[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12112-12145]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 180 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2311.

                              {time}  1352


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2311) making appropriations for energy and water development for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Simpson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to bring before the body today the 
fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill for energy and water needs facing 
this country. We have tried desperately to work with all the Members on 
both sides of the aisle to bring before you today a fair bill, a bill 
that has addressed most of the concerns of the Members who have 
contacted us. Mr. Chairman, there have been extensive contacts with us. 
In our deliberations we have come forward with a bill that I think 
provides the administration with ample funds for energy and water and 
reclamation needs in this country.
  The bill agrees with President Bush that we should constrain 
government growth. I am happy to report that this bill constrains 
government growth because it is only increased about a one-half of 1 
percent over the FY year 2001 level of funding.
  The total funding in H.R. 2311 is $23.7 billion. This is $147 
million, as I said, less than one-half of 1 percent, more than fiscal 
year 2001, for energy and water development programs.
  Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works program of 
the Corps of Engineers. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development is unanimous in its belief that these programs are among 
the most valuable within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. The national 
benefits of projects for flood control, for navigation and shoreline 
protection substantially exceed project costs. The bill acknowledges 
the importance of water infrastructure by funding the civil works 
program at $4.47 billion, an increase of only $568 million over last 
year's appropriation.
  Within the amount appropriated to the Corps of Engineers, $163 
million is for general investigations, $1.67 billion is for the 
construction program, and $1.86 billion is for operations and 
maintenance. In addition, the bill includes $347 million for the flood 
control, Mississippi River and Tributaries project. The bill also funds 
the budget request for the regulatory program and the Formerly Utilized 
Sites Remedial Action Program.
  In title II, which is for the Bureau of Reclamation, we spend $842 
million, an increase of only $26 million over fiscal year 2001.
  Title III provides $18 billion for the Department of Energy, an 
increase of $444 million over fiscal year 2001.
  So in all three areas of jurisdiction the bill is within the 
suggested constraints that President Bush has submitted to us, whereby 
we control excessive government growth spending. We are very pleased to 
have done that.
  We sought to maintain level funding for basic research in science 
programs; and we provided $3.17 billion, an increase of $6.5 million 
over the budget request. Funding of $276.3 million has been provided 
for construction of the Spallation Neutron Source, the same as the 
budget request. We have sought to respond to all of the needs, and we 
visited some of the projects throughout the country in trying to 
determine where our priorities ought to be.
  I think if there is anything, Mr. Chairman, that pleases me, it is 
the way we have been able to work in a bipartisan fashion with the 
minority. We have been able to respond, as I said earlier, to most 
every legitimate need, we feel, that has been brought before us for our 
consideration. I am happy to have the support of so many Members of 
Congress in helping us draft this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I owe a debt of gratitude to the hard work of the 
dedicated members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. 
They have labored under difficult constraints to produce a bill that is 
balanced and fair. I am especially grateful to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), our ranking minority member. It is in large 
part due to his efforts that we present a bill that merits the support 
of all Members of the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support H.R. 2311 as reported by 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following charts for the Record.

[[Page 12113]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN01.001



[[Page 12114]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN01.002



[[Page 12115]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would encourage at the outset of my remarks all of 
the Members of the body to support the energy and water appropriation 
bill. I would also at the outset note that the long-standing Alabama 
and Indiana connection, as they call it, that was established many 
years ago by Mr. Bevill from Alabama and Mr. Myers from Indiana, has 
now been reestablished on that particular subcommittee.
  I want to very sincerely thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman 
Callahan) for his leadership on the subcommittee. He has been a leader. 
He has been trusting of all of us on this subcommittee. He has been 
open, he has been fair, and he has been decisive. He has put together a 
very good work product in a bipartisan fashion, and I strongly support 
it.
  I also do want to thank all of the members of the subcommittee, who 
have worked so hard also to put this legislation together.
  Last, I want to especially thank those who have done the work, the 
staff: Bob Schmidt, Jeanne Wilson, Kevin Cook, Tracy LaTurner, Paul 
Tumminello; the personal staff of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan), Mike Sharp and Nancy Tippins; and our side of the aisle, 
David Killian, Richard Kaelin, and Jennifer Watkins, a former staffer. 
I do appreciate the work that the staff has done.
  The President asked for $1 billion worth of cuts for the programs 
represented by this legislation; and under the leadership of this 
subcommittee, those cuts have essentially been restored.

                              {time}  1400

  We are $187 million over the current year level, that is less than a 
1 percent increase, but this bill does meet critical demands faced in 
the infrastructure and energy arena by our Nation. I am particularly 
happy that as far as water infrastructure, there is a $591 million 
plus-up in this bill, and some of the other attributes I would mention 
is the increase in environmental funding over the administration 
request. This funding increase is essential to achieving long-planned 
program milestones, assuring compliance with the law, and avoiding 
unnecessary stretch-outs that could simply lead to higher costs.
  I am also very happy that in the nonproliferation accounts, we have 
increased the amount over the President's request by $71 million, and 
the current bill now has $774 million contained therein. I also think 
it is important for all of my colleagues to understand that the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) indicated during markup that he 
plans to conduct a hearing in July relative to this issue and all of 
the needs as far as our concern over the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction and the materials thereto. I look forward to joining 
him to ensure that these critical programs get the scrutiny and the 
attention that they deserve, and I also wish to commend especially the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for his leadership on this issue.
  The bill also provides $733 million for renewable energy resources, 
and that, again, is an increase of $100 million over the 
administration's request.
  This is a very good bill, but at the conclusion of my remarks, I 
would just make a couple of points about our underinvestment in 
infrastructure in this Nation. I do regret, through no fault of anyone 
on the subcommittee, that I believe we are still $10 million short as 
far as the Army Corps of Engineers regulatory budget, as far as making 
sure that the Corps can efficiently and without delay proceed with 
their regulatory burden. I regret that we were not fully able to fund 
that account, but we have included it at the administration's request. 
Additionally, it should be understood that the Corps asked for $6 
billion because they felt that was, in fact, the national need.
  As far as water, we have $4.468 billion contained in the bill. At 
this rate, unfortunately, authorized projects by this Congress will 
increase, that have not been started, from $38 billion this year to $40 
billion in the next fiscal year. We will see the Corps' backlog of 
critical maintenance increase from $450 million this year to $864 
million next year. However, I would point out in the supplemental, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Young) did agree to plus up critical maintenance as far as dams 
under the Army Corps critical control by $23.7 million last week. They 
certainly recognized the need.
  The Corps last year in testimony before the subcommittee also 
indicated that to proceed as efficiently as possible and in as 
economical fashion as possible, they really needed about another $700 
million a year for those existing authorized projects that we are 
already providing funding for, and, clearly, there is a shortfall.
  The last category I would touch on is water infrastructure, primarily 
sewers. This body, the other body and the administration combined over 
the last several years have authorized 202 sewer programs, only 44 of 
which are actually funded, 22 percent. The needs and requests are about 
$2.5 billion, and, again, I do think we have a shortfall in this 
country. The American Society of Civil Engineers and the U.S. EPA would 
indicate that to simply bring up existing infrastructure for clean 
drinking water, we would have to expend an additional $11 billion for 
wastewater, $12 billion. Clearly, the resources as far as the 
allocations do not exist.
  Mr. Chairman, the chairman has done an exceptional job with the 
resources we were given. This is a very good bill. However, I do think 
the administration and the Congress someday, whether it is water or 
other economic infrastructure, has to face the fact that we need to 
invest more money.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full 
committee, and the gentleman who is responsible for marshalling all 13 
of these appropriation bills through this body and through the 
conference.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to congratulate the 
chairman of this subcommittee. He and the ranking member have done an 
outstanding job in bringing disagreements together to agreements. They 
have a good bill. There will be some differences that we will be 
discussing here later this afternoon, but they have done a really good 
job. They have worked together very well in a good bipartisan fashion, 
and they have produced a bill of which both the chairman as well as the 
ranking member can be very proud. The staff of the subcommittee, too, 
have done yeoman's work.
  I take this little extra time, Mr. Chairman, to say that one of the 
conversations that we will probably have this afternoon will have to do 
with energy. We have enough problems with energy because of our heavy 
reliance on foreign sources. We have problems with those foreign 
sources on occasion. We cannot afford to have any energy wars here at 
home with each other. So we need to be careful how we approach all of 
these issues so that we do not get into a battle with ourselves over 
energy.
  A major industrial Nation like the United States, which is a large 
consumer of energy, must also understand the importance of producing 
energy, because if we totally rely on energy sources from abroad, we 
will find ourselves in real tight spots on occasion, which we do on 
occasion.
  So when we get to those issues later today, let us understand that we 
are all on the same team, and that we are not going to start any energy 
wars between one section of the country and another; that we are going 
to work together to work out what is right and best for the people of 
the United States of America, who are energy consumers.
  But again, I wanted to say that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan), the chairman of the subcommittee, has done a beautiful job 
with this bill with the help of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky),

[[Page 12116]]

and it deserves the support of the Members of the House. I hope that we 
can do that expeditiously and move on to other matters.
  Mr. Chairman, we will be filing the Agriculture Bill this afternoon 
and hopefully will have it on the floor tomorrow. The subcommittees 
have marked up two more appropriations bills this morning, so we really 
are moving quickly. We got off to a late start because we received our 
specific numbers and budget justifications late, but we are catching 
up, and we are catching up pretty effectively.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), a valued member of 
the subcommittee.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging 
in a colloquy with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) on the 
subject of security procedures at the Department of Energy 
headquarters.
  Members of this House were appalled when they learned about the 
incident involving our colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), 
at the Department of Energy headquarters a few weeks ago. The gentleman 
from California had been invited by DOE to be a guest speaker at a 
celebration honoring the contributions of Asian Pacific Islander 
Americans to this country. But when he arrived at DOE headquarters, he 
was refused admittance and asked three different times whether he was 
an American citizen, even after producing an official card identifying 
him as a Member of Congress.
  An Asian American aide accompanying the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Wu) was also refused admittance, despite producing a congressional 
identification card.
  As the representative of the 33rd Congressional District of 
California, I am proud to represent an active community of Asian 
Pacific Islander Americans in Los Angeles. Understandably, we were very 
upset at this incident and the implication of discrimination by an 
official government agency.
  I, therefore, want to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for including language in our report 
expressing the committee's concern about this incident and asking DOE 
to examine its security procedures in light of it.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentlewoman's 
interest in this matter, and I know that we are all concerned about 
this incident. As the gentlewoman has requested, we have directed DOE 
to reconsider its security procedures and to report back to us.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for providing me with this opportunity to report to our 
colleagues on how we have responded to this disturbing incident. I very 
much appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with me to ensure 
that DOE's security procedures are not only effective, but that they 
are also in keeping with our American values against discrimination.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a member of our subcommittee, and a 
very important member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the energy and water 
appropriations bill for this year. Let me thank first the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the subcommittee, for his 
leadership on our subcommittee's work, and to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, for his bipartisan 
approach to our bill, and my thanks to the subcommittee staff for their 
tireless efforts in putting this bill together.
  The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has produced a bill that 
ensures our Nation's continued 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 many waterways. By doing so, we are helping meet our critical 
economic, environmental and public safety needs in virtually every 
State in the Nation, and we are doing so in keeping with our 302(b) 
allocation, which means we are working within the confines of a 
balanced Federal budget.
  As the chairman can attest and has attested, there are many more 
requests for funding than our budget allocation can provide for. The No 
New Start policy contained in this bill is difficult, but very 
necessary. We are focusing our limited dollars on ongoing projects that 
are on schedule and on budget.
  The chairman deserves special recognition for rejecting forthright 
the proposition that we should change in midstream the Federal 
Government's funding formula commitments to these ongoing projects. For 
more than 170 years, the Federal Government has worked in partnership 
with our States and local communities to provide solutions to critical 
flooding, dredging and environmental problems, as well as beach and 
shore protection. In my home State of New Jersey, these projects have 
kept our port of New York and New Jersey open for business, and 
prepared us for the future of bigger ships.
  I want to thank the chairman in particular for his strong support of 
dredging for our port, and with this bill we are helping to keep 127 
miles of our beaches in my State open for visitors from around the 
country and around the world. This is a $30 billion industry of tourism 
for our State. It employs over 800,000 people.
  Finally, to help protect people, their homes and businesses from the 
ravages of flooding, we are helping to purchase wetlands for natural 
storage areas, and we are working alongside local governments in 
Somerset and Morris Counties and elsewhere to develop long-term 
solutions to keep people safe and our communities whole in the event 
that floods reoccur, and they will.
  Let me also address part of our bill which provides funding for the 
Department of Energy. Here we have focused our critical dollars on the 
central programs where the Federal Government can truly make a 
difference. I especially want to thank the chairman for his support of 
$248 billion for the fusion program and $25 million for laser research. 
In the President's national energy plan, fusion energy was actually 
highlighted as having the potential to serve as an inexhaustible and an 
abundant clean source of energy. The President's energy plan suggests 
that fusion should be developed as a next-generation technology, and I 
agree.
  Finally, let me say a word about funding for the renewable energy 
resources, since they are a focus of so much public attention. Let us 
be clear. Everyone supports renewables, and we fund these programs at 
$376 million. In fact, in the 7 years I have served on this 
subcommittee, we have invested over $2.2 billion in renewable energy. 
This year's added funding maintains our commitment to renewables.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply follow up on the colloquy 
that the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from Alabama had 
and would note that the committee directs the Secretary to report back 
by September 1 of this year in anticipation of the conference. So I do 
appreciate the chairman's cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for including in the 
bill a $4 million increase for transmission reliability and to direct 
the Department of Energy to initiate field-testing of advanced 
composite conductors. I just want to clarify that these additional 
funds will be used explicitly for Aluminum Matrix Composite conductors; 
is that correct?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.


[[Page 12117]]

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. CALLAHAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) is correct.
  Mr. SABO. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for 
his response.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
inquire about a provision in the Committee Report. In title III, 
describing the Committee's funding priorities for the Department of 
Energy's Energy, Biomass, Biofuels and Energy Systems program, the 
report states ``$1 million to support a cost-shared agricultural waste 
methane power generation facility in California.''
  With regard to this California project, I ask the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) is it the same effort proposed by the Inland 
Empire Utilities Agency in cooperation with the dairies located in the 
Chino Dairy Preserve?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. The gentleman from California is correct.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a member of the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Water Development.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this important 
legislation, and I would like to speak about both its process and its 
product.
  Regarding the process in developing this bill, I want to commend the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), who is not new to a position of 
being chair in this House, he is not new to the subcommittee; but this 
is his first term as a chairman of this subcommittee. Through his 
leadership, working with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), 
the ranking member, this was truly put together on a fair and 
bipartisan basis with the intention of what is good for the country in 
different regions of the country, not what is good for one party or 
another.
  Mr. Chairman, I regret sometimes that the amount of press attention 
to legislation in Washington is inversely proportional to the 
importance of that legislation and how well it is handled. There may 
not be a lot of coverage of this today in many parts of the country, 
because it was done on a bipartisan basis without squabbling and 
infighting.
  In terms of the product of this bill, I rise to speak about it 
because many people in this House and throughout the country do not pay 
a great deal of attention to the work of this subcommittee, especially 
because much of its work is designed for prevention, flood prevention 
and nuclear proliferation prevention.
  If this committee does its work well, people never know how important 
the work of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water has actually been to 
their lives.
  Mr. Chairman, let me pay special tribute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for his strong leadership efforts supported 
by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) in seeing that at a time 
of great flooding, in the wake of Tropical Storm Allison, we did not 
cut the funding for the Army Corps of Engineers flood control projects 
as had been originally proposed.
  In an area of which I have great personal interest, the area of 
nuclear nonproliferation, I think most Americans would be surprised to 
know that in Russia today, there is enough nuclear grade plutonium and 
enriched uranium to build 80,000 nuclear bombs.
  This subcommittee's work is to try to help Russia to get control of 
that nuclear material so that, God forbid, we do not wake up some day, 
weeks or months or years from now and read about a major American city 
having lost millions of its citizens because of the terrorists getting 
their hands on some nuclear material from the former Soviet Union, not 
putting it on the tip of a nuclear missile, but putting it in a 
backpack and parking it in a pickup truck in a major American city.
  The gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) especially deserves 
the appreciation of American families for saying that we must make an 
increased investment to ensure that that nuclear material should not 
get into the hands of terrorists throughout the world.
  We may never know how much of a debt of gratitude we owe the 
gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), as his partner in fighting to increase that 
funding. But I thank the gentleman from Alabama personally as a Member 
of Congress and as a father for the effort in that particular area, as 
well as the important work of this subcommittee and flood control and 
energy renewable research.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. It was 
handled well. The product is a good one.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from 
Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), the ranking minority member, for the leadership they have 
provided in putting this legislation together to fund the important 
programs of the Department of Energy and the Army Corps of Engineers. I 
support the fiscal year 2002 energy and water development appropriation 
measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I genuinely appreciate the subcommittee's continued 
support of the Kentucky Lock Addition and Olmsted Locks, which help 
transport waterborne commerce to more than 23 States and for 
reinstating funding for the annual dredge work at Kentucky's only port 
on the Mississippi River, the Elvis Star Harbor in Hickman, Kentucky.
  In particular, I want to thank the subcommittee for agreeing to our 
request to increase funding for environmental cleanup at the Paducah 
Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The $10 million increase the subcommittee 
provided is desperately needed to help combat the myriad of 
environmental programs and problems stemming from over 50 years of 
enriched uranium production at that site.
  These funds, along with the monies the subcommittee has provided for 
cylinder maintenance and the construction of an on-site low-level waste 
disposal cell, will keep us on a steady path towards a safer workplace 
and a safer community.
  Mr. Chairman, the employees at the plant and the citizens living and 
working in the area adjacent to the plant deserve no less.
  On one separate issue, I understand that with the constraint of 
money, obviously, that the bill recommends a slight reduction in the 
DOE's Office of Environmental Safety and Health. To the extent that 
this reduction might impact the very important medical monitoring 
program at Paducah for current and former workers, I hope that the 
gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) might consider restoring 
those funds, if it is possible, as the bill moves forward.
  The monitoring program is a key component of the newly established 
DOE workers compensation program, which has just now been implemented 
Nationwide.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman 
Callahan), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking 
minority member, for their leadership; and I look forward to the 
passage of this legislation.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to congratulate 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member on the subcommittee, for 
the fine work they have done in bringing this bipartisan bill forward.
  I also would like to thank both of the gentleman for the projects 
which are funded in this bill. The Rio Salado project has been funded 
for the construction of the Rio Salado, and those

[[Page 12118]]

of us who live in Mericopa County are very appreciative of it.
  We also want to thank the subcommittee for funding the various flood 
control studies and habitat restoration of the various tributaries of 
the Salt River. Also, those of us who represent Tucson are very 
thankful, because, in this bill, we fund many projects that deal with 
habitat restoration and flood control in southern Arizona.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), 
the ranking member, to deal with the issue of the Nogales Wash and to 
see how we can fund that flood control project; but I would urge my 
colleagues to support this bill, it is bipartisan.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the staff who have worked 
very hard on this bill.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a brief colloquy 
with the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan).
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for their 
action to restore over $30 million in funds which were eliminated from 
the fiscal year 2002 budget for the U.S. Department of Energy's Office 
of Science and Technology within the Environmental Management program.
  The Office of Science and Technology has a very important mission in 
developing and implementing means to clean up contaminated Federal 
property around the country, and it deserves the continued and strong 
support of the Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the continuation of the important 
work of DOE's Western Environmental Technology Office, or WETO, located 
in Butte, Montana. At this facility, the National Energy Technology 
Laboratory provides critical support to DOE's Office of Science and 
Technology. Their activities help facilitate DOE's demonstration, 
evaluation, and implementation of technologies that promise to provide 
much needed solutions to the environmental cleanup challenges at 
various DOE sites.
  DOE's Research and Development contract for the Western Environmental 
Technology Office, originally awarded in fiscal year 1997, has been 
extended through the end of fiscal year 2003. That contract extension 
provided that DOE would fund WETO at the following levels: $6 million 
in fiscal year 2001, $6 million in fiscal year 2002, and $4 million in 
fiscal year 2003. Consistent with this contract and schedule, the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001 
provided $6.5 million for WETO to carry out its important functions.
  It is critically important to preserve this commitment to WETO and 
continued funding as scheduled. I would add, Mr. Chairman, that the 
operations and activities of WETO are very important to the economy in 
Montana. Many professionals have chosen western Montana as their home 
while they serve our Nation's challenge to clean contaminated DOE's 
sites.
  I ask the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) if he would agree 
that it is the committee's intent that DOE's agreement with WETO be 
honored and funded to the maximum extent possible?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REHBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Absolutely, I would agree with the gentleman from 
Montana. If the Department of Energy has signed a contract with the 
facility, then it should be honored to the maximum extent possible.
  Mr. REHBERG. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his 
consideration of this very important program.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) for yielding me such time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the energy and water bill 
before us today. I want to thank and congratulate the gentleman from 
Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), the ranking member, for their great work in crafting a 
solid bipartisan bill that will meet some of the important energy and 
infrastructure needs of our Nation over the next year.
  In particular, I want to thank the committee for including $4.4 
million in this bill for the cleanup of Flushing Bay and Creek in my 
congressional district in Queens.
  This funding will be used for the badly needed dredging of parts of 
this water body to clean up old sediment and other debris that has 
built up in the bay and creek which has hampered economic development 
and the free flow of commerce, as well as trapped pollution and 
pollutants and other contaminants in that body of water.
  The pollution build-up in Flushing Creek Bay and creek has resulted 
in foul odors and water discoloration, making this body of water a 
blight on our community, but this investment by the committee in the 
cleanup will make Flushing Bay and its creek the envy of Queens County.
  Mr. Chairman, once again, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama 
(Chairman Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the 
ranking member, for their hard work and support of this project for the 
people of my district in Queens, New York.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to commend the gentleman from 
Alabama (Chairman Callahan) for his work on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this bill, 
specifically the language included to prohibit the Corps of Engineers 
from using funds to implement a spring rise in the Missouri River.
  The National Fish and Wildlife Service recommends implementing higher 
water levels in the spring and lower levels in the fall. While this 
artificial spring rise may help improve the breeding habitat of three 
species, lest tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon, the higher 
spring water level increases the risk for flooding in towns and on 
valuable farmland.
  The spring rise would devastate communities in my district and all 
along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. When water is released from 
upstream dams in the Dakotas and Montana, it takes 12 days to reach St. 
Louis, where the Missouri meets the Mississippi. Once water is 
released, it cannot be retrieved. Any rains during that 12-day period 
would make it impossible to control the amount of flooding that would 
occur.
  As we saw earlier this month, the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers 
often flood naturally; we do not need any additional government-imposed 
floods. Unless you have been in one of those communities where a flood 
has hit, you cannot appreciate how devastating a flood can be.
  This is not a new proposal, Mr. Chairman. Similar language has been 
included in the last five energy and water appropriation bills. I urge 
my colleagues to put the needs of the people living and working along 
the river above the needs of the piping plover and/or the lest tern.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today first to commend 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, for their consistent 
leadership in addressing the Nation's water infrastructure needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I support this bill, and I appreciate their support of 
the request that I submitted. I am pleased that $5.5 million of this 
year's appropriation bill will go towards the West Basin Municipal 
Water District located

[[Page 12119]]

in my district, and these funds will assist in the development of The 
Harbor/South Bay Water Recycling Project in Los Angeles County. The 
Harbor/South Bay Water Recycling Project will yield clear and 
measurable long-term returns from this short-term investment.

                              {time}  1430

  This project will result in both economic and environmental benefits 
to my district and to the region in California. The promise of a 
reliable water supply even from times of drought helps to build an 
economic climate that will correctly enhance our ability to attract 
businesses, create new opportunities, and retain jobs in my district. 
The project will annually develop up to 48,000 acre-feet of recycled 
water for municipal, industrial, and environmental purposes in the Los 
Angeles area.
  Beneficiaries of this particular project will include my 
constituents, businesses and local governments, including the cities of 
Carson, Culver City, Torrance and Lomita. Furthermore, the overall West 
Basin water recycling program will annually develop 70,000 acre-feet of 
alternative water resources, in addition to reducing the amount of 
effluent discharge into the Santa Monica Bay, which is a national 
marine estuary.
  I would like to also acknowledge those Members who are California-
based on this committee who actively advocated on my behalf, and I 
thank them very much and thank the ranking member and the chairman.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and commend the 
subcommittee leadership on their very timely and efficient work on this 
important piece of legislation.
  I was especially happy to see the committee's recognition of better 
preserving and protecting the Mississippi River Basin. As co-chair of 
the bipartisan Mississippi River Task Force, I was happy to see them 
increase funding by a few million dollars to the important 
Environmental Management Program above what the Administration 
requested in their budget.
  This is a five-State collaboration program that also involves USGS, 
the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, which involves 
Habitat Restoration Projects along the Mississippi River and a long-
term resource monitoring scientific program to better determine what 
exactly is happening in that very valuable ecosystem within the 
Mississippi River Basin.
  We were hoping as a task force to have the funding increased even 
more, closer to the full $33 million funding that the program is 
permanently authorized for right now. We are hoping, as the process 
moves forward, we will be able to continue to work with the leadership 
to try to increase the funding to bring the program up to scale where 
it is needed.
  I was, however, disappointed that there was zero funding allocated to 
the Challenge 21 program of the Corps of Engineers. This is a 
nonstructural approach to flood mitigation in this country. Obviously, 
we have had some very terrible floods in the upper Mississippi region. 
I think there are a lot of things that can be done as far as 
nonstructural flood mitigation that Challenge 21 would specifically 
target. We are hoping again that, as more information becomes known 
about this very important program, we are going to be able to finally 
get some funding to it.
  Finally, I want to commend the committee for recognizing, I feel, the 
bipartisan support that exists in Congress for the important 
investments that need to be made in alternative and renewable energy 
sources. I believe everyone here recognizes that any realistic, 
comprehensive, long-term energy plan has to involve the important role 
of alternative and renewable energy sources in order to meet our long-
term energy needs and sustain growth in this country.
  So I commend the committee for their work. Obviously, I believe that 
there are some things that we need to stay focused on and continue 
working hard to try to accomplish.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for 
yielding me this time. I thank him for giving me the opportunity to 
discuss an issue that is important to people I represent. I also would 
like to thank him for his commitment to this bill to harbor projects in 
the New York/New Jersey area.
  The dredging of the Port of New York and New Jersey is vital to the 
continued economic competitiveness of the Port as we begin the 21st 
century. Dredging is necessary, as we all know, to allow for shipping 
to continue and allow for new generations of ships to have access to 
the port. However, I also understand and share the environmental 
concerns regarding dredging. In short, dredging and the disposal of 
dredge materials can only be conducted in such a manner that does not 
adversely impact Staten Island or its surrounding waterways.
  Over the past years, I have expressed to the Army Corps of Engineers 
my serious concerns regarding proposals calling for the establishment 
of containment islands and borrow pits. I have also met with citizens 
and groups who have expressed similar concerns.
  Containment islands, Mr. Chairman, are not appropriate. In the draft, 
Dredged Material Management Plan, the Army Corps of Engineers found 
containment islands to be too costly and claimed they were not going to 
be considered as a viable option. In fact, according to the Corps, pits 
located directly off Coney Island, the East Bank Pits, and Staten 
Island, for example, the CAC Pit, that were identified by citizen 
groups as being designated for near-term disposal activity have been 
studied extensively and are no longer being considered for any action. 
However, I want to ensure that the Corps has held to these statements 
and these options are officially removed from consideration.
  We have a responsibility to protect our waterways and marine life 
from potentially harmful pollutants. The use of emerging technologies 
and innovative ideas, such as using dredged material for abandoned coal 
mine reclamation, as well as upland disposal options must be fully 
explored. The economic benefits of dredging and protecting the 
environment, I believe, are not mutually exclusive.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with you as this moves 
to conference with the Senate to address this important issue.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FOSSELLA. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
New York for bringing this matter to our attention. I want to pledge to 
him to work with him and the Army Corps of Engineers to address this as 
this bill moves further along. I will do all that I can to help him. I 
know of his passion to protect the waterways off the coast of Staten 
Island, and I want to pledge to do everything I can to help him protect 
those waterways.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his 
leadership.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the majority has no 
further speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment that we worked very hard to get 
this bill to the position it is in today. This is just the first of 
several steps in the process as we all know. It has to go to the Senate 
after today, and then it has to go through a conference committee after 
that. I want the Members to know that we are going to do everything we 
can to protect what we have in this bill and that I am sure my 
colleagues have the same commitment from the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky).
  But I echo in Mr. Visclosky's earlier statement and would like to 
thank the

[[Page 12120]]

staff members that have formulated and drafted this bill. It is a very 
complicated bill, and it requires a lot of talent. Bob Schmidt and 
Jeanne Wilson and Kevin Cook, Paul Tumminello and Tracey LaTurner, 
along with my staff, Nancy Tippins and Mike Sharp, have done a 
tremendous job in writing and drafting this very complicated piece of 
legislation.
  But we are happy to have received the support we have received from 
all Members of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I intend to rise today to speak to section 106 of the 
bill before us. Section 106 would prevent the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers from revising the Missouri River Master Water Control manual 
that includes anything that includes a so-called spring rise. Mr. 
Chairman, I have to express my strong objection to that particular 
provision.
  For most of my colleagues here in the House, this debate may not be 
familiar. It is primarily a regional issue with divisions that break 
along regional lines, but its significance is much broader than that.
  For more than a decade, the Corps has been working toward a revision 
of the master manual that would change the flow and possibly the 
priorities of the river. The process has been complicated and 
contentious, but we are nearing a resolution.
  I appreciate the concerns that the proponents of section 106 have 
regarding downstream flooding and the continued viability of 
navigation. However, I believe there is a way to address upstream and 
downstream concerns as we modify the master manual to account for those 
competing priorities.
  I believe we can forge a balanced approach to the operation of the 
river. We must consider all of the impacts and do this in a way that 
balances the needs of all the States concerned.
  In addition to recreation flood control navigation, we must consider 
the impacts changes would have on hydropower generation, water supply, 
and environmental and cultural resources.
  The Corps has been working diligently to account for all of these 
concerns, but there are strong and vocal views on all sides of any 
solution that they produce. As a result, Mr. Chairman, I would like 
Congress to look for a new way to deal with this problem that involves 
consensus building among the various stakeholders.
  In the past, the Missouri River Basin Association, a group made up of 
representatives of the governors of each of the eight basin States and 
representatives of the Indian tribes has had success in finding common 
interest among the disparate views of the upstream and downstream 
States.
  As a result, I would like to know if the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama, would be willing to work with 
me to consider a solution that would help bring consensus to this 
issue?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Dakota 
(Mr. Thune) for his interest in this issue. I am well familiar with 
this issue through previous conversations that we have had throughout 
the years, and I know of the great importance it is to him and his 
State.
  I appreciate his concerns and would welcome any solution and input 
that he may have. I would also encourage him to work with his colleague 
and neighbor, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), in order to reach a 
result.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Iowa will further 
yield, I thank the chairman for his commitment and for remaining open 
to working with me on this and as well as for his support of a number 
of South Dakota priorities that are included in this energy and water 
appropriation bill.
  I also appreciate his suggestion that I work with the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham) on this solution.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the interest of the gentleman 
from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) in this issue and his willingness to 
consider some middle ground on this divisive matter.
  Our States have so much in common, yet there clearly are differences 
on this issue. Nonetheless, I do think it is worth considering those 
areas of the master manual debate where we do agree and work together 
toward an answer that would satisfy the concerns of upper and lower 
basin States.
  I do not expect this to be an easy task as we all know but would 
welcome the gentleman's input in the process, and I am willing to work 
with him to consider various options.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for their cooperation. 
As I stated earlier, while I am disappointed this provision likely will 
be approved by the House today, I am encouraged by the willingness of 
my colleagues to work with me on a balanced consensus-based approach to 
revise the Missouri River Master manual.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a member of our subcommittee, and I might 
tell my colleagues a very knowledgeable member on all of the issues 
that come before our committee.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, let me say that it is an honor and a 
privilege and a joy to work on this subcommittee with the gentleman 
from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and also the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky), our ranking minority member. I appreciate their hard 
work and cooperation in producing this bipartisan piece of legislation.
  I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman 
Callahan) for crafting a bill which recognizes the benefits of making 
needed investments today in order to save money tomorrow.
  Let me just give the committee two examples of this. One excellent 
example is the substantial increase in funding for the environmental 
management cleanup activities at our Nation's nuclear laboratories and 
facilities. H.R. 2311 provides over $7 billion for the purpose of this 
cleanup. This is an increase of over a quarter of $1 billion over last 
year's amount. This increase will allow cleanup timetables to stay on 
schedule and save unnecessary future costs.
  I am also pleased that this bill reflects the importance of our 
Nation's water infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's waters do not 
recognize State lines as we all know. Over 40 percent of the Nation's 
water flows by the borders of my home State of Mississippi. Flood 
control and maintaining navigable waterways are national issues. By 
making the necessary investments in these activities, we will avoid the 
greater cost in the future that we would have if we were not having the 
proposed spending today.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I urge the support from all of my colleagues for 
this bipartisan bill which fund our Nation's priorities and, of course, 
within the context of a balanced budget.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Everett).
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, the cities of Dothan, Enterprise, Ozark, 
Daleville and the U.S. Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker, Alabama 
have formed a partnership in support of a regional reservoir to meet 
their water supply needs.
  The Geological Survey of Alabama has a 3-year study to locate a 
reservoir to serve these areas experiencing water, severe water supply 
shortages and is currently working with the Corps of Engineers on a 
needs assessment which should be completed in a few months.
  Does the Chairman understand the importance of this project to the 
cities mentioned and to the Army Aviation

[[Page 12121]]

Training Center and that this is not a new project?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. EVERETT. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I do understand these communities are 
suffering water shortages primarily because the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Everett) tells me about it every night. Every time we get in a 5-
minute lull he expresses to me his serious concerns about these 
problems, which I think will worsen in the near future, and that the 
corporation of the Corps is needed as soon as possible.

                              {time}  1445

  I pledge to work with the gentleman and find an appropriate 
resolution to this situation as this process moves forward, probably in 
conference.
  Mr. EVERETT. I appreciate the chairman's comments.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to advise my colleagues that I do not have any further speakers. But, 
once again, let me remind the Members that this is the first stage of 
this process and that we have been fairly generous, I think, in 
recognizing all of the demands of all the Members on both sides of the 
aisle. I pledge, along with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), 
to try to protect all the projects we have in here as it goes through 
the process.
  As my colleagues well know, the process could involve removal of some 
of these projects in the Senate, it could include removal of some of 
these projects in conference, but I am going to do everything I can to 
make absolutely certain that the Members who support this bill 
especially, that their projects are preserved.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Callahan and 
Ranking Member Visclosky, and the Members of the Subcommittee for their 
support of Sacramento flood control projects included in the Fiscal 
Year 2002 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. As this body knows, 
with a mere 85-year level of protection, Sacramento has been identified 
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as having the least amount of flood 
protection of any major metropolitan area in the nation. At risk are 
roughly half-a-million people and $40 billion in economic value. This 
includes 1,200 public facilities, 130 schools, 26 nursing home 
facilities, 7 major hospitals, major interstates and highways, and the 
Capitol to the world's sixth largest economy.
  Thankfully, this subcommittee has again generously funded numerous 
project requests in my Sacramento district essential to the ongoing 
flood work necessary to address this dire situation. Specifically, I 
thank the subcommittee for the $8 million allocation for continued 
construction modifications to Folsom Dam These flood outlet 
modifications represent the linchpin to Sacramento's flood control 
system, providing a doubling of Sacramento's flood protection and 
giving to the flood plain its first major improvements to flood control 
in more than 40 years. I also am grateful for the $15 million included 
for the American River Watershed Common Elements which will provide 
much needed improvements to more than 36 miles of Sacramento's levees, 
the last line of defense against catastrophic flooding. I also would 
like to thank the Members for their efforts in securing additional 
funding for a series of smaller, yet no less critical, regional flood 
control projects. This includes projects for Sacramento River bank 
protection, work on the Lower Strong and Chicken Ranch Slough, Magpie 
Creek, and funds to allow for ongoing studies for American River 
Watershed flood control.
  It is my hope that as this legislation continues to move through the 
legislative process, serious consideration is given to funding ``new 
starts'' construction projects. The South Sacramento Streams project 
will provide protection to more than 100,000 people and 41,000 
structures from a network of creeks and small rivers in the region. 
This project was authorized in the 1999 Water Resources Development Act 
and is now ready for construction. Although I recognize the extremely 
tight budgetary constraints confronting this subcommittee, the perilous 
situation that these streams pose to the South Sacramento region makes 
initial construction funding essential. I ask for your support in 
providing funding for this critical new start project in the conference 
committee.
  Again, on behalf of my Sacramento constituents, I remain grateful for 
your past and continuing support of these vital, life-saving projects. 
Thank you for your efforts in supporting essential federal assistance 
to the most pressing public safety issue confronting the region.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Calahan), the Chairman of the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the Ranking 
Member of the Subcommittee, for their exceptional work in bringing this 
bill to the Floor.
  This Member recognizes that extremely tight budgetary constraints 
made the job of the Subcommittee much more difficult this year. 
Therefore, the Subcommittee is to be commended for its diligence in 
creating such a fiscally responsible measure. In light of these 
budgetary pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation 
to the Subcommittee and formally recognize that the Energy and Water 
Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002 includes funding 
for several water projects that are of great importance to Nebraska.
  This Member greatly appreciates the $11 million funding level 
provided for the four-state Missouri River Mitigation Project. The 
funding is needed to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the 
Federally sponsored channelization and stabilization projects of the 
Pick-Sloan era. This islands, wetlands, and flat floodplains needed to 
support the wildlife and waterfowl that once lived along the river are 
gone. An estimated 475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri 
and Kansas have been lost. Today's fishery resources are estimated to 
be only one-fifth of those which existed in pre-development days.
  In 1986, the Congress authorized over $50 million to fund the 
Missouri River Mitigation project to restore fish and wildlife habitat 
lost due to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan 
plan.
  In addition, this measure provides additional funding for flood-
related projects of tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's 
1st Congressional District. Mr. Chairman, flooding in 1993 temporarily 
closed Interstate 80 and seriously threatened the Lincoln municipal 
water system which is located along the Platte River near Ashland, 
Nebraska. Therefore, this member is extremely pleased that H.R. 2311 
continues funding in the amount of $350,000 for the Lower Platte River 
and Tributaries Flood Control Study. This study should help formulate 
and develop feasible solutions which will alleviate future flood 
problems along the Lower Platte River and tributaries.
  This Member is also pleases that this bill includes $100,000 in 
funding requested by this member for the feasibility phase of a Section 
206 wetlands restoration project in Butler County, Nebraska. The key 
element of the plan is the incorporation of a wetlands restoration 
project northwest of David City, Nebraska. This restoration was 
supported by a Natural Resources Conservation Service preliminary 
determination of wetlands potential for a 160-acre tract northwest of 
David City, Nebraska. Under the proposed project, storm water that 
currently travels northwest of David City will be diverted west before 
reaching the city, and then channeled south along a county road before 
being detained in the proposed wetlands area. The storm water will then 
slowly be released from the wetlands area so that there are no negative 
impacts to downstream landowners.
  It is also important to note that this legislation includes $200,000 
requested by this Member which would be implemented through the Lower 
Platte South Natural Resources District on behalf of the Lower Platte 
River Corridor Alliance. This amount represents the 50% Federal share 
under Section 503 of the Water Resources Development of 1996, to assess 
and plan for water quality infrastructure and improvements in the Lower 
Platte River Watershed concentrating on dire drinking water and 
wastewater needs within the Lower Platte River Corridor, between and 
including the communities of Ashland and Louisville, in Saunders and 
Cass counties, Nebraska.
  This Member is also pleased that H.R. 2311 includes $1,800,000 for 
the Missouri National Recreational River, which could be used for 
projects such as the Missouri River Research and Education Center at 
Ponca State Park in Nebraska. This center is located at the terminus of 
the last stretch of natural (unchannelized) river below the mainstem 
reservoirs and a 59-mile stretch of the Missouri River, which was 
designated as a Recreational River in 1978 under the Wild and Scenic 
River Act. It is one of the few stretches of the Missouri River that is 
like the beautiful untamed river seen by Lewis and Clark.
  The Missouri River is one of the most historic, scenic and 
biologically diverse rivers in

[[Page 12122]]

North America. The proposed research and education center will serve as 
a ``working'' interpretive center for the river and include interactive 
displays and exhibits. It will provide a timeline for the vast riverine 
ecosystem as well as an upstream view of the beginning of the Missouri 
National Recreation River. When completed the center will also include 
a classroom/conference room facility.
  This Member recognizes that this bill includes $656,000 for the Sand 
Creek Watershed project in Saunders County, Nebraska, and $400,000 for 
the Antelope Creek project in Lincoln, Nebraska. However, this funding 
is to be used for preconstruction engineering and design work. This 
Member believes that it is critically important that the final version 
of the FY2002 Energy and Water Development appropriations legislation 
include some funding for construction of these projects.
  Funding for these projects is particularly urgent. There is a 
cooperative effort in Nebraska between the state highway agency and 
water development agencies which makes this project more cost-effective 
and feasible. Specifically, the dam for this small reservoir is to be a 
structure that the Nebraska Department of Roads would construct instead 
of a bridge as part of the new state expressway in the immediate 
vicinity of Wahoo, Nebraska. Immediate funding would help ensure that 
this coordinated effort could continue.
  Construction funding is also needed for the Antelope Creek project. 
It would be a significant setback to the project timetable if the Corps 
does not receive construction funding the project in FY2002. Delays in 
other components of the project would also likely result.
  Finally, this Member is also pleased that H.R. 2311 provides $275,000 
in funding for the Missouri National Recreational River Project. This 
project addresses a serious problem by protecting the river banks from 
the extraordinary and excessive erosion rates caused by the sporadic 
and varying releases from the Gavins Point Dam. These erosion rates are 
a result of previous work on the river by the Federal Government.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the Chairman of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee, for their support of projects which are important to 
Nebraska and the 1st Congressional District, as well as to the people 
living in the Missouri River Basin.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, as we consider the Energy and Water bill 
today here in Washington, California and the West are in the throes of 
an energy crisis. Now is the time to strengthen and increase the 
federal commitment to new, clean energy sources. Instead, the Bush 
Administration proposed deep cuts in federal renewable energy programs, 
slashing core renewable energy research and development programs by 
50%.
  The Appropriations Committee chose to fund renewable energy programs 
at $377 million, $100 more than the President's proposal. However, $377 
million gives us only $1 million more than we have in the current year 
for these important programs. We should increase our commitment to 
renewable energy resources and technologies, including wind, solar, and 
biomass. For this reason, I will vote for the Hinchey amendment to 
increase funding for renewable energy by $50 million, which would 
provide funding for programs to deploy promising new technologies more 
rapidly.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. The amendment printed in House Report 107-114 
is adopted.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2311

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

       The following appropriations shall be expended under the 
     direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of 
     the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the 
     Department of the Army pertaining to rivers and harbors, 
     flood control, beach erosion, and related purposes.

                         General Investigations

       For expenses necessary for the collection and study of 
     basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood 
     control, shore protection, and related projects, restudy of 
     authorized projects, miscellaneous investigations, and, when 
     authorized by laws, surveys and detailed studies and plans 
     and specifications of projects prior to construction, 
     $163,260,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers, is directed to use $1,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated herein to continue preconstruction engineering 
     and design of the Murrieta Creek, California, flood 
     protection and environmental enhancement project and is 
     further directed to proceed with the project in accordance 
     with cost sharing established for the Murrieta Creek project 
     in Public Law 106-377: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is 
     directed to use the feasibility report prepared under the 
     authority of section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as 
     amended, as the basis for the Rock Creek-Keefer Slough Flood 
     Control Project, Butte County, California, and is further 
     directed to use $200,000 of the funds appropriated herein for 
     preconstruction engineering and design of the project: 
     Provided further, That in conducting the Southwest Valley 
     Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque, New Mexico, the 
     Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief Engineers, 
     shall include an evaluation of flood damage reduction 
     measures that would otherwise be excluded from the 
     feasibility analysis based on policies regarding the 
     frequency of flooding, the drainage areas, and the amount of 
     runoff.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $9,900,000)''.
       Page 18, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $8,900,000)''.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering this amendment to the 
Energy and Water Appropriations Bill that will increase funding to the 
Department of Energy's Renewable Energy Research Program by $9.9 
million with a corresponding offset for the Army of Corps of Engineers' 
General Investigations Account. That account, by the way, is currently 
receiving about a $33 million increase above the President's budget 
request.
  Recent electricity and gas shortages in California and other western 
States, along with an expanding recognition of environmental issues, 
have highlighted the need for clean renewable power. Concentrating 
solar power technologies offers a near-term opportunity for large-scale 
and cost-effective production of renewable energy.
  An addition to these accounts would also allow the concentrated solar 
power program to continue its core long-term research and development 
activities that will help advance the next-generation trough and dish 
technologies. The focus would include identifying and implementing 
advanced converter options for modular dish systems. In fiscal year 
2000, the CSP program began working with the National Renewable Energy 
Lab's high-efficiency photovoltaic team on the development of a high-
efficiency concentrating photovoltaic converter as an alternative to 
the Stirling engine converter historically supported by the CSP 
program.
  A $5 million increase in the Biomass/Biofuels Energy Systems line 
item would launch a collaborative effort that integrates advances in 
computational science and bioinformatics developed by the national labs 
and universities to develop a biorefinery simulation model that enables 
virtual testing and prototyping of biorefinery systems and components. 
The simulation model will provide a useful tool to test new concepts as 
well as provide a basis for industry to develop future design tools for 
biorefineries.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment because I think it is, 
again, a matter of priorities. Certainly there is undeniable need for 
an investment in alternative energy research. No one denies that.

[[Page 12123]]

  I want to actually thank the committee for their attention to this 
detail and for restoring the budget, the original budget, for NREL. The 
fact is that there are these two additional needs, and it is simply a 
matter of priorities.
  It seems to me that with taking a part of the budget that has 
received a $33 million increase above the President's request, taking a 
part of that, reducing it by only approximately $9 million and putting 
it into this kind of research, is the correct priority.
  We will be talking certainly on the floor here about various issues 
dealing with the Corps of Engineers, the integrity of the programs 
operated by the Corps of Engineers, and the integrity of the reports 
that they commission and are commissioned by others to do to determine 
whether or not a project is necessary. There are significant problems, 
to say the least, in this particular area.
  Recently, for example, one of the reports that was done by the Corps 
of Engineers has been criticized by the Inspector General, not only 
criticized, but there is an allegation of manipulation of data, so much 
so that there is a criminal investigation under way with regard to that 
particular endeavor. This is an area in which we should not be 
increasing the amount of appropriations; we should be decreasing it, or 
at least we should be forcing the Corps of Engineers to reform itself 
in a way that would reflect our concerns about the poor administrative 
tactics they have employed so far.
  The fact is that the committee itself added over 12 new studies that 
the administration did not request. Some of these studies stretch the 
boundaries of the Corps' jurisdiction. Again, we will be talking as 
time goes by, I know, Mr. Chairman, about the problems that are endemic 
to the Corps. Certainly I have a couple of amendments, I know other 
people do, where there is a great concern out there right now about the 
Corps of Engineers, about whether or not they have slipped their 
mooring, whether or not they are able to actually do what we expect of 
them or whether or not they have become almost a rogue agency.
  The Congress of the United States takes some responsibility for that; 
but for that purpose, I would ask for the support of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama insist on his point of 
order?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. No, sir. I withdraw my point of order, but I would like 
to rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate where the gentleman is 
coming from, but this appropriations process is long and involved. We 
invited every Member of Congress to submit their suggestions to us as 
to how we could best formulate this bill. The sponsor of this amendment 
did not choose to bring this to our attention, nor did he even request 
that we consider this during our regular process. But what he is doing 
in his amendment is taking $9.9 million for this project specifically, 
and he is taking it out of the Corps' operating budget.
  We went through a long deliberative process trying to establish how 
much money the Corps needed to operate, and in our deliberations we 
finally decided this was the amount of money that we need. This is not 
the time to accept this without any hearings or any indication as to 
what is best for the Corps or what is best for its program.
  Maybe he does have a good program. But we cannot go through this 
process, and then everyone who has a specific project they would like 
funded comes to us and says let us take it out of the hide of the Corps 
of Engineers. I think the committee has done the responsible job in 
determining what the needs of the Corps of Engineers are going to be in 
the next fiscal year, and I would urge my colleagues to reject the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would join the chairman in opposition to the amendment. I 
appreciate what the gentleman wants to do; but as I pointed out in my 
opening remarks, the Chair, myself, as well as members of the 
subcommittee and the full Committee on Appropriations, have added $100 
million to the renewable accounts.
  Secondly, while the gentleman pointed out that our figure is $33 
million over the President's budget request for general investigations 
for the Army Corps, I would also point out the President's request of 
$600 million was under this year's funding level, and we are still $32 
million under this current funding year level. The Army Corps cannot 
take that hit. I am adamantly opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         Construction, General

       For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control, 
     shore protection, and related projects authorized by laws; 
     and detailed studies, and plans and specifications, of 
     projects (including those for development with participation 
     or under consideration for participation by States, local 
     governments, or private groups) authorized or made eligible 
     for selection by law (but such studies shall not constitute a 
     commitment of the Government to construction), 
     $1,671,854,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such sums as are necessary for the Federal share of 
     construction costs for facilities under the Dredged Material 
     Disposal Facilities program shall be derived from the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund, as authorized by Public Law 104-303; 
     and of which such sums as are necessary pursuant to Public 
     Law 99-662 shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust 
     Fund, for one-half of the costs of construction and 
     rehabilitation of inland waterways projects, including 
     rehabilitation costs for the Lock and Dam 12, Mississippi 
     River, Iowa; Lock and Dam 24, Mississippi River, Illinois and 
     Missouri; Lock and Dam 3, Mississippi River, Minnesota; and 
     London Locks and Dam, Kanawha River, West Virginia, projects; 
     and of which funds are provided for the following projects in 
     the amounts specified:
       San Timoteo Creek (Santa Ana River Mainstem), California, 
     $10,000,000;
       Indianapolis Central Waterfront, Indiana, $9,000,000;
       Southern and Eastern Kentucky, Kentucky, $4,000,000;
       Clover Fork, City of Cumberland, Town of Martin, Pike 
     County (including Levisa Fork and Tug Fork Tributaries), Bell 
     County, Floyd County, Martin County, and Harlan County, 
     Kentucky, elements of the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big 
     Sandy River and Upper Cumberland River, Kentucky, 
     $15,450,000: Provided, That $15,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated herein shall be deposited in the San Gabriel 
     Basin Restoration Fund established by section 110 of division 
     B, title I of Public Law 106-554, of which $1,000,000 shall 
     be for remediation in the Central Basin Municipal Water 
     District: Provided further, That using $1,000,000 of the 
     funds appropriated herein, the Secretary of the Army, acting 
     through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to modify the 
     Carr Creek Lake, Kentucky, project at full Federal expense to 
     provide additional water supply storage for the Upper 
     Kentucky River Basin: Provided further, That with $1,200,000 
     of the funds appropriated herein, the Secretary of the Army, 
     acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to 
     undertake design deficiency repairs to the Bois Brule 
     Drainage and Levee District, Missouri, project authorized and 
     constructed under the authority of the Flood Control Act of 
     1936 with cost sharing consistent with the original project 
     authorization: Provided further, That in accordance with 
     section 332 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, 
     the Secretary of the Army is directed to increase the 
     authorized level of protection of the Bois Brule Drainage and 
     Levee District, Missouri, project from 50 years to 100 years 
     using $700,000 of the funds appropriated herein, and the 
     project costs allocated to the incremental increase in the 
     level of protection shall be cost shared consistent with 
     section 103(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986, notwithstanding section 202(a) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996.

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

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

[[Page 12124]]

     $347,665,000, to remain available until expended.

                   Operation and Maintenance, General

       For expenses necessary for the preservation, operation, 
     maintenance, and care of existing river and harbor, flood 
     control, and related works, including such sums as may be 
     necessary for the maintenance of harbor channels provided by 
     a State, municipality or other public agency, outside of 
     harbor lines, and serving essential needs of general commerce 
     and navigation; surveys and charting of northern and 
     northwestern lakes and connecting waters; clearing and 
     straightening channels; and removal of obstructions to 
     navigation, $1,864,464,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which such sums as become available in the 
     Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662, 
     may be derived from that Fund, and of which such sums as 
     become available from the special account established by the 
     Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 
     U.S.C. 460l), may be derived from that account for 
     construction, operation, and maintenance of outdoor 
     recreation facilities: Provided, That with $1,500,000 of the 
     funds appropriated herein, the Secretary of the Army, acting 
     through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to perform 
     cultural resource mitigation and recreation improvements at 
     Waco Lake, Texas, at full Federal expense notwithstanding the 
     provisions of the Water Supply Act of 1958: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers, is directed to use $2,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated herein to grade the basin within the Hansen Dam 
     feature of the Los Angeles County Drainage Area, California, 
     project to enhance and maintain flood capacity and to provide 
     for future use of the basin for compatible purposes 
     consistent with the Master Plan including recreation and 
     environmental restoration: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
     is directed to use $1,000,000 of the funds appropriated 
     herein to fully investigate the development of an upland 
     disposal site recycling program on the Black Warrior and 
     Tombigbee Rivers project and the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee 
     and Flint Rivers project: Provided further, That, for the 
     Raritan River Basin, Green Brook Sub-Basin, New Jersey, 
     project, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 
     of Engineers, is directed to implement the locally preferred 
     plan for the element in the western portion of Middlesex 
     Borough, New Jersey, which includes the buyout of up to 22 
     homes, and flood proofing of four commercial buildings along 
     Prospect Place and Union Avenue, and also the buyout of up to 
     three commercial buildings along Raritan and Lincoln Avenues, 
     at a total estimated cost of $15,000,000, with an estimated 
     Federal cost of $11,500,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost 
     of $3,500,000.

                           Regulatory Program

       For expenses necessary for administration of laws 
     pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands, 
     $128,000,000, to remain available until expended.

            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 
     Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Institute for 
     Water Resources, and headquarters support functions at the 
     USACE Finance Center, $153,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That no part of any other appropriation 
     provided in title I of this Act shall be available to fund 
     the activities of the Office of the Chief of Engineers or the 
     executive direction and management activities of the division 
     offices: Provided further, That none of these funds shall be 
     available to support an office of congressional affairs 
     within the executive office of the Chief of Engineers.

                       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. Section 110(3)(B)(ii) of division B, title I of 
     Public Law 106-554 is amended by inserting the following 
     before the period: ``: Provided, That the Secretary shall 
     credit the San Gabriel Water Quality Authority with the value 
     of all prior expenditures by the non-Federal interests that 
     are compatible with the purposes of this Act''.

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama about two very important water projects in my 
district that I believe deserve to receive Federal funding during the 
fiscal year 2002 appropriations process.
  Let me begin by talking about the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District 
fish screen project. This project is located at the entrance to the 
Banta-Carbona Irrigation District intake channel on the San Joaquin 
River.
  The Banta-Carbona Irrigation District is required by the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service to put a fish screen facility on the San Joaquin 
River to protect the delta smelt, steelhead, fall run chinook salmon, 
and the splittail. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has required 
the Banta-Carbona Irrigation District to facilitate the funding, 
design, and construction of this fish barrier screen facility with 
little or no assistance. Without the fish screen project, the Banta-
Carbona Irrigation District's agricultural water diversions could be 
shut down by these Federal agencies.
  During the 107th Congress, the gentleman and I talked about the 
importance of providing the BCI District with the much-needed financial 
assistance to help defray the construction, operation, and maintenance 
costs of this fish screen facility. Unfortunately, no Federal funding 
was included in the fiscal year 2002 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations bill.
  After speaking with the gentleman about this request, the gentleman 
very kindly informed me about the difficulties his subcommittee was up 
against when it comes to appropriating funds for new start-up projects. 
While I appreciate the gentleman for bringing this to my attention, I 
would simply ask the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Development if he would be willing to work with me to ensure that the 
Banta-Carbona Irrigation District receive some form of assistance in 
fiscal year 2002 to help them with the project.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding to me, and I promise to work with him as we continue through 
the appropriations process. I understand the details of the project and 
agree that this project certainly merits congressional support. It is 
my firm intention to do all that I can to assist the gentleman from 
California on this very important issue as we move forward through this 
appropriation process.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman; and with regard to 
the second project known as the Farmington Groundwater Recharge 
Demonstration Project, let me point out that the Stockton East Water 
District and its neighbors pump from a critically overdrafted 
groundwater basin in my district.
  The district also faces saline intrusion of up to 100 feet per year 
from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. This pending environmental 
disaster threatens the drinking supply of 300,000 residents and the 
$1.3 billion agricultural economy of my district.
  The Farmington Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Project addresses 
this problem. It is important for my colleagues to know that the WRDA 
of 1996 authorized a study to look at converting Farmington Dam into a 
storage facility for Stockton East Water District.
  Further, WRDA of 1999 authorized $25 million for conjunctive use and 
groundwater recharge projects within the Stockton East Water District. 
This study concluded that a demonstration project should be the next 
step.
  I support the efforts of the Stockton East Water District, and I am 
requesting the gentleman's support of up to $2.5 million in fiscal year 
2002 for the project.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding, and as I mentioned before, I promise to continue working with 
the gentleman from California during the

[[Page 12125]]

conference on this matter. I remain hopeful that we can accommodate the 
gentleman's concern and allay the point on this process.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and conclude by 
saying that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the ranking 
member from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) deserve to be commended for 
crafting a sound bill, and I want to thank them for their tireless 
efforts and work on this bill.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill, and I want to 
commend the chairman and the ranking member for working with a very 
difficult budget to put this bill together. I want to commend them for 
funding projects when they were facing at one point a 14 percent cut in 
the Corps' construction budget; yet they were able to figure out a way 
to do this.
  Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on the Budget, I offered 
the amendment when we were marking up the budget resolution to restore 
the Corps funds. Unfortunately, that amendment failed, but I was 
hopeful that the chairman would figure out a way to do this.
  I also want to thank them for figuring out a way to increase funding 
for the Brays Bayou project in my district, which just saw tremendous 
flooding along the Brays and the Sims and other bayous. I appreciate 
what they did for the Port of Houston project, although we did not get 
as much money as we would have liked. We hope that will be resolved.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman 
regarding the Sims Bayou Texas project. The Sims Bayou Flood Control 
Project which is currently under construction is funded at $9 million 
in the committee's bill. This amount equals the President's fiscal year 
2002 budget request, although it is $3 million below the amount which 
the Corps of Engineers Galveston District tells us is necessary to keep 
the project on schedule to be completed by 2009. As I mentioned, the 
greater Houston area just suffered tremendous flooding as a result of 
Tropical Storm Allison, including many of the neighborhoods along the 
Sims in my congressional district, and the district of the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee); and I think it is important for the 
chairman and the members of the subcommittee to know, however, where 
the Federal project had been constructed and was complete, there was 
not flooding where there had otherwise been flooding in previous 
storms.
  So the project does work and these projects do work. The chairman and 
the ranking member know that, and I think the rest of the Congress 
needs to know that as well.
  I realize that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) was faced 
with a very tight budget, and I appreciate the job that was done by the 
chairman and the ranking member, and the other members of the 
subcommittee. I would ask as this bill progresses, that the committee 
consider increasing the allocation for Sims to get it up to the amount 
that the Corps would like to have to have it stay on track if 
additional funds become available through the appropriations process or 
through a requested reprogramming from the Corps of Engineers.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, we will be glad to work with the 
gentleman and the victims of Tropical Storm Allison. We are happy to 
work with the gentleman in that capacity to provide funding if funds 
become available.
  I have talked to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) about this, who 
is also from the Houston area. He is concerned about it. We intend to 
work with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), and the entire Texas 
delegation to provide whatever assistance we can.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, the majority whip, whose area includes the 
Brays, has been a very strong supporter of these projects. We have 
authored legislation on this, and I appreciate the work of the chairman 
and the ranking member, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in qualified support of H.R. 2311, the FY 2002 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
  When the Budget Committee, on which I serve, considered the 
President's proposal and produced a budget, I knew it was going to be 
very hard for Congress to fund many important water transportation and 
flood control projects. I recognize the incredibly difficult 
circumstances Chairman Sonny Callahan, Ranking Member Peter Visclosky 
have endured in crafting this bill. I would also like to thank my good 
friend from Texas, Mr. Edwards, a distinguished Member of the 
Subcommittee, for all the help and information he and his office have 
provided me.
  In light of the dramatic budget cuts proposed for the Corps, I 
applaud the Subcommittee for funding the Brays Bayou flood control 
project at the Harris County Flood Control District's capability--$5 
million. When completed, the Brays Bayou project will be a national 
model for local control, community participation, flood damage 
reduction in a heavily populated urban watershed, and the creation of a 
large, multi-use greenway/detention area on the Willow Waterhole 
tributary. The Brays project is a demonstration project for a new 
reimbursement program initiated by legislation I authored along with 
Mr. DeLay that was included in Section 211 of WRDA 1996. The program 
gives local sponsors more responsibility and flexibility, resulting in 
projects more efficient implementation in tune with local concerns.
  I am very encouraged that the Brays project is on track to be fully 
funded at $5 million in Fiscal Year 2002, rather than $4 million, as 
the Administration suggested. The project will improve flood protection 
for an extensively developed urban area along Brays Bayou in southwest 
Harris County including tens of thousands of residents in the flood 
plain, the Texas Medical Center, and Rice University. The entire 
project will provide three miles of channel improvements, three flood 
detention basins, and seven miles of stream diversion resulting in a 
25-year level of flood protection. Current funding is used for the 
detention element of the project. Originally authorized in the Water 
Resources Development Act of 1990 and reauthorized in 1996 as part of a 
$400 million federal/local flood control project, over $20 million has 
already been appropriated for the Brays Bayou Project.
  However, besides the admirable consideration the Subcommittee has 
given Brays Bayou, I believe this bill is spread too thin as a result 
of the extreme position taken by the Administration on the Army Corps 
of Engineers Construction account, which was slated to be cut $600 
million.
  Instead the Committee has wisely lowered that cut to $70 million 
below the 2001 level. When I introduced an amendment to remedy this in 
the mark-up of the budget, I warned that Congress would not stand for 
such a large shortfall affecting public safety and navigational water 
projects. I am relieved that much of the proposed cut was restored, and 
I commend the Chairman and ranking member for their effort.
  I appreciate that the Committee saw fit, to fully fund the 
Administration's request for the Sims Bayou project. Unfortunately the 
Administration did not request the full amount the Corps says is 
necessary to keep the project on schedule. My constituents are 
adversely affected by this cut. According to the Galveston District of 
the Corps, without funding the full $12 million capability of Corps for 
Sims, construction will fall behind schedule. This funding is needed 
because of the great risks people have faced and will continue to face 
until completion of the project in this highly populated watershed. The 
need was illustrated when Tropical Storm Allison caused great damage to 
thousands of homes in this watershed several weeks ago.
  The project is necessary to improve flood protection in the 
extensively developed urban area along Sims Bayou in southern Harris 
County. The Sims Bayou project consists of 19.3 miles of channel 
enlargement, rectification, and erosion control and will provide a 25-
year level of flood protection. Before the funding shortfall, the Sims 
Bayou project was scheduled to be completed two years ahead of schedule 
in 2009. We cannot be confident of that prediction unless Sims funding 
is raised to $12 million in the Senate version and the Conference 
Report.
  Flood control projects are necessary for the protection of life and 
property in Harris County, but improving navigation in our Port an 
integral step for the rapid growth of our economy in the global 
marketplace. Therefore Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that this 
legislation provides only 30 out of the needed $46.8 million for 
continuing construction on the

[[Page 12126]]

Houston Ship Channel expansion project. When completed, this project 
will generate tremendous economic and environmental benefits to the 
nation and will enhance one of our region's most important trade and 
economic centers.
  The Houston Ship Channel, one of the world's most heavily trafficked 
ports, desperately needs expansion to meet the challenges of expanding 
global trade and to maintain its competitive edge as a major 
international port. Currently, the Port of Houston is the second 
largest port in the United States in total tonnage, and is a catalyst 
for the southeast Texas economy, contributing more than $5 billion 
annually and providing 200,000 jobs.
  The Houston Ship Channel expansion project calls for deepening the 
channel from 40 to 45 feet and widening it from 400 to 530 feet. The 
ship channel modernization, considered the largest dredging project 
since the construction of the Panama Canal, will preserve the Port of 
Houston's status as one of the premier deep-channel Gulf ports and one 
of the top transit points for cargo in the world. Besides the economic 
and safety benefits, the dredged material from the deepening and 
widening will be used to create 4,250 acres of wetland and bird habitat 
on Redfish Island. I want to take this opportunity to urge those who 
will be conferees on this legislation to fund the Port of Houston 
project to its capability. This project is supported by local voters, 
governments, chambers of commerce, and environmental groups.
  I thank all the subcommittee members, Chairman, Ranking Member, and 
especially Representative Edwards for their support and their work 
under tough budgetary circumstances.
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, as well as 
the staff for doing a tremendous job in writing this bill under very, 
very challenging circumstances. They have done a tremendous job.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to make mention, as the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen) did, about restoring the funding for the Corps of 
Engineers, which is very critical for my district, which has the 
largest amount of Mississippi River frontage in the country. The work 
that the Corps does with regard to flood protection is vital to many 
people in my district.
  I want to make mention of the excellent job that the complete staff 
and our chairman did with regard to hazardous waste worker training. It 
is a very vital issue. I have a lot of people who actually have worked 
in the facility at Paducah, Kentucky, who have faced many challenges; 
and the work that is ongoing there requires a lot of training for 
protection of lives.
  But my real purpose in standing here today is to talk about the 
language in the bill that prevents the implementation of the egregious 
plan by the Fish and Wildlife Service which would increase flood risk 
and eliminate transportation on the Missouri River. I can understand 
the concerns over the endangered species that this plan is designed to 
protect, but I think the cost is too high. I am not willing to displace 
thousands of farmers along the Mississippi and the Missouri Rivers. I 
cannot find a good way to explain to my farmers that they have to move 
because some fish upstream are not happy with their living conditions. 
It is not possible for me to do that.
  This plan calls for a controlled release, but one cannot control the 
release and ensure that there will be no flooding. Early this month in 
3 days the river rose from normal stage to flood stage from one end of 
Missouri to the other. The water released from Gavins takes 5 days to 
get to Kansas City and 10 days to get to St. Louis. Once released, the 
water is not retrievable. The ``spring rise'' prescribed by Fish and 
Wildlife would have added to the flooding experienced in Missouri 
earlier this month.
  The Missouri River does not flow through my district, but the 
Missouri River feeds the Mississippi River and provides as much as two-
thirds of its flow during dry years. Mississippi River transportation 
is not minor and is very, very important to my constituents.
  I am also concerned about this plan because from an energy standpoint 
we are having an obvious crisis right now with the delivery of energy, 
and the Fish and Wildlife plan calls for low flows during the summer 
during peak power demand, reducing the availability of clean hydropower 
in the summer. Given the investment that our bill makes in renewables, 
I do not believe that we should implement a plan that will hinder 
hydropower production.
  The Missouri Department of Natural Resources, which is an independent 
agency within Missouri, and with whom I did not agree on many 
occasions, as well as our Democratic Governor Bob Holden, as well as 
the entire Missouri delegation, Republicans and Democrats, the Senate 
and House, all reject the Fish and Wildlife Service plan, as do many 
others up and down the Mississippi River and the Missouri River all of 
the way down to New Orleans.
  Mr. Chairman, I will listen to the Missouri Department of Natural 
Resources which says that the science behind this plan is not accurate 
and certainly will not do anything to help these species. Frankly, I 
reject the notion that the Fish and Wildlife Service is always right 
and our experts at DNR are wrong, and I clearly oppose that plan and 
hope that we can reach a compromise that is in the best interest of 
everyone involved.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy and 
talk about the critical importance to the people of Harris County, but 
before I do, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for their efforts on flood 
control and drainage projects. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) who serves on the subcommittee for his efforts over the years.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the level of funding for flood 
control projects, particularly the Greens Bayou and Hunting Bayou, all 
of which flow through my district in Harris County. Greens Bayou 
flooded nearly half of the 30,000 homes that were damaged by Tropical 
Storm Allison, while Hunting Bayou affected hundreds of homes as well. 
These two bayou systems need to be considered for increased support 
since the recent floods, including funding for continued improvement to 
both the Greens and the Hunting Bayou systems.
  Mr. Chairman, to see the estimated $4 billion-plus damage, and the 
loss of 23 lives, we on this floor realize the need to continue the 
Corps of Engineers projects not only in my district, but all of our 
districts throughout the country. In light of the recent severe 
flooding from Tropical Storm Allison, I ask the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for their 
assistance to ensure that funding is restored as the bill moves through 
conference.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, we are happy to work with the gentleman 
and the entire Texas delegation with respect to their needs. We have 
discussed this with the majority whip, and he is concerned about some 
of the problems that are facing Texas. Yes, we will do everything we 
can to facilitate their needs for these very important projects.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. We have 
worked together, the seven Members of Congress who represent Harris 
County. The Greens Bayou I share with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady), and we have been out to see the devastation of our 
constituents, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). I 
appreciate the efforts of the gentleman.
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word 
for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water.
  Mr. Chairman, as the chairman is aware, on September 11, 2000, an 
agreement was reached between the State of

[[Page 12127]]

Wisconsin and the Army Corps of Engineers to transfer 17 locks along 
the Fox River to the State of Wisconsin for ownership. Under the 
memorandum of agreement signed by then-Governor Tommy Thompson and 
Assistant Secretary for the Army Joseph Westphal, the Army Corps of 
Engineers is to provide the ``full closure costs'' of $10 million to 
the State of Wisconsin upon the transfer.
  This bill that we are considering today has allocated $5 million to 
the Army Corps for the transfer of the locks to the State of Wisconsin. 
Unfortunately, without the full payment of $10 million, this transfer 
and decades of negotiations will be placed in jeopardy. It is 
essential, in my view, that full funding for the transfer be included 
in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation bill or else the local and State 
matching grants for this project will be jeopardized.
  This memorandum of agreement was a promise by the Federal Government 
to the State of Wisconsin, and I do not believe that we can shirk this 
responsibility.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the gentleman that we 
applaud this historic agreement that the Governor and the State of 
Wisconsin have reached with the Corps of Engineers, and it is our 
intention to see that this commitment of the contract is fulfilled. We 
know the importance of it because when the gentleman first came to us 
and explained the importance of it, we, at the gentleman's insistence, 
put the first $5 million in there.
  We thought it could be a two-step project; but if this is going to 
interfere with the project, it is my intention to find somewhere in the 
budget the additional $5 million so this project can move forward as 
expeditiously as possible.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. I appreciate the chairman's willingness and 
commitment to make this transfer a reality. I congratulate him for the 
hard work that he has done and his staff has done on this bill. I look 
forward to working with him on this important project.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, my first order of business is to thank the chairman and 
the ranking member of this subcommittee for their very hard and 
collaborative work and to give them some good news, that is, that the 
Army Corps of Engineers works, the funding on these projects works, for 
even though I come from Houston which is flood worn and weary, the 
areas where the Army Corps of Engineers and the funding from the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development perform their task, I am 
very pleased to report unbelievably that there was no flooding. I am 
very grateful for that. My constituents likewise have said the same. 
That shows us that the areas that Houston did not have its work 
completed are in dire need.
  And so I was to offer an amendment today giving an increase in 
funding to the Army Corps of Engineers of some $20.5 million, but 
knowing the hard work of this committee and the tightness of the 
efforts that it is making, I will not offer that amendment but offer to 
say that we can stand some additional assistance. Although I am 
gratified for the $5 million for the Brays Bayou and the Sims Bayou 
which is the bayou, Mr. Chairman, that had progress on it where it was 
completed to a certain point and that area did not flood. We now have 
some $9 million in the budget with a capacity for $12 million. But 
there are areas that did flood, the Hunting area, the Greens Bayou area 
that flowed even though mostly into my colleague's district, had an 
impact on some of our neighboring districts.
  I am very interested in working with this committee and asking the 
chairman and the ranking member for their assistance as we provide the 
potential necessary dollars to either expedite or continue working on 
projects that have obviously worked.
  I might say, Mr. Chairman, in addition, that the Army Corps of 
Engineers was very visible during the aftermath of the flood, taking 
aerial views. The general from the Dallas area who is over the whole 
region came in, which shows me that this is a worthwhile investment. I 
would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman to ask him to 
provide us with assistance, in particular to monitor and work with us 
on Sims Bayou; to monitor and work with us on Hunting Bayou, and as 
well my colleagues have already mentioned the bayous in their 
community, we all work as a team, but to work with us in the Houston 
and Harris County area along with, of course, as the gentleman 
mentioned, the majority whip who has an interest obviously in these 
issues.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Yes, Mr. 
Chairman, we will be happy to work with her in any capacity we can and 
with the entire delegation from Texas. The gentlewoman has water needs 
in Texas now, and it is our full intent to do everything we can to 
assist her in those projects to make certain that, number one, we 
preclude flooding in the future; and, number two, that we repair any 
damage that was done during the most recent floods.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much. I would 
offer to say to the ranking member that I thank him for his work. I 
look forward to working with his staff.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana to comment on 
these efforts. We have already worked with him and his staff. I want to 
thank him. I would appreciate his assistance as well as we move through 
this process with the funding for bayous that have yet been completed 
or need additional assistance.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. We would be happy to continue to work closely with the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the ranking member very much.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that these dollars are 
well needed, they have been well invested, we saw the impact of the 
funding sources of the Army Corps of Engineers, but we are still 
suffering. We look forward to working with this Congress to help us as 
we try to improve those conditions.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2311, the Energy And Water 
appropriations bill. I commend the full committee, subcommittee ranking 
member Visclosky, and especially Chairman Callahan for all their hard 
work, particularly on the Tri-Rivers project. Commercial barging on the 
Appalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers system is an important 
issue for our region's economic infrastructure. I am pleased to see the 
increased level of funding that this committee has appropriated. 
Recently, I traveled to Georgia and Florida with Members of the House 
and Senator Graham of Florida to observe the Tri-Rivers process 
firsthand. This is a very, very intricate, sensitive area and issue, 
particularly with Representatives from the three States of Alabama, 
Florida and Georgia.
  The ports on these rivers provide jobs and revenue, particularly for 
my area of southwest Georgia. The ports of Bainbridge and Columbus 
generate 548 jobs and over $15 million in wages. These jobs have a 
direct impact on the economies of small river towns like Bainbridge, 
Georgia. Revenue generated at both of the ports, that is, Bainbridge 
and Columbus, total over $40 million and in turn contribute over $1 
million in State and local taxes. The barge system has many economic 
and environmental advantages that are often overlooked. Barging is 
energy efficient. An inland barge can transport more materials using 
far less fuel than other means of transport. A navigable river system 
provides a competitive alternative that helps reduce rates for other 
modes of transportation. These

[[Page 12128]]

rivers must remain navigable if we are to continue to see these 
economic rewards.
  In the past, the Corps of Engineers has done an environmentally messy 
job and caused a great deal of anguish in Georgia, Florida and Alabama, 
particularly in the Appalachicola, Florida, area. We know now that 
better management of system water levels upstream by the Corps and 
better care in the disposal of the waste from dredging will help all of 
us have a mutually enjoyable use of the river system. The money that is 
appropriated in this bill will help ensure that dredging has a minimal 
environmental impact.
  It is my vision to see continued economic success for the communities 
that take advantage of the Appalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint 
Rivers as one of their means of transportation. I encourage my 
colleagues today to support rural industry and efficient transportation 
by voting yes on this energy and water appropriations bill.
  I thank the chairman again; I thank the ranking member and all those 
who support this bill because I think it is much needed and it is a 
step forward.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 102. Except for the historic scheduled maintenance 
     dredging in the Delaware River, none of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act shall be used to operate the dredge 
     McFARLAND other than in active ready reserve for urgent 
     dredging, emergencies and in support of national defense.
       Sec. 104. (a) Conveyance Authorized.--The Secretary of the 
     Army shall convey to the Blue Township Fire District, Blue 
     Township, Kansas, by quitclaim deed and without 
     consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to a parcel of land consisting of approximately 
     4.35 acres located in Pottawatomie County, Tuttle Creek Lake, 
     Kansas.
       (b) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Secretary.
       (c) Reversion.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     property conveyed under subsection (a) ceases to be held in 
     public ownership or to be used as a site for a fire station, 
     all right, title, and interest in and to the property shall 
     revert to the United States, at the option of the United 
     States.
       Sec. 105. For those shore protection projects funded in 
     this Act which have Project Cooperation Agreements in place, 
     the Secretary of the Army is directed to proceed with those 
     projects in accordance with the cost sharing specified in the 
     Project Cooperation Agreement.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. 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. Tancredo:
       In title I, strike section 105 (relating to shore 
     protection projects cost sharing).

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, in his budget request to Congress, 
President Bush proposed reversing the cost-share ratio for beach 
replenishment projects from 65 percent Federal share/35 percent local 
share, to 35 percent Federal/65 percent local. The energy and water 
appropriations bill includes language to block this proposal. The 
Tancredo-Blumenauer amendment would strip the bill of this fiscally 
damaging and environmentally questionable legislative rider.
  In an interview with the Associated Press yesterday, Office of 
Management and Budget spokesman Chris Ullman said that the White House 
continues to believe that the Federal Government should spend less to 
build beaches. ``Since most of the benefits are to localities and local 
beachgoers, it seems reasonable that they would pay the majority of the 
costs of sustaining those beaches.''
  The Army Corps of Engineers recently began the world's largest beach 
replenishment project, to provide 100- foot wide beaches along all 127 
miles of New Jersey's coast. This is at an average cost of $60 million 
per mile. Right now, the Federal Government is obligated to pay the 
majority of that cost, or 65 percent to be exact. What is worse, most 
artificial beaches wash away within 1 year of replenishment, leaving 
taxpayers' money and environmental damage left in their wake, so to 
speak.
  We encourage you to support the Bush administration's effort to save 
tax dollars and cut environmentally questionable spending by removing 
this legislative rider on beach replenishment cost-sharing.
  The current Federal policy of subsidizing beach projects, by the way, 
is a 50-year agreement with towns. That is unsustainable. That means 65 
percent of the cost we would be required to fund for 50 years at 
current levels.
  The Duke University program for the study of developed shorelines 
estimated that the cost to pump sand on just four Atlantic coast 
States, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and New Jersey, will be 
more than $4 billion.
  Many of these beach communities are privately owned and privately 
renourish their beaches. They pay for the projects through hotel-use 
taxes and progressive property tax assessments according to how close 
the property lies to the beach. Many, many of these areas, of course, 
are some of the most expensive areas, most expensive pieces of property 
that you can purchase in the United States of America. To suggest that 
the Federal Government has the responsibility to pay for 65 percent of 
the cost of pumping sand back on that beach every year is ridiculous.
  Let me quote from a statement of the administration's position on 
this that they have just put out:
  ``The administration appreciates the committee's efforts to address 
administration funding priorities for the Army Corps of Engineers civil 
works program. However, the administration is concerned about the 
increase of over $568 million over the request for Corps programs. We 
can have a strong water resources program at the funding level proposed 
in the budget by establishing priorities among projects. The 
administration is particularly concerned that the bill contains 
approximately $360 million for about 350 specifically identified 
projects and activities that were not included in the President's 
budget. We urge Congress to limit the number of projects and to focus 
funding on those projects that address the Corps' principal mission 
areas.
  ``We are disappointed that the committee has included a provision 
that would preclude the Corps from carrying out in fiscal year 2002 the 
administration's proposal to increase local cost-sharing for the 
renourishment phase of ongoing shore protection projects. This cost-
sharing proposal would help ensure that the Federal Government's long-
term renourishment obligations do not crowd out other important funding 
needs. We urge the Congress to reconsider this proposal.''
  Mr. Chairman, I recognize that doing anything on this floor 
especially in this bill that jeopardizes some little tiny part of the 
Corps of Engineers budget is a highly dangerous thing for a Congressman 
to do. I recognize there are many, many people here who benefit as a 
result of the largesse of the committee and whose projects are sacred 
to them. But this is going too far. Once again, this is not necessary. 
This is not requested by the administration. To ask the country, to ask 
the Federal taxpayer to support replenishment of these beaches every 
year, year in and year out for the next 50 years at these costs is just 
not acceptable.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment. I think it is rather ironic that the gentleman offering the 
amendment represents a State that has no shoreline, no ocean, and no 
Gulf of Mexico which he should be concerned about it. But his real 
message should be going to the authorizing committee. This process was 
established by the authorizing committee. It has been in process for a 
great number of years. It is beginning to work. It even is a cost-
saving effort for the Corps of Engineers. In most every case, instead 
of having to go to the expense to haul all of this sand out to some 
foreign place in the ocean and dump it, they are able to get the white 
sand and replenish the beaches.
  We have spent a great deal of effort and money preserving the beaches 
in most every State that has a shoreline, including the State of 
Florida. I do not want to do anything that would do damage to the 
beaches in the State of

[[Page 12129]]

Florida. I want to preserve them, and I want to make absolutely certain 
that the Corps of Engineers understands that this cost-saving project 
for the Corps should not be borne by the State of Florida in the 65-35 
ratio that they are talking about.
  Mr. Chairman, the beaches in Florida are probably the most beautiful 
in the world, especially in the panhandle of Florida next door to my 
district.

                              {time}  1530

  I would not do anything to destroy those beaches. I want to protect 
them. I want to enhance them, and I think the protection and 
enhancement comes from beach nourishment. It is also applicable to the 
State of Alabama, at Dauphin Island in Alabama and Gulf Shores, 
Alabama, which also has beautiful beaches.
  It is applicable to the Great Lakes. It is applicable to the State of 
New Jersey. We are doing something positive. We are taking the sand 
that we are moving from the deepening of channels, putting it on the 
beaches and replenishing beaches that have been washed away by 
hurricanes, by natural erosion, and making our beaches beautiful and 
making them places where people can go and enjoy sometime in the water 
and sometime in the sun.
  So we should not be doing anything to diminish the type of 
advancement that the Corps is making, but most of all we should not be 
doing it here. We are not the authorizing committee. We are simply the 
Committee on Appropriations. We have spent a great deal of money in 
appropriations on this committee providing the necessary monies to the 
Corps of Engineers to enhance these projects.
  And I certainly understand the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
not being concerned about how beautiful the beaches are in Florida or 
whether or not they should be preserved or whether the beautiful 
beaches of New Jersey or whether the beaches on the Great Lakes should 
be preserved. What if we went out to Colorado and said that we are not 
going to allow any snow, we are not going to allow any water to roll 
down those beautiful rivers? What if we were going to have to do 
something to enhance the rivers of Colorado? He would be here saying, 
let us do this, let us do that, and I would be saying, yes, sir, we are 
going to do that; we are going to help him preserve his beautiful river 
system in Colorado. And we would ask his assistance in helping us to 
preserve the beautiful beach systems that the bordering States of the 
oceans and Gulf of Mexico and the Great Lakes have.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the chairman in strong opposition to 
this amendment. First of all, coastal shore protection projects are 
equivalent to flood protection for inland communities. This proposal 
places storm damage prevention and shore protection projects at a cost-
sharing disadvantage with comparable inland flood control projects. It 
will disproportionately affect poor communities which will be unable to 
raise adequate funds for these projects. It also violates the cost-
sharing agreements already in place for some ongoing shore protection 
projects. It abrogates existing, ongoing, long-term contracts with non-
Federal sponsors, and it is inconsistent with the agreed cost-sharing 
adopted by the WRDA legislation of 1986.
  Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to speak strongly against this amendment for 
several reasons. First of all, I want to address my comments to some of 
the comments that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) made. I 
need to stress, first of all, Mr. Chairman, that if this amendment were 
to pass, I assure everyone that the shore protection beach 
replenishment projects in New Jersey and probably throughout the 
country would simply not take place. It is erroneous to assume that the 
towns that are being asked to foot the bill, and in this case under 
this amendment the additional costs to pay for these beach 
replenishment projects, would be able to pay for them. They simply 
would not.
  I live in a municipality that has about 30,000 people. I represent 
some towns that have less than 2,000 people. They barely are able to 
get the money together now to pay for the percentage that they have to 
pay with the Federal Government paying most of the cost. If they had to 
double or triple that under the funding formula that the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is proposing, the beach replenishment projects 
would simply not take place.
  Let me say that in my district where one of these projects basically 
extends about 50 miles along the shoreline, that with a very small 
exception, probably of that 50 miles maybe no more than one or two, we 
are talking about public municipally owned beaches. We are not talking 
about mansions and big homes and wealthy Gold Coast municipalities 
here. The town that I live in has 5 miles of that 50-mile coastline 
that is affected by a beach replenishment project. We are what we call 
an urban-aid project in New Jersey, which means we are one of the 
poorer towns in the State. We have the second poorest town in the 
State. I will not mention the name. I do not need to. That is also part 
of this project. We are not talking about rich areas.
  This will not happen. These projects will not take place if this 
amendment were to pass.
  Now let me talk about two other things that I think are misleading 
here with regard to this amendment. First of all, I think it should be 
understood that the current beach replenishment program is done in a 
way to save the Federal Government money. Not cost the Federal 
Government more money, but save the Federal Government money. I will 
say why.
  The Army Corps of Engineers goes through a very strict cost benefit 
analysis in deciding which of these beach replenishment projects to 
fund, and they weigh the costs and the benefit to the Federal 
Government. In every case, the cost to the Federal Government has to be 
significantly less than the benefit. What is the cost to the Federal 
Government if they do not do the projects? Well, we know about FEMA. We 
know about emergency disaster declarations after a hurricane or a tidal 
wave or whatever it happens to be.
  We have a lot of hurricanes along the New Jersey coast. Every time 
there is a hurricane, there is an emergency disaster declaration. The 
Federal Government, under FEMA, has to come in and spend millions and 
millions of dollars to replace and rectify the situation and the damage 
that occurs.
  The Army Corps of Engineers does these beach replenishment projects 
not because they want to give somebody a nice beach to sit on but 
because they know that they do not have to come in with a disaster 
declaration because the storm does not affect the upland area, the 
infrastructure, the utilities, the roads, that the Federal Government 
would have to come in and bail out.
  This is done to save the Federal Government money that they would 
have to spend through a disaster declaration. It makes no sense not to 
do these projects from the Federal Government's point of view. It is 
cost effective.
  Lastly, I want to make one other point, Mr. Chairman. It has not been 
said yet but I am sure I am going to hear from some that somehow these 
projects are not good for the environment. That is simply not true. 
There is strong indication that when beach replenishment is done it is 
a good thing for the environment. We have been able to do the beach 
replenishment so that the surfers and the bathers and the fisherman are 
not negatively impacted. It can be done and it has been done, and it 
has to be done under the current law so there is access to the beaches 
for the public and so that the beaches are done or sculpted in a way 
that the people that use the ocean, whether they be fisherman or 
surfers or whatever, can continue to do so.
  So do not let anybody tell me that a vote on this amendment is a good 
environmental vote. That is simply not true. I am one of the staunchest 
defenders for the environment in the

[[Page 12130]]

House of Representatives. A vote against this is a good environmental 
vote. I am going to tell everybody I know who thinks that somehow this 
is something that relates to the environment, it is not. Beach 
replenishment is good. It helps the Federal Government cut costs. It is 
good for the communities and it is good for the environment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tancredo amendment, which 
removes the protections in the bill for existing projects and allows 
for contracts the government has signed with communities across the 
Nation to be broken. The Tancredo amendment singles out existing beach 
renourishment, storm damage prevention projects for special adverse 
treatment. This amendment would cause serious harm to a project already 
underway in my district, Brevard County.
  The Federal Government caused most of the erosion along the beaches 
in Brevard County when they constructed the Federal inlet in 1953. This 
inlet was to create Point Canaveral and a facility for the U.S. Navy so 
that they could take part in testing of their ballistic missile 
program.
  Indeed, one can say the Federal inlet in Brevard County was part of 
our national effort to win the Cold War. Studies have been completed by 
the Corps of Engineers, the county, independent experts and, yes, even 
the U.S. Department of Justice and all have found the Federal 
Government largely at fault.
  In fact, the Justice Department settled a case brought by over 300 
coastal property owners because they knew the Federal Government was 
guilty. That agreement calls for this project to be completed.
  There are serious environmental issues here as well. Brevard County 
beaches are home to the largest concentration of nesting and endangered 
sea turtles in North America. Ten percent of the entire sea turtle 
nesting population in North America lays its eggs on these beaches. 
Throwing a roadblock in front of this project will further threaten 
this endangered species and contribute to more habitat erosion.
  In short, the formula that currently exists is the proper formula, 
and I believe that this amendment would do serious harm.
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 
opposition to this amendment to reduce the Federal Government's 
investment in beach renourishment.
  This proposal is not only shortsighted but it clearly violates 
today's agreements that local communities have arranged with the Army 
Corps of Engineers. To walk away from these commitments is simply 
wrong. How can we expect the coastal communities in South Carolina and 
other States to successfully budget for other major infrastructure 
investments if we arbitrarily increase their local cost share by over 
80 percent?
  I support reigning in unnecessary government spending, but our shore 
protection program, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely necessary for us to 
maintain the Federal Government's responsibility for coastal hazard and 
erosion protection.
  If we do not honor the current Federal-local cost-sharing formula, we 
should know the communities in my district, including Myrtle Beach and 
Folly Beach and 150 miles of the shoreline of South Carolina will be 
facing an enormous financial hardship, so much so that it jeopardizes 
the progress we have made in improving our water and waste water 
infrastructure, roads, and bridges.
  Without the current cost-share partnership, we risk the preservation 
of the beautiful beaches that attract over 12 million visitors 
throughout our country. Our beaches belong to everybody. They provide a 
wonderful source of recreation for both young and old Americans. We 
hope our responsibility will be seen to help preserve these great 
natural resources.
  Contrary to the programs' critics, beach renourishment is a sound 
investment. I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-advised amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it took 15 years in Brevard 
County to develop this formula and this agreement. This amendment would 
set back years of work. I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to 
keep the faith that has been established between the Federal Government 
and all of these communities throughout the country. The provisions, 
the language that the chairman and the ranking member have put in this 
bill, I think, are very wise in grandfathering the existing programs 
under the current formula; and I would encourage all of my colleagues 
to reject this amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes, 
the time to be equally divided between the proponent of the amendment 
and a Member opposed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just 
want to make sure that I am going to have a chance as a sponsor of the 
amendment to have my opportunity to make a presentation.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer) that I will yield time to him.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time will be equally divided between the sponsor of 
the amendment, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), and the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) will control the time in 
opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to some of the issues that have been 
brought up here, especially by my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone), who suggests that there is no environmental concerns 
that should come up as a result of this and that anybody that suggests 
there is an environmental problem is simply off base, of course, he is 
therefore saying that the following organizations, American Rivers, 
Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund and Environmental Defense, Friends of 
the Earth, League of Conservation Voters, National Wildlife Federation, 
Sierra Club, all of these people do not know what they are talking 
about when it comes to environmental issues and whether in this 
particular case especially they are simply off base.
  Well, I do not certainly consider myself to be an expert in this 
particular area but I would say that there is some cause for concern 
with regard to the environmental issues developed by this beach 
replenishing program.
  Federally subsidized beach projects mainly benefit wealthy vacation 
condo owners and tourism. The gentleman from Myrtle Beach, South 
Carolina (Mr. Brown) referred to the fact that 12 million visitors a 
year enjoy these particular areas.

                              {time}  1545

  I think that is wonderful. Now, in fact, who is benefiting from those 
12 million visitors? It is, of course, the communities that are 
adjacent to these beaches. Those communities should be responsible for 
the majority of the cost of replenishing the beaches. That is all we 
are saying here. We are agreeing with the administration.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the 
gentleman in yielding time to me. I am pleased to join him in 
cosponsoring this amendment.

[[Page 12131]]

  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman had it right when he mentioned 
that there is at least an argument when you look at the major 
environmental organizations around the country who suggest that this 
Congress ought to have a debate like this on this floor on the 
environmental and economic impacts of these massive beach replenishment 
programs.
  With all due respect to our other friend from Florida, it is true 
that the Federal Government at times has created these problems. It is 
because we are in a vicious cycle here. We engineer our beaches, we 
fortify them, we put up jetties, we accelerate the process of coastal 
erosion, and we make the problem worse.
  Then we come forward with these interesting projects. We have watched 
over the years as the Corps of Engineers and this Congress has expanded 
dramatically the sweep of the Federal involvement in beach nourishment 
and replenishment.
  I think we ought to take a deep breath, take a step back and support 
this amendment, and give this administration an opportunity to pursue 
an initiative that is both environmentally sensitive and is fiscally 
responsible.
  When we look at these massive projects, we have authorized one and 
two-thirds billion dollars in the last decade alone. In the State of 
New Jersey, where my good friend mentioned a moment ago it was of 
concern to his district, well, it is. If you look at beach nourishment 
costs in New Jersey, it is $60 million per mile.
  In WRDA, I dare say there were very few Members on this floor who 
understood the massive project that was slipped in without significant 
debate for a 14 mile stretch of beach in Dare County, North Carolina, 
for $1.8 billion, a commitment over the next 50 years. I would dare say 
that a massive project on this scale merits discussion on the floor of 
this Chamber, but we do not have it. I was a member of the authorizing 
committee. It was news to me. I dare say it was news to other Members 
here.
  It is not a benign process akin to snow in the gentleman from 
Colorado's district, or, with all due respect, that it is just 
someplace that we have to put the beach spoils, the dredging spoils. 
This saves the Federal Government money.
  Take a look at the record. Mr. Chairman, there have been exposes; in 
fact, there have been journalistic exposes dealing with the State of 
Florida with the massive amount of ecological destruction. There is not 
just spoils with white sand that we would have to pay somebody to take 
over. Oftentimes we go out and we disturb sensitive ecosystems for 
dredging materials that we end up putting in these areas.
  If you look at the cost factors, noted Duke geologist Orrin Pilkey, a 
recognized expert in this area, points out that usually beach 
nourishment projects cost twice what the cost estimate is, and it ends 
up being about half as effective.
  We could look in Ocean City, Maryland, where the Army Corps of 
Engineers budgeted to use 15 million cubic yards of sand over the next 
50 years of beach replenishment, but in the first 3 years of that 
project the Corps had used one-third of the total sand allocation. I am 
blanking right now on the project, and I can get it for you, where it 
has been on average one a year on the east coast.
  There are problems here of significant magnitude. It is not 
ecologically benign. It is extraordinarily expensive, and we are facing 
a situation where FEMA has commissioned studies that indicate over the 
next 60 years we are going to have 25 percent of the structures within 
500 feet of the ocean coastline subjected to erosion and damage. That 
is without taking into account the impact of global climate change.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is an opportunity for people who care 
deeply about the environment to join with people who sympathize with 
the members of this committee who do not have enough money to solve the 
problems and allow the Bush administration to see if they can come up 
with a better cost formula. The Democrats ought to be able to submit to 
this. It is something also that the Clinton administration wanted to 
do. I think this is an important issue.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Shaw). No man in this body has been more vocal and 
outstanding in the preservation of beaches than the former mayor of 
Fort Lauderdale.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I 
want to congratulate the chairman of the full committee as well as the 
ranking members of the full committee and subcommittee for recognizing 
the importance of beach renourishment.
  I have heard some figures thrown out here today that make absolutely 
zero sense. $60 million a mile? I know of no beach renourishment 
anywhere in the country, and I checked with the gentleman from New 
Jersey, and he said that is absolutely preposterous.
  I listened to the gentleman from Colorado where he said he is no 
expert on the particular subject. He has brought the amendment here, 
and he has quoted some various environmental organizations, some of 
which have credibility, some of which I think are somewhat debatable.
  But, in any event, let me ask the question to any environmentalist 
here in the Chamber: I have beaches that are nothing but rock. Is that 
an environmentally sensitive area that should be protected? These were 
naturally covered with sand. Now the sand is gone. In Boca Raton, 
Florida, a whole strip is nothing but rock. You go down into the 
southern part of Broward County and Dade County, you are seeing the 
same thing. These beaches need to be renourished.
  If one is concerned about the turtle and reproduction of the turtle, 
they do not lay their eggs in rocks; they lay them in beach sand. There 
is great sensitivity as to the time we do the beach renourishment. It 
is very strictly regulated as to the breeding seasons of the turtles, 
so you do not destroy their natural habitat.
  We talk about FEMA and 500 feet within the beach. I can tell you, the 
ocean is coming right up to many of the structures, and they are going 
to be destroyed if we do not get back involved and stay involved in 
beach renourishment.
  The right of contract, the word of the Federal Government, the 
obligations of the government, these would all be wiped out with this 
senseless amendment.
  This amendment must be defeated. I urge all my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment.
  I would say in closing, view the beaches of this country as a long 
national park. We heard that the local communities should pay because 
they are the ones benefiting from it. Do you want to make the same 
argument about our national park system? I doubt it. It is there for 
all Americans.
  Over half the Americans in this country do their vacationing at the 
beaches of this country. Let us keep our beaches safe. Let us keep them 
environmentally where they should be.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very 
much for yielding me time.
  I want to say to my good friend from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), I 
generally agree with him on just about every vote we have; but on this 
one he is totally wrong. I want to take a different perspective.
  Not talking about the environmental issues, I must say to the 
gentleman from Oregon, I have great respect for you also, though I 
disagree, but Dr. Pilkey is an extremist. I do not have the time to get 
into why I feel he is an extremist, but he is.
  Let me very briefly say that what we are talking about is the economy 
of these beach areas, the people that pay taxes, the people that want 
to do for their families. That is really what it comes down to.
  Let me give you an example. In Dare County, which the gentleman made 
reference to earlier, the Corps of Engineers says for every $1 spent on 
beach renourishment in Dare County, it will return $1.90 cents to the 
Federal Government. So any time we can make

[[Page 12132]]

those kinds of investments, we need to do that. We need to partnership 
with the people of this country that pay the taxes.
  So I want to say to the chairman and the ranking member, thank you 
very much for this effort. I want to close in saying, Mr. Chairman, 
that beaches are this country's economic engines. Four times as many 
people will visit beaches this year as will visit the national parks. 
That is telling you how important the beaches are to the American 
people.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I too rise in opposition to this amendment. It has been 
stated that four times as many people visit our beaches as visit the 
national parks in our country.
  What do people dream about? They dream about going to the beach. If 
they talk about their retirement, they talk about being on a beach 
someplace. People want to basically be on beaches. We have many beaches 
in Delaware that are probably as popular in these buildings around here 
as any beaches in the entire country. Foreign visitors want to come to 
beaches in the United States of America.
  There is tremendous economic production from the beaches that we have 
across this country, a huge tax benefit, up to 180 times the Federal 
share that is involved in paying for the beach replenishment which we 
have. If we did not have this replenishment, it would be almost 
impossible to have these dreams, to have the ability to offer our 
beaches to people around the United States of America.
  It also protects our migrant birds, which come into my State and come 
into some other States. It protects us from major storms. And there is 
huge population growth across the United States of America from our 
beaches back inland, because people like to be able to access and go to 
the beaches of our country.
  This, unfortunately, is an amendment which is wrong-headed in terms 
of what it does, and we should defeat it.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say to this body and to the world that when I 
retire, if I ever do, I intend to spend a great deal of time in 
southern Florida on my boat; and I want to view these beautiful beaches 
as I patrol the waters of the Atlantic and the Gulf Mexico and the 
Keys, and I want to go down in history, if I leave any mark on this 
Congress, as the man who saved the Florida beaches. I think the fact 
that I am going to go down in history as the man who preserved the 
beauty of the Florida beaches is a good compliment to the service that 
I have had in this Congress. So I look forward to that reputation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a feeling that regardless of what happens with 
this amendment, even if it were to pass, that my friend and colleague, 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), will be able to enjoy a very 
pleasant retirement on the beaches.
  The fact is that, of course, we are not talking about anything here 
that is going to eliminate the beaches of the Nation. It is just crazy 
to suggest that if we would allow the administration to go back to a 
35-65 split, that, all of a sudden, all the beach property in this 
Nation is gone. Nobody would take care of it. The communities that live 
alongside of it, the homes that are built alongside of it, it is not 
their responsibility; it is somehow ours, and if we did not kick in 65 
percent, it all disappears.
  Of course, that is not accurate. It is not what this amendment is 
intended to do, but it is typical. I know any time we are trying to cut 
10 cents out of the budget around here, it is almost the most dire 
consequence we can possibly think of that we use in response to the 
request to cut the funds.
  This is not even a request to cut. We will still spend the money; it 
is just who is going to be responsible for it. It is not even mandating 
that we go to the 65-35 split, 65 local. It is saying let us let the 
administration have the option of managing this. It is not mandating a 
thing in here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if people really 
are serious about preserving the beaches, that maybe this Chamber could 
be more serious about global climate change, the rising level of 
oceans, because what we are talking about with beach nourishment, if 
what the scientific experts tell us is accurate, we may be fighting an 
uphill battle.
  I would duly suggest that maybe suggesting allowing the Bush 
administration an opportunity to revisit these issues is not something 
that is a radical and extreme position. It is one of these areas where 
there is a convergence, I think, of fiscal conservatism and thoughtful 
environmentalism.
  It is true that sometimes there are rocks that occur on beaches. 
There is a natural ebb and flow. We have it in beaches in Oregon. What 
we have done, however, in our infinite wisdom, is we continue to 
fortify the beaches, to engineer them, to put up jetties, to put in 
sand, to disrupt the process, so actually it ends up making it worse 
over time.

                              {time}  1600

  So the Federal taxpayer is on the hook. We mess up the natural 
process of restoring the beaches, and when we are further looking at 
changes that are a natural part of the environmental process, we just 
make it worse.
  In Oregon, we had a situation with the senior Senator from our State 
having beachfront property that is being eroded, and there was a great 
hullabaloo because there was an effort to try and restore and fortify 
and wall off that portion of the beach. We made it a difficult public 
policy decision that that would simply put the taxpayer on the hook and 
deflect the problem further.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that these are difficult, but I would 
think that we need to take our time, stepping up and being serious 
about this. Otherwise we are going to end up putting the taxpayer on 
the hook for a lot of money that is going to make the problem worse 
over time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the committee, who 
knows firsthand the importance of this issue.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the subcommittee chairman, for doing a 
really good job on this bill, as I have said earlier. I must say that I 
really appreciate his commitment to Florida's beaches. I know that he 
will have many opportunities to help support Florida's beaches and 
protect them in their pristine condition as we go through the various 
appropriations processes. Seriously, I really do appreciate that 
support.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and in favor of 
the committee position. The committee thought about this. The 
subcommittee thought that we should review this issue, and we did. The 
reason that we have a formula of Federal-State partnership is for the 
same reasons we have a partnership for highways. We have a Federal-
State-local formula for building highways and maintaining highways, 
because people all over America use highways, all over America. People 
from all over America use beaches, wherever they might be in America.
  We have heard the arguments about the economic effect, the economic 
impact. We have heard the arguments about the pleasure-seeking people 
who go to the beach to swim and get out into the sun and have a good 
time, and all of those are good, solid arguments. There is more to it 
than just that.
  The fact of the matter is that having a good beach protects the 
infrastructure of the community. Now, I live in a

[[Page 12133]]

community where we have water on the Gulf of Mexico on one side, water 
from Tampa Bay on the other side, water from Boca Ciega Bay goes right 
up the middle, but we have a lot of waterfront. I can tell my 
colleagues when we get a hurricane in Florida, in my part of the State, 
most of the damage comes from the high water that pounds against the 
sea wall, that pounds against these structures. The better beach that 
exists, the less damage we have to the infrastructure. I have seen 
roads and highways washed out because there was no beach to protect 
against that hurricane tidal surge. So it is important that we not only 
have the economic effect, the tourist effect, but the effect of 
protecting the infrastructure of the communities.
  Now, the formula was established by law. We should not be changing 
the formula in an appropriation bill. If the gentleman wants to change 
the formula, the gentleman should go to the appropriate authorizing 
committee and offer a bill.
  I can understand the concern of the gentleman from Colorado, because 
he has a lot of beach, but he has no water, and a beach without water 
does not really cut it, and it does not really have the same problems 
of those of us that have beaches with water.
  So anyway, it is a good debate, and we did consider it seriously, but 
I think it is important that we stick with the committee and vote down 
this amendment. It maybe well-intentioned, but it is not a good 
amendment.
  Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. States and communities in my district and all over the 
nation have already entered into binding beach renourishment contracts 
with the Corps of Engineers with the 65 percent federal/35 percent 
local cost share formula in place for projects authorized before 
January 1st of this year. In fact, the current funding formula has been 
specifically authorized by Congress. It would be grossly unfair to 
suddenly require these states and municipalities to put up almost twice 
as much money as had already been agreed upon to protect their beaches 
and their tourist economies.
  Supporters of this amendment claim that shore protection funding only 
benefits ``resort communities.'' Nothing could be further from the 
truth. The fact of the matter is, our nation's beaches contribute to 
our national economy, with local communities just the tip of the 
iceberg. Four times as many people visit our nation's beaches each year 
than visit all of our National Parks combined. It is estimated that 75 
percent of Americans will spend their vacations at the beach this year. 
Beaches are the most popular destination for foreign visitors to our 
country as well. The amount of money spent by these beach tourists 
creates a huge tax benefit, most of which goes to the Federal 
government. That tax revenue each year is more than 180 times the 
Federal share of shore protection projects annually.
  I understand my friend from Colorado's sincere desire to control 
federal spending. However, I think he is taking the wrong approach 
here. Decisions like this should be made in the authorization process, 
and not on preexisting contracts. If the supporters of this amendment 
want to further change the formulas, then I suggest that they work with 
the authorizing committee.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
amendment which would eliminate the federal cost share of 65 percent 
for US Army Corps of Engineers beach replenishment projects.
  Beach replenishment is vital to the coastal economies in our country. 
Millions of residents and small businesses make their home near the 
coastline and that population increases dramatically in the summer as 
tourists flock to the beaches. The continued economic health of our 
nation's beaches is dependent on these important beach replenishment 
projects by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The pristine white sand 
beaches are not only a vital component of the tourist industry, but an 
important natural resource that supports populations of commercially 
and recreationally significant fish and rare and endangered species.
  This amendment proposes to eliminate the federal cost share of 65 
percent for beach replenishment for ongoing and future projects.
  Coastal communities have been asked to ``voluntarily'' increase their 
cost share for beach replenishment projects to 65 percent, despite that 
current project authorizations are at a 35 percent state cost share. 
This is obviously unfair to the State and local governments, who have 
budgeted their costs for beach replenishment based on their contracts 
with the federal government and do not have the additional funds which 
is almost double their authorized cost share.
  Coastal States have consistently shown their commitment to assist in 
the preservation and replenishment of beaches along the Nation's 
coastlines. The proposed Federal change in cost sharing would only 
result in the delay or elimination of Corps of Engineers projects 
potentially increasing the property damage from hurricanes and severe 
storm events.
  Many coastal communities, such as mine, have suffered from repeated 
storm events over the last several years which has resulted in the 
narrowing and lowering of the beaches and dunes. This steady erosion 
has reduced storm protection that would otherwise have been available, 
which will only result in more property damage when the next storm or 
hurricane hits.
  Each state receives federal funds to protect its communities from 
natural disaster, whether it is tornado, earthquake, drought resulting 
in crop damage, flood or hurricane. It is not fair to the coastal 
communities to withhold federal funds that would otherwise be available 
to prevent damage from natural disaster.
  I urge by fellow colleagues to oppose this amendment and remember all 
states benefit from our nation's beautiful shoreline.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  I commend Chairman Callahan for producing a bill that ensures our 
Nation's commitment to work in continued partnership with our state and 
local communities to address the vital need of shore protection and for 
supporting the traditional funding ratio that worked so well.
  In my home state of New Jersey, tourism is vital to keeping our 
economy. With 127 miles of our clean beaches open for visitors from 
around the country and the world; this federal/state partnership helps 
maintain a dynamic tourism industry that employs over 800,000 people in 
my state alone.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time having expired, the question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XXVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo) will be postponed.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I 
would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, my family came to Texas in the 1840s and settled in 
Hill and Bosque County in the 1870s around a community called Whitney. 
My great-great-grandfather and my great-grandfather and my grandfather 
and my father all grew up on a farm under what is now Lake Whitney, 
because in the 1940s, the Corps of Engineers built a public lake. Since 
1954, that lake has been open for use. There have been hundreds, if not 
thousands, of boat docks put on that lake, but beginning in the 1970s, 
the Corps began to refuse permits for new boat docks and, as the old 
boat docks have declined, they have refused to allow them to continue 
to be maintained.
  I had submitted language to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
Appropriations that would be no cost, but would simply allow a holder 
of a permit on Lake Whitney for a boat dock to use that permit. I would 
like to ask the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), 
the chairman of the subcommittee, ``Beach Boy Callahan,'' if he would 
support at some point in the process insertion of language that is of 
absolutely no cost to the Federal Government, but which would allow 
people around Lake Whitney which, at some point in time, had a permit 
for a boat dock to utilize that permit.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am a little surprised because I 
represent

[[Page 12134]]

both Hill County and Bosque County. This is the first I have heard 
about it, and none of this is in the gentleman's district. I respect 
the fact that he has family ties in the area, but as a member of the 
subcommittee, I would have at least asked the gentleman to contact me 
to ask me if I am aware of what he is trying to do.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman 
and I have actually had discussions on this.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I had no idea 
this issue was coming up. It is wholly within my district. I am the 
only Texan of either party on this subcommittee. I do not know that I 
would have objection; I do not know if I would support the gentleman's 
request, but it seems like it would have been common courtesy to 
approach me personally.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have done that.
  Mr. EDWARDS. It would have been common courtesy to approach me 
personally and say, I am going to come to the floor today to talk to 
the chairman of the subcommittee about something that is not in my 
district that is within yours.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, I 
think the gentleman from Waco has got an absolutely sincere complaint. 
The gentleman and I have spoken on this several times, but not in the 
last week. I thought this was in the bill.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, not in the last month, not in the last 
year that I can recall.
  My request to the gentleman would be this: This bill still has a long 
way to go. I am more than willing to sit down with the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the ranking member, and the gentleman from Texas and see 
if we agree on this. But I would think before we shape the future of my 
congressional district, that I would have some input on this.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, the 
gentleman and I have not had a discussion on this recently.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Not in the last year.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Yes, we have. Yes, we have.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I will say to the gentleman, I honestly do 
not recall that discussion. I have dealt with this issue since 1974 
when I worked for former Congressman Tiger Teague, and I think I would 
remember if we had a discussion any time in the last 12 months on this.
  My request is simply one of common courtesy. I would like to work 
with the gentleman on this. I would like to work with the chairman on 
this. I would hope that we would not make any decision today on this. 
Let us work in good faith and sit down, since this is entirely, 
completely within my congressional district.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I will 
withdraw my request for a colloquy, because I am absolutely stunned at 
what the gentleman has just said.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am stunned 
that this came up on the floor today, quite frankly. But despite being 
stunned on both sides, let us sit down and talk this out as two Members 
of Congress from the State of Texas and see if we can proceed.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me explain my position. This problem 
is not limited to just one county in Texas, it also is applicable to 
some portions of Alabama and other States where the same type of 
incident is taking place. My agreement with the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) was that I would agree to sit down with him to try to work 
out a problem that impacts me as well as other Members of Congress.
  So it was not intended to move into one particular county, but to 
discuss the overall issue of what they are doing with these facilities 
that these people have been using, in some cases for decades. I do 
think that we ought to try to find a solution that will apply to 
Alabama and to Georgia and to Missouri and all over the Nation, because 
we are all facing a similar problem.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say one 
thing, because I am not going to press the point. But the language that 
I had prepared does not expand the number of boat permits, it simply 
says if there is an existing boat permit or has been, that it can be 
utilized. That is all it does.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I think what the gentleman from Alabama 
has suggested makes eminent sense; I respect that. I would look forward 
to being a part of that conversation along with other Members, but the 
gentleman from Texas's comments only focused on a lake in my district, 
not in any other district.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is true, that is true.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 106. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control 
     Manual when it is made known to the Federal entity or 
     official to which the funds are made available that such 
     revision provides for an increase in the springtime water 
     release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow 
     melt period in States that have rivers draining into the 
     Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam.

                                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, $34,918,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $10,749,000 shall be deposited into 
     the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for 
     use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 
     Commission.
       In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying 
     out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the 
     Interior, $1,310,000, 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, 
     $691,160,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $14,649,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper 
     Colorado River Basin Fund and $31,442,000 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; of which $8,000,000 
     shall be for on-reservation water development, feasibility 
     studies, and related administrative costs under Public Law 
     106-163; and of which not more than $500,000 is for high 
     priority projects which shall be carried out by the Youth 
     Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706: 
     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 ``2001, and 2002'' in lieu of ``and 2001''.


               bureau of reclamation loan program account

       For the cost of direct loans and/or grants, $7,215,000, 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

[[Page 12135]]

     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 $26,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the program for direct loans and/or grants, $280,000, 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, $55,039,000, 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, 
     $52,968,000, 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 made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Bureau of Reclamation (either directly or by 
     making the funds available to an entity under a contract) for 
     the issuance of permits for, or any other activity related to 
     the management of, commercial rafting activities within the 
     Auburn State Recreation Area, California, until the 
     requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
     (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 12151 et seq.) are met with respect to 
     such commercial rafting activities.
       Sec. 202. Section 101(a)(6)(C) of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 274) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(C) Makeup of water shortages caused by flood control 
     operation.--The Secretary of the Interior shall enter into, 
     or modify, such agreements with the Sacramento Area Flood 
     Control Agency regarding the operation of Folsom Dam and 
     Reservoir, as may be necessary, in order that, 
     notwithstanding any prior agreement or provision of law, 100 
     percent of the water needed to make up for any water shortage 
     caused by variable flood control operation during any year at 
     Folsom Dam and resulting in a significant impact to the 
     environment or to recreation shall be replaced, to the extent 
     that water is available, as determined by the Secretary of 
     the Interior, with 100 percent of the cost of such available 
     water borne by the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.''.

  Mr. CALLAHAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of title II be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title II?
  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 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 for replacement only, $639,317,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       In title III, in the item relating to ``DEPARTMENT OF 
     ENERGY ENERGY PROGRAMS; energy supply'' after the aggregate 
     dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $50,000,000)''.
       In title III, in the item relating to ``ATOMIC ENERGY 
     DEFENSE ACTIVITIES NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; 
     Weapons Activities'' after the aggregate dollar amount, 
     insert the following: ``(reduced by $60,000,000)''.

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes, 
the time to be equally divided between the proponent of the amendment 
and a Member opposed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 
just want to know who would control the time on each side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) would control 
the time in favor of the amendment, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) would control the time in opposition.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for a 
very good work product, but every product can be improved, and I think 
that this amendment would improve this energy and water bill 
significantly.
  One of the problems we face as a country, Mr. Chairman, is the fact 
that our energy policy looks backward rather than forward. We are 
dependent too heavily on fossil fuels, and increasingly those fossil 
fuels are coming from places beyond our shores. We are currently 
dependent on more than 50 percent of our oil from places outside of the 
United States.
  What this amendment would do would be to increase the funding for 
renewable energy within this bill by $50 million. It would pay for that 
funding by taking $60 million from the Energy Department's missile 
program.
  Now, that missile program within the Energy Department currently is 
funded at the rate of $5.1 billion. That is just within the Energy 
Department. This bill increased that funding by $118 million for the 
projected fiscal year.
  My amendment would take $60 million from that $118 million increase 
and apply $50 million of it to alternative energy. By alternative 
energy, of course, we mean producing energy through direct solar, by 
wind, geothermal and similar technologies.

                              {time}  1630

  It is important that we do so. It is important that we do so, because 
we want to improve the availability of energy from sources other than 
fossil fuels, and it is particularly important in terms of nuclear 
security, because we want to reduce the amount of energy that we need 
to import from places that are outside the United States.
  We can do that by advancing technologies that promote solar, wind, 
and geothermal energy. Mr. Chairman, up until recently, the United 
States led the world in the production of energy through photovoltaic 
cells and other direct solar means; however, beginning in the decade of 
the 1980s, we began to lose that edge. And that edge currently is 
enjoyed by the Japanese.
  They have the edge on us by producing electricity directly from solar 
and by other solar means and photovoltaic cells particularly.
  Up until recently, we had the edge in producing energy through wind 
technologies. We have lost that edge to the Danes and to the Germans. 
They are currently ahead of us, and they have more advanced technology 
for producing energy through wind than we do.
  We know that within the next several decades, production of energy 
through solar and wind technologies and geothermal technologies will 
provide industrial opportunities globally to the tune of hundreds of 
billions of dollars, perhaps, trillions of dollars, even by the midpart 
of this century. And for that reason, alone, as well as our own 
independence and security, we ought to

[[Page 12136]]

be advancing these techniques for energy production.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that this amendment, which would increase our 
funding for renewable energy technologies by $50 million, is frankly 
little enough; and perhaps, the least that we could do at this 
particular moment.
  It pays for this increase by drawing from the Energy Department's 
missile program. As we know, the Defense Department under Secretary 
Rumsfeld is currently engaged in a top-to-bottom review of our military 
defense program, and our nuclear missile program is going to be a major 
part of that.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill funds nuclear programs through the Energy 
Department in ways that are, I think, greatly outdated, even archaic. 
For example, there is a provision in this bill to pay $96 million for a 
particular type of cruise missile which is used only by the B-52 
bomber.
  Now the B-52 bomber is 40 years old. It is clearly an outdated 
technology, and it is very likely that when the Rumsfeld review, top-
to-bottom of our defense needs, is completed that this particular 
program is going to be rapidly phased out.
  I can cite a number of other nuclear technology examples that are 
archaic, that are outdated, and which will undoubtedly not be funded as 
a result of the top-to-bottom review of the Rumsfeld program. So, 
therefore, I think it makes sense to take this money from that program 
and put it here to renewable energy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I kind of feel like I am torn between two of my 
favorite things, as the ranking member on the panel to oversee the 
national nuclear security administration, I believe we should be 
investing more money in nonproliferation programs and 
counterproliferation programs.
  Obviously, as a Californian, I think it is very important that we 
work hard to make sure that we have strong energy policies and 
diversify our portfolio to make sure that we have renewables and 
alternatives to fossil fuels, but I cannot support this amendment, 
because we are taking very needed money and, frankly, robbing Peter to 
pay Paul.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hinchey 
amendment
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan) for yielding the time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I share the desire of the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Tauscher) that we become more energy independent, but it would be 
a great mistake to take further funds away from our nuclear weapons 
program.
  What the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) may not realize is our 
existing nuclear weapons are 18 years old and aging. They were designed 
to last about 12 years.
  We have decided as a country that we are not going to conduct nuclear 
tests, but some way we have to make sure these weapons continue to be 
safe, reliable, and secure. If we do not have the funds to conduct 
surveillance and to conduct scientific tests, to see whether these 
weapons will continue to be reliable, the only option for us is to go 
back to nuclear testing.
  I am afraid amendments like this which would reduce the funds 
available to just make sure what we have now is safe, secure, and 
reliable drives us inexorably back towards nuclear testing which is not 
an option I suggest the gentleman would like.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment; and I suggest my colleagues do 
likewise.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan) for yielding me the time; and I rise in opposition to 
this amendment.
  Last year, Mr. Chairman, at this time, we were rightfully fixated on 
the security of our national labs and protection of our secrets and the 
protection of our nuclear weapons program and data and research, et al.
  This amendment would strip dollars away from the National Nuclear 
Security Administration's weapons activities program, the very programs 
we have worked to strengthen in last year's budget as a result of well-
publicized security breaches.
  As important as support is for renewable energy programs, the sponsor 
better find a better account to take it from. I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. We have cut the nuclear weapons budget in this country below 
what the President requested by $200 million.
  I have a letter here from John Gordon that he handwrote to me this 
afternoon about this amendment and some others that might result in the 
further reduction of money for the nuclear weapons stockpile 
stewardship program. It says in part, now, on top of this comes news of 
potential further budget cuts resulting from possible floor amendments. 
This is completely unacceptable if we are to have any chance of meeting 
our high-priority mission needs.
  The nuclear weapons program is supposed to certify the safety, 
security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. Our 
stockpiling is aging, and we must continue to make sure it is safe and 
reliable for this country.
  As much as I support conservation and investment in renewable energy, 
this is the wrong place at the wrong time to take that money from.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have only one more speaker and I think 
we have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining and the right to 
close. All time has expired on the other side.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a valuable member of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and our expert on this 
issue.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the 
ranking member, for hearing our bipartisan plea to increase the funding 
for renewable energy sources in this bill.
  We increased the funding $100 million above the President's request. 
We worked overtime to make sure that this appropriation bill matches 
the national energy policy from a balanced comprehensive approach. And 
as the cochairman of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Caucus 
with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), I thank them for hearing 
our plea to increase renewables.
  The result is good and balanced, but the other side of the well-
intended amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) is that 
it takes funding from our nuclear stockpile stewardship and management.
  Our country must maintain a safe and reliable stockpile for nuclear 
weapons. That decision has been made. That is not even debatable, 
frankly, in this country, in terms of the consensus of Americans that 
expect us to have a reliable nuclear weapons stockpile.
  We must maintain our national preparedness, and we are losing that 
capability, so we must fight back this amendment in a bipartisan way.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
amendment.
  Reluctant because I have been an outspoken critic of the President's 
budget, which made drastic cuts to COE's renewable energy programs. 
Programs that promote renewable energy technologies must be part of any 
comprehensive energy plan for our country.
  I am pleased that my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee have 
restored some of the funding to the renewable energy accounts, 
providing $1 million above last year's levels.

[[Page 12137]]

  Clearly more needs to be done. It is important to advance deployment 
of renewable technologies for applicable use in our homes and 
businesses and on our grids as soon as possible.
  But Mr. Chairman, I must oppose any attempt to defer fully funding 
our nuclear weapons programs while we wait for the Secretary of 
Defense's Strategic Review to be completed.
  As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I can tell you 
that the Secretary has briefed me and my colleagues on the status of 
this Review, and based on these briefings, it is unclear when this 
Review will be completed.
  These programs are vital to our national security and can not afford 
to be underfunded or delayed until the Administration concludes its 
Review.
  And given some of the military needs identified in this year's 
supplemental appropriations bill, like training and readiness, military 
personnel quality of life issues, and advanced weapons systems; it is 
clear that the funding needs of our nuclear weapons programs at DOE 
next year must be maintained in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Hinchey) will be postponed.
  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, $227,872,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman 
Callahan) for his work on this bill. Over the years, I have been 
intimately involved in several of the issues contained in this bill, 
and I am aware of the many challenges that he faces in putting it 
together.
  It is one of those issues about which I rise today. For several 
decades, Congress has debated the merits of constructing a massive 
water on the Animas River in Colorado. Last fall, the Colorado Ute 
Settlement Act Amendments of 2000 was included in the end-of-the-year 
omnibus appropriations bill with little opportunity for debate or a 
vote on this specific project, and today's bill appropriates $16 
million for it.
  While the features of this Animas La Plata project are not as 
egregious as earlier versions, there are serious concerns that 
significant loopholes remain which will enable project beneficiaries to 
violate the intent of the act.
  None of these loopholes is more significant than the possibility that 
nontribal beneficiaries are going to avoid their responsibilities, as 
required by reclamation law, for the full repayment of all capital and 
operating costs associated with their share of water from the project.
  This has been a continuing concern of many of us who have opposed 
this project in the past. There are already some indications that local 
nontribal water users may be trying to do just that with the potential 
of buying water from the tribes instead.
  To cite just one example, on May 24, 2001, the director of Colorado's 
Water Conservation Board sent an e-mail to other State officials 
stating, and I quote, ``given the cost of ALP water, I do not think the 
State can afford to purchase. We discussed the possibility of an option 
to lease or option to purchase at some future date with a nominal 
annual payment. I would prefer to let the Feds pay for it at this time 
with the Indians holding title.''
  The language adopted last year clearly states that nontribal 
repayment arrangements must be made before construction begins. 
Furthermore, it directed the Secretary of the Interior to report to 
Congress by April 1 of this year on the status of the repayment 
negotiations. That report has still not been made.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that what was declared in the 1987 ad in the 
Colorado paper does not come to pass. It said, ``Why should we support 
the Animas La Plata project? Reason number seven, because someone else 
is paying most of the tab. We get the water. We get the reservoir. They 
pay the bill.''
  If the local beneficiaries are not willing to pay their share, nobody 
else's constituents should have to pay this bill. Such a situation 
certainly begs the question of whether the project is really 
worthwhile, that is what the principle of cost sharing is all about.
  I will continue to closely monitor the development of this project 
and, if necessary, work to stop the further funding of this project if 
it does not progress as required by law, and I ask the chairman and the 
committee and all of my colleagues to do the same.
  Please keep an eye on this project and do not allow it to move 
forward if all parties do not fulfill their repayment obligations.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

             Uranium Facilities Maintenance and Remediation

       For necessary expenses to maintain, decontaminate, 
     decommission, and otherwise remediate uranium processing 
     facilities, $393,425,000, of which $272,641,000 shall be 
     derived from the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
     Decommissioning 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 25 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, $3,166,395,000, 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, $133,000,000, 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 
     $6,000,000 shall 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 realized by the Secretary in carrying out 
     activities authorized by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 
     1982, 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


                     (including transfer of funds)

       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

[[Page 12138]]

     of passenger motor vehicles and official reception and 
     representation expenses (not to exceed $35,000), 
     $209,611,000, 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 of 
     the funds provided to the Department of Energy under title 
     III of Public Law 105-277 for activities related to achieving 
     Year 2000 conversion of Federal information technology 
     systems and related expenses, remaining balances, estimated 
     to be $1,480,000, may be transferred to this account, and 
     shall remain available until expended, for continuation of 
     information technology enhancement activities: Provided 
     further, That moneys received by the Department for 
     miscellaneous revenues estimated to total $137,810,000 in 
     fiscal year 2002 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 2002 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2002 
     appropriation from the General Fund estimated at not more 
     than $71,801,000.

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, as amended, $32,430,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATON

                           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 
     not to exceed 11 passenger motor vehicles for replacement 
     only, $5,123,888,000, to remain available until expended.

                              {time}  1630


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       In title III, in the item relating to ``Weapons 
     Activities'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $122,500,000)''.
       In title III, in the item relating to ``Defense Nuclear 
     Nonproliferation'', after the aggregate dollar amount, insert 
     the following: ``(increased by $66,000,000)''.

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the National Ignition Facility is a 
multibillion-dollar giant laser designed to blast a radioactive fuel 
pellet in an attempt to create a nuclear fusion explosion. The 
Department of Energy considers the National Ignition Facility important 
to its Stockpile Stewardship program, but according to experts, the 
project is overbudget, may not be technically feasible, and is not 
necessary to maintain our nuclear arsenal.
  According to Dr. Robert Civiak, physicist and former OMB Program 
Examiner for Department of Energy nuclear weapons programs, the NIF 
will cost nearly $5 billion to build, $4 billion more than the 
Department of Energy's original estimate. Including operating costs, 
the NIF will consume more than $32 billion, six times the Department of 
Energy's original estimate.
  Dr. Civiak also reports that the Department of Energy has yet to 
solve numerous technical problems that prevent NIF from successfully 
creating the fusion explosion. Full operation of NIF is already 6 years 
behind its original schedule.
  In fact, according to former Los Alamos physicist Leo Mascheroni, The 
chance of the NIF reaching ignition is zero. Not 1 percent. Those who 
say 5 percent are just being . . . polite.
  What is all that money being spent for? Department of Energy says the 
NIF helps us maintain our nuclear weapons, but experts disagree. When 
asked about NIF's utility for weapons maintenance, Edward Teller, 
father of the hydrogen bomb and cofounder of the Lawrence Livermore 
National Laboratory, replied that it had ``none whatsoever.''
  Sandia National Laboratory's former vice president called NIF 
``worthless'' for maintaining nuclear weapons safety and reliability.
  Lawrence Livermore Laboratory weapons designer Seymour Sack called 
NIF ``worse than worthless'' for the task.
  Ray Kidder, another Livermore physicist, has stated, ``As far as 
maintaining the stockpile is concerned, NIF is not necessary.''
  In fact, NIF is an instrument for developing new nuclear weapons. 
Department of Energy itself touts NIF as playing an essential role in 
understanding the physics of nuclear weapons design and nuclear weapons 
effects. This type of nuclear weapons design activity violates the 
spirit of both the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
  Nor is there a consensus with the Department of Energy on NIF's 
importance. Officials at Sandia National Laboratory, another DOE 
facility, have challenged Department leaders on NIF, calling for a 
scaled-down version in order to make sure it works and that it can be 
built affordably.
  Now, at the same time that Congress is covering the spiralling cost 
of NIF, an instrument of proliferation, we have cut funding for the 
DOE's nonproliferation activities. The bill we have before us cuts 
nearly $27 million from the 2001 nonproliferation budget.
  This should be a cause for concern for all of us, because even 
funding at fiscal year 2001 levels would not be enough to address the 
problem. Currently, for instance, there are enough quantities of 
fissile material in Russia to make more than 40,000 nuclear weapons, 
and the resource-starved Russian Government cannot secure all of this 
material on its own.
  The bipartisan Cutler-Baker panel that recently studied these issues 
called the risk of theft of Russian nuclear materials the United 
States' most urgent unmet national security threat. Their report urged 
sharp increases in spending on nonproliferation, not cuts.
  Our amendment attempts to address these skewed priorities by taking 
money being used for proliferation-type activities and setting it aside 
for critical nonproliferation programs should be considered by this 
House and approved by this House.
  The amendment reduces NIF funding by one-half. This still represents 
a $42.5 million increase in funding over the last year.
  At the same time that we slow down the dubious National Ignition 
Facility, we add $24 million to the Immobilization Program, which 
disposes of surplus plutonium; $19 million to the Materials Protection, 
Control and Accounting Program, which seeks to secure 603 metric tons 
of at-risk weapons-usable nuclear material in Russia; $23 million to 
the Nuclear Cities Initiative, which helps find employment for nuclear 
scientists in Russia's 10 closed nuclear cities so that they are not 
tempted to sell sensitive information to groups developing weapons of 
mass destruction.
  I urge a yes vote on this amendment. Let us demonstrate our Nation's 
commitment to smart government and take the leadership role in the 
fight to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in opposition 
of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I applaud the intent of the author of the 
amendment to increase our accounts for renewable energy, but as the 
Republican cochairman with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) of 
the House Renewable and Energy Caucus, a caucus that includes 180 
members, in a bipartisan way we have worked tirelessly with the 
cooperative efforts of the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) 
and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), ranking member, to 
increase these renewable accounts by $100 million above the President's 
request.
  This is even by those in the renewable energy field being applauded 
as a great victory at this point in the process. Now, if there are 
future victories

[[Page 12139]]

to be had for renewables, and I hope there are this year, they need to 
take place at the conference committee where we have an increase in the 
allocation on the Senate side, and I believe still room for debate on 
the final funding levels for these important renewable energy 
functions. I will be there at that conference advocating on behalf of 
further increases in these renewable accounts.
  But here we go taking the money again out of an absolutely essential 
function of our Federal Government. Our nuclear weapons stockpile 
stewardship is critically important for the good of this country and, 
indeed, the entire free world. If we are going to be able to test these 
weapons without firing these weapons, then facilities like NIF must be 
supported.
  Granted, the management of the project itself has not been stellar, 
and it has had to be improved, but the fact is the imperative is there 
to finish the project, to continue to support our nuclear weapons 
stockpiling stewardship, and to be able to maintain these weapons and 
test these weapons without firing these weapons.
  We increased at this subcommittee these nonproliferation accounts 
that the gentleman referred to by $71 million. Again, we have done a 
very good job at the subcommittee of balancing all of these needs 
because we agree with the gentleman on the points that he made. But we 
have already done that work. What the gentleman's amendment actually 
does is takes it further and cuts into our national preparedness, 
something that we cannot afford to do.
  There is no question that some people would come to the floor today 
and oppose anything nuclear. But, Mr. Chairman, our country wants us to 
maintain a safe and reliable nuclear stockpile. Our country desperately 
needs to invest in NNSA-related programs so that these plants that have 
built up our nuclear weapons and today maintain them for the potential 
future use, God forbid it ever happens, but it is that deterrent that 
has brought about the global peace that we see today because that 
deterrent was, indeed, deployed. It was never deployed, but it was 
built up to the point where it never had to be deployed.
  So our nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship is at risk here with 
this amendment, and we must maintain this. We must support the NNSA and 
all of its different programs, and this would certainly take away from 
that.
  So I respectfully agree with the intent of the gentleman, but stand 
in strong opposition and applaud the subcommittee work because it is 
balanced and responsible and supports our national security missions, 
and it also supports the need to have a balanced energy strategy, 
including increased funding for renewables.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition of the Kucinich-Lee 
amendment. As the mother of a 10-year-old, I share my colleagues' hope 
for a peaceful world free of nuclear weapons.
  I believe the United States should reduce the number of nuclear 
weapons we maintain, and I introduced legislation today with the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Spratt) calling on President Bush to 
do just that.
  I agree that funding for nonproliferation programs is well short of 
what is needed, but I also believe that, as long as this country relies 
on nuclear weapons as a central part of our national security strategy, 
we have a commitment to maintain them in a safe and reliable condition.
  Our best hope for maintaining the reliability of our nuclear weapons 
without testing is a robust Stockpile Stewardship program that includes 
the National Ignition Facility known as the NIF.
  The NIF is an essential component of our Stockpile Stewardship 
program because it will allow us to create conditions similar to those 
that exist within a nuclear explosion without actually conducting live 
tests of nuclear weapons. Tremendous progress has been made in 
constructing this facility.
  Since construction began, over $1 billion has been invested in the 
NIF, and more than 1,000 tons of equipment have been installed. The 
building housing the NIF is 98 percent complete, and 70 percent of the 
laser glass has been produced and meets specification.
  Mr. Chairman, we can ill afford to abandon the NIF at this critical 
juncture in the Stockpile Stewardship program. We must give the 
Nation's nuclear stewards the tools they need to maintain the safety, 
security and reliability of our Nation's nuclear deterrent.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the Record a letter 
I received today from Ambassador Thomas Graham, who negotiated the 
nonproliferation treaty, expressing his support of the NIF.
  I would also like to direct the Record on quotes attributed to Dr. 
Edward Teller. Dr. Teller's quote is, ``I was misquoted giving the 
appearance I did not support this NIF project. It is necessary that I 
correct this completely wrong impression.'' I am for the NIF.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to strongly vote down this 
amendment. It will jeopardize our ability to have a safe and reliable 
and certifiable stockpile.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following documents for the Record as 
follows:
         Lawyers Alliance for World Security Committee for 
           National Security,
                                    Washington, DC, June 26, 2001.
     Hon. Ellen Tauscher,
     House of Representatives, 1122 Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Tauscher, I am writing this letter to 
     urge your support on a matter that I consider to be crucial 
     to the continuing viability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and 
     therefore to our national security. I believe that it is 
     necessary that we maintain an effective and fully funded 
     stockpile stewardship program, an important element of which 
     is the National Ignition Facility. Specifically, the 
     stockpile stewardship program is the underpinning for our 
     current moratorium on nuclear testing and will provide the 
     conditions for Senate reconsideration of the Comprehensive 
     Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
       I am not a new supporter of NIF. I supported it when I was 
     in charge of the U.S. worldwide efforts to extend the 
     Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and I supported it when, after 
     the 1995 Conference which permanently extended the NPT, I 
     urged negotiation of a zero-yield CTBT. I supported it 
     despite earlier concerns about cost, management and technical 
     problems, concerns that were well justified. And while there 
     continue to be some problems in these respects, I am 
     confident that under General Gordon's leadership the NNSA 
     will successfully correct the situation and complete this 
     much needed element of our effort to maintain a safe and 
     reliable nuclear deterrent without underground testing. I 
     strongly urge you to support the full NNSA request for the 
     NIF project in FY2002.
       I recognize that President Bush has indicated he does not 
     support a CTBT at this time, a view with which I respectfully 
     disagree. Nevertheless, he has given his full support to a 
     continuing moratorium on nuclear testing. Thus, we need a 
     full commitment to an effective and successful stockpile 
     stewardship program.
       Without a doubt, a significant part of the reason the 
     Senate voted against ratification of the test ban treaty in 
     1999 was a failure on the part of CTBT advocates to convince 
     enough senators that stockpile stewardship works. A 
     successful NIF, which will perform key scientific experiments 
     and is crucial to efforts to attract the quality personnel 
     required to permit the labs to fill their stewardship 
     missions, would help remedy this misperception in the future. 
     Conversely, failure to support NIF will undoubtedly undermine 
     the stockpile stewardship program and, as a result, the U.S. 
     testing moratorium and future CTBT ratification efforts.
       While some critics of the NIF correctly assert that other 
     elements of the stockpile stewardship program need additional 
     funding, the answer is not to take funds from one part of the 
     program to fix another but rather to provide sufficient 
     resources for a fully effective program. When this issue is 
     considered in committee later this year. I urge you to 
     continue your support for the National Ignition Facility and 
     the stockpile stewardship program. We have come too far, and 
     have too far to go, to falter now.
           Sincerely,
     Thomas Graham, Jr.
                                  ____

       Statement by Dr. Edward Teller regarding the NIF:
       ``. . . I was misquoted giving the appearance that I did 
     not support this (NIF) project. It is necessary that I 
     correct this completely wrong impression.

[[Page 12140]]

       It is my opinion that the NIF will almost certainly 
     demonstrate nuclear fusion basic for the hydrogen bomb. Such 
     demonstration will be valuable in the Nation's search for 
     ways that future functioning of fusion bombs can be 
     assured.''

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this very irresponsible 
amendment. We often debate the proper roles and responsibilities of the 
Federal Government, but I thought we all agreed that Congress exists in 
large part to provide for our national security.
  This amendment strikes at the heart of our country's defense. If we 
pull support from the National Ignition Facility, we would cripple our 
nuclear weapons stockpile, the cornerstone of our national defense.
  NIF is the only facility that can create the extreme temperature and 
pressure conditions that exist in exploding nuclear weapons. Without 
NIF, we would lose our ability to fully understand the operations of 
our arsenal.
  NIF is also the only facility that can create fusion ignition-and-
burn in the laboratory. Without NIF, we would not be able to access and 
certify the aging nuclear stockpile unless we renew underground 
testing.
  Do not just take my word for it. The head of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration in DOE has said that, without NIF, we will need 
to begin underground tests once again.
  We need to ensure that our weapons are safe and that they will work. 
NIF gives us this assurance. Stand up for the defense of our Nation. I 
urge my colleagues to vote against this ill-advised amendment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand today in strong support of this amendment to 
cut funding from the National Ignition Facility and to transfer that 
money to crucial nuclear nonproliferation programs and to the national 
Treasury.
  This project has already sucked up billions of taxpayer dollars while 
endangering our environment and sabotaging efforts to reduce nuclear 
nonproliferation. Instead of continuing to go down this path, let us 
stand up today for peace, for security, and fiscal common sense.
  NIF has cost billions and will cost billions more and will not 
increase our national security. The National Ignition Facility is not 
some crucial component to our security system. It is an albatross, 
mired in cost overruns and dubious science.
  When Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, says that NIF 
has no utility whatsoever, we really should listen.
  Now, at the same time, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations bill cuts funding for nonproliferation programs that 
represent an investment in peace, which is really an investment worth 
making. So this amendment restores badly needed dollars to programs 
that will make us truly safer.
  This is not a trade-off in security. It is an enhancement of 
security. Now is not the time to cut support for efforts to curtail the 
spread of nuclear weapons. Reducing the number of nuclear weapons in 
the world and reducing the amount of nuclear material in the world 
enhances our security.

                              {time}  1645

  So we must move forward toward a safer future, not backwards to a 
more dangerous past.
  Finally, this amendment returns over $56 million to the national 
treasury. Fifty-six million dollars. That money could go to house the 
homeless, to care for our seniors, or to feed the hungry. Without 
housing, without medical care, without food for all, how can we really 
be secure?
  Once again I urge my colleagues' support of this amendment.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I rise in favor of the amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I am in support of this amendment from a good-
government-taxpayer point of view. This program has failed audit after 
audit after audit. Just the most recent GAO audit has given it a 
failing grade. This program is 6 years over its original completion 
date, and it is almost $4 billion over budget.
  For us, as the legislative branch of government, to properly conduct 
our proper oversight role over the executive branch, to see if their 
proper stewardship of our taxpayer dollars is making sense and is being 
implemented well, and for us to walk away from these kinds of abuses, 
is quite simply irresponsible.
  I support the Kucinich amendment. I do not think it strikes a 
devastating blow to our nuclear stockpile program. In fact, I think 
this is a good thing, because it says that if an organization is going 
to take taxpayer dollars, they have to spend them wisely, have a good 
plan in place, and that we will not chase good money after bad. These 
audits need to be passed before we can reward this program with the 
funding they are asking for.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to limit debate 
on this particular amendment to 10 minutes, 5 minutes for a proponent 
and an opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I object momentarily.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I support the 
nonproliferation efforts which can reduce the amount of nuclear 
material and nuclear expertise which is floating around the world and 
which some reports say is the greatest single threat to U.S. security, 
but I cannot support reductions in programs that keep our own nuclear 
stockpile safe, secure, and reliable.
  I would say to the gentleman who just spoke in the well that this 
Congress is not walking away from the management difficulties that the 
NIF has had. As a matter of fact, in the Committee on Armed Services we 
have had a number of hearings over the past several years on the NIF 
and its management difficulties. As a matter of fact, I think one of 
the reasons we have a new entity within the Department of Energy is to 
help correct some of those problems in the past. And I can report that 
the new National Nuclear Security Administration and General Gordon, 
its head, has moved aggressively to solve the management problems that 
the NIF has had in the past.
  As my colleague from California has said, we have sunk a tremendous 
amount of money into this project. To walk away now would be the height 
of folly. But I want to take just a second to put the NIF into its 
proper context, because I think many of my colleagues do not realize we 
continue to rely today on nuclear weapons as the central part of our 
security deterrent; yet those nuclear weapons are 18 years old, on 
average. They were designed to last 12 years, and so they are already 
well beyond their design life.
  What many people do not realize also is that there is a lot we do not 
know about nuclear weapons and how they work. In spite of the fact that 
we have conducted many tests over the past number of years, going back 
to 1945, there is a lot about what happens with a nuclear explosion 
that we do not understand, and NIF and other programs like that are 
designed to help us understand what is going on so that as our weapons 
age we can continue to have confidence that they are safe, secure, and 
reliable. If we do not have NIF or other tools like NIF, then the 
uncertainties will grow, and they will grow to a point where the 
President and a Congress will have no choice but to resume nuclear 
testing, and that will have enormous consequences.
  I would point out to my colleagues that this subcommittee has already 
cut the President's request by $176 million. That gives me enormous 
concern. But to take more money out of the President's request to 
increase the uncertainties and here to stop the funding for NIF, which 
is one of the essential tools to help answer those questions as our 
stockpiles age, would be a serious, serious mistake.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that what we have before us as an amendment 
will

[[Page 12141]]

hurt the security of the United States not only here but in the long 
term, and I hope my colleagues will reject it.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate 
on this amendment, and all amendments thereto, be limited to 10 
minutes, the time to be equally divided between the proponent of the 
amendment and a Member opposed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alabama to limit the debate to 10 minutes, 5 minutes divided equally on 
each side?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) will control the 
time in favor of the amendment, and a Member on the opposite side will 
control the time in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I am rising in support of the amendment that has been 
proposed by the gentleman from Ohio, in part, I think, to clear up some 
of the issues along the way.
  The expenditure in nuclear programs is far beyond what we need to be 
expending in nuclear programs. That is as simple as one can say it. The 
increase in nuclear programs in this budget is by a very significant 
amount over the previous year when we have such great other needs. The 
amendment that the gentleman has proposed returns $56 million to the 
Treasury, which by the way is about similar to the amount that was 
involved in the amendment that had been offered by the gentleman from 
New York seeking only an additional $50 million for renewable energy 
research programs. It seems to me that that would be a far, far better 
way to use the $56 million that otherwise would be returned to the 
Treasury by the gentleman from Ohio and his amendment.
  I just want to point out, in partial reply on exactly the same 
amendment earlier, the gentleman from Tennessee was speaking about what 
the committee had done, and I do commend the committee for returning, 
on renewable energy sources, $100 million, which had been cut from the 
budget for renewable energy sources by the President's request. In 
returning that amount of money, they now have in the bill $377 million 
for renewable energy research and development, which is exactly $1 
million more than there was in the previous bill.
  Now, I would just point out here that in the National Energy Policy 
Report that has come out, the policy report has at one point a 
statement that President George W. Bush understands the promise of 
renewable energy and strongly encourages alternative sources, such as 
wind, biomass, and solar energy. And in another place here the 
statement reads that ``renewable and alternative fuels offer hope for 
America's energy future.'' I do not think that it is appropriate to 
have only a $1 million increase in the accounts for renewable energy, 
commendable though it is, that the subcommittee has recommended $100 
million more than the President had proposed, because he had cut so 
much out of what he is in other places here saying are such important 
pieces of work to be done.
  It seems to me that we would be far wiser to use money that might be 
saved from the NIF and otherwise, by the amendment, would return to the 
Treasury for something that would really significantly help in 
producing the kind of energy that we need for the future in renewable 
sources that does not produce global warming, CO2, in most 
of its forms, and produces very little, except renewable sources, in 
biomass.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) seek to 
control the time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. WAMP. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me 
this time. We can have our own opinion, but we cannot have our own 
separate set of facts; and the facts about the NIF are very clear. 
While there were significant production failures and management 
problems in the NIF in 1999, even into early 2000, that has been 
dramatically fixed by new management. And, frankly, we have not had any 
GAO reports saying anything other than that.
  These investments are critical to our stockpile stewardship program. 
They are critical to having an ability to certify the sustainability 
and the safety of these weapons. The NIF is a project that was plagued 
with problems; but even today, in the Subcommittee on Military 
Procurement, General Gordon, the administrator of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration, testified that the NIF is now problem free, it 
is a program that is going forward, that we have significant investment 
in, and it is critical to our ability to have a stockpile stewardship 
program that enables us to certify weapons without testing.
  So I think that while there are rumors out there that the NIF is 
still plagued with problems, I want to assure my colleagues that they 
need to vote down this amendment. I urge them to strongly oppose it. We 
need the NIF for stockpile stewardship, and we need it for nuclear 
security.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) has 3\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I would like to cite the latest GAO report about the NIF, 
which was issued on June 1, and continues to recommend an independent 
scientific review of NIF. It says,

       In our reports, we recommended that the Secretary of energy 
     arrange for an independent outside scientific and technical 
     review of NIF's remaining technical challenges. NIF still 
     lacks an independent external review process. Independent 
     external reviews are valuable for measuring cost, schedule, 
     and technical success in any large and ambitious science 
     project. Yet, no such external independent reviews of NIF 
     have been conducted or planned. The DOE's own orders state 
     that external independent reviews are beneficial; however, 
     DOE plans to continue its own internal review program, 
     allowing Defense Programs officials to manage the process 
     themselves.

  It is very clear, Mr. Chairman, that accountability has been lacking. 
While we know about the lack of accountability at NIF, we also have an 
opportunity here to take a strong position with respect to 
nonproliferation and fund some of those programs that have been cut 
back.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Whether coming at the amendment from a budget-cutting perspective or 
coming at it from an anti-nuclear or non-proliferation perspective, it 
does not serve our country well today to retreat from our national 
preparedness, including the ultimate deterrent of a safe and reliable 
nuclear weapons stockpile. We built it up for a purpose, and we must 
maintain it for a purpose. The entire free world is depending on us.
  And, frankly, in closing, I want to say we now have better management 
for our weapons stockpile than we had 5 years ago. There is no question 
that NNSA was a good move. It was done by a bipartisan team led by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher), and I applaud their work. Because today, 
under General Gordon's leadership, the NNSA is responsibly reforming 
our nuclear weapons programs so that we are prepared for the future.
  For too long our weapons activities have been put on the back burner.

                              {time}  1700

  We have been funding through our national security programs weapons, 
and our personnel on active duty and our Guard and Reserve, but we 
cannot move our weapons activities to the back burner and expect to 
have an infrastructure that is capable of the next generation of 
nuclear weapons if we need them, or a workforce. We have a

[[Page 12142]]

graying workforce and aging infrastructure throughout the weapons 
complex.
  I represent the Y-12 in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where bricks fall off 
the walls and people have to report to work in hard hats because the 
infrastructure has eroded.
  Mr. Chairman, we must reinvest in the modernization of these 
facilities. We have buildings that are 50 years old. We have not 
adequately funded those facilities. This strikes at NIF, but NIF is at 
next-generation of being able to test without activating these weapons 
and testing underground, maintaining the weapons stockpile reliability. 
We must do this and fight back this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) will 
be postponed.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
  Mr. Chairman, since being elected to the Congress, I have worked 
closely with the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure full pool lake 
levels at West Point Lake. On several occasions, the Army Corps has 
imprudently lowered the lake level, causing environmental degradation 
and severely affecting the use of the lake by the tens of thousands of 
citizens who rely on it for their water, energy, and recreation.
  Over the last year, however, with the assistance of former Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Joseph Westphal, we were able to 
work on making sure that the Army Corps in managing West Point Lake, 
respected the benefit-cost priorities that were established by Congress 
when this project was authorized by title II, section 203 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1962, Public Law No. 87-874 (76 Stat. 1190, October 23, 
1962).
  This legislation authorized four primary project purposes with 
benefits and costs as follows: generation of hydroelectric power, flood 
control, fish and wildlife, recreation and navigation.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the distinguished chairman, the 
gentleman from Alabama, can I be assured the gentleman will work with 
the Army Corps to continue to respect the relative priorities of these 
federally mandated purposes?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing the 
issue to the attention of the committee. I recognize the work the 
gentleman from Georgia has done to assist the Army Corps in making 
rational decisions in the operation of West Point Lake. It is my goal 
to direct the Army Corps to continue to work on improving the 
management of West Point Lake. The Army Corps needs to work to fulfill 
the intent of Congress with respect to this facility. I pledge to work 
with the gentleman from Georgia to ensure the Corps of Engineers 
adequately addresses the concerns of the gentleman and his 
constituents.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
continued work in this area and look forward to working with him.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we bring the 
Bonior amendment up out of order, and that time constraints be put on 
the amendment limiting debate on the amendment and all amendments 
thereto to 1 hour, the time to be equally divided between the proponent 
of the amendment and a Member opposed.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, the vote 
on the Bonior amendment would be the first vote in sequence tomorrow 
morning?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. That is correct. We are going to make that announcement 
after the unanimous consent is adopted. If the unanimous consent is 
accepted, then we will debate the Bonior amendment or any amendment 
thereto, including the Rogers amendment tonight, probably finish about 
6, have no further votes tonight, and then begin in the morning at 9.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. And no further amendment will be offered tonight, we 
will do our unanimous consent, and the first vote in the morning would 
be the Bonior amendment?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. With the exception of the Rogers amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior) will be permitted to offer an amendment in the form of a 
limitation to be inserted at the end of the bill at this point in the 
reading, and that debate on the amendment and any amendments thereto be 
limited to 60 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the gentleman 
from Michigan and a Member opposed.
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Bonior

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bonior:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. No funds provided in this Act may be expended to 
     issue any permit or other authorization under section 10 of 
     the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 
     403), or to issue any other lease, license, permit, approval, 
     or right-of-way, for any drilling to extract or explore for 
     oil or gas from the land beneath the water in any of Lake 
     Huron, Lake Ontario, Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake Superior, 
     Lake Saint Clair, the Saint Mary's River, the Saint Clair 
     River, the Detroit River, the Niagara River, or the Saint 
     Lawrence River from Lake Ontario to the 45th parallel of 
     latitude.

  The CHAIRMAN. Under a previous agreement of the House, time will be 
limited to 60 minutes equally divided between the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and a Member opposed.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank my colleagues who have 
worked to put this together: the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Secondly, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) 
for being the leader on this important issue for all of us in the Great 
Lakes. I thank him for his leadership. And I also thank the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) for his sponsorship of this, as well as the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Mr. Chairman, for those who have grown up along the shores of the 
Great Lakes, we know that the Great Lakes defines the region that we 
live in. It is what we are about. It is what has made the Great Lakes 
region the wealthiest area on the planet Earth because of this 
wonderful and abundant resource.
  Mr. Chairman, we depend on our drinking water, our recreation, the 
engine of our economy on the water in the Great Lakes. Tourism is our 
second largest industry. We do about $10 billion a year in tourism. 
Families come to Michigan to fish, to use our beautiful beaches, to 
swim in our lakes and enjoy our sand dunes. They do not come to 
Michigan to look at oil wells or oil derricks. We are passionate about 
protecting the Great Lakes.
  We cannot afford to put our greatest natural resource at risk. When I 
say that, 95 percent of all of the fresh water in our country comes out 
of the Great Lakes and its connecting waterways; 20 percent, a fifth of 
the fresh water on planet Earth, comes out of the Great Lakes.
  I am amazed and appalled and alarmed that some in Michigan are 
proposing to drill for oil and gas beneath our Great Lakes. They seek 
to

[[Page 12143]]

add 30 new directional drills along our shores. They are moving at 
breakneck speed to get this done. Over their lifetime, directional 
wells drilled already in place have produced less than one- third of a 
day's supply of natural gas and oil.
  This process began with seven wells, up to 13, now back to seven as 
far back as 1979. There is virtually very little that has accrued. I 
remind my colleagues that 1 quart of oil can contaminate up to 2 
million gallons of drinking water. Just think of the damage that would 
do if we had directional slant drilling.
  If we have a drill that hits a pressure pocket, it can spew gas and 
oil back out like a geyser, Mr. Chairman. There is also another problem 
that we have experienced in one of the drills in the area of Manistee, 
Michigan. It is called hydrogen sulfide. It is a poisonous gas. It is 
very similar to cyanide. It was released back in 1997 and 1998, sending 
20 people in that region to the hospital.
  Under the present movement to access and explore gas and oil, our 
drinking water could be contaminated. Oil could wash up to our shores; 
and if that happened, it could take as much as 500 years to completely 
flush out.
  In conclusion, let me say, Mr. Chairman, oil and water do not mix. 
Let us put an end to this bad idea by passing this amendment sponsored 
by my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), and put an end to this once and for 
all.
  This amendment would prohibit the Army Corps from spending funds to 
issue any new permits for oil and gas drilling under the Great Lakes. 
We need to preserve this natural beauty for future generations. 
Drilling in the Great Lakes is a formula for disaster. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Stupak), my distinguished colleague and leader on this issue.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, this could be a great day for the Great Lakes and all 
of us who live in and around the Great Lakes. Since the 105th Congress 
4 years ago, I have sought to ban the practice of drilling for oil and 
gas in and under our Great Lakes. Early on I was a lone voice among 
public officials on this issue.
  But I have been rewarded for my efforts, Mr. Chairman, with strong 
support from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, and 
from Members inside and outside of the Great Lakes basin.
  The vote we will take tomorrow demonstrates how this issue has found 
its time and place in the House of Representatives.

                              {time}  1715

  This is not a Florida situation. We have drilling in Michigan for oil 
and gas. But what our amendment says is there will not be any drilling 
for oil and gas on our shoreline. We should not be drilling in the 
world's greatest supply of fresh water. We should not have to be 
drilling on the shoreline of fresh water for 34 million people who live 
around the Great Lakes. Let us not jeopardize our Great Lakes. Let us 
not jeopardize their drinking water. Let us not drill for gas and oil 
under our Great Lakes.
  This amendment is important because our State of Michigan is moving 
forward to open new areas for drilling along the shores of Lake 
Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair, the connecting waterway between 
Lake Huron and Lake Erie.
  Consider, Mr. Chairman, that 18 percent of the world's fresh water is 
found in the Great Lakes. Ninety-five percent of our Nation's fresh 
water is found in the Great Lakes. It is the home and workplace of 34 
million people. The procedure that Michigan plans to authorize does not 
involve oil platforms located in the water of the Great Lakes 
themselves. Instead, the rigs would be located along the shore. Oil 
pockets under the lakes would be tapped by drilling at an angle from 
the shore rigs. This is a procedure known as directional drilling.
  Michigan law already permits State officials to move forward to lease 
bottomlands of the Great Lakes for drilling, without a new vote of the 
Michigan State House or State Senate. Michigan can move forward to 
lease bottomlands without permission from any other Great Lakes State. 
But as people inside and outside of Michigan have learned what Michigan 
is doing, Mr. Chairman, they have raised their voice in opposition. The 
Governor of Ohio has said he would never consider such a procedure. The 
Wisconsin Senate has said no to directional drilling. Members of the 
Michigan legislature themselves are waking up to the dangers that this 
practice presents to the Great Lakes. Although the Michigan Senate 
earlier this month voted to support new drilling, that language last 
night was eliminated from a House-Senate conference report and the 
language allowing directional drilling has been eliminated in Michigan.
  Here in Congress, a bipartisan group of Members from this body and 
the other body have brought forth bills to block any new drilling for 
oil and gas underneath the Great Lakes. But despite all of these 
actions, the State of Michigan can still move forward by administrative 
action and still plans to do so under the leadership of Governor 
Engler. Leasing of bottomlands of the Great Lakes for new oil and gas 
could take place within months under the current administration in 
Michigan. Michigan State officials have argued that the procedure is 
safe. A set of recommendations made up by a panel, a panel that was 
handpicked by the Michigan Governor to study the safety of directional 
drilling, have not been implemented and will not be implemented. They 
want to drill up in my district and they have never yet had a hearing 
in my district as required under the procedures as to whether or not 
you should drill in the Great Lakes.
  Mr. Chairman, we may be able to imagine the hazards of drilling, but 
it is harder to see the benefits. What is the economic trade-off here 
that you could argue in favor of drilling under our Great Lakes? The 
answer, Mr. Chairman, is small and short-term gain for Michigan's 
budget and profits for oil companies. But the public at large that 
faces the threat of drilling would see virtually no benefits. The 
proposed 30 or so new wells would yield only enough oil to meet the 
needs of Michigan residents for 3 weeks and enough natural gas for 5 
weeks.
  Mr. Chairman, of all the places in the Nation where we might wish to 
sink oil wells, I believe we can argue that we would never choose the 
shoreline shared by the people of Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, 
Cleveland, Toronto, and Buffalo among others. Let us block this 
procedure.
  I thank the U.S. Senators in the Michigan delegation and other 
Senators for their efforts. I would like to thank my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Thurman), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), and others who stepped forward to 
cosponsor legislation to ban directional drilling each and every 
Congress that I have introduced it.
  A vote for this amendment tells the American public that we 
understand that the Great Lakes, one of the Nation's, one of the 
world's greatest resources, should and will be protected. Vote ``yes'' 
on the Bonior amendment.



  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alabama seek the time in 
opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 30 
minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my 
colleagues from the Midwest, an amendment which prohibits the Federal 
Government from facilitating drilling projects in the Great Lakes. This

[[Page 12144]]

amendment is a vote in support of the most precious fresh water 
resource we have.
  It remains unclear whether or not the Federal Government or the Army 
Corps of Engineers has any authority in this area, but I believe it is 
important to make a statement on protecting the Great Lakes. For 
example, section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act cited in this 
amendment was passed in 1899 and only refers to blocking navigable 
waters.
  Protection of the Great Lakes basin best remains with the eight Great 
Lakes Governors and two Canadian Premiers. Earlier this month, the 
governors and premiers came together and signed Annex 2001 which 
protects the Great Lakes from commercial withdrawals of water. So while 
not a perfect solution, I am voting for this amendment to be sure the 
word goes out that our Federal Government should not be participating 
in our Great Lakes and this amendment does that.
  I applaud Members of both parties for working to protect our lakes. I 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of protecting our greatest natural 
resource.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra).
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, my district represents roughly 150 miles of Lake 
Michigan shoreline. On a day-to-day basis the quality of life and the 
very livelihood of many of my constituents are directly affected by 
Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are one of this 
Nation's most precious resources. This amendment is one way we can help 
protect and preserve the largest body of fresh water in the world.
  I am and have always been in favor of States rights and there are 
some that will invoke that issue in regard to this amendment. Action by 
Congress is needed, however, because the Great Lakes States and 
provincial governments of Canada have a patchwork of regulations that 
do little to protect the Great Lakes from the dangers associated with 
oil and gas drilling. Canada allows vertical drills to line the 
bottomlands of Lake Erie. While some States in the Great Lakes region 
allow drilling, others have banned this practice. Protection of this 
resource cannot vary from State to State or from one body of water to 
the next. Everything is interconnected in the Great Lakes region and 
the decisions that place Lake Erie at risk in turn place Lake Michigan 
at risk and vice versa. The only appropriate policy is to keep drills 
out of the Great Lakes.
  I feel it is necessary today to vote in favor of this amendment to 
eliminate the risk as opposed to allowing this activity to take place. 
In addition to supporting this amendment today, I am also introducing 
legislation that will call for further study of the environmental 
impact of oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. I will ask for a 
complete assessment of the condition, safety, and the potential 
environmental effects of pipelines that run under the Great Lakes and 
through the States that surround those lakes. And I will ask for a 
comprehensive study to determine how much oil and gas might be gained 
by drilling in the Great Lakes region.
  We should go further. We need a comprehensive plan to protect the 
Great Lakes. This is a good first step.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe amendments like this. It is 
the height of irresponsibility. I think Members should oppose this 
amendment because it establishes a horribly irresponsible precedent for 
our energy security in this country. The Democrat leadership is 
constraining our economy within the same energy straitjacket that they 
applied under the Carter administration and that they are applying now 
in California that brings blackouts.
  The working people of America are depending on us to open energy 
reserves to safe, environmentally responsible exploration. Without 
reliable energy, our economy will crumble. It will mean blackouts, 
layoffs, and plant closings.
  This energy security obstructionism is one aspect of a broader effort 
to systematically choke off every promising source of domestic energy. 
It is hard to fathom how this campaign to block energy production could 
be driven by anything but a misguided motivation to weaken America and 
to leave us beholden to foreign sources of energy.
  The Democrat leadership is at war with our ability to produce an 
adequate and dependable energy supply. They oppose safe oil 
exploration. They oppose expanded nuclear power. They oppose clean 
coal. They oppose ANWR. They oppose tapping the natural gas trapped 
beneath public lands. They oppose drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. And 
now they oppose slant drilling in Michigan.
  Now, they are for closing plants. They are for closing refineries. 
They are against opening any new plants. They oppose everything that 
allows us to increase our supply. Their actual objective must be to 
eradicate America's energy security. Why else would the Democrat 
leadership be recklessly pursuing a policy that is weakening the United 
States economy?
  The question for Democrats to answer is this: Where will Americans go 
for the energy that they need to sustain their quality of life after 
you have completely strangled our ability to produce the energy that we 
need? What will Democrats tell the men and women stranded in gas lines? 
What explanation will they offer families suffering through frequent 
and recurring blackouts? What justification will they offer to workers 
when they open a pink slip after plants are forced out of business by 
spiraling energy costs?
  And this environmental extremism, this radical environmentalism is 
entirely unwarranted. Today, slant drilling technology allows us to 
safely withdraw oil and gas beneath bodies of water from the shore. 
Environmentally safe. We do not have to trade environmental safety for 
energy security.
  Members, please oppose these amendments that weaken America by 
enhancing the power that foreign suppliers of energy hold over our 
Nation.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for introducing this amendment along with the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and others.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. 
Unfortunately, some public officials in Michigan are using recent fuel 
price spikes to justify their desire to open up the Great Lakes to oil 
and gas drilling. Although drilling in the Great Lakes may bring a 
profit to the oil companies, it is not going to solve our national 
energy crisis or even temporarily drive down the cost of gas in the 
Midwest. In fact, it is estimated that new wells in the Great Lakes 
will only yield enough oil to meet one State's needs for 3 weeks.
  The negligible benefits of expanded oil and gas drilling in the Great 
Lakes is hardly worth it considering the risks. The type of directional 
drilling industry proposes carries the risk of oil spills and toxic 
hydrogen sulfide releases, ruining the lakes' pristine ecosystem and 
jeopardizing human health. Many of us recall the Exxon Valdez oil spill 
which dumped 11 million gallons of crude oil contaminating 300 miles of 
shoreline and causing billions of dollars in damage to one of our most 
pristine natural wildlife refuges in Alaska. And more recently, an oil 
spill devastated the Galapagos Islands, ruining miles of shoreline and 
destroying the environment.
  As the world's biggest source of fresh water, the Great Lakes must be 
protected from such a tragedy. I think the 34 million people inhabiting 
the Great Lakes basin as well as Americans across the country would 
agree.
  Unfortunately, State officials in Michigan are ignoring common sense 
and pushing forward in their efforts to reverse a moratorium on Great 
Lakes drilling. It is therefore incumbent upon Congress to protect the 
Great Lakes. Banning Federal funding through this

[[Page 12145]]

amendment is a step in the right direction and would send a strong 
signal to those eager to exploit Great Lakes resources.
  People in Wisconsin and other Great Lakes States are blessed to have 
the world's most pristine lakes and fresh water resources in our 
backyard. We get our drinking water from them, our kids swim in them, 
and our tourism industry depends on them. Because the Great Lakes are 
such an important part of our daily lives, we are not willing to gamble 
with this precious resource for short-term gain.
  I urge my colleagues' support of this amendment. Please stand with us 
to protect the Great Lakes from environmental hazard and degradation.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. The 
amendment is overly broad and would prohibit all agencies in the Energy 
and Water bill including the Corps of Engineers, the Department of 
Energy, and a portion of the Department of the Interior from expending 
funds for drilling in the Great Lakes. I have concerns that needed 
grants from these Federal agencies would be cut off as a result of this 
amendment. This is another attempt by the amendment's author and others 
to shift decision-making authority over the Great Lakes to the Federal 
Government, just like the water management issue. They would rather 
have bureaucrats in Washington to manage our resources than those of us 
who actually live there. I do not think that is right.
  The issue is under the jurisdiction of the State of Michigan and our 
State legislature and the governments of all the Great Lakes States. 
This is not just a Michigan issue. The Michigan State legislature has 
made a decision that this will be handled by State agencies, including 
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Natural 
Resources, and the State's Natural Resources Commission.

                              {time}  1730

  They have made this decision on their own, free from Federal 
interference, which is as it should be. In fact, my home State of 
Michigan is not alone in this sentiment. It is shared by others. In a 
letter from the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, and I have a 
letter here, which has 30 of our Nation's 50 States as members, this 
letter went to EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman, who writes, 
``The member States of the OIGCC regard drilling beneath the Great 
Lakes and protection of the environment in relation to that drilling to 
be matters that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the States and 
not the United States EPA or other Federal agencies.''
  This amendment would be counter to the belief of the IOGCC and the 
majority of States in our Union. Remember again, there are 30 States 
involved here.
  Mr. Chairman, directional drilling should not be confused with 
offshore drilling. Directional drilling sites are inland. In the State 
of Michigan, they are prohibited from being closer than 1,500 feet from 
the shoreline. Conversely, offshore drilling done from ships or rigs 
directly in the water is prohibited by State law in five of the eight 
Great Lakes States.
  In 1997, the Michigan Environmental Science Board concluded 
directional drilling posed little or no risk to the contamination to 
the Great Lakes. Since 1979, there have been no accidents and no 
significant impact to the environment or public health. I think the 
evidence shows clearly that directional drilling is safe and an 
effective procedure and does not warrant any kind of Federal 
encroachment. State geologists estimate the production of new oil and 
gas resources from the Great Lakes could provide, contrary to what one 
might have heard, as much as $100 million to the Michigan Natural 
Resources Trust Fund, the State's sole source of funds for land 
acquisitions, recreational projects, and natural resource development 
projects.
  The revenue produced by leasing of land for drilling is crucial; and 
without it, state-owned natural resources could be taken without 
compensation by private wells drilled along the State of Michigan 
shorelines and the other States as well; on private lands, I might add.
  Furthermore, I believe directional drilling can be done in an 
environmentally safe manner, and it may be one solution, one solution, 
to some of our energy woes.
  This amendment is counterproductive because our Nation, particularly 
those in California, are currently experiencing an energy supply 
shortage and prohibiting directional drilling in the Great Lakes would 
cut off a critical supply source.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is little more than an example of 
mission creep by which the Federal Government slowly, slowly gains more 
and more authority. This mission creep amendment should not pass this 
House. I urge Members to oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________