the Watershed Planning/HCP process.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________