Summary:

All articles in House section

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2159, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
(House of Representatives - July 24, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5750-H5775] PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2159, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that consideration of H.R. 2159 may proceed according to the following order: (1) The Speaker may at any time, as though pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2159) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. (2) The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XXI are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. (3) Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning with ``: Provided'' on page 24, line 8, through ``justice'' on line 16. Where points of order are waived against part of a paragraph, points of order against a provision in another part of such paragraph may be made only against such provision and not against the entire paragraph. (4) The amendments printed in House Report 105-184 may be offered only by a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments printed in the report are waived. No other amendment shall be in order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. (5) The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. (6) At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. (7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this order, the amendment numbered 1 in House report 105-184 shall be debatable for 40 minutes. (8) Notwithstanding any other provision of this order, it shall be in order in lieu of the amendment numbered 2 in House report 105-184 to consider the amendment I have placed at the desk authored by Representative Gilman of New York, Representative Pelosi of California, Representative Campbell of California, Representative Lowey of New York, Representative Greenwood of Pennsylvania, Representative DeLauro of Connecticut and Representative Slaughter of New York, which may be offered by any of the named authors, shall be debatable for 40 minutes, and shall otherwise be considered as though printed as the amendment numbered 2 in House report 105-184. For clarification, Mr. Speaker, the perfecting amendment that I have just mentioned is to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. Amendment in Lieu of Amendment Numbered 2 in House Report 105-184 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment as a new subsection (h) of section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961-- (1) in paragraph (1)(B), insert before the period at the end the following: ``, or to organizations that do not promote abortion as a method of family planning and that utilize these funds to prevent abortion as a method of family planning''; and (2) in paragraph (2)(A), strike ``or engage'' and insert the following: ``or (except in the [[Page H5751]] case of organizations that do not promote abortion as a method of family planning and that utilize these funds to prevent abortion as a method of family planning) engage''. In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment as a new subsection (i) of section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, insert before the quotation marks at the end the following sentence: ``If the President is unable to make the certification required by paragraph (1) or (2) with respect to a fiscal year, the funds appropriated for the UNFPA for such fiscal year shall be transferred to the Agency for International Development for population planning activities or other population assistance.''. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] wish to add to his request? Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that a section 9 be added to the unanimous-consent request: (9) House Resolution 185 is laid on the table. That is the previous rule. Mr. Speaker, might I also at this time make it clear that it is the intention of the Committee on Rules that the 40 minutes on each amendment be equally divided between the proponent and an opponent and that divided equally at the discretion of the manager of the amendment on both sides among the two parties. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the waiver of points of order against amendments pertains to those in the report actually or constructively and not those actually in the Record. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. {time} 2200 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Klug). Pursuant to House Resolution 194 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2203. {time} 2200 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2203) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. Oxley in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier today, 52 minutes remained in general debate. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] has 26\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] has 25\1/2\ minutes remaining. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade]. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] for purposes of a colloquy. Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank first of all the chairman and the ranking member and all the members of the subcommittee for the excellent work they did under difficult budgetary restraints, and I want to particularly comment favorably upon their treatment of my home State of Delaware. However, I would like to point out a short-term and potentially long-term problem in the small community of St. Georges, DE. As the chairman knows, this Congress has recognized on a number of occasions that the United States has an ongoing legal obligation to provide good and sufficient crossings over many of our Nation's canals with ownership and operation bestowed upon the Army Corps of Engineers. Currently, the Army Corps owns and operates four such crossings over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal in Delaware, including two crossings at St. Georges. The Army Corps has notified the State of Delaware of its plan to close and remove one of those crossings, the St. Georges Bridge, at a cost of $20 million and without any consideration to my constituents or the taxpayers of this country. I believe this plan is shortsighted and is being implemented without congressional consent from either the gentleman's committee or the authorizing committee which has jurisdiction. I believe that there are many cost-efficient alternatives that properly take into account cost, safety, and human need, but I am afraid these alternatives will not be fully considered once the corps moves ahead with their demolition plan. I would therefore ask the chairman, whose committee oversees the Army Corps' spending, if it is his intent to allow the Army Corps to move ahead with a plan for the demolition of St. Georges Bridge without the consent of this body? Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. May I say as strongly as I can, Mr. Chairman, that it is not the intent of the committee to allow the corps to move ahead with the plan for the demolition of the St. Georges Bridge. In the bill we are considering today, there are no funds, I repeat, no funds for the demolition of the bridge nor any report language directing the Army Corps to demolish the St. Georges Bridge. Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, and I would hope that the chairman would work with me and the authorizers to see that a commonsense solution is found that benefits both the Army Corps, the taxpayers and, most importantly, my constituents. Will the chairman work with me toward this goal? Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it is my intent to work with my friend towards reaching a commonsense solution that benefits everybody involved. I appreciate the gentleman's bringing this important issue to my attention, and I want to assure him that the committee will work to meet many of the Member's concerns regarding the St. Georges Bridge. Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, this Member thanks the distinguished gentleman for his time. Since this issue does affect a great number of my constituents, it could set a dangerous precedent which other Members may face in their districts, so I appreciate the gentleman's clarification. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] for the purposes of a colloquy. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As the gentleman knows, I am particularly interested in the programs managed by the Office of Worker and Community Transition. I authored section 3161 of the 1993 defense bill that authorized these programs. I think they will continue to play a very important role as we go further into the post-cold war period. So I was worried about proposals initially in the report to limit the extent of these programs as they would continue at the Rocky Flats site and other sites where weapons production has ended but our final mission cleanup remains to be completed. I am glad we were able to work out some changes on that part of the report so that there is no doubt that 3161 will continue to apply to Rocky Flats and other similar sites. I appreciate the gentleman's cooperation and that of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] in getting those changes made. However, I think there is still a need to clarify one related provision of the bill. As the gentleman knows, section 305 essentially makes section 3161 of the 1993 defense bill unavailable to ``employees of the Department of Energy.'' A question has come up as to whether that restriction extends to employees of DOE's contractors or subcontractors. And I just want to make sure that I am correct in understanding that section 305 of the bill refers only to Federal employees of the Department of Energy and not to employees of companies operating under DOE contracts or subcontracts. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and let me say [[Page H5752]] that his interpretation is correct. Section 305 of the bill applies only to Federal employees and not to employees of any DOE contractor or subcontractor. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his clarification. Let me again express my thanks to him and the ranking member for the usual pleasure that this alumnus of the subcommittee had in working with him and with the ever-distinguished staff. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] for purposes of a colloquy. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] in colloquy. Mr. Chairman, the first sentence of section 301 of H.R. 2203 states, ``None of the funds appropriated by this act or any prior appropriations act may be used to award a management and operating contract unless such contract is awarded using the competitive procedures.'' First, I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee for the strong endorsement of awarding such contracts on a competitive basis. For far too long the Department of Energy has awarded far too many M contracts on a sole-source basis. However, I have a concern about the second sentence of section 301, which states, ``The preceding sentence does not apply to a management and operating contract for research and development activities at a federally funded research and development center.'' My concern is that this language may send an unintended signal to the DOE that Congress is encouraging sole-source awards of M contracts for research and development activities at federally funded research and development centers rather than encouraging more competition. While I understand that in some cases sole-source awards of such M contracts may be justified, I would like the gentleman's assurance that this language does not prohibit nor discourage the competitive awards of M contracts for R Further, I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania if he would be willing to work with the Committee on Science to craft language that could be submitted to the conference committee that would address these concerns. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. May I say, Mr. Chairman, to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], that the gentleman is correct, that the intent of this section is to encourage and foster more competition in the future awards of M contracts for the Department of Energy laboratories. Furthermore, there is no intention to prohibit or discourage the Department from awarding M contracts for research and development on a competitive basis. Finally, the gentleman has my assurances that the subcommittee will work with the Committee on Science to craft language that could be submitted to the conference that would address his concerns. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and look forward to working with him on this matter and on other important issues in the future. As a general rule, I, as a Member of Congress, would prefer that all DOE contracts be awarded on a competitive basis, and I believe that the burden of proof should be on the department to justify any sole-source award. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith]. Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I wish to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentlewoman from Idaho in a colloquy. I am very concerned about the administration's proposed American Heritage Rivers Initiative. This initiative could threaten private properties if it is implemented. Although the initiative purports to be community-led, the Federal agencies involved will dominate the process and could well dictate to property owners how they can use their lands. If this occurs, we could see a severe erosion of the private properties rights guaranteed to American citizens under the Constitution. A prime example of this could occur in the West where restricting cattle from streams, their only water supply, would create enormous uncompensated losses for ranchers. The American people have not been given a voice in the process. The agencies involved are currently planning to reprogram funds for purposes that were not authorized or appropriated by Congress. The reprogramming of funds to pay for an initiative where the voices of the American people have not been heard is simply not acceptable. Until Congress has reviewed this initiative and the agencies have provided substantial protections for private property rights, I am proposing that Congress in general, and the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations in particular, withhold any funds for implementation of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Any assurances that the chairman can provide that no reprogramming requests will be entertained by the committee until all questions have been answered and private property rights have been protected would be appreciated. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I really appreciate the gentleman from Texas bringing this matter to the attention of the Members. I, too, have grave concerns about the Clinton Administration's American Heritage Rivers Initiative. There are so many things wrong about both the programming itself and the process by which it was brought forth that we simply do not have time to go into it now, but I wholeheartedly agree with the gentleman from Texas. Private property rights really are at risk. I have to object also and am very concerned about the process by which this initiative was brought forward. The White House is attempting to spend millions of dollars on an unauthorized program. Congress has never authorized nor appropriated funds for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. This means that other on-the-ground programs that have been authorized and appropriated for, such as programs in the Bureau of Land Management or programs in the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Forest Service, are being robbed to bring this unauthorized program, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative program, on line. When we are so desperately striving to meet our existing obligations and commitments to the American people, when we ask the American people to once again tighten their belts, and when we continue to spend our grandchildren's money by engaging in deficit spending, I have to ask if this is really the best use of taxpayers' money. And I say that it is not. We must take care of what we already own and owe. I introduced H.R. 1842, a bill to stop this proposal. I note that the gentleman from Texas is a cosponsor, and I thank him for raising this ill-conceived program to the attention of the Members. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that my friends from Texas and Idaho have raised a very important issue. Although the bill before us does not include language regarding the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, the committee shares both their concerns, and they can be certain that I will not agree to funding for this program until we can be assured that there are adequate protections for private property rights. The gentleman from Texas and the gentlewoman from Idaho have my assurance that we will carefully consider any reprogramming related to the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw]. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from [[Page H5753]] Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding me this time in order to engage in a brief colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to thank the gentleman for the funding that Dade County and Palm Beach County, Florida, received under his committee's appropriation bill. I also appreciate the committee's rejecting the administration's policy to limit the role of the Corps of Engineers in shore protection policies. I am deeply concerned, however, that one project in Broward County, FL for which I requested $17 million, only received $100,000. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend that the committee provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to review the general design memorandum for the renourishment of the Broward County project currently being prepared by the local sponsor. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman, as usual, is quite correct. However, large portions of Broward's beaches are severely eroded. While this is partly due to storm damage, it is mainly because the life of the project is nearing its end. The expected life of a renourishment project is 10 years, and Broward County is an excellent example of a beach restoration project that has worked exactly as it was designed. In January 1996, Broward County's local sponsor made application for approximately $17 million in fiscal year 1998 appropriations, representing the Federal share of the estimated $27 million for the 12- mile-long Broward County beach nourishment and shore protection project. {time} 2215 This Federal cost-share was calculated in two Corps of Engineers approved section 934 reevaluation reports for segment II, which is Hillsboro Inlet to Port Everglades, and section III, which covers Port Everglades to South County Line. The county plans to include appropriate innovative project features, such as highly engineered structures, which will maximize the life of the beach fill, as requested by the State and Federal legislators. Broward County requested the full Federal cost of the project in order to ensure maximum cost efficiencies. In fact, Broward County estimates that past nourishment projects have protected approximately $4 billion in infrastructure from storm damage. However, Broward beaches are reaching minimum storm damage protection right now, and if implementation of the new project does not commence on schedule and we have a hurricane of any great strength, I fear next year I will be back to ask for double the requested amount just to repair the damage. Mr. Chairman, feasibility studies have been completed on the project, and crucially needed additional appropriations could be used to commence action on this project. I thank the chairman for listening to me in the past and for allowing me the chance to provide a more complete explanation of Broward's needs. I yield back to the gentleman. Mr. McDADE. I want to commend my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], for the briefing he gave me on this project for bringing to our attention. I understand, and we share his concerns on this issue. And we will continue to give this matter our deepest study during the conference. Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kind]. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and ranking member of the committee for the fine work they did on this bill. I rise in support of the bill. Mr. Chairman, as we consider the Energy and Water appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998, I want to commend the chairman and members of the Appropriations Committee for maintaining funding for the Environmental Management Program [EMP]. By appropriating $16.7 million for 1998 the EMP will be able to operate at the same funding level as last year. The Environmental Management Program is a cooperative effort of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Biological Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate, restore, and enhance ravine and wetland habitat along a 1,200-mile stretch of the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. The EMP is authorized through fiscal year 2002 in the Army Corps of Engineers budget. The 1986 Water Resources Development Act authorized funding for the implementation of an overall Upper Mississippi River Basin Comprehensive Master Plan. This consisted of two essential components, one dedicated to improved navigation on the river for barge traffic, most notably lock and dam improvements, and the other to the long term environmental and recreational preservation of the river, which became the EMP. The EMP is an essential tool in maintaining the quality of the river environment, as well as recreational and economic opportunities along the Mississippi River. Navigation along the upper Mississippi River supports 400,000 full or part time jobs, which produces over $4 billion in individual income. Recreation use of the river generates 12 million visitors and spending of $1.2 billion in direct and indirect expenditures in the communities along the Mississippi. The EMP has always received bipartisan support, and this year is no different. Republican and Democratic members of Congress who represent areas along the upper Mississippi River joined me in helping secure adequate funding for the EMP in this year's Appropriations bill. The Governors of all five States who border the upper Mississippi and Illinois River--(Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri)-- support the EMP and have been active in maintaining its long term viability. The Mississippi River is a national treasure. It flows southward from Minnesota and Wisconsin through the heart of our Nation and into the Gulf of Mexico. The river is a vital source of clean water, a major navigational corridor, a crucial environmental ecosystem, an important flood damage reduction source and a tremendous recreational resource for millions of Americans. The Environmental Management Program serves a crucial role in protecting that resource so we can continue to provide for all of those needs into the future. The unique bipartisan, multistate support that the EMP receives, and the strong level of cooperation between Federal agencies is a model for all government resource programs. No other program on the Mississippi River is doing the kind of data collection and habitat restoration projects that the EMP does. I applaud the members of the Appropriations Committee for the support of this valuable project and I urge my colleagues to fully support the EMP at the appropriated funding level. On a personal note I want to thank Bob Dellany, the Director of the Environmental Management Technical Center [EMTC], and his staff for their dedicated work to study, protect and promote the upper Mississippi River. The folks at the EMTC, located in Onalaska, WI, do an outstanding job and they deserve our recognition and praise. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield], for purposes of a colloquy. Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman and his staff and the minority and their staff for the work that they have done with me on many projects in my district, and I ask for the opportunity to enter into a colloquy with the chairman. As the chairman knows from our many discussions, the national recreation area land between the lakes better known as LBL is in the district that I represent in Kentucky. LBL is the only federally owned national recreation area in the United States managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority and to my knowledge is the only national recreation area with no statutory governance. My constituents are concerned about continued Federal support for LBL following the TVA Chairman Crowell's announcement to no longer seek funding for the non-power programs including LBL. That decision was later reversed by Chairman Crowell but not before the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development had already approved the plan to eliminate all appropriated funds for non-power programs and instead pay for those activities from TVA revenues and savings from the power program. I appreciate very much the chairman's efforts to find another source of revenue to finance LBL operations. However, my constituents remain skeptical about this funding approach and fear further reductions in Federal financial support for LBL because [[Page H5754]] there is no actual line item designating the amount LBL should receive. In the Senate passed bill, monies were appropriated for the non-power program and LBL received $7.9 million. Mr. Chairman, do you share my view that the Federal Government is financially responsible for this national recreation area, which was established in the 1960's by the Kennedy administration and resulted in the forcible removal of over 800 families from their land in Kentucky? Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say that the answer to your question is yes. The committee fully expects TVA to commit sufficient funding to the Land Between the Lakes to permit continued enjoyment of these resources by the public. We have written into our report, may I say to my friend, that we will exercise vigorous oversight over this problem to make sure that this occurs and we are grateful to the gentleman for bringing it to our attention. Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, when he goes to conference with the Senate, is it his intention to support a funding level for LBL that will ensure the proper operation and maintenance of this national recreation area? I yield to the gentleman. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time further, may I say to my colleague that the committee intends to work closely with the gentleman, as we have tried to today, to ensure that his interest in the continued operation and maintenance of LBL is protected. Mr. WHITFIELD. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the chairman very much. And once again, I want to thank him and his staff for their cooperation. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that we have about three, perhaps four more Members, and we are down toward the end of the colloquies on this side of the aisle. I believe my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], has taken care of that side. It is the Chair's intention, once we finish the colloquies, if there is any time left, to yield it back and to ask that the bill be considered as read and open for amendment. So I make that statement in order that Members who may want to introduce amendments will be advised that their opportunity may come very quickly. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette]. Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], an acknowledged friend and supporter of Great Lakes priorities, in a colloquy regarding the Army Corps of Engineers Division Reorganization Plan and recently authorized Sediment Remediation Technology Demonstration project. Mr. Chairman, it has recently come to my attention that the Army Corps of Engineers is planning to restructure its Great Lakes and Ohio River Division by first severely reducing the number of employees, particularly those with decision-making authority, at its Chicago office and eventually closing down that facility. This plan is documented in an internal Army Corps memo that I will submit for the Record at the appropriate time. This plan would leave the Great Lakes region with only one office, in Cincinnati, and would obliterate the institutional memory that is so vital to Army Corps operations in this region. Last year, when this Congress passed the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997, the Army Corps was directed to reduce its divisions to no less than six and no more than eight. The Department of the Army's Office of Civil Works submitted a plan to the Congress which detailed the restructuring plan, approved by the Secretary. Again, I will submit this document for the Record at the appropriate time. The plan stated that, ``the Great Lakes districts of the North Central Division will be combined with the districts of the Ohio River Division to form the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division. Division headquarters will remain in both Chicago and Cincinnati, each with a deputy commander and SES.'' Mr. Chairman, do you agree with me that it is imperative that we exercise congressional oversight authority over the reorganization plan? I will yield to the chairman. Mr. McDADE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to say to him that we remain interested in the Corps of Engineers division office reorganization plan. We will continue to monitor it, and we appreciate the gentleman bringing his concern to our attention. Mr. LaTOURETTE. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the chairman for his willingness to work on that issue. The second issue that I would like to address is the Army Corps' sediment remediation technology program, also known as ARCS 2, which was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This program is important to my district and Members' districts throughout the Great Lakes because of the huge quantity of contaminated sediments in the Lakes. Contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes are the largest repository of toxic pollution in the basin and pose a threat to human health as these toxins are slowly released into the water where they can enter the food chain through fish and birds. The sediments, primarily in harbors, collect many pollutants that have been entering the Great Lakes for decades. A total of 362 contaminants have been identified in the Great Lakes sediments, many of which are known to have potentially severe human health impacts. The current Energy and Water Appropriations bill does not include language regarding the ARCS 2 account. Pilot and laboratory-scale projects for the assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments were conducted under the assessment of remediation of contaminated sediments authority in the Clean Water Act. Section 515 of the WRDA bill of 1996 builds upon the old ARCS program by directing the Army Corps to conduct full-scale demonstration projects of promising sediment remediation technology. Such full-scale projects are an essential next step to removing the clean-up process from the planning to the implementation phase. Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, it is within your jurisdiction to see that this issue is addressed in the conference on the energy and water bill in the Senate. I would request on behalf of my colleagues in the Great Lakes region that you support the inclusion of language that will allow the Army Corps to move forward with this important sediment remediation program for fiscal year 1998. I would further yield to the chair. Mr. McDADE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate my colleague bringing this matter to our attention. I look forward to working on this issue as the bill moves through the appropriations process. Mr. LaTOURETTE. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank him for his wisdom and continued support of the issues important to myself and those in the Great Lakes region. I look forward to working with him on this and other matters. I thank him for his courtesy. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me also take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for the excellent work they have done in producing this bipartisan bill so important, indeed so vital to the State of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, as you may know, San Carlos Lake, located in the Sixth District, is now on the verge of drying up. Current estimates suggest it could be dry by September. Now as we might expect, this is causing great concern among the local residents because this lake has great recreational value; and, Mr. Chairman, as we all know, it is vital economically to the residents of the sixth district living around San Carlos Lake. Commensurate with the philosophy of the new majority, Mr. Chairman, we are seeking to solve this problem, first at the State level, but certainly we would be remiss if we did not try to employ every opportunity and explore every avenue of possibility that may exist. And, so, Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to say that I would appreciate the gentleman's help in exploring ways to provide assistance to these people of Arizona's sixth district as we seek to prevent this lake from drying out. [[Page H5755]] Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me tell my colleague that we are grateful to him for bringing this to our attention. We realize the serious nature of the problem, and we will be glad to work with him through the process to try to resolve it. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, I very much appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee. I appreciate his attention to so many matters of vital importance within the State of Arizona and certainly his attention in this regard. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of a colloquy, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent]. Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding. I would ask the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water to engage in a colloquy regarding the transfer of FUSRAP responsibility from the Department of Energy to the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Chairman, my district in Missouri has a major FUSRAP site which contains nuclear contamination from the Manhattan Project and other hazardous waste as well. For 15 years, the St. Louis community has attempted to work with the Department of Energy to clean up this site. After years of frustration and delay, however, the Department of Energy has finally begun a serious effort to begin to clean up the site. Contracts have been let, feasibility studies completed, the site recommendations have been prepared and commitments have been made. As a result, Mr. Chairman, there are many people in the community, who while very appreciative of the abilities of the Army Corps of Engineers, are very concerned that the progress we finally made in getting DOE to clean up the site will be undone by this transfer. As a result, I would like to ask the gentleman, as a sponsor of this legislation, to clarify some of the concerns the community and I have about the effects of the legislation. Although there is no formal record of decision yet for this clean-up, in St. Louis, several feasibility sites have been completed and a site recommendation has been made by the Department of energy. Would the Army Corps of Engineers respect these studies and the site plan and the contracts which have already been let for work at the site? Mr. McDADE. Reclaiming my time, let me say that we are appreciative to the gentleman for bringing this important problem to our attention. Let me say that the committee intends that the feasibility studies and the site recommendations prepared by the DOE at the time of the enactment of this legislation will be accepted and carried out by the Corps of Engineers and that existing contracts will be honored. Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I thank the gentleman for his responsiveness. The Department of Energy, in its site recommendations, has targeted the year 2004 for completion of this project. I would say to the gentleman it is very important to the community that this commitment be maintained. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we have, as you know, because we have discussed it substantially, increased money appropriated to the FUSRAP program, with the intent that it will be more likely that the sites will be cleaned up on schedule. Mr. TALENT. If the gentleman would yield further, I thank the gentleman. One other concern: The local community has been very involved in designing a plan to clean up the site. Their concern is that the administration of clean-up will be moved away from the St. Louis area to Omaha, reducing the community's input and influence on the clean-up process. If the Army Corps of Engineers takes over the FUSRAP program, is it committee's intention that it be administered out of the St. Louis Corps office? Mr. McDADE. Reclaiming my time, let me say to the gentleman that the Corps of Engineers typically manages projects from its closest district office and we would intend for that to be done. {time} 2230 Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman for his assurances and I thank him and the ranking member for their hard work on this outstanding bill. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. The bill contains several provisions that will be critically important to the safety of the Sacramento area that I represent. I wish to express my deep gratitude to the Appropriations Committee, particularly Energy and Water Development Subcommittee Chairman Joe McDade and ranking member Vic Fazio, for their recognition of the severe danger of flooding that my district faces. The bill they have crafted will allow for significant progress on the project for flood protection from the American River authorized by last year's Water Resources Development Act. The project, while in itself far from sufficient to provide comprehensive protection for the Sacramento area, is a vital step toward that absolutely critical goal. I am extremely pleased that the bill provides funding that will enable the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to make maximum progress on this initiative in fiscal year 1998. H.R. 2203 also makes a very important statement in providing reimbursements in two areas where the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency [SAFCA] has moved forward with flood control efforts in advance of federal funding. One of these instances is SAFCA's project to improve flood protection for the Natomas area of Sacramento. By partially funding the reimbursement that has been authorized for this local effort, the committee has given valuable encouragement to communities that wish to move forward in the most aggressive manner in acting to address pressing flood threats. Similarly, the committee has sent an important signal by fully reimbursing SAFCA for costs associated with the variable flood control operation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir implemented by a 1995 agreement between SAFCA and the Bureau of Reclamation. This contract has provided a very necessary increment of added flood protection for the Sacramento area. Under last year's WRDA bill, the Federal Government accepted responsibility for 75 percent of the costs of lost water and power resulting from this agreement over a four year period. I am extremely pleased that the Committee has acted to meet this federal commitment. The bill funds a number of other greatly needed flood control initiatives for the Sacramento area. These include the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project, which is helping to prevent bank erosion along the American River levees that represent the last line of flood defense for many Sacramentans. The bill also supports important area flood control efforts by including funds for construction of the Magpie Creek small flood control project, for feasibility studies as well as preconstruction engineering and design for the South Sacramento Streams Group project, and for a reconnaissance study for flood damage reduction from the Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers. Finally, the Committee has provided support for two other innovative projects in the Sacramento area. One of these is an important water quality project--the city of Sacramento's efforts to improve its combined sewer system in order to prevent the flow of sewage into the Sacramento River. The second is the Ueda Parkway, a set of bicycle, equestrian and pedestrian trails to be constructed along a portion of the Natomas levee improvements. Again, I deeply thank the committee for its support and look forward to working with them to gain final approval for these initiatives. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to commend the Appropriations Committee in general, and its Energy and Water Development Subcommittee in particular, for the fine job they did in crafting the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations bill being considered today. Not only is H.R. 2203 fiscally responsible, but there is much to be said for its policy and project provisions. As a Member of Congress, it has long been my position that the Federal Government should spend less money more wisely. In its current form, this bill does just that. As reported, H.R. 2203 calls for a $573-million reduction in spending for energy and water projects next year, precisely what is needed in these times of fiscal restraint. Not only that, but the measure is notable for the quality of the projects it funds. Let me cite two examples, with which I am particularly familiar. The first is the Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project [DPRWDP], for which $1 million has been provided, while the second is the Fox River Floodgate Installation Project, to which $1.178 million has been directed. Both are located in northern Illinois and, with the monies allocated by H.R. 2203, each is likely to pay big dividends in the future. When complete, the DPRWDP will give policymakers the information they need to protect wetlands, preserve species habitat, reduce [[Page H5756]] flooding and improve water quality, while the Fox River project will reduce the threat and expense of flooding along one of America's more popular recreational waterways. In short, both endeavors will provide a substantial and tangible return on the money being invested, just as they should. My thanks to the chairman and members of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for including them in H.R. 2203 and to the chairman and members of the Appropriations Committee for approving them subsequently. By singling out these two projects, I do not mean to suggest that others funded by H.R. 2203 are not equally deserving. To the contrary, there are a number of other projects worthy of favorable mention including the North Libertyville estates flood control project, the Chicago Shoreline project and the Yucca Mountain interim nuclear waste storage project just to name a few. That being the case, I urge my colleagues to give this measure their support. Not only does it contribute to budget reduction but it has many other benefits to offer as well. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the efforts of Chairman McDade--and his staff, Jim Ogsbury, Bob Schmidt, Jeanne Wilson, Don McKinnon, and Sandra Farrow--in the formulation and passage of the Energy and Water development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. They were exceedingly helpful, insightful, and responsive. This is Joe McDade's first Energy and Water bill. While he follows two outstanding chairmen--Tom Bevill and John Myers--few can dispute that Joe stepped up to the plate and managed to formulate a fine bill and send it swiftly through the complex Appropriations Committee process. And this is not an easy bill to write. It is diverse, funding programs from nuclear weapons research to geothermal heat pump technologies, from the construction of Army Corps of Engineers water infrastructure projects, to the funding of critical development programs like those in the Appalachian Regional Commission. This bill demands an appreciation for physics, electronics, the needs of the rural poor, and, more importantly, a respect for the ravages of nature. Few of us will forget the loss of life and property, and the heartache that resulted in the floods this year in the West Coast and Midwest United States. We know we cannot control nature, but we can do everything humanly possible to anticipate nature's worst forces, and to the best of our ability prevent loss of life. We concern ourselves with the well-being of our neighbors, relatives, and communities--to ensure they are protected, and that they are provided a fair chance to prosper in the American economy. That is what we are supposed to do in this body. That is what Joe McDade has done in this bill. Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of this bill. I want to express my appreciation to Chairman McDade and Ranking Member Fazio for their efforts and assistance with this bill. I also want to give a big thanks to the entire Energy and Water Subcommittee Staff who were always ready and able to assist me and my staff on this bill. This is a good bill. This bill provides adequate funding for continued construction of a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Furthermore, it still provides $85 million to begin construction of an interim storage facility once we enact authorization for such a facility later this year. This will help the Department of Energy meet its contract obligations to the commercial nuclear industry. This bill also provides $7 million for the university nuclear reactor programs, $5 million of which is designated for the nuclear engineering R This will ensure that we have the next generation of engineers prepared to develop and oversee our Nation's nuclear power infrastructure. Although this bill does not fund the administration's request for the Nuclear Energy Security Program, I believe that nuclear power is an essential part of the Nation's energy portfolio and as such, I support some level of nuclear energy R for energy security. Considering nuclear power supplies over 20 percent of our Nation's electricity, we need to ensure the existing supply as a component of the Nation's baseload well into the next century. I encourage the Department to re- scope this year's proposal and to propose research that only takes advantage of DOE's unique capabilities but provides the best possible return on investment. The bottom line is that as our primary in nuclear R declines, we will lose our ability to participate on the world stage and to observe and understand the civilian nuclear programs of emerging nations. When we began the appropriations process this year, I was cautiously optimistic that the Department of Energy was turning the corner on its environmental management program--that a new vision had been embraced over at the Department--a vision of accelerating and completing the cleanup of DOE's defense nuclear sites so that as many of them as possible are closed down within the next decade. But, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to say that it's been more than a year since DOE brought forth this new vision and still, the Department has not been able to deliver a credible, defensible plan. As the old saying goes, ``the Devil's in the Details.'' DOE's ``Discussion Draft'' was finally released in June and is little other than a top-level framework to start the planning process. It is a document that is not supported by DOE's own site data or by what is realistically achievable. I still believe that this vision is well within our grasp and this bill get us much closer to it. Frustrated with years of mismanagement in clearning up the former nuclear defense sites, this bill directs the Department of Energy to cleanup and close out the two major environmental management sites. Specifically, the Closure Project accelerates the closure of the Rocky Flats and Fernald sites. These are the two sites where all the entities--the administration, the States, the contractors, and the citizens--agree that closure by 2006 can and should be done. We've added funding above the administration's request to ensure just that-- so that cleanup by 2006 becomes a reality. I'm also glad the bill preserves funding for other closure projects, a proposal that I championed last year. I hope that the Department follows this lead and creates more closure projects in the future. Mr. Chairman, I also support transferring funding for cleanup of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program to the U.S. Corps of Engineers. As you know, this is a program for cleanup of 46 former Manhattan District or Atomic Energy Commission sites--a program that's been underway for 17 years and is still only 50 percent complete. I think it's time to try something different--and I believe the Corps, who successfully manages Department of Defense cleanups will be able to bring these projects to closure more quickly and at a more reasonable cost to the taxpayer. We need to remain vigilant about new and innovative ways to accelerate cleanup. In this context, I support privatization. However, I want greater assurances of the Department's ability to manage privatized cleanups and less dependence on large sums of up-front federal funding, even when it's held in reserve. I also support efforts to leverage technology and encourage the Department to better utilize the best and brightest of the universities and national laboratories. For example, DOE's use of the leading universities in the area of robotics technology development and deployment is a success story within the technology development program. Using advanced state-of-the-art robotics for a broad spectrum of cleanup tasks is not just efficient and more effective than using humans, but it reduces occupational exposure to hazardous environments. Finally, I want to see DOE bring forth, along with next year's budget request, a detailed and defensible closure plan based on an aggressive but realistic estimate of the most that can be completed and closed out over the next decade. I agree that the vision can be accomplished by doing more sooner rather than later, by substantial mortgage and risk reduction, and by leveraging technology. But let's get on with it. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your leadership and for the efforts of the staff. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the rule and H.R. 2203, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations for fiscal year 1998. I support this bill mainly because it provides $413 million 39--percent more for the Army Corps of Engineers construction programs than requested by the administration. The administration originally requested $9.5 million for the construction of the Sims Bayou Project in Houston, TX. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development specifically earmarked an additional $3.5 million bringing the total funding for the project to $13 million. Mr. Chairman, the Sims Bayou Project is a project that stretches through my district. Over the course of recent years, the Sims Bayou has seen massive amounts of flooding. Citizens in my congressional district, have been flooded out of their homes, and their lives have been disrupted. In 1994, 759 homes were flooded as a result of the overflow from the Sims Bayou. That is 759 families that were forced to leave their homes. I mainly support this bill, Mr. Chairman, because the subcommittee has earmarked in this bill $13 million for the construction and improvement of the Sims Bayou project that will soon be underway by the Army Corps of Engineers. I would like to thank the Army Corps of Engineers for their cooperation with my office in helping to bring relief to the people of the 18th Congressional District in order to avoid dangerous flooding. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development added an additional $3.5 million for the construction of this Sims Bayou project after my office worked to explain the devastating impact of the past flooding in this area. I am quite certain, Mr. [[Page H5757]] Chairman, that this project would not have been able to go forward if this additional money would not have been granted by the Subcommittee. For that I have to thank Chairman McDade, Ranking Member Fazio, and my Texas colleague Chet Edwards, a new member on the Appropriations Committee. However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call on the Army Corps of Engineers to do everything that they can to accelerate the completion of this project. The project will now extend to Martin Luther King and Airport Boulevards, and Mykaw to Cullen Boulevard. This is flooding that can be remedied and the project must be completed before the expected date of 2006. While I applaud the Army Corps of Engineers for their cooperation, this is unacceptable for the people in my congressional district who are suffering. They need relief and I know that they cannot wait until the expected completion date of 2006. This must be done and I will work with the Army Corps of Engineers and local officials to ensure that this is done. Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY98 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act and to congratulate my friend, Chairman McDade, for his work on this bill. I am particularly pleased that this bill recognizes a federal role in preserving our Nation's water resources, including our shorelines. I want to alert my colleagues to language on page 7 of the Committee Report to H.R. 2203: The Committee believes that the budget request represents a lack of commitment by the Administration to the traditional roles and missions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: navigation, flood control, and share protection. I wholly agree with this statement. I would further add that when the Administration fails to offer an acceptable budget request, it makes the job of the appropriators that much more difficult. In light of a woeful budget request, Chairman McDade has done an outstanding job. My district encompasses over 100 miles of coastline and has several ports and navigation channels. These resources provide avenues of commerce, transportation routes and access to military facilities. They are a vast and crucial resource for my district and their maintenance and protection is very important. In addition to ports and navigation channels, my district has miles of beaches. President Clinton has proposed an end to federal funding of beach nourishment projects, saying that they are not in the ``national interest.'' I do not support this belief. Shore protection serves the same purpose as flood control projects, by protecting property and saving lives. Furthermore, our Nation's beaches and coastal areas are a great source of national pride. Millions of American and foreign tourists flock to these areas every year, all year, to enjoy clean, safe and beautiful beaches. To say that these areas are only of interest to the states in which they are located is the equivalent of saying that Yosemite is only of interest to the State of California. The funding for water resource development in this bill will enhance commerce and protect homes and lives. Nonetheless, there is much work ahead of us. I applaud the Chairman and I hope he will be able to preserve our commitment to water resources when this bill goes to Conference. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2703 making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 1998. I would first like to thank Chairman McDade and ranking member Vic Fazio for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today. I would also like to thank the hard-working subcommittee staff, for without them our jobs would be tremendously more difficult. I truly appreciate their knowledge and professionalism. The bill before the House today stresses national priorities while keeping our commitment to downsize the Federal Government, maintain funding for critical flood safety projects, coastal protection, and dredging harbors and waterways throughout our Nation. We have made some tough choices about where to reduce spending and have written a bill which is $573 million less than last year. As a member of the subcommittee, I am very pleased with two recommendations that were included in this year's bill. First, the bill

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2159, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
(House of Representatives - July 24, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5750-H5775] PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2159, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that consideration of H.R. 2159 may proceed according to the following order: (1) The Speaker may at any time, as though pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2159) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. (2) The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XXI are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. (3) Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning with ``: Provided'' on page 24, line 8, through ``justice'' on line 16. Where points of order are waived against part of a paragraph, points of order against a provision in another part of such paragraph may be made only against such provision and not against the entire paragraph. (4) The amendments printed in House Report 105-184 may be offered only by a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments printed in the report are waived. No other amendment shall be in order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. (5) The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. (6) At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. (7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this order, the amendment numbered 1 in House report 105-184 shall be debatable for 40 minutes. (8) Notwithstanding any other provision of this order, it shall be in order in lieu of the amendment numbered 2 in House report 105-184 to consider the amendment I have placed at the desk authored by Representative Gilman of New York, Representative Pelosi of California, Representative Campbell of California, Representative Lowey of New York, Representative Greenwood of Pennsylvania, Representative DeLauro of Connecticut and Representative Slaughter of New York, which may be offered by any of the named authors, shall be debatable for 40 minutes, and shall otherwise be considered as though printed as the amendment numbered 2 in House report 105-184. For clarification, Mr. Speaker, the perfecting amendment that I have just mentioned is to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. Amendment in Lieu of Amendment Numbered 2 in House Report 105-184 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment as a new subsection (h) of section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961-- (1) in paragraph (1)(B), insert before the period at the end the following: ``, or to organizations that do not promote abortion as a method of family planning and that utilize these funds to prevent abortion as a method of family planning''; and (2) in paragraph (2)(A), strike ``or engage'' and insert the following: ``or (except in the [[Page H5751]] case of organizations that do not promote abortion as a method of family planning and that utilize these funds to prevent abortion as a method of family planning) engage''. In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment as a new subsection (i) of section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, insert before the quotation marks at the end the following sentence: ``If the President is unable to make the certification required by paragraph (1) or (2) with respect to a fiscal year, the funds appropriated for the UNFPA for such fiscal year shall be transferred to the Agency for International Development for population planning activities or other population assistance.''. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] wish to add to his request? Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that a section 9 be added to the unanimous-consent request: (9) House Resolution 185 is laid on the table. That is the previous rule. Mr. Speaker, might I also at this time make it clear that it is the intention of the Committee on Rules that the 40 minutes on each amendment be equally divided between the proponent and an opponent and that divided equally at the discretion of the manager of the amendment on both sides among the two parties. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the waiver of points of order against amendments pertains to those in the report actually or constructively and not those actually in the Record. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. {time} 2200 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Klug). Pursuant to House Resolution 194 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2203. {time} 2200 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2203) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. Oxley in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier today, 52 minutes remained in general debate. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] has 26\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] has 25\1/2\ minutes remaining. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade]. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] for purposes of a colloquy. Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank first of all the chairman and the ranking member and all the members of the subcommittee for the excellent work they did under difficult budgetary restraints, and I want to particularly comment favorably upon their treatment of my home State of Delaware. However, I would like to point out a short-term and potentially long-term problem in the small community of St. Georges, DE. As the chairman knows, this Congress has recognized on a number of occasions that the United States has an ongoing legal obligation to provide good and sufficient crossings over many of our Nation's canals with ownership and operation bestowed upon the Army Corps of Engineers. Currently, the Army Corps owns and operates four such crossings over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal in Delaware, including two crossings at St. Georges. The Army Corps has notified the State of Delaware of its plan to close and remove one of those crossings, the St. Georges Bridge, at a cost of $20 million and without any consideration to my constituents or the taxpayers of this country. I believe this plan is shortsighted and is being implemented without congressional consent from either the gentleman's committee or the authorizing committee which has jurisdiction. I believe that there are many cost-efficient alternatives that properly take into account cost, safety, and human need, but I am afraid these alternatives will not be fully considered once the corps moves ahead with their demolition plan. I would therefore ask the chairman, whose committee oversees the Army Corps' spending, if it is his intent to allow the Army Corps to move ahead with a plan for the demolition of St. Georges Bridge without the consent of this body? Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. May I say as strongly as I can, Mr. Chairman, that it is not the intent of the committee to allow the corps to move ahead with the plan for the demolition of the St. Georges Bridge. In the bill we are considering today, there are no funds, I repeat, no funds for the demolition of the bridge nor any report language directing the Army Corps to demolish the St. Georges Bridge. Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, and I would hope that the chairman would work with me and the authorizers to see that a commonsense solution is found that benefits both the Army Corps, the taxpayers and, most importantly, my constituents. Will the chairman work with me toward this goal? Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it is my intent to work with my friend towards reaching a commonsense solution that benefits everybody involved. I appreciate the gentleman's bringing this important issue to my attention, and I want to assure him that the committee will work to meet many of the Member's concerns regarding the St. Georges Bridge. Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, this Member thanks the distinguished gentleman for his time. Since this issue does affect a great number of my constituents, it could set a dangerous precedent which other Members may face in their districts, so I appreciate the gentleman's clarification. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] for the purposes of a colloquy. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As the gentleman knows, I am particularly interested in the programs managed by the Office of Worker and Community Transition. I authored section 3161 of the 1993 defense bill that authorized these programs. I think they will continue to play a very important role as we go further into the post-cold war period. So I was worried about proposals initially in the report to limit the extent of these programs as they would continue at the Rocky Flats site and other sites where weapons production has ended but our final mission cleanup remains to be completed. I am glad we were able to work out some changes on that part of the report so that there is no doubt that 3161 will continue to apply to Rocky Flats and other similar sites. I appreciate the gentleman's cooperation and that of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] in getting those changes made. However, I think there is still a need to clarify one related provision of the bill. As the gentleman knows, section 305 essentially makes section 3161 of the 1993 defense bill unavailable to ``employees of the Department of Energy.'' A question has come up as to whether that restriction extends to employees of DOE's contractors or subcontractors. And I just want to make sure that I am correct in understanding that section 305 of the bill refers only to Federal employees of the Department of Energy and not to employees of companies operating under DOE contracts or subcontracts. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and let me say [[Page H5752]] that his interpretation is correct. Section 305 of the bill applies only to Federal employees and not to employees of any DOE contractor or subcontractor. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his clarification. Let me again express my thanks to him and the ranking member for the usual pleasure that this alumnus of the subcommittee had in working with him and with the ever-distinguished staff. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] for purposes of a colloquy. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] in colloquy. Mr. Chairman, the first sentence of section 301 of H.R. 2203 states, ``None of the funds appropriated by this act or any prior appropriations act may be used to award a management and operating contract unless such contract is awarded using the competitive procedures.'' First, I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee for the strong endorsement of awarding such contracts on a competitive basis. For far too long the Department of Energy has awarded far too many M contracts on a sole-source basis. However, I have a concern about the second sentence of section 301, which states, ``The preceding sentence does not apply to a management and operating contract for research and development activities at a federally funded research and development center.'' My concern is that this language may send an unintended signal to the DOE that Congress is encouraging sole-source awards of M contracts for research and development activities at federally funded research and development centers rather than encouraging more competition. While I understand that in some cases sole-source awards of such M contracts may be justified, I would like the gentleman's assurance that this language does not prohibit nor discourage the competitive awards of M contracts for R Further, I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania if he would be willing to work with the Committee on Science to craft language that could be submitted to the conference committee that would address these concerns. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. May I say, Mr. Chairman, to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], that the gentleman is correct, that the intent of this section is to encourage and foster more competition in the future awards of M contracts for the Department of Energy laboratories. Furthermore, there is no intention to prohibit or discourage the Department from awarding M contracts for research and development on a competitive basis. Finally, the gentleman has my assurances that the subcommittee will work with the Committee on Science to craft language that could be submitted to the conference that would address his concerns. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and look forward to working with him on this matter and on other important issues in the future. As a general rule, I, as a Member of Congress, would prefer that all DOE contracts be awarded on a competitive basis, and I believe that the burden of proof should be on the department to justify any sole-source award. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith]. Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I wish to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentlewoman from Idaho in a colloquy. I am very concerned about the administration's proposed American Heritage Rivers Initiative. This initiative could threaten private properties if it is implemented. Although the initiative purports to be community-led, the Federal agencies involved will dominate the process and could well dictate to property owners how they can use their lands. If this occurs, we could see a severe erosion of the private properties rights guaranteed to American citizens under the Constitution. A prime example of this could occur in the West where restricting cattle from streams, their only water supply, would create enormous uncompensated losses for ranchers. The American people have not been given a voice in the process. The agencies involved are currently planning to reprogram funds for purposes that were not authorized or appropriated by Congress. The reprogramming of funds to pay for an initiative where the voices of the American people have not been heard is simply not acceptable. Until Congress has reviewed this initiative and the agencies have provided substantial protections for private property rights, I am proposing that Congress in general, and the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations in particular, withhold any funds for implementation of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Any assurances that the chairman can provide that no reprogramming requests will be entertained by the committee until all questions have been answered and private property rights have been protected would be appreciated. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I really appreciate the gentleman from Texas bringing this matter to the attention of the Members. I, too, have grave concerns about the Clinton Administration's American Heritage Rivers Initiative. There are so many things wrong about both the programming itself and the process by which it was brought forth that we simply do not have time to go into it now, but I wholeheartedly agree with the gentleman from Texas. Private property rights really are at risk. I have to object also and am very concerned about the process by which this initiative was brought forward. The White House is attempting to spend millions of dollars on an unauthorized program. Congress has never authorized nor appropriated funds for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. This means that other on-the-ground programs that have been authorized and appropriated for, such as programs in the Bureau of Land Management or programs in the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Forest Service, are being robbed to bring this unauthorized program, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative program, on line. When we are so desperately striving to meet our existing obligations and commitments to the American people, when we ask the American people to once again tighten their belts, and when we continue to spend our grandchildren's money by engaging in deficit spending, I have to ask if this is really the best use of taxpayers' money. And I say that it is not. We must take care of what we already own and owe. I introduced H.R. 1842, a bill to stop this proposal. I note that the gentleman from Texas is a cosponsor, and I thank him for raising this ill-conceived program to the attention of the Members. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that my friends from Texas and Idaho have raised a very important issue. Although the bill before us does not include language regarding the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, the committee shares both their concerns, and they can be certain that I will not agree to funding for this program until we can be assured that there are adequate protections for private property rights. The gentleman from Texas and the gentlewoman from Idaho have my assurance that we will carefully consider any reprogramming related to the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw]. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from [[Page H5753]] Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding me this time in order to engage in a brief colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to thank the gentleman for the funding that Dade County and Palm Beach County, Florida, received under his committee's appropriation bill. I also appreciate the committee's rejecting the administration's policy to limit the role of the Corps of Engineers in shore protection policies. I am deeply concerned, however, that one project in Broward County, FL for which I requested $17 million, only received $100,000. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend that the committee provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to review the general design memorandum for the renourishment of the Broward County project currently being prepared by the local sponsor. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman, as usual, is quite correct. However, large portions of Broward's beaches are severely eroded. While this is partly due to storm damage, it is mainly because the life of the project is nearing its end. The expected life of a renourishment project is 10 years, and Broward County is an excellent example of a beach restoration project that has worked exactly as it was designed. In January 1996, Broward County's local sponsor made application for approximately $17 million in fiscal year 1998 appropriations, representing the Federal share of the estimated $27 million for the 12- mile-long Broward County beach nourishment and shore protection project. {time} 2215 This Federal cost-share was calculated in two Corps of Engineers approved section 934 reevaluation reports for segment II, which is Hillsboro Inlet to Port Everglades, and section III, which covers Port Everglades to South County Line. The county plans to include appropriate innovative project features, such as highly engineered structures, which will maximize the life of the beach fill, as requested by the State and Federal legislators. Broward County requested the full Federal cost of the project in order to ensure maximum cost efficiencies. In fact, Broward County estimates that past nourishment projects have protected approximately $4 billion in infrastructure from storm damage. However, Broward beaches are reaching minimum storm damage protection right now, and if implementation of the new project does not commence on schedule and we have a hurricane of any great strength, I fear next year I will be back to ask for double the requested amount just to repair the damage. Mr. Chairman, feasibility studies have been completed on the project, and crucially needed additional appropriations could be used to commence action on this project. I thank the chairman for listening to me in the past and for allowing me the chance to provide a more complete explanation of Broward's needs. I yield back to the gentleman. Mr. McDADE. I want to commend my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], for the briefing he gave me on this project for bringing to our attention. I understand, and we share his concerns on this issue. And we will continue to give this matter our deepest study during the conference. Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kind]. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and ranking member of the committee for the fine work they did on this bill. I rise in support of the bill. Mr. Chairman, as we consider the Energy and Water appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998, I want to commend the chairman and members of the Appropriations Committee for maintaining funding for the Environmental Management Program [EMP]. By appropriating $16.7 million for 1998 the EMP will be able to operate at the same funding level as last year. The Environmental Management Program is a cooperative effort of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Biological Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate, restore, and enhance ravine and wetland habitat along a 1,200-mile stretch of the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. The EMP is authorized through fiscal year 2002 in the Army Corps of Engineers budget. The 1986 Water Resources Development Act authorized funding for the implementation of an overall Upper Mississippi River Basin Comprehensive Master Plan. This consisted of two essential components, one dedicated to improved navigation on the river for barge traffic, most notably lock and dam improvements, and the other to the long term environmental and recreational preservation of the river, which became the EMP. The EMP is an essential tool in maintaining the quality of the river environment, as well as recreational and economic opportunities along the Mississippi River. Navigation along the upper Mississippi River supports 400,000 full or part time jobs, which produces over $4 billion in individual income. Recreation use of the river generates 12 million visitors and spending of $1.2 billion in direct and indirect expenditures in the communities along the Mississippi. The EMP has always received bipartisan support, and this year is no different. Republican and Democratic members of Congress who represent areas along the upper Mississippi River joined me in helping secure adequate funding for the EMP in this year's Appropriations bill. The Governors of all five States who border the upper Mississippi and Illinois River--(Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri)-- support the EMP and have been active in maintaining its long term viability. The Mississippi River is a national treasure. It flows southward from Minnesota and Wisconsin through the heart of our Nation and into the Gulf of Mexico. The river is a vital source of clean water, a major navigational corridor, a crucial environmental ecosystem, an important flood damage reduction source and a tremendous recreational resource for millions of Americans. The Environmental Management Program serves a crucial role in protecting that resource so we can continue to provide for all of those needs into the future. The unique bipartisan, multistate support that the EMP receives, and the strong level of cooperation between Federal agencies is a model for all government resource programs. No other program on the Mississippi River is doing the kind of data collection and habitat restoration projects that the EMP does. I applaud the members of the Appropriations Committee for the support of this valuable project and I urge my colleagues to fully support the EMP at the appropriated funding level. On a personal note I want to thank Bob Dellany, the Director of the Environmental Management Technical Center [EMTC], and his staff for their dedicated work to study, protect and promote the upper Mississippi River. The folks at the EMTC, located in Onalaska, WI, do an outstanding job and they deserve our recognition and praise. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield], for purposes of a colloquy. Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman and his staff and the minority and their staff for the work that they have done with me on many projects in my district, and I ask for the opportunity to enter into a colloquy with the chairman. As the chairman knows from our many discussions, the national recreation area land between the lakes better known as LBL is in the district that I represent in Kentucky. LBL is the only federally owned national recreation area in the United States managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority and to my knowledge is the only national recreation area with no statutory governance. My constituents are concerned about continued Federal support for LBL following the TVA Chairman Crowell's announcement to no longer seek funding for the non-power programs including LBL. That decision was later reversed by Chairman Crowell but not before the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development had already approved the plan to eliminate all appropriated funds for non-power programs and instead pay for those activities from TVA revenues and savings from the power program. I appreciate very much the chairman's efforts to find another source of revenue to finance LBL operations. However, my constituents remain skeptical about this funding approach and fear further reductions in Federal financial support for LBL because [[Page H5754]] there is no actual line item designating the amount LBL should receive. In the Senate passed bill, monies were appropriated for the non-power program and LBL received $7.9 million. Mr. Chairman, do you share my view that the Federal Government is financially responsible for this national recreation area, which was established in the 1960's by the Kennedy administration and resulted in the forcible removal of over 800 families from their land in Kentucky? Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say that the answer to your question is yes. The committee fully expects TVA to commit sufficient funding to the Land Between the Lakes to permit continued enjoyment of these resources by the public. We have written into our report, may I say to my friend, that we will exercise vigorous oversight over this problem to make sure that this occurs and we are grateful to the gentleman for bringing it to our attention. Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, when he goes to conference with the Senate, is it his intention to support a funding level for LBL that will ensure the proper operation and maintenance of this national recreation area? I yield to the gentleman. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time further, may I say to my colleague that the committee intends to work closely with the gentleman, as we have tried to today, to ensure that his interest in the continued operation and maintenance of LBL is protected. Mr. WHITFIELD. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the chairman very much. And once again, I want to thank him and his staff for their cooperation. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that we have about three, perhaps four more Members, and we are down toward the end of the colloquies on this side of the aisle. I believe my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], has taken care of that side. It is the Chair's intention, once we finish the colloquies, if there is any time left, to yield it back and to ask that the bill be considered as read and open for amendment. So I make that statement in order that Members who may want to introduce amendments will be advised that their opportunity may come very quickly. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette]. Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], an acknowledged friend and supporter of Great Lakes priorities, in a colloquy regarding the Army Corps of Engineers Division Reorganization Plan and recently authorized Sediment Remediation Technology Demonstration project. Mr. Chairman, it has recently come to my attention that the Army Corps of Engineers is planning to restructure its Great Lakes and Ohio River Division by first severely reducing the number of employees, particularly those with decision-making authority, at its Chicago office and eventually closing down that facility. This plan is documented in an internal Army Corps memo that I will submit for the Record at the appropriate time. This plan would leave the Great Lakes region with only one office, in Cincinnati, and would obliterate the institutional memory that is so vital to Army Corps operations in this region. Last year, when this Congress passed the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997, the Army Corps was directed to reduce its divisions to no less than six and no more than eight. The Department of the Army's Office of Civil Works submitted a plan to the Congress which detailed the restructuring plan, approved by the Secretary. Again, I will submit this document for the Record at the appropriate time. The plan stated that, ``the Great Lakes districts of the North Central Division will be combined with the districts of the Ohio River Division to form the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division. Division headquarters will remain in both Chicago and Cincinnati, each with a deputy commander and SES.'' Mr. Chairman, do you agree with me that it is imperative that we exercise congressional oversight authority over the reorganization plan? I will yield to the chairman. Mr. McDADE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to say to him that we remain interested in the Corps of Engineers division office reorganization plan. We will continue to monitor it, and we appreciate the gentleman bringing his concern to our attention. Mr. LaTOURETTE. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the chairman for his willingness to work on that issue. The second issue that I would like to address is the Army Corps' sediment remediation technology program, also known as ARCS 2, which was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This program is important to my district and Members' districts throughout the Great Lakes because of the huge quantity of contaminated sediments in the Lakes. Contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes are the largest repository of toxic pollution in the basin and pose a threat to human health as these toxins are slowly released into the water where they can enter the food chain through fish and birds. The sediments, primarily in harbors, collect many pollutants that have been entering the Great Lakes for decades. A total of 362 contaminants have been identified in the Great Lakes sediments, many of which are known to have potentially severe human health impacts. The current Energy and Water Appropriations bill does not include language regarding the ARCS 2 account. Pilot and laboratory-scale projects for the assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments were conducted under the assessment of remediation of contaminated sediments authority in the Clean Water Act. Section 515 of the WRDA bill of 1996 builds upon the old ARCS program by directing the Army Corps to conduct full-scale demonstration projects of promising sediment remediation technology. Such full-scale projects are an essential next step to removing the clean-up process from the planning to the implementation phase. Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, it is within your jurisdiction to see that this issue is addressed in the conference on the energy and water bill in the Senate. I would request on behalf of my colleagues in the Great Lakes region that you support the inclusion of language that will allow the Army Corps to move forward with this important sediment remediation program for fiscal year 1998. I would further yield to the chair. Mr. McDADE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate my colleague bringing this matter to our attention. I look forward to working on this issue as the bill moves through the appropriations process. Mr. LaTOURETTE. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank him for his wisdom and continued support of the issues important to myself and those in the Great Lakes region. I look forward to working with him on this and other matters. I thank him for his courtesy. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me also take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for the excellent work they have done in producing this bipartisan bill so important, indeed so vital to the State of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, as you may know, San Carlos Lake, located in the Sixth District, is now on the verge of drying up. Current estimates suggest it could be dry by September. Now as we might expect, this is causing great concern among the local residents because this lake has great recreational value; and, Mr. Chairman, as we all know, it is vital economically to the residents of the sixth district living around San Carlos Lake. Commensurate with the philosophy of the new majority, Mr. Chairman, we are seeking to solve this problem, first at the State level, but certainly we would be remiss if we did not try to employ every opportunity and explore every avenue of possibility that may exist. And, so, Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to say that I would appreciate the gentleman's help in exploring ways to provide assistance to these people of Arizona's sixth district as we seek to prevent this lake from drying out. [[Page H5755]] Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me tell my colleague that we are grateful to him for bringing this to our attention. We realize the serious nature of the problem, and we will be glad to work with him through the process to try to resolve it. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, I very much appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee. I appreciate his attention to so many matters of vital importance within the State of Arizona and certainly his attention in this regard. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of a colloquy, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent]. Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding. I would ask the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water to engage in a colloquy regarding the transfer of FUSRAP responsibility from the Department of Energy to the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Chairman, my district in Missouri has a major FUSRAP site which contains nuclear contamination from the Manhattan Project and other hazardous waste as well. For 15 years, the St. Louis community has attempted to work with the Department of Energy to clean up this site. After years of frustration and delay, however, the Department of Energy has finally begun a serious effort to begin to clean up the site. Contracts have been let, feasibility studies completed, the site recommendations have been prepared and commitments have been made. As a result, Mr. Chairman, there are many people in the community, who while very appreciative of the abilities of the Army Corps of Engineers, are very concerned that the progress we finally made in getting DOE to clean up the site will be undone by this transfer. As a result, I would like to ask the gentleman, as a sponsor of this legislation, to clarify some of the concerns the community and I have about the effects of the legislation. Although there is no formal record of decision yet for this clean-up, in St. Louis, several feasibility sites have been completed and a site recommendation has been made by the Department of energy. Would the Army Corps of Engineers respect these studies and the site plan and the contracts which have already been let for work at the site? Mr. McDADE. Reclaiming my time, let me say that we are appreciative to the gentleman for bringing this important problem to our attention. Let me say that the committee intends that the feasibility studies and the site recommendations prepared by the DOE at the time of the enactment of this legislation will be accepted and carried out by the Corps of Engineers and that existing contracts will be honored. Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I thank the gentleman for his responsiveness. The Department of Energy, in its site recommendations, has targeted the year 2004 for completion of this project. I would say to the gentleman it is very important to the community that this commitment be maintained. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we have, as you know, because we have discussed it substantially, increased money appropriated to the FUSRAP program, with the intent that it will be more likely that the sites will be cleaned up on schedule. Mr. TALENT. If the gentleman would yield further, I thank the gentleman. One other concern: The local community has been very involved in designing a plan to clean up the site. Their concern is that the administration of clean-up will be moved away from the St. Louis area to Omaha, reducing the community's input and influence on the clean-up process. If the Army Corps of Engineers takes over the FUSRAP program, is it committee's intention that it be administered out of the St. Louis Corps office? Mr. McDADE. Reclaiming my time, let me say to the gentleman that the Corps of Engineers typically manages projects from its closest district office and we would intend for that to be done. {time} 2230 Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman for his assurances and I thank him and the ranking member for their hard work on this outstanding bill. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. The bill contains several provisions that will be critically important to the safety of the Sacramento area that I represent. I wish to express my deep gratitude to the Appropriations Committee, particularly Energy and Water Development Subcommittee Chairman Joe McDade and ranking member Vic Fazio, for their recognition of the severe danger of flooding that my district faces. The bill they have crafted will allow for significant progress on the project for flood protection from the American River authorized by last year's Water Resources Development Act. The project, while in itself far from sufficient to provide comprehensive protection for the Sacramento area, is a vital step toward that absolutely critical goal. I am extremely pleased that the bill provides funding that will enable the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to make maximum progress on this initiative in fiscal year 1998. H.R. 2203 also makes a very important statement in providing reimbursements in two areas where the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency [SAFCA] has moved forward with flood control efforts in advance of federal funding. One of these instances is SAFCA's project to improve flood protection for the Natomas area of Sacramento. By partially funding the reimbursement that has been authorized for this local effort, the committee has given valuable encouragement to communities that wish to move forward in the most aggressive manner in acting to address pressing flood threats. Similarly, the committee has sent an important signal by fully reimbursing SAFCA for costs associated with the variable flood control operation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir implemented by a 1995 agreement between SAFCA and the Bureau of Reclamation. This contract has provided a very necessary increment of added flood protection for the Sacramento area. Under last year's WRDA bill, the Federal Government accepted responsibility for 75 percent of the costs of lost water and power resulting from this agreement over a four year period. I am extremely pleased that the Committee has acted to meet this federal commitment. The bill funds a number of other greatly needed flood control initiatives for the Sacramento area. These include the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project, which is helping to prevent bank erosion along the American River levees that represent the last line of flood defense for many Sacramentans. The bill also supports important area flood control efforts by including funds for construction of the Magpie Creek small flood control project, for feasibility studies as well as preconstruction engineering and design for the South Sacramento Streams Group project, and for a reconnaissance study for flood damage reduction from the Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers. Finally, the Committee has provided support for two other innovative projects in the Sacramento area. One of these is an important water quality project--the city of Sacramento's efforts to improve its combined sewer system in order to prevent the flow of sewage into the Sacramento River. The second is the Ueda Parkway, a set of bicycle, equestrian and pedestrian trails to be constructed along a portion of the Natomas levee improvements. Again, I deeply thank the committee for its support and look forward to working with them to gain final approval for these initiatives. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to commend the Appropriations Committee in general, and its Energy and Water Development Subcommittee in particular, for the fine job they did in crafting the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations bill being considered today. Not only is H.R. 2203 fiscally responsible, but there is much to be said for its policy and project provisions. As a Member of Congress, it has long been my position that the Federal Government should spend less money more wisely. In its current form, this bill does just that. As reported, H.R. 2203 calls for a $573-million reduction in spending for energy and water projects next year, precisely what is needed in these times of fiscal restraint. Not only that, but the measure is notable for the quality of the projects it funds. Let me cite two examples, with which I am particularly familiar. The first is the Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project [DPRWDP], for which $1 million has been provided, while the second is the Fox River Floodgate Installation Project, to which $1.178 million has been directed. Both are located in northern Illinois and, with the monies allocated by H.R. 2203, each is likely to pay big dividends in the future. When complete, the DPRWDP will give policymakers the information they need to protect wetlands, preserve species habitat, reduce [[Page H5756]] flooding and improve water quality, while the Fox River project will reduce the threat and expense of flooding along one of America's more popular recreational waterways. In short, both endeavors will provide a substantial and tangible return on the money being invested, just as they should. My thanks to the chairman and members of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for including them in H.R. 2203 and to the chairman and members of the Appropriations Committee for approving them subsequently. By singling out these two projects, I do not mean to suggest that others funded by H.R. 2203 are not equally deserving. To the contrary, there are a number of other projects worthy of favorable mention including the North Libertyville estates flood control project, the Chicago Shoreline project and the Yucca Mountain interim nuclear waste storage project just to name a few. That being the case, I urge my colleagues to give this measure their support. Not only does it contribute to budget reduction but it has many other benefits to offer as well. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the efforts of Chairman McDade--and his staff, Jim Ogsbury, Bob Schmidt, Jeanne Wilson, Don McKinnon, and Sandra Farrow--in the formulation and passage of the Energy and Water development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. They were exceedingly helpful, insightful, and responsive. This is Joe McDade's first Energy and Water bill. While he follows two outstanding chairmen--Tom Bevill and John Myers--few can dispute that Joe stepped up to the plate and managed to formulate a fine bill and send it swiftly through the complex Appropriations Committee process. And this is not an easy bill to write. It is diverse, funding programs from nuclear weapons research to geothermal heat pump technologies, from the construction of Army Corps of Engineers water infrastructure projects, to the funding of critical development programs like those in the Appalachian Regional Commission. This bill demands an appreciation for physics, electronics, the needs of the rural poor, and, more importantly, a respect for the ravages of nature. Few of us will forget the loss of life and property, and the heartache that resulted in the floods this year in the West Coast and Midwest United States. We know we cannot control nature, but we can do everything humanly possible to anticipate nature's worst forces, and to the best of our ability prevent loss of life. We concern ourselves with the well-being of our neighbors, relatives, and communities--to ensure they are protected, and that they are provided a fair chance to prosper in the American economy. That is what we are supposed to do in this body. That is what Joe McDade has done in this bill. Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of this bill. I want to express my appreciation to Chairman McDade and Ranking Member Fazio for their efforts and assistance with this bill. I also want to give a big thanks to the entire Energy and Water Subcommittee Staff who were always ready and able to assist me and my staff on this bill. This is a good bill. This bill provides adequate funding for continued construction of a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Furthermore, it still provides $85 million to begin construction of an interim storage facility once we enact authorization for such a facility later this year. This will help the Department of Energy meet its contract obligations to the commercial nuclear industry. This bill also provides $7 million for the university nuclear reactor programs, $5 million of which is designated for the nuclear engineering R This will ensure that we have the next generation of engineers prepared to develop and oversee our Nation's nuclear power infrastructure. Although this bill does not fund the administration's request for the Nuclear Energy Security Program, I believe that nuclear power is an essential part of the Nation's energy portfolio and as such, I support some level of nuclear energy R for energy security. Considering nuclear power supplies over 20 percent of our Nation's electricity, we need to ensure the existing supply as a component of the Nation's baseload well into the next century. I encourage the Department to re- scope this year's proposal and to propose research that only takes advantage of DOE's unique capabilities but provides the best possible return on investment. The bottom line is that as our primary in nuclear R declines, we will lose our ability to participate on the world stage and to observe and understand the civilian nuclear programs of emerging nations. When we began the appropriations process this year, I was cautiously optimistic that the Department of Energy was turning the corner on its environmental management program--that a new vision had been embraced over at the Department--a vision of accelerating and completing the cleanup of DOE's defense nuclear sites so that as many of them as possible are closed down within the next decade. But, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to say that it's been more than a year since DOE brought forth this new vision and still, the Department has not been able to deliver a credible, defensible plan. As the old saying goes, ``the Devil's in the Details.'' DOE's ``Discussion Draft'' was finally released in June and is little other than a top-level framework to start the planning process. It is a document that is not supported by DOE's own site data or by what is realistically achievable. I still believe that this vision is well within our grasp and this bill get us much closer to it. Frustrated with years of mismanagement in clearning up the former nuclear defense sites, this bill directs the Department of Energy to cleanup and close out the two major environmental management sites. Specifically, the Closure Project accelerates the closure of the Rocky Flats and Fernald sites. These are the two sites where all the entities--the administration, the States, the contractors, and the citizens--agree that closure by 2006 can and should be done. We've added funding above the administration's request to ensure just that-- so that cleanup by 2006 becomes a reality. I'm also glad the bill preserves funding for other closure projects, a proposal that I championed last year. I hope that the Department follows this lead and creates more closure projects in the future. Mr. Chairman, I also support transferring funding for cleanup of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program to the U.S. Corps of Engineers. As you know, this is a program for cleanup of 46 former Manhattan District or Atomic Energy Commission sites--a program that's been underway for 17 years and is still only 50 percent complete. I think it's time to try something different--and I believe the Corps, who successfully manages Department of Defense cleanups will be able to bring these projects to closure more quickly and at a more reasonable cost to the taxpayer. We need to remain vigilant about new and innovative ways to accelerate cleanup. In this context, I support privatization. However, I want greater assurances of the Department's ability to manage privatized cleanups and less dependence on large sums of up-front federal funding, even when it's held in reserve. I also support efforts to leverage technology and encourage the Department to better utilize the best and brightest of the universities and national laboratories. For example, DOE's use of the leading universities in the area of robotics technology development and deployment is a success story within the technology development program. Using advanced state-of-the-art robotics for a broad spectrum of cleanup tasks is not just efficient and more effective than using humans, but it reduces occupational exposure to hazardous environments. Finally, I want to see DOE bring forth, along with next year's budget request, a detailed and defensible closure plan based on an aggressive but realistic estimate of the most that can be completed and closed out over the next decade. I agree that the vision can be accomplished by doing more sooner rather than later, by substantial mortgage and risk reduction, and by leveraging technology. But let's get on with it. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your leadership and for the efforts of the staff. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the rule and H.R. 2203, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations for fiscal year 1998. I support this bill mainly because it provides $413 million 39--percent more for the Army Corps of Engineers construction programs than requested by the administration. The administration originally requested $9.5 million for the construction of the Sims Bayou Project in Houston, TX. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development specifically earmarked an additional $3.5 million bringing the total funding for the project to $13 million. Mr. Chairman, the Sims Bayou Project is a project that stretches through my district. Over the course of recent years, the Sims Bayou has seen massive amounts of flooding. Citizens in my congressional district, have been flooded out of their homes, and their lives have been disrupted. In 1994, 759 homes were flooded as a result of the overflow from the Sims Bayou. That is 759 families that were forced to leave their homes. I mainly support this bill, Mr. Chairman, because the subcommittee has earmarked in this bill $13 million for the construction and improvement of the Sims Bayou project that will soon be underway by the Army Corps of Engineers. I would like to thank the Army Corps of Engineers for their cooperation with my office in helping to bring relief to the people of the 18th Congressional District in order to avoid dangerous flooding. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development added an additional $3.5 million for the construction of this Sims Bayou project after my office worked to explain the devastating impact of the past flooding in this area. I am quite certain, Mr. [[Page H5757]] Chairman, that this project would not have been able to go forward if this additional money would not have been granted by the Subcommittee. For that I have to thank Chairman McDade, Ranking Member Fazio, and my Texas colleague Chet Edwards, a new member on the Appropriations Committee. However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call on the Army Corps of Engineers to do everything that they can to accelerate the completion of this project. The project will now extend to Martin Luther King and Airport Boulevards, and Mykaw to Cullen Boulevard. This is flooding that can be remedied and the project must be completed before the expected date of 2006. While I applaud the Army Corps of Engineers for their cooperation, this is unacceptable for the people in my congressional district who are suffering. They need relief and I know that they cannot wait until the expected completion date of 2006. This must be done and I will work with the Army Corps of Engineers and local officials to ensure that this is done. Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY98 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act and to congratulate my friend, Chairman McDade, for his work on this bill. I am particularly pleased that this bill recognizes a federal role in preserving our Nation's water resources, including our shorelines. I want to alert my colleagues to language on page 7 of the Committee Report to H.R. 2203: The Committee believes that the budget request represents a lack of commitment by the Administration to the traditional roles and missions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: navigation, flood control, and share protection. I wholly agree with this statement. I would further add that when the Administration fails to offer an acceptable budget request, it makes the job of the appropriators that much more difficult. In light of a woeful budget request, Chairman McDade has done an outstanding job. My district encompasses over 100 miles of coastline and has several ports and navigation channels. These resources provide avenues of commerce, transportation routes and access to military facilities. They are a vast and crucial resource for my district and their maintenance and protection is very important. In addition to ports and navigation channels, my district has miles of beaches. President Clinton has proposed an end to federal funding of beach nourishment projects, saying that they are not in the ``national interest.'' I do not support this belief. Shore protection serves the same purpose as flood control projects, by protecting property and saving lives. Furthermore, our Nation's beaches and coastal areas are a great source of national pride. Millions of American and foreign tourists flock to these areas every year, all year, to enjoy clean, safe and beautiful beaches. To say that these areas are only of interest to the states in which they are located is the equivalent of saying that Yosemite is only of interest to the State of California. The funding for water resource development in this bill will enhance commerce and protect homes and lives. Nonetheless, there is much work ahead of us. I applaud the Chairman and I hope he will be able to preserve our commitment to water resources when this bill goes to Conference. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2703 making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 1998. I would first like to thank Chairman McDade and ranking member Vic Fazio for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today. I would also like to thank the hard-working subcommittee staff, for without them our jobs would be tremendously more difficult. I truly appreciate their knowledge and professionalism. The bill before the House today stresses national priorities while keeping our commitment to downsize the Federal Government, maintain funding for critical flood safety projects, coastal protection, and dredging harbors and waterways throughout our Nation. We have made some tough choices about where to reduce spending and have written a bill which is $573 million less than last year. As a member of the subcommittee, I am very pleased with two recommendations that were included in this year's bill. First

Summary:

All articles in House section

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2159, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
(House of Representatives - July 24, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5750-H5775] PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2159, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that consideration of H.R. 2159 may proceed according to the following order: (1) The Speaker may at any time, as though pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2159) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. (2) The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XXI are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. (3) Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning with ``: Provided'' on page 24, line 8, through ``justice'' on line 16. Where points of order are waived against part of a paragraph, points of order against a provision in another part of such paragraph may be made only against such provision and not against the entire paragraph. (4) The amendments printed in House Report 105-184 may be offered only by a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments printed in the report are waived. No other amendment shall be in order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. (5) The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. (6) At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. (7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this order, the amendment numbered 1 in House report 105-184 shall be debatable for 40 minutes. (8) Notwithstanding any other provision of this order, it shall be in order in lieu of the amendment numbered 2 in House report 105-184 to consider the amendment I have placed at the desk authored by Representative Gilman of New York, Representative Pelosi of California, Representative Campbell of California, Representative Lowey of New York, Representative Greenwood of Pennsylvania, Representative DeLauro of Connecticut and Representative Slaughter of New York, which may be offered by any of the named authors, shall be debatable for 40 minutes, and shall otherwise be considered as though printed as the amendment numbered 2 in House report 105-184. For clarification, Mr. Speaker, the perfecting amendment that I have just mentioned is to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. Amendment in Lieu of Amendment Numbered 2 in House Report 105-184 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment as a new subsection (h) of section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961-- (1) in paragraph (1)(B), insert before the period at the end the following: ``, or to organizations that do not promote abortion as a method of family planning and that utilize these funds to prevent abortion as a method of family planning''; and (2) in paragraph (2)(A), strike ``or engage'' and insert the following: ``or (except in the [[Page H5751]] case of organizations that do not promote abortion as a method of family planning and that utilize these funds to prevent abortion as a method of family planning) engage''. In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment as a new subsection (i) of section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, insert before the quotation marks at the end the following sentence: ``If the President is unable to make the certification required by paragraph (1) or (2) with respect to a fiscal year, the funds appropriated for the UNFPA for such fiscal year shall be transferred to the Agency for International Development for population planning activities or other population assistance.''. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] wish to add to his request? Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that a section 9 be added to the unanimous-consent request: (9) House Resolution 185 is laid on the table. That is the previous rule. Mr. Speaker, might I also at this time make it clear that it is the intention of the Committee on Rules that the 40 minutes on each amendment be equally divided between the proponent and an opponent and that divided equally at the discretion of the manager of the amendment on both sides among the two parties. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the waiver of points of order against amendments pertains to those in the report actually or constructively and not those actually in the Record. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. {time} 2200 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Klug). Pursuant to House Resolution 194 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2203. {time} 2200 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2203) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. Oxley in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier today, 52 minutes remained in general debate. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] has 26\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] has 25\1/2\ minutes remaining. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade]. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] for purposes of a colloquy. Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank first of all the chairman and the ranking member and all the members of the subcommittee for the excellent work they did under difficult budgetary restraints, and I want to particularly comment favorably upon their treatment of my home State of Delaware. However, I would like to point out a short-term and potentially long-term problem in the small community of St. Georges, DE. As the chairman knows, this Congress has recognized on a number of occasions that the United States has an ongoing legal obligation to provide good and sufficient crossings over many of our Nation's canals with ownership and operation bestowed upon the Army Corps of Engineers. Currently, the Army Corps owns and operates four such crossings over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal in Delaware, including two crossings at St. Georges. The Army Corps has notified the State of Delaware of its plan to close and remove one of those crossings, the St. Georges Bridge, at a cost of $20 million and without any consideration to my constituents or the taxpayers of this country. I believe this plan is shortsighted and is being implemented without congressional consent from either the gentleman's committee or the authorizing committee which has jurisdiction. I believe that there are many cost-efficient alternatives that properly take into account cost, safety, and human need, but I am afraid these alternatives will not be fully considered once the corps moves ahead with their demolition plan. I would therefore ask the chairman, whose committee oversees the Army Corps' spending, if it is his intent to allow the Army Corps to move ahead with a plan for the demolition of St. Georges Bridge without the consent of this body? Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. May I say as strongly as I can, Mr. Chairman, that it is not the intent of the committee to allow the corps to move ahead with the plan for the demolition of the St. Georges Bridge. In the bill we are considering today, there are no funds, I repeat, no funds for the demolition of the bridge nor any report language directing the Army Corps to demolish the St. Georges Bridge. Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, and I would hope that the chairman would work with me and the authorizers to see that a commonsense solution is found that benefits both the Army Corps, the taxpayers and, most importantly, my constituents. Will the chairman work with me toward this goal? Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it is my intent to work with my friend towards reaching a commonsense solution that benefits everybody involved. I appreciate the gentleman's bringing this important issue to my attention, and I want to assure him that the committee will work to meet many of the Member's concerns regarding the St. Georges Bridge. Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, this Member thanks the distinguished gentleman for his time. Since this issue does affect a great number of my constituents, it could set a dangerous precedent which other Members may face in their districts, so I appreciate the gentleman's clarification. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] for the purposes of a colloquy. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As the gentleman knows, I am particularly interested in the programs managed by the Office of Worker and Community Transition. I authored section 3161 of the 1993 defense bill that authorized these programs. I think they will continue to play a very important role as we go further into the post-cold war period. So I was worried about proposals initially in the report to limit the extent of these programs as they would continue at the Rocky Flats site and other sites where weapons production has ended but our final mission cleanup remains to be completed. I am glad we were able to work out some changes on that part of the report so that there is no doubt that 3161 will continue to apply to Rocky Flats and other similar sites. I appreciate the gentleman's cooperation and that of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] in getting those changes made. However, I think there is still a need to clarify one related provision of the bill. As the gentleman knows, section 305 essentially makes section 3161 of the 1993 defense bill unavailable to ``employees of the Department of Energy.'' A question has come up as to whether that restriction extends to employees of DOE's contractors or subcontractors. And I just want to make sure that I am correct in understanding that section 305 of the bill refers only to Federal employees of the Department of Energy and not to employees of companies operating under DOE contracts or subcontracts. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and let me say [[Page H5752]] that his interpretation is correct. Section 305 of the bill applies only to Federal employees and not to employees of any DOE contractor or subcontractor. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his clarification. Let me again express my thanks to him and the ranking member for the usual pleasure that this alumnus of the subcommittee had in working with him and with the ever-distinguished staff. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] for purposes of a colloquy. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] in colloquy. Mr. Chairman, the first sentence of section 301 of H.R. 2203 states, ``None of the funds appropriated by this act or any prior appropriations act may be used to award a management and operating contract unless such contract is awarded using the competitive procedures.'' First, I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee for the strong endorsement of awarding such contracts on a competitive basis. For far too long the Department of Energy has awarded far too many M contracts on a sole-source basis. However, I have a concern about the second sentence of section 301, which states, ``The preceding sentence does not apply to a management and operating contract for research and development activities at a federally funded research and development center.'' My concern is that this language may send an unintended signal to the DOE that Congress is encouraging sole-source awards of M contracts for research and development activities at federally funded research and development centers rather than encouraging more competition. While I understand that in some cases sole-source awards of such M contracts may be justified, I would like the gentleman's assurance that this language does not prohibit nor discourage the competitive awards of M contracts for R Further, I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania if he would be willing to work with the Committee on Science to craft language that could be submitted to the conference committee that would address these concerns. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. May I say, Mr. Chairman, to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], that the gentleman is correct, that the intent of this section is to encourage and foster more competition in the future awards of M contracts for the Department of Energy laboratories. Furthermore, there is no intention to prohibit or discourage the Department from awarding M contracts for research and development on a competitive basis. Finally, the gentleman has my assurances that the subcommittee will work with the Committee on Science to craft language that could be submitted to the conference that would address his concerns. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and look forward to working with him on this matter and on other important issues in the future. As a general rule, I, as a Member of Congress, would prefer that all DOE contracts be awarded on a competitive basis, and I believe that the burden of proof should be on the department to justify any sole-source award. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith]. Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I wish to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentlewoman from Idaho in a colloquy. I am very concerned about the administration's proposed American Heritage Rivers Initiative. This initiative could threaten private properties if it is implemented. Although the initiative purports to be community-led, the Federal agencies involved will dominate the process and could well dictate to property owners how they can use their lands. If this occurs, we could see a severe erosion of the private properties rights guaranteed to American citizens under the Constitution. A prime example of this could occur in the West where restricting cattle from streams, their only water supply, would create enormous uncompensated losses for ranchers. The American people have not been given a voice in the process. The agencies involved are currently planning to reprogram funds for purposes that were not authorized or appropriated by Congress. The reprogramming of funds to pay for an initiative where the voices of the American people have not been heard is simply not acceptable. Until Congress has reviewed this initiative and the agencies have provided substantial protections for private property rights, I am proposing that Congress in general, and the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations in particular, withhold any funds for implementation of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Any assurances that the chairman can provide that no reprogramming requests will be entertained by the committee until all questions have been answered and private property rights have been protected would be appreciated. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I really appreciate the gentleman from Texas bringing this matter to the attention of the Members. I, too, have grave concerns about the Clinton Administration's American Heritage Rivers Initiative. There are so many things wrong about both the programming itself and the process by which it was brought forth that we simply do not have time to go into it now, but I wholeheartedly agree with the gentleman from Texas. Private property rights really are at risk. I have to object also and am very concerned about the process by which this initiative was brought forward. The White House is attempting to spend millions of dollars on an unauthorized program. Congress has never authorized nor appropriated funds for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. This means that other on-the-ground programs that have been authorized and appropriated for, such as programs in the Bureau of Land Management or programs in the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Forest Service, are being robbed to bring this unauthorized program, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative program, on line. When we are so desperately striving to meet our existing obligations and commitments to the American people, when we ask the American people to once again tighten their belts, and when we continue to spend our grandchildren's money by engaging in deficit spending, I have to ask if this is really the best use of taxpayers' money. And I say that it is not. We must take care of what we already own and owe. I introduced H.R. 1842, a bill to stop this proposal. I note that the gentleman from Texas is a cosponsor, and I thank him for raising this ill-conceived program to the attention of the Members. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that my friends from Texas and Idaho have raised a very important issue. Although the bill before us does not include language regarding the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, the committee shares both their concerns, and they can be certain that I will not agree to funding for this program until we can be assured that there are adequate protections for private property rights. The gentleman from Texas and the gentlewoman from Idaho have my assurance that we will carefully consider any reprogramming related to the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw]. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from [[Page H5753]] Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding me this time in order to engage in a brief colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to thank the gentleman for the funding that Dade County and Palm Beach County, Florida, received under his committee's appropriation bill. I also appreciate the committee's rejecting the administration's policy to limit the role of the Corps of Engineers in shore protection policies. I am deeply concerned, however, that one project in Broward County, FL for which I requested $17 million, only received $100,000. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend that the committee provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to review the general design memorandum for the renourishment of the Broward County project currently being prepared by the local sponsor. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman, as usual, is quite correct. However, large portions of Broward's beaches are severely eroded. While this is partly due to storm damage, it is mainly because the life of the project is nearing its end. The expected life of a renourishment project is 10 years, and Broward County is an excellent example of a beach restoration project that has worked exactly as it was designed. In January 1996, Broward County's local sponsor made application for approximately $17 million in fiscal year 1998 appropriations, representing the Federal share of the estimated $27 million for the 12- mile-long Broward County beach nourishment and shore protection project. {time} 2215 This Federal cost-share was calculated in two Corps of Engineers approved section 934 reevaluation reports for segment II, which is Hillsboro Inlet to Port Everglades, and section III, which covers Port Everglades to South County Line. The county plans to include appropriate innovative project features, such as highly engineered structures, which will maximize the life of the beach fill, as requested by the State and Federal legislators. Broward County requested the full Federal cost of the project in order to ensure maximum cost efficiencies. In fact, Broward County estimates that past nourishment projects have protected approximately $4 billion in infrastructure from storm damage. However, Broward beaches are reaching minimum storm damage protection right now, and if implementation of the new project does not commence on schedule and we have a hurricane of any great strength, I fear next year I will be back to ask for double the requested amount just to repair the damage. Mr. Chairman, feasibility studies have been completed on the project, and crucially needed additional appropriations could be used to commence action on this project. I thank the chairman for listening to me in the past and for allowing me the chance to provide a more complete explanation of Broward's needs. I yield back to the gentleman. Mr. McDADE. I want to commend my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], for the briefing he gave me on this project for bringing to our attention. I understand, and we share his concerns on this issue. And we will continue to give this matter our deepest study during the conference. Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kind]. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and ranking member of the committee for the fine work they did on this bill. I rise in support of the bill. Mr. Chairman, as we consider the Energy and Water appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998, I want to commend the chairman and members of the Appropriations Committee for maintaining funding for the Environmental Management Program [EMP]. By appropriating $16.7 million for 1998 the EMP will be able to operate at the same funding level as last year. The Environmental Management Program is a cooperative effort of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Biological Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate, restore, and enhance ravine and wetland habitat along a 1,200-mile stretch of the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. The EMP is authorized through fiscal year 2002 in the Army Corps of Engineers budget. The 1986 Water Resources Development Act authorized funding for the implementation of an overall Upper Mississippi River Basin Comprehensive Master Plan. This consisted of two essential components, one dedicated to improved navigation on the river for barge traffic, most notably lock and dam improvements, and the other to the long term environmental and recreational preservation of the river, which became the EMP. The EMP is an essential tool in maintaining the quality of the river environment, as well as recreational and economic opportunities along the Mississippi River. Navigation along the upper Mississippi River supports 400,000 full or part time jobs, which produces over $4 billion in individual income. Recreation use of the river generates 12 million visitors and spending of $1.2 billion in direct and indirect expenditures in the communities along the Mississippi. The EMP has always received bipartisan support, and this year is no different. Republican and Democratic members of Congress who represent areas along the upper Mississippi River joined me in helping secure adequate funding for the EMP in this year's Appropriations bill. The Governors of all five States who border the upper Mississippi and Illinois River--(Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri)-- support the EMP and have been active in maintaining its long term viability. The Mississippi River is a national treasure. It flows southward from Minnesota and Wisconsin through the heart of our Nation and into the Gulf of Mexico. The river is a vital source of clean water, a major navigational corridor, a crucial environmental ecosystem, an important flood damage reduction source and a tremendous recreational resource for millions of Americans. The Environmental Management Program serves a crucial role in protecting that resource so we can continue to provide for all of those needs into the future. The unique bipartisan, multistate support that the EMP receives, and the strong level of cooperation between Federal agencies is a model for all government resource programs. No other program on the Mississippi River is doing the kind of data collection and habitat restoration projects that the EMP does. I applaud the members of the Appropriations Committee for the support of this valuable project and I urge my colleagues to fully support the EMP at the appropriated funding level. On a personal note I want to thank Bob Dellany, the Director of the Environmental Management Technical Center [EMTC], and his staff for their dedicated work to study, protect and promote the upper Mississippi River. The folks at the EMTC, located in Onalaska, WI, do an outstanding job and they deserve our recognition and praise. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield], for purposes of a colloquy. Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman and his staff and the minority and their staff for the work that they have done with me on many projects in my district, and I ask for the opportunity to enter into a colloquy with the chairman. As the chairman knows from our many discussions, the national recreation area land between the lakes better known as LBL is in the district that I represent in Kentucky. LBL is the only federally owned national recreation area in the United States managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority and to my knowledge is the only national recreation area with no statutory governance. My constituents are concerned about continued Federal support for LBL following the TVA Chairman Crowell's announcement to no longer seek funding for the non-power programs including LBL. That decision was later reversed by Chairman Crowell but not before the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development had already approved the plan to eliminate all appropriated funds for non-power programs and instead pay for those activities from TVA revenues and savings from the power program. I appreciate very much the chairman's efforts to find another source of revenue to finance LBL operations. However, my constituents remain skeptical about this funding approach and fear further reductions in Federal financial support for LBL because [[Page H5754]] there is no actual line item designating the amount LBL should receive. In the Senate passed bill, monies were appropriated for the non-power program and LBL received $7.9 million. Mr. Chairman, do you share my view that the Federal Government is financially responsible for this national recreation area, which was established in the 1960's by the Kennedy administration and resulted in the forcible removal of over 800 families from their land in Kentucky? Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say that the answer to your question is yes. The committee fully expects TVA to commit sufficient funding to the Land Between the Lakes to permit continued enjoyment of these resources by the public. We have written into our report, may I say to my friend, that we will exercise vigorous oversight over this problem to make sure that this occurs and we are grateful to the gentleman for bringing it to our attention. Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, when he goes to conference with the Senate, is it his intention to support a funding level for LBL that will ensure the proper operation and maintenance of this national recreation area? I yield to the gentleman. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time further, may I say to my colleague that the committee intends to work closely with the gentleman, as we have tried to today, to ensure that his interest in the continued operation and maintenance of LBL is protected. Mr. WHITFIELD. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the chairman very much. And once again, I want to thank him and his staff for their cooperation. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that we have about three, perhaps four more Members, and we are down toward the end of the colloquies on this side of the aisle. I believe my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], has taken care of that side. It is the Chair's intention, once we finish the colloquies, if there is any time left, to yield it back and to ask that the bill be considered as read and open for amendment. So I make that statement in order that Members who may want to introduce amendments will be advised that their opportunity may come very quickly. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette]. Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], an acknowledged friend and supporter of Great Lakes priorities, in a colloquy regarding the Army Corps of Engineers Division Reorganization Plan and recently authorized Sediment Remediation Technology Demonstration project. Mr. Chairman, it has recently come to my attention that the Army Corps of Engineers is planning to restructure its Great Lakes and Ohio River Division by first severely reducing the number of employees, particularly those with decision-making authority, at its Chicago office and eventually closing down that facility. This plan is documented in an internal Army Corps memo that I will submit for the Record at the appropriate time. This plan would leave the Great Lakes region with only one office, in Cincinnati, and would obliterate the institutional memory that is so vital to Army Corps operations in this region. Last year, when this Congress passed the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997, the Army Corps was directed to reduce its divisions to no less than six and no more than eight. The Department of the Army's Office of Civil Works submitted a plan to the Congress which detailed the restructuring plan, approved by the Secretary. Again, I will submit this document for the Record at the appropriate time. The plan stated that, ``the Great Lakes districts of the North Central Division will be combined with the districts of the Ohio River Division to form the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division. Division headquarters will remain in both Chicago and Cincinnati, each with a deputy commander and SES.'' Mr. Chairman, do you agree with me that it is imperative that we exercise congressional oversight authority over the reorganization plan? I will yield to the chairman. Mr. McDADE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to say to him that we remain interested in the Corps of Engineers division office reorganization plan. We will continue to monitor it, and we appreciate the gentleman bringing his concern to our attention. Mr. LaTOURETTE. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the chairman for his willingness to work on that issue. The second issue that I would like to address is the Army Corps' sediment remediation technology program, also known as ARCS 2, which was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This program is important to my district and Members' districts throughout the Great Lakes because of the huge quantity of contaminated sediments in the Lakes. Contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes are the largest repository of toxic pollution in the basin and pose a threat to human health as these toxins are slowly released into the water where they can enter the food chain through fish and birds. The sediments, primarily in harbors, collect many pollutants that have been entering the Great Lakes for decades. A total of 362 contaminants have been identified in the Great Lakes sediments, many of which are known to have potentially severe human health impacts. The current Energy and Water Appropriations bill does not include language regarding the ARCS 2 account. Pilot and laboratory-scale projects for the assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments were conducted under the assessment of remediation of contaminated sediments authority in the Clean Water Act. Section 515 of the WRDA bill of 1996 builds upon the old ARCS program by directing the Army Corps to conduct full-scale demonstration projects of promising sediment remediation technology. Such full-scale projects are an essential next step to removing the clean-up process from the planning to the implementation phase. Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, it is within your jurisdiction to see that this issue is addressed in the conference on the energy and water bill in the Senate. I would request on behalf of my colleagues in the Great Lakes region that you support the inclusion of language that will allow the Army Corps to move forward with this important sediment remediation program for fiscal year 1998. I would further yield to the chair. Mr. McDADE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate my colleague bringing this matter to our attention. I look forward to working on this issue as the bill moves through the appropriations process. Mr. LaTOURETTE. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank him for his wisdom and continued support of the issues important to myself and those in the Great Lakes region. I look forward to working with him on this and other matters. I thank him for his courtesy. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me also take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for the excellent work they have done in producing this bipartisan bill so important, indeed so vital to the State of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, as you may know, San Carlos Lake, located in the Sixth District, is now on the verge of drying up. Current estimates suggest it could be dry by September. Now as we might expect, this is causing great concern among the local residents because this lake has great recreational value; and, Mr. Chairman, as we all know, it is vital economically to the residents of the sixth district living around San Carlos Lake. Commensurate with the philosophy of the new majority, Mr. Chairman, we are seeking to solve this problem, first at the State level, but certainly we would be remiss if we did not try to employ every opportunity and explore every avenue of possibility that may exist. And, so, Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to say that I would appreciate the gentleman's help in exploring ways to provide assistance to these people of Arizona's sixth district as we seek to prevent this lake from drying out. [[Page H5755]] Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me tell my colleague that we are grateful to him for bringing this to our attention. We realize the serious nature of the problem, and we will be glad to work with him through the process to try to resolve it. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, I very much appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee. I appreciate his attention to so many matters of vital importance within the State of Arizona and certainly his attention in this regard. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of a colloquy, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent]. Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding. I would ask the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water to engage in a colloquy regarding the transfer of FUSRAP responsibility from the Department of Energy to the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Chairman, my district in Missouri has a major FUSRAP site which contains nuclear contamination from the Manhattan Project and other hazardous waste as well. For 15 years, the St. Louis community has attempted to work with the Department of Energy to clean up this site. After years of frustration and delay, however, the Department of Energy has finally begun a serious effort to begin to clean up the site. Contracts have been let, feasibility studies completed, the site recommendations have been prepared and commitments have been made. As a result, Mr. Chairman, there are many people in the community, who while very appreciative of the abilities of the Army Corps of Engineers, are very concerned that the progress we finally made in getting DOE to clean up the site will be undone by this transfer. As a result, I would like to ask the gentleman, as a sponsor of this legislation, to clarify some of the concerns the community and I have about the effects of the legislation. Although there is no formal record of decision yet for this clean-up, in St. Louis, several feasibility sites have been completed and a site recommendation has been made by the Department of energy. Would the Army Corps of Engineers respect these studies and the site plan and the contracts which have already been let for work at the site? Mr. McDADE. Reclaiming my time, let me say that we are appreciative to the gentleman for bringing this important problem to our attention. Let me say that the committee intends that the feasibility studies and the site recommendations prepared by the DOE at the time of the enactment of this legislation will be accepted and carried out by the Corps of Engineers and that existing contracts will be honored. Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I thank the gentleman for his responsiveness. The Department of Energy, in its site recommendations, has targeted the year 2004 for completion of this project. I would say to the gentleman it is very important to the community that this commitment be maintained. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we have, as you know, because we have discussed it substantially, increased money appropriated to the FUSRAP program, with the intent that it will be more likely that the sites will be cleaned up on schedule. Mr. TALENT. If the gentleman would yield further, I thank the gentleman. One other concern: The local community has been very involved in designing a plan to clean up the site. Their concern is that the administration of clean-up will be moved away from the St. Louis area to Omaha, reducing the community's input and influence on the clean-up process. If the Army Corps of Engineers takes over the FUSRAP program, is it committee's intention that it be administered out of the St. Louis Corps office? Mr. McDADE. Reclaiming my time, let me say to the gentleman that the Corps of Engineers typically manages projects from its closest district office and we would intend for that to be done. {time} 2230 Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman for his assurances and I thank him and the ranking member for their hard work on this outstanding bill. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. The bill contains several provisions that will be critically important to the safety of the Sacramento area that I represent. I wish to express my deep gratitude to the Appropriations Committee, particularly Energy and Water Development Subcommittee Chairman Joe McDade and ranking member Vic Fazio, for their recognition of the severe danger of flooding that my district faces. The bill they have crafted will allow for significant progress on the project for flood protection from the American River authorized by last year's Water Resources Development Act. The project, while in itself far from sufficient to provide comprehensive protection for the Sacramento area, is a vital step toward that absolutely critical goal. I am extremely pleased that the bill provides funding that will enable the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to make maximum progress on this initiative in fiscal year 1998. H.R. 2203 also makes a very important statement in providing reimbursements in two areas where the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency [SAFCA] has moved forward with flood control efforts in advance of federal funding. One of these instances is SAFCA's project to improve flood protection for the Natomas area of Sacramento. By partially funding the reimbursement that has been authorized for this local effort, the committee has given valuable encouragement to communities that wish to move forward in the most aggressive manner in acting to address pressing flood threats. Similarly, the committee has sent an important signal by fully reimbursing SAFCA for costs associated with the variable flood control operation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir implemented by a 1995 agreement between SAFCA and the Bureau of Reclamation. This contract has provided a very necessary increment of added flood protection for the Sacramento area. Under last year's WRDA bill, the Federal Government accepted responsibility for 75 percent of the costs of lost water and power resulting from this agreement over a four year period. I am extremely pleased that the Committee has acted to meet this federal commitment. The bill funds a number of other greatly needed flood control initiatives for the Sacramento area. These include the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project, which is helping to prevent bank erosion along the American River levees that represent the last line of flood defense for many Sacramentans. The bill also supports important area flood control efforts by including funds for construction of the Magpie Creek small flood control project, for feasibility studies as well as preconstruction engineering and design for the South Sacramento Streams Group project, and for a reconnaissance study for flood damage reduction from the Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers. Finally, the Committee has provided support for two other innovative projects in the Sacramento area. One of these is an important water quality project--the city of Sacramento's efforts to improve its combined sewer system in order to prevent the flow of sewage into the Sacramento River. The second is the Ueda Parkway, a set of bicycle, equestrian and pedestrian trails to be constructed along a portion of the Natomas levee improvements. Again, I deeply thank the committee for its support and look forward to working with them to gain final approval for these initiatives. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to commend the Appropriations Committee in general, and its Energy and Water Development Subcommittee in particular, for the fine job they did in crafting the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations bill being considered today. Not only is H.R. 2203 fiscally responsible, but there is much to be said for its policy and project provisions. As a Member of Congress, it has long been my position that the Federal Government should spend less money more wisely. In its current form, this bill does just that. As reported, H.R. 2203 calls for a $573-million reduction in spending for energy and water projects next year, precisely what is needed in these times of fiscal restraint. Not only that, but the measure is notable for the quality of the projects it funds. Let me cite two examples, with which I am particularly familiar. The first is the Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project [DPRWDP], for which $1 million has been provided, while the second is the Fox River Floodgate Installation Project, to which $1.178 million has been directed. Both are located in northern Illinois and, with the monies allocated by H.R. 2203, each is likely to pay big dividends in the future. When complete, the DPRWDP will give policymakers the information they need to protect wetlands, preserve species habitat, reduce [[Page H5756]] flooding and improve water quality, while the Fox River project will reduce the threat and expense of flooding along one of America's more popular recreational waterways. In short, both endeavors will provide a substantial and tangible return on the money being invested, just as they should. My thanks to the chairman and members of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for including them in H.R. 2203 and to the chairman and members of the Appropriations Committee for approving them subsequently. By singling out these two projects, I do not mean to suggest that others funded by H.R. 2203 are not equally deserving. To the contrary, there are a number of other projects worthy of favorable mention including the North Libertyville estates flood control project, the Chicago Shoreline project and the Yucca Mountain interim nuclear waste storage project just to name a few. That being the case, I urge my colleagues to give this measure their support. Not only does it contribute to budget reduction but it has many other benefits to offer as well. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the efforts of Chairman McDade--and his staff, Jim Ogsbury, Bob Schmidt, Jeanne Wilson, Don McKinnon, and Sandra Farrow--in the formulation and passage of the Energy and Water development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. They were exceedingly helpful, insightful, and responsive. This is Joe McDade's first Energy and Water bill. While he follows two outstanding chairmen--Tom Bevill and John Myers--few can dispute that Joe stepped up to the plate and managed to formulate a fine bill and send it swiftly through the complex Appropriations Committee process. And this is not an easy bill to write. It is diverse, funding programs from nuclear weapons research to geothermal heat pump technologies, from the construction of Army Corps of Engineers water infrastructure projects, to the funding of critical development programs like those in the Appalachian Regional Commission. This bill demands an appreciation for physics, electronics, the needs of the rural poor, and, more importantly, a respect for the ravages of nature. Few of us will forget the loss of life and property, and the heartache that resulted in the floods this year in the West Coast and Midwest United States. We know we cannot control nature, but we can do everything humanly possible to anticipate nature's worst forces, and to the best of our ability prevent loss of life. We concern ourselves with the well-being of our neighbors, relatives, and communities--to ensure they are protected, and that they are provided a fair chance to prosper in the American economy. That is what we are supposed to do in this body. That is what Joe McDade has done in this bill. Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of this bill. I want to express my appreciation to Chairman McDade and Ranking Member Fazio for their efforts and assistance with this bill. I also want to give a big thanks to the entire Energy and Water Subcommittee Staff who were always ready and able to assist me and my staff on this bill. This is a good bill. This bill provides adequate funding for continued construction of a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Furthermore, it still provides $85 million to begin construction of an interim storage facility once we enact authorization for such a facility later this year. This will help the Department of Energy meet its contract obligations to the commercial nuclear industry. This bill also provides $7 million for the university nuclear reactor programs, $5 million of which is designated for the nuclear engineering R This will ensure that we have the next generation of engineers prepared to develop and oversee our Nation's nuclear power infrastructure. Although this bill does not fund the administration's request for the Nuclear Energy Security Program, I believe that nuclear power is an essential part of the Nation's energy portfolio and as such, I support some level of nuclear energy R for energy security. Considering nuclear power supplies over 20 percent of our Nation's electricity, we need to ensure the existing supply as a component of the Nation's baseload well into the next century. I encourage the Department to re- scope this year's proposal and to propose research that only takes advantage of DOE's unique capabilities but provides the best possible return on investment. The bottom line is that as our primary in nuclear R declines, we will lose our ability to participate on the world stage and to observe and understand the civilian nuclear programs of emerging nations. When we began the appropriations process this year, I was cautiously optimistic that the Department of Energy was turning the corner on its environmental management program--that a new vision had been embraced over at the Department--a vision of accelerating and completing the cleanup of DOE's defense nuclear sites so that as many of them as possible are closed down within the next decade. But, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to say that it's been more than a year since DOE brought forth this new vision and still, the Department has not been able to deliver a credible, defensible plan. As the old saying goes, ``the Devil's in the Details.'' DOE's ``Discussion Draft'' was finally released in June and is little other than a top-level framework to start the planning process. It is a document that is not supported by DOE's own site data or by what is realistically achievable. I still believe that this vision is well within our grasp and this bill get us much closer to it. Frustrated with years of mismanagement in clearning up the former nuclear defense sites, this bill directs the Department of Energy to cleanup and close out the two major environmental management sites. Specifically, the Closure Project accelerates the closure of the Rocky Flats and Fernald sites. These are the two sites where all the entities--the administration, the States, the contractors, and the citizens--agree that closure by 2006 can and should be done. We've added funding above the administration's request to ensure just that-- so that cleanup by 2006 becomes a reality. I'm also glad the bill preserves funding for other closure projects, a proposal that I championed last year. I hope that the Department follows this lead and creates more closure projects in the future. Mr. Chairman, I also support transferring funding for cleanup of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program to the U.S. Corps of Engineers. As you know, this is a program for cleanup of 46 former Manhattan District or Atomic Energy Commission sites--a program that's been underway for 17 years and is still only 50 percent complete. I think it's time to try something different--and I believe the Corps, who successfully manages Department of Defense cleanups will be able to bring these projects to closure more quickly and at a more reasonable cost to the taxpayer. We need to remain vigilant about new and innovative ways to accelerate cleanup. In this context, I support privatization. However, I want greater assurances of the Department's ability to manage privatized cleanups and less dependence on large sums of up-front federal funding, even when it's held in reserve. I also support efforts to leverage technology and encourage the Department to better utilize the best and brightest of the universities and national laboratories. For example, DOE's use of the leading universities in the area of robotics technology development and deployment is a success story within the technology development program. Using advanced state-of-the-art robotics for a broad spectrum of cleanup tasks is not just efficient and more effective than using humans, but it reduces occupational exposure to hazardous environments. Finally, I want to see DOE bring forth, along with next year's budget request, a detailed and defensible closure plan based on an aggressive but realistic estimate of the most that can be completed and closed out over the next decade. I agree that the vision can be accomplished by doing more sooner rather than later, by substantial mortgage and risk reduction, and by leveraging technology. But let's get on with it. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your leadership and for the efforts of the staff. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the rule and H.R. 2203, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations for fiscal year 1998. I support this bill mainly because it provides $413 million 39--percent more for the Army Corps of Engineers construction programs than requested by the administration. The administration originally requested $9.5 million for the construction of the Sims Bayou Project in Houston, TX. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development specifically earmarked an additional $3.5 million bringing the total funding for the project to $13 million. Mr. Chairman, the Sims Bayou Project is a project that stretches through my district. Over the course of recent years, the Sims Bayou has seen massive amounts of flooding. Citizens in my congressional district, have been flooded out of their homes, and their lives have been disrupted. In 1994, 759 homes were flooded as a result of the overflow from the Sims Bayou. That is 759 families that were forced to leave their homes. I mainly support this bill, Mr. Chairman, because the subcommittee has earmarked in this bill $13 million for the construction and improvement of the Sims Bayou project that will soon be underway by the Army Corps of Engineers. I would like to thank the Army Corps of Engineers for their cooperation with my office in helping to bring relief to the people of the 18th Congressional District in order to avoid dangerous flooding. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development added an additional $3.5 million for the construction of this Sims Bayou project after my office worked to explain the devastating impact of the past flooding in this area. I am quite certain, Mr. [[Page H5757]] Chairman, that this project would not have been able to go forward if this additional money would not have been granted by the Subcommittee. For that I have to thank Chairman McDade, Ranking Member Fazio, and my Texas colleague Chet Edwards, a new member on the Appropriations Committee. However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call on the Army Corps of Engineers to do everything that they can to accelerate the completion of this project. The project will now extend to Martin Luther King and Airport Boulevards, and Mykaw to Cullen Boulevard. This is flooding that can be remedied and the project must be completed before the expected date of 2006. While I applaud the Army Corps of Engineers for their cooperation, this is unacceptable for the people in my congressional district who are suffering. They need relief and I know that they cannot wait until the expected completion date of 2006. This must be done and I will work with the Army Corps of Engineers and local officials to ensure that this is done. Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY98 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act and to congratulate my friend, Chairman McDade, for his work on this bill. I am particularly pleased that this bill recognizes a federal role in preserving our Nation's water resources, including our shorelines. I want to alert my colleagues to language on page 7 of the Committee Report to H.R. 2203: The Committee believes that the budget request represents a lack of commitment by the Administration to the traditional roles and missions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: navigation, flood control, and share protection. I wholly agree with this statement. I would further add that when the Administration fails to offer an acceptable budget request, it makes the job of the appropriators that much more difficult. In light of a woeful budget request, Chairman McDade has done an outstanding job. My district encompasses over 100 miles of coastline and has several ports and navigation channels. These resources provide avenues of commerce, transportation routes and access to military facilities. They are a vast and crucial resource for my district and their maintenance and protection is very important. In addition to ports and navigation channels, my district has miles of beaches. President Clinton has proposed an end to federal funding of beach nourishment projects, saying that they are not in the ``national interest.'' I do not support this belief. Shore protection serves the same purpose as flood control projects, by protecting property and saving lives. Furthermore, our Nation's beaches and coastal areas are a great source of national pride. Millions of American and foreign tourists flock to these areas every year, all year, to enjoy clean, safe and beautiful beaches. To say that these areas are only of interest to the states in which they are located is the equivalent of saying that Yosemite is only of interest to the State of California. The funding for water resource development in this bill will enhance commerce and protect homes and lives. Nonetheless, there is much work ahead of us. I applaud the Chairman and I hope he will be able to preserve our commitment to water resources when this bill goes to Conference. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2703 making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 1998. I would first like to thank Chairman McDade and ranking member Vic Fazio for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today. I would also like to thank the hard-working subcommittee staff, for without them our jobs would be tremendously more difficult. I truly appreciate their knowledge and professionalism. The bill before the House today stresses national priorities while keeping our commitment to downsize the Federal Government, maintain funding for critical flood safety projects, coastal protection, and dredging harbors and waterways throughout our Nation. We have made some tough choices about where to reduce spending and have written a bill which is $573 million less than last year. As a member of the subcommittee, I am very pleased with two recommendations that were included in this year's bill. First, the bill

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2159, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
(House of Representatives - July 24, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5750-H5775] PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2159, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that consideration of H.R. 2159 may proceed according to the following order: (1) The Speaker may at any time, as though pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2159) making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes. (2) The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XXI are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. (3) Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning with ``: Provided'' on page 24, line 8, through ``justice'' on line 16. Where points of order are waived against part of a paragraph, points of order against a provision in another part of such paragraph may be made only against such provision and not against the entire paragraph. (4) The amendments printed in House Report 105-184 may be offered only by a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments printed in the report are waived. No other amendment shall be in order unless printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. (5) The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. (6) At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. (7) Notwithstanding any other provision of this order, the amendment numbered 1 in House report 105-184 shall be debatable for 40 minutes. (8) Notwithstanding any other provision of this order, it shall be in order in lieu of the amendment numbered 2 in House report 105-184 to consider the amendment I have placed at the desk authored by Representative Gilman of New York, Representative Pelosi of California, Representative Campbell of California, Representative Lowey of New York, Representative Greenwood of Pennsylvania, Representative DeLauro of Connecticut and Representative Slaughter of New York, which may be offered by any of the named authors, shall be debatable for 40 minutes, and shall otherwise be considered as though printed as the amendment numbered 2 in House report 105-184. For clarification, Mr. Speaker, the perfecting amendment that I have just mentioned is to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Barcia], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]. Amendment in Lieu of Amendment Numbered 2 in House Report 105-184 The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment as a new subsection (h) of section 104 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961-- (1) in paragraph (1)(B), insert before the period at the end the following: ``, or to organizations that do not promote abortion as a method of family planning and that utilize these funds to prevent abortion as a method of family planning''; and (2) in paragraph (2)(A), strike ``or engage'' and insert the following: ``or (except in the [[Page H5751]] case of organizations that do not promote abortion as a method of family planning and that utilize these funds to prevent abortion as a method of family planning) engage''. In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment as a new subsection (i) of section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, insert before the quotation marks at the end the following sentence: ``If the President is unable to make the certification required by paragraph (1) or (2) with respect to a fiscal year, the funds appropriated for the UNFPA for such fiscal year shall be transferred to the Agency for International Development for population planning activities or other population assistance.''. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] wish to add to his request? Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that a section 9 be added to the unanimous-consent request: (9) House Resolution 185 is laid on the table. That is the previous rule. Mr. Speaker, might I also at this time make it clear that it is the intention of the Committee on Rules that the 40 minutes on each amendment be equally divided between the proponent and an opponent and that divided equally at the discretion of the manager of the amendment on both sides among the two parties. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the waiver of points of order against amendments pertains to those in the report actually or constructively and not those actually in the Record. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. {time} 2200 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Klug). Pursuant to House Resolution 194 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2203. {time} 2200 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2203) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, with Mr. Oxley in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier today, 52 minutes remained in general debate. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] has 26\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] has 25\1/2\ minutes remaining. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade]. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] for purposes of a colloquy. Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank first of all the chairman and the ranking member and all the members of the subcommittee for the excellent work they did under difficult budgetary restraints, and I want to particularly comment favorably upon their treatment of my home State of Delaware. However, I would like to point out a short-term and potentially long-term problem in the small community of St. Georges, DE. As the chairman knows, this Congress has recognized on a number of occasions that the United States has an ongoing legal obligation to provide good and sufficient crossings over many of our Nation's canals with ownership and operation bestowed upon the Army Corps of Engineers. Currently, the Army Corps owns and operates four such crossings over the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal in Delaware, including two crossings at St. Georges. The Army Corps has notified the State of Delaware of its plan to close and remove one of those crossings, the St. Georges Bridge, at a cost of $20 million and without any consideration to my constituents or the taxpayers of this country. I believe this plan is shortsighted and is being implemented without congressional consent from either the gentleman's committee or the authorizing committee which has jurisdiction. I believe that there are many cost-efficient alternatives that properly take into account cost, safety, and human need, but I am afraid these alternatives will not be fully considered once the corps moves ahead with their demolition plan. I would therefore ask the chairman, whose committee oversees the Army Corps' spending, if it is his intent to allow the Army Corps to move ahead with a plan for the demolition of St. Georges Bridge without the consent of this body? Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. May I say as strongly as I can, Mr. Chairman, that it is not the intent of the committee to allow the corps to move ahead with the plan for the demolition of the St. Georges Bridge. In the bill we are considering today, there are no funds, I repeat, no funds for the demolition of the bridge nor any report language directing the Army Corps to demolish the St. Georges Bridge. Mr. CASTLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, and I would hope that the chairman would work with me and the authorizers to see that a commonsense solution is found that benefits both the Army Corps, the taxpayers and, most importantly, my constituents. Will the chairman work with me toward this goal? Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, it is my intent to work with my friend towards reaching a commonsense solution that benefits everybody involved. I appreciate the gentleman's bringing this important issue to my attention, and I want to assure him that the committee will work to meet many of the Member's concerns regarding the St. Georges Bridge. Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, this Member thanks the distinguished gentleman for his time. Since this issue does affect a great number of my constituents, it could set a dangerous precedent which other Members may face in their districts, so I appreciate the gentleman's clarification. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] for the purposes of a colloquy. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As the gentleman knows, I am particularly interested in the programs managed by the Office of Worker and Community Transition. I authored section 3161 of the 1993 defense bill that authorized these programs. I think they will continue to play a very important role as we go further into the post-cold war period. So I was worried about proposals initially in the report to limit the extent of these programs as they would continue at the Rocky Flats site and other sites where weapons production has ended but our final mission cleanup remains to be completed. I am glad we were able to work out some changes on that part of the report so that there is no doubt that 3161 will continue to apply to Rocky Flats and other similar sites. I appreciate the gentleman's cooperation and that of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg] in getting those changes made. However, I think there is still a need to clarify one related provision of the bill. As the gentleman knows, section 305 essentially makes section 3161 of the 1993 defense bill unavailable to ``employees of the Department of Energy.'' A question has come up as to whether that restriction extends to employees of DOE's contractors or subcontractors. And I just want to make sure that I am correct in understanding that section 305 of the bill refers only to Federal employees of the Department of Energy and not to employees of companies operating under DOE contracts or subcontracts. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and let me say [[Page H5752]] that his interpretation is correct. Section 305 of the bill applies only to Federal employees and not to employees of any DOE contractor or subcontractor. Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his clarification. Let me again express my thanks to him and the ranking member for the usual pleasure that this alumnus of the subcommittee had in working with him and with the ever-distinguished staff. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] for purposes of a colloquy. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] in colloquy. Mr. Chairman, the first sentence of section 301 of H.R. 2203 states, ``None of the funds appropriated by this act or any prior appropriations act may be used to award a management and operating contract unless such contract is awarded using the competitive procedures.'' First, I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee for the strong endorsement of awarding such contracts on a competitive basis. For far too long the Department of Energy has awarded far too many M contracts on a sole-source basis. However, I have a concern about the second sentence of section 301, which states, ``The preceding sentence does not apply to a management and operating contract for research and development activities at a federally funded research and development center.'' My concern is that this language may send an unintended signal to the DOE that Congress is encouraging sole-source awards of M contracts for research and development activities at federally funded research and development centers rather than encouraging more competition. While I understand that in some cases sole-source awards of such M contracts may be justified, I would like the gentleman's assurance that this language does not prohibit nor discourage the competitive awards of M contracts for R Further, I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania if he would be willing to work with the Committee on Science to craft language that could be submitted to the conference committee that would address these concerns. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. May I say, Mr. Chairman, to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], that the gentleman is correct, that the intent of this section is to encourage and foster more competition in the future awards of M contracts for the Department of Energy laboratories. Furthermore, there is no intention to prohibit or discourage the Department from awarding M contracts for research and development on a competitive basis. Finally, the gentleman has my assurances that the subcommittee will work with the Committee on Science to craft language that could be submitted to the conference that would address his concerns. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and look forward to working with him on this matter and on other important issues in the future. As a general rule, I, as a Member of Congress, would prefer that all DOE contracts be awarded on a competitive basis, and I believe that the burden of proof should be on the department to justify any sole-source award. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith]. Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I wish to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania and the gentlewoman from Idaho in a colloquy. I am very concerned about the administration's proposed American Heritage Rivers Initiative. This initiative could threaten private properties if it is implemented. Although the initiative purports to be community-led, the Federal agencies involved will dominate the process and could well dictate to property owners how they can use their lands. If this occurs, we could see a severe erosion of the private properties rights guaranteed to American citizens under the Constitution. A prime example of this could occur in the West where restricting cattle from streams, their only water supply, would create enormous uncompensated losses for ranchers. The American people have not been given a voice in the process. The agencies involved are currently planning to reprogram funds for purposes that were not authorized or appropriated by Congress. The reprogramming of funds to pay for an initiative where the voices of the American people have not been heard is simply not acceptable. Until Congress has reviewed this initiative and the agencies have provided substantial protections for private property rights, I am proposing that Congress in general, and the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations in particular, withhold any funds for implementation of the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Any assurances that the chairman can provide that no reprogramming requests will be entertained by the committee until all questions have been answered and private property rights have been protected would be appreciated. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Idaho. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I really appreciate the gentleman from Texas bringing this matter to the attention of the Members. I, too, have grave concerns about the Clinton Administration's American Heritage Rivers Initiative. There are so many things wrong about both the programming itself and the process by which it was brought forth that we simply do not have time to go into it now, but I wholeheartedly agree with the gentleman from Texas. Private property rights really are at risk. I have to object also and am very concerned about the process by which this initiative was brought forward. The White House is attempting to spend millions of dollars on an unauthorized program. Congress has never authorized nor appropriated funds for the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. This means that other on-the-ground programs that have been authorized and appropriated for, such as programs in the Bureau of Land Management or programs in the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Forest Service, are being robbed to bring this unauthorized program, the American Heritage Rivers Initiative program, on line. When we are so desperately striving to meet our existing obligations and commitments to the American people, when we ask the American people to once again tighten their belts, and when we continue to spend our grandchildren's money by engaging in deficit spending, I have to ask if this is really the best use of taxpayers' money. And I say that it is not. We must take care of what we already own and owe. I introduced H.R. 1842, a bill to stop this proposal. I note that the gentleman from Texas is a cosponsor, and I thank him for raising this ill-conceived program to the attention of the Members. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SMITH of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that my friends from Texas and Idaho have raised a very important issue. Although the bill before us does not include language regarding the American Heritage Rivers Initiative, the committee shares both their concerns, and they can be certain that I will not agree to funding for this program until we can be assured that there are adequate protections for private property rights. The gentleman from Texas and the gentlewoman from Idaho have my assurance that we will carefully consider any reprogramming related to the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw]. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from [[Page H5753]] Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee, for yielding me this time in order to engage in a brief colloquy. Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to thank the gentleman for the funding that Dade County and Palm Beach County, Florida, received under his committee's appropriation bill. I also appreciate the committee's rejecting the administration's policy to limit the role of the Corps of Engineers in shore protection policies. I am deeply concerned, however, that one project in Broward County, FL for which I requested $17 million, only received $100,000. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my friend that the committee provided $100,000 for the Corps of Engineers to review the general design memorandum for the renourishment of the Broward County project currently being prepared by the local sponsor. Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the gentleman, as usual, is quite correct. However, large portions of Broward's beaches are severely eroded. While this is partly due to storm damage, it is mainly because the life of the project is nearing its end. The expected life of a renourishment project is 10 years, and Broward County is an excellent example of a beach restoration project that has worked exactly as it was designed. In January 1996, Broward County's local sponsor made application for approximately $17 million in fiscal year 1998 appropriations, representing the Federal share of the estimated $27 million for the 12- mile-long Broward County beach nourishment and shore protection project. {time} 2215 This Federal cost-share was calculated in two Corps of Engineers approved section 934 reevaluation reports for segment II, which is Hillsboro Inlet to Port Everglades, and section III, which covers Port Everglades to South County Line. The county plans to include appropriate innovative project features, such as highly engineered structures, which will maximize the life of the beach fill, as requested by the State and Federal legislators. Broward County requested the full Federal cost of the project in order to ensure maximum cost efficiencies. In fact, Broward County estimates that past nourishment projects have protected approximately $4 billion in infrastructure from storm damage. However, Broward beaches are reaching minimum storm damage protection right now, and if implementation of the new project does not commence on schedule and we have a hurricane of any great strength, I fear next year I will be back to ask for double the requested amount just to repair the damage. Mr. Chairman, feasibility studies have been completed on the project, and crucially needed additional appropriations could be used to commence action on this project. I thank the chairman for listening to me in the past and for allowing me the chance to provide a more complete explanation of Broward's needs. I yield back to the gentleman. Mr. McDADE. I want to commend my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], for the briefing he gave me on this project for bringing to our attention. I understand, and we share his concerns on this issue. And we will continue to give this matter our deepest study during the conference. Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kind]. (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and ranking member of the committee for the fine work they did on this bill. I rise in support of the bill. Mr. Chairman, as we consider the Energy and Water appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998, I want to commend the chairman and members of the Appropriations Committee for maintaining funding for the Environmental Management Program [EMP]. By appropriating $16.7 million for 1998 the EMP will be able to operate at the same funding level as last year. The Environmental Management Program is a cooperative effort of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Biological Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate, restore, and enhance ravine and wetland habitat along a 1,200-mile stretch of the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. The EMP is authorized through fiscal year 2002 in the Army Corps of Engineers budget. The 1986 Water Resources Development Act authorized funding for the implementation of an overall Upper Mississippi River Basin Comprehensive Master Plan. This consisted of two essential components, one dedicated to improved navigation on the river for barge traffic, most notably lock and dam improvements, and the other to the long term environmental and recreational preservation of the river, which became the EMP. The EMP is an essential tool in maintaining the quality of the river environment, as well as recreational and economic opportunities along the Mississippi River. Navigation along the upper Mississippi River supports 400,000 full or part time jobs, which produces over $4 billion in individual income. Recreation use of the river generates 12 million visitors and spending of $1.2 billion in direct and indirect expenditures in the communities along the Mississippi. The EMP has always received bipartisan support, and this year is no different. Republican and Democratic members of Congress who represent areas along the upper Mississippi River joined me in helping secure adequate funding for the EMP in this year's Appropriations bill. The Governors of all five States who border the upper Mississippi and Illinois River--(Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Missouri)-- support the EMP and have been active in maintaining its long term viability. The Mississippi River is a national treasure. It flows southward from Minnesota and Wisconsin through the heart of our Nation and into the Gulf of Mexico. The river is a vital source of clean water, a major navigational corridor, a crucial environmental ecosystem, an important flood damage reduction source and a tremendous recreational resource for millions of Americans. The Environmental Management Program serves a crucial role in protecting that resource so we can continue to provide for all of those needs into the future. The unique bipartisan, multistate support that the EMP receives, and the strong level of cooperation between Federal agencies is a model for all government resource programs. No other program on the Mississippi River is doing the kind of data collection and habitat restoration projects that the EMP does. I applaud the members of the Appropriations Committee for the support of this valuable project and I urge my colleagues to fully support the EMP at the appropriated funding level. On a personal note I want to thank Bob Dellany, the Director of the Environmental Management Technical Center [EMTC], and his staff for their dedicated work to study, protect and promote the upper Mississippi River. The folks at the EMTC, located in Onalaska, WI, do an outstanding job and they deserve our recognition and praise. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I yield to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield], for purposes of a colloquy. Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman and his staff and the minority and their staff for the work that they have done with me on many projects in my district, and I ask for the opportunity to enter into a colloquy with the chairman. As the chairman knows from our many discussions, the national recreation area land between the lakes better known as LBL is in the district that I represent in Kentucky. LBL is the only federally owned national recreation area in the United States managed by the Tennessee Valley Authority and to my knowledge is the only national recreation area with no statutory governance. My constituents are concerned about continued Federal support for LBL following the TVA Chairman Crowell's announcement to no longer seek funding for the non-power programs including LBL. That decision was later reversed by Chairman Crowell but not before the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development had already approved the plan to eliminate all appropriated funds for non-power programs and instead pay for those activities from TVA revenues and savings from the power program. I appreciate very much the chairman's efforts to find another source of revenue to finance LBL operations. However, my constituents remain skeptical about this funding approach and fear further reductions in Federal financial support for LBL because [[Page H5754]] there is no actual line item designating the amount LBL should receive. In the Senate passed bill, monies were appropriated for the non-power program and LBL received $7.9 million. Mr. Chairman, do you share my view that the Federal Government is financially responsible for this national recreation area, which was established in the 1960's by the Kennedy administration and resulted in the forcible removal of over 800 families from their land in Kentucky? Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say that the answer to your question is yes. The committee fully expects TVA to commit sufficient funding to the Land Between the Lakes to permit continued enjoyment of these resources by the public. We have written into our report, may I say to my friend, that we will exercise vigorous oversight over this problem to make sure that this occurs and we are grateful to the gentleman for bringing it to our attention. Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, when he goes to conference with the Senate, is it his intention to support a funding level for LBL that will ensure the proper operation and maintenance of this national recreation area? I yield to the gentleman. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time further, may I say to my colleague that the committee intends to work closely with the gentleman, as we have tried to today, to ensure that his interest in the continued operation and maintenance of LBL is protected. Mr. WHITFIELD. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the chairman very much. And once again, I want to thank him and his staff for their cooperation. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that we have about three, perhaps four more Members, and we are down toward the end of the colloquies on this side of the aisle. I believe my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], has taken care of that side. It is the Chair's intention, once we finish the colloquies, if there is any time left, to yield it back and to ask that the bill be considered as read and open for amendment. So I make that statement in order that Members who may want to introduce amendments will be advised that their opportunity may come very quickly. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette]. Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade], an acknowledged friend and supporter of Great Lakes priorities, in a colloquy regarding the Army Corps of Engineers Division Reorganization Plan and recently authorized Sediment Remediation Technology Demonstration project. Mr. Chairman, it has recently come to my attention that the Army Corps of Engineers is planning to restructure its Great Lakes and Ohio River Division by first severely reducing the number of employees, particularly those with decision-making authority, at its Chicago office and eventually closing down that facility. This plan is documented in an internal Army Corps memo that I will submit for the Record at the appropriate time. This plan would leave the Great Lakes region with only one office, in Cincinnati, and would obliterate the institutional memory that is so vital to Army Corps operations in this region. Last year, when this Congress passed the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997, the Army Corps was directed to reduce its divisions to no less than six and no more than eight. The Department of the Army's Office of Civil Works submitted a plan to the Congress which detailed the restructuring plan, approved by the Secretary. Again, I will submit this document for the Record at the appropriate time. The plan stated that, ``the Great Lakes districts of the North Central Division will be combined with the districts of the Ohio River Division to form the Great Lakes and Ohio River Division. Division headquarters will remain in both Chicago and Cincinnati, each with a deputy commander and SES.'' Mr. Chairman, do you agree with me that it is imperative that we exercise congressional oversight authority over the reorganization plan? I will yield to the chairman. Mr. McDADE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to say to him that we remain interested in the Corps of Engineers division office reorganization plan. We will continue to monitor it, and we appreciate the gentleman bringing his concern to our attention. Mr. LaTOURETTE. If the gentleman will yield further, I thank the chairman for his willingness to work on that issue. The second issue that I would like to address is the Army Corps' sediment remediation technology program, also known as ARCS 2, which was authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This program is important to my district and Members' districts throughout the Great Lakes because of the huge quantity of contaminated sediments in the Lakes. Contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes are the largest repository of toxic pollution in the basin and pose a threat to human health as these toxins are slowly released into the water where they can enter the food chain through fish and birds. The sediments, primarily in harbors, collect many pollutants that have been entering the Great Lakes for decades. A total of 362 contaminants have been identified in the Great Lakes sediments, many of which are known to have potentially severe human health impacts. The current Energy and Water Appropriations bill does not include language regarding the ARCS 2 account. Pilot and laboratory-scale projects for the assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments were conducted under the assessment of remediation of contaminated sediments authority in the Clean Water Act. Section 515 of the WRDA bill of 1996 builds upon the old ARCS program by directing the Army Corps to conduct full-scale demonstration projects of promising sediment remediation technology. Such full-scale projects are an essential next step to removing the clean-up process from the planning to the implementation phase. Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, it is within your jurisdiction to see that this issue is addressed in the conference on the energy and water bill in the Senate. I would request on behalf of my colleagues in the Great Lakes region that you support the inclusion of language that will allow the Army Corps to move forward with this important sediment remediation program for fiscal year 1998. I would further yield to the chair. Mr. McDADE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate my colleague bringing this matter to our attention. I look forward to working on this issue as the bill moves through the appropriations process. Mr. LaTOURETTE. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank him for his wisdom and continued support of the issues important to myself and those in the Great Lakes region. I look forward to working with him on this and other matters. I thank him for his courtesy. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth]. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me also take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for the excellent work they have done in producing this bipartisan bill so important, indeed so vital to the State of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, as you may know, San Carlos Lake, located in the Sixth District, is now on the verge of drying up. Current estimates suggest it could be dry by September. Now as we might expect, this is causing great concern among the local residents because this lake has great recreational value; and, Mr. Chairman, as we all know, it is vital economically to the residents of the sixth district living around San Carlos Lake. Commensurate with the philosophy of the new majority, Mr. Chairman, we are seeking to solve this problem, first at the State level, but certainly we would be remiss if we did not try to employ every opportunity and explore every avenue of possibility that may exist. And, so, Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to say that I would appreciate the gentleman's help in exploring ways to provide assistance to these people of Arizona's sixth district as we seek to prevent this lake from drying out. [[Page H5755]] Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me tell my colleague that we are grateful to him for bringing this to our attention. We realize the serious nature of the problem, and we will be glad to work with him through the process to try to resolve it. Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would further yield, I very much appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee. I appreciate his attention to so many matters of vital importance within the State of Arizona and certainly his attention in this regard. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of a colloquy, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent]. Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding. I would ask the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water to engage in a colloquy regarding the transfer of FUSRAP responsibility from the Department of Energy to the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Chairman, my district in Missouri has a major FUSRAP site which contains nuclear contamination from the Manhattan Project and other hazardous waste as well. For 15 years, the St. Louis community has attempted to work with the Department of Energy to clean up this site. After years of frustration and delay, however, the Department of Energy has finally begun a serious effort to begin to clean up the site. Contracts have been let, feasibility studies completed, the site recommendations have been prepared and commitments have been made. As a result, Mr. Chairman, there are many people in the community, who while very appreciative of the abilities of the Army Corps of Engineers, are very concerned that the progress we finally made in getting DOE to clean up the site will be undone by this transfer. As a result, I would like to ask the gentleman, as a sponsor of this legislation, to clarify some of the concerns the community and I have about the effects of the legislation. Although there is no formal record of decision yet for this clean-up, in St. Louis, several feasibility sites have been completed and a site recommendation has been made by the Department of energy. Would the Army Corps of Engineers respect these studies and the site plan and the contracts which have already been let for work at the site? Mr. McDADE. Reclaiming my time, let me say that we are appreciative to the gentleman for bringing this important problem to our attention. Let me say that the committee intends that the feasibility studies and the site recommendations prepared by the DOE at the time of the enactment of this legislation will be accepted and carried out by the Corps of Engineers and that existing contracts will be honored. Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I thank the gentleman for his responsiveness. The Department of Energy, in its site recommendations, has targeted the year 2004 for completion of this project. I would say to the gentleman it is very important to the community that this commitment be maintained. Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we have, as you know, because we have discussed it substantially, increased money appropriated to the FUSRAP program, with the intent that it will be more likely that the sites will be cleaned up on schedule. Mr. TALENT. If the gentleman would yield further, I thank the gentleman. One other concern: The local community has been very involved in designing a plan to clean up the site. Their concern is that the administration of clean-up will be moved away from the St. Louis area to Omaha, reducing the community's input and influence on the clean-up process. If the Army Corps of Engineers takes over the FUSRAP program, is it committee's intention that it be administered out of the St. Louis Corps office? Mr. McDADE. Reclaiming my time, let me say to the gentleman that the Corps of Engineers typically manages projects from its closest district office and we would intend for that to be done. {time} 2230 Mr. TALENT. I thank the gentleman for his assurances and I thank him and the ranking member for their hard work on this outstanding bill. Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. The bill contains several provisions that will be critically important to the safety of the Sacramento area that I represent. I wish to express my deep gratitude to the Appropriations Committee, particularly Energy and Water Development Subcommittee Chairman Joe McDade and ranking member Vic Fazio, for their recognition of the severe danger of flooding that my district faces. The bill they have crafted will allow for significant progress on the project for flood protection from the American River authorized by last year's Water Resources Development Act. The project, while in itself far from sufficient to provide comprehensive protection for the Sacramento area, is a vital step toward that absolutely critical goal. I am extremely pleased that the bill provides funding that will enable the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to make maximum progress on this initiative in fiscal year 1998. H.R. 2203 also makes a very important statement in providing reimbursements in two areas where the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency [SAFCA] has moved forward with flood control efforts in advance of federal funding. One of these instances is SAFCA's project to improve flood protection for the Natomas area of Sacramento. By partially funding the reimbursement that has been authorized for this local effort, the committee has given valuable encouragement to communities that wish to move forward in the most aggressive manner in acting to address pressing flood threats. Similarly, the committee has sent an important signal by fully reimbursing SAFCA for costs associated with the variable flood control operation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir implemented by a 1995 agreement between SAFCA and the Bureau of Reclamation. This contract has provided a very necessary increment of added flood protection for the Sacramento area. Under last year's WRDA bill, the Federal Government accepted responsibility for 75 percent of the costs of lost water and power resulting from this agreement over a four year period. I am extremely pleased that the Committee has acted to meet this federal commitment. The bill funds a number of other greatly needed flood control initiatives for the Sacramento area. These include the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project, which is helping to prevent bank erosion along the American River levees that represent the last line of flood defense for many Sacramentans. The bill also supports important area flood control efforts by including funds for construction of the Magpie Creek small flood control project, for feasibility studies as well as preconstruction engineering and design for the South Sacramento Streams Group project, and for a reconnaissance study for flood damage reduction from the Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers. Finally, the Committee has provided support for two other innovative projects in the Sacramento area. One of these is an important water quality project--the city of Sacramento's efforts to improve its combined sewer system in order to prevent the flow of sewage into the Sacramento River. The second is the Ueda Parkway, a set of bicycle, equestrian and pedestrian trails to be constructed along a portion of the Natomas levee improvements. Again, I deeply thank the committee for its support and look forward to working with them to gain final approval for these initiatives. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to commend the Appropriations Committee in general, and its Energy and Water Development Subcommittee in particular, for the fine job they did in crafting the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations bill being considered today. Not only is H.R. 2203 fiscally responsible, but there is much to be said for its policy and project provisions. As a Member of Congress, it has long been my position that the Federal Government should spend less money more wisely. In its current form, this bill does just that. As reported, H.R. 2203 calls for a $573-million reduction in spending for energy and water projects next year, precisely what is needed in these times of fiscal restraint. Not only that, but the measure is notable for the quality of the projects it funds. Let me cite two examples, with which I am particularly familiar. The first is the Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration Project [DPRWDP], for which $1 million has been provided, while the second is the Fox River Floodgate Installation Project, to which $1.178 million has been directed. Both are located in northern Illinois and, with the monies allocated by H.R. 2203, each is likely to pay big dividends in the future. When complete, the DPRWDP will give policymakers the information they need to protect wetlands, preserve species habitat, reduce [[Page H5756]] flooding and improve water quality, while the Fox River project will reduce the threat and expense of flooding along one of America's more popular recreational waterways. In short, both endeavors will provide a substantial and tangible return on the money being invested, just as they should. My thanks to the chairman and members of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for including them in H.R. 2203 and to the chairman and members of the Appropriations Committee for approving them subsequently. By singling out these two projects, I do not mean to suggest that others funded by H.R. 2203 are not equally deserving. To the contrary, there are a number of other projects worthy of favorable mention including the North Libertyville estates flood control project, the Chicago Shoreline project and the Yucca Mountain interim nuclear waste storage project just to name a few. That being the case, I urge my colleagues to give this measure their support. Not only does it contribute to budget reduction but it has many other benefits to offer as well. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the efforts of Chairman McDade--and his staff, Jim Ogsbury, Bob Schmidt, Jeanne Wilson, Don McKinnon, and Sandra Farrow--in the formulation and passage of the Energy and Water development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. They were exceedingly helpful, insightful, and responsive. This is Joe McDade's first Energy and Water bill. While he follows two outstanding chairmen--Tom Bevill and John Myers--few can dispute that Joe stepped up to the plate and managed to formulate a fine bill and send it swiftly through the complex Appropriations Committee process. And this is not an easy bill to write. It is diverse, funding programs from nuclear weapons research to geothermal heat pump technologies, from the construction of Army Corps of Engineers water infrastructure projects, to the funding of critical development programs like those in the Appalachian Regional Commission. This bill demands an appreciation for physics, electronics, the needs of the rural poor, and, more importantly, a respect for the ravages of nature. Few of us will forget the loss of life and property, and the heartache that resulted in the floods this year in the West Coast and Midwest United States. We know we cannot control nature, but we can do everything humanly possible to anticipate nature's worst forces, and to the best of our ability prevent loss of life. We concern ourselves with the well-being of our neighbors, relatives, and communities--to ensure they are protected, and that they are provided a fair chance to prosper in the American economy. That is what we are supposed to do in this body. That is what Joe McDade has done in this bill. Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of this bill. I want to express my appreciation to Chairman McDade and Ranking Member Fazio for their efforts and assistance with this bill. I also want to give a big thanks to the entire Energy and Water Subcommittee Staff who were always ready and able to assist me and my staff on this bill. This is a good bill. This bill provides adequate funding for continued construction of a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Furthermore, it still provides $85 million to begin construction of an interim storage facility once we enact authorization for such a facility later this year. This will help the Department of Energy meet its contract obligations to the commercial nuclear industry. This bill also provides $7 million for the university nuclear reactor programs, $5 million of which is designated for the nuclear engineering R This will ensure that we have the next generation of engineers prepared to develop and oversee our Nation's nuclear power infrastructure. Although this bill does not fund the administration's request for the Nuclear Energy Security Program, I believe that nuclear power is an essential part of the Nation's energy portfolio and as such, I support some level of nuclear energy R for energy security. Considering nuclear power supplies over 20 percent of our Nation's electricity, we need to ensure the existing supply as a component of the Nation's baseload well into the next century. I encourage the Department to re- scope this year's proposal and to propose research that only takes advantage of DOE's unique capabilities but provides the best possible return on investment. The bottom line is that as our primary in nuclear R declines, we will lose our ability to participate on the world stage and to observe and understand the civilian nuclear programs of emerging nations. When we began the appropriations process this year, I was cautiously optimistic that the Department of Energy was turning the corner on its environmental management program--that a new vision had been embraced over at the Department--a vision of accelerating and completing the cleanup of DOE's defense nuclear sites so that as many of them as possible are closed down within the next decade. But, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to say that it's been more than a year since DOE brought forth this new vision and still, the Department has not been able to deliver a credible, defensible plan. As the old saying goes, ``the Devil's in the Details.'' DOE's ``Discussion Draft'' was finally released in June and is little other than a top-level framework to start the planning process. It is a document that is not supported by DOE's own site data or by what is realistically achievable. I still believe that this vision is well within our grasp and this bill get us much closer to it. Frustrated with years of mismanagement in clearning up the former nuclear defense sites, this bill directs the Department of Energy to cleanup and close out the two major environmental management sites. Specifically, the Closure Project accelerates the closure of the Rocky Flats and Fernald sites. These are the two sites where all the entities--the administration, the States, the contractors, and the citizens--agree that closure by 2006 can and should be done. We've added funding above the administration's request to ensure just that-- so that cleanup by 2006 becomes a reality. I'm also glad the bill preserves funding for other closure projects, a proposal that I championed last year. I hope that the Department follows this lead and creates more closure projects in the future. Mr. Chairman, I also support transferring funding for cleanup of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program to the U.S. Corps of Engineers. As you know, this is a program for cleanup of 46 former Manhattan District or Atomic Energy Commission sites--a program that's been underway for 17 years and is still only 50 percent complete. I think it's time to try something different--and I believe the Corps, who successfully manages Department of Defense cleanups will be able to bring these projects to closure more quickly and at a more reasonable cost to the taxpayer. We need to remain vigilant about new and innovative ways to accelerate cleanup. In this context, I support privatization. However, I want greater assurances of the Department's ability to manage privatized cleanups and less dependence on large sums of up-front federal funding, even when it's held in reserve. I also support efforts to leverage technology and encourage the Department to better utilize the best and brightest of the universities and national laboratories. For example, DOE's use of the leading universities in the area of robotics technology development and deployment is a success story within the technology development program. Using advanced state-of-the-art robotics for a broad spectrum of cleanup tasks is not just efficient and more effective than using humans, but it reduces occupational exposure to hazardous environments. Finally, I want to see DOE bring forth, along with next year's budget request, a detailed and defensible closure plan based on an aggressive but realistic estimate of the most that can be completed and closed out over the next decade. I agree that the vision can be accomplished by doing more sooner rather than later, by substantial mortgage and risk reduction, and by leveraging technology. But let's get on with it. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your leadership and for the efforts of the staff. Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the rule and H.R. 2203, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations for fiscal year 1998. I support this bill mainly because it provides $413 million 39--percent more for the Army Corps of Engineers construction programs than requested by the administration. The administration originally requested $9.5 million for the construction of the Sims Bayou Project in Houston, TX. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development specifically earmarked an additional $3.5 million bringing the total funding for the project to $13 million. Mr. Chairman, the Sims Bayou Project is a project that stretches through my district. Over the course of recent years, the Sims Bayou has seen massive amounts of flooding. Citizens in my congressional district, have been flooded out of their homes, and their lives have been disrupted. In 1994, 759 homes were flooded as a result of the overflow from the Sims Bayou. That is 759 families that were forced to leave their homes. I mainly support this bill, Mr. Chairman, because the subcommittee has earmarked in this bill $13 million for the construction and improvement of the Sims Bayou project that will soon be underway by the Army Corps of Engineers. I would like to thank the Army Corps of Engineers for their cooperation with my office in helping to bring relief to the people of the 18th Congressional District in order to avoid dangerous flooding. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development added an additional $3.5 million for the construction of this Sims Bayou project after my office worked to explain the devastating impact of the past flooding in this area. I am quite certain, Mr. [[Page H5757]] Chairman, that this project would not have been able to go forward if this additional money would not have been granted by the Subcommittee. For that I have to thank Chairman McDade, Ranking Member Fazio, and my Texas colleague Chet Edwards, a new member on the Appropriations Committee. However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call on the Army Corps of Engineers to do everything that they can to accelerate the completion of this project. The project will now extend to Martin Luther King and Airport Boulevards, and Mykaw to Cullen Boulevard. This is flooding that can be remedied and the project must be completed before the expected date of 2006. While I applaud the Army Corps of Engineers for their cooperation, this is unacceptable for the people in my congressional district who are suffering. They need relief and I know that they cannot wait until the expected completion date of 2006. This must be done and I will work with the Army Corps of Engineers and local officials to ensure that this is done. Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY98 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act and to congratulate my friend, Chairman McDade, for his work on this bill. I am particularly pleased that this bill recognizes a federal role in preserving our Nation's water resources, including our shorelines. I want to alert my colleagues to language on page 7 of the Committee Report to H.R. 2203: The Committee believes that the budget request represents a lack of commitment by the Administration to the traditional roles and missions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: navigation, flood control, and share protection. I wholly agree with this statement. I would further add that when the Administration fails to offer an acceptable budget request, it makes the job of the appropriators that much more difficult. In light of a woeful budget request, Chairman McDade has done an outstanding job. My district encompasses over 100 miles of coastline and has several ports and navigation channels. These resources provide avenues of commerce, transportation routes and access to military facilities. They are a vast and crucial resource for my district and their maintenance and protection is very important. In addition to ports and navigation channels, my district has miles of beaches. President Clinton has proposed an end to federal funding of beach nourishment projects, saying that they are not in the ``national interest.'' I do not support this belief. Shore protection serves the same purpose as flood control projects, by protecting property and saving lives. Furthermore, our Nation's beaches and coastal areas are a great source of national pride. Millions of American and foreign tourists flock to these areas every year, all year, to enjoy clean, safe and beautiful beaches. To say that these areas are only of interest to the states in which they are located is the equivalent of saying that Yosemite is only of interest to the State of California. The funding for water resource development in this bill will enhance commerce and protect homes and lives. Nonetheless, there is much work ahead of us. I applaud the Chairman and I hope he will be able to preserve our commitment to water resources when this bill goes to Conference. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2703 making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 1998. I would first like to thank Chairman McDade and ranking member Vic Fazio for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today. I would also like to thank the hard-working subcommittee staff, for without them our jobs would be tremendously more difficult. I truly appreciate their knowledge and professionalism. The bill before the House today stresses national priorities while keeping our commitment to downsize the Federal Government, maintain funding for critical flood safety projects, coastal protection, and dredging harbors and waterways throughout our Nation. We have made some tough choices about where to reduce spending and have written a bill which is $573 million less than last year. As a member of the subcommittee, I am very pleased with two recommendations that were included in this year's bill. First