Summary:

All articles in House section

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 27, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5211-H5237] ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 532 and rule [[Page H5212]] XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4733. {time} 1520 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to present to the Committee of the Whole for its consideration the bill, H.R. 4733, making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide array of Federal Government programs which include such diverse matters as national security, environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced scientific research, navigation, alternative energy sources, nuclear power regulations. Programs funded by this bill affect multiple aspects of American life having significant implications for domestic security, commercial competitiveness, and the advance of science. I am proud of this bill as reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and I believe it merits the support of every Member of this body. Total funding for H.R. 4733 is $21.7 billion. This is over $500 million more than the fiscal year 2000 for energy and water development programs, but almost a billion dollars below the President's budget request. We were presented with an additional constraint in fiscal year 2001 because our 302(b) allocation consisted of two distinct parts: defense and nondefense. While the defense allocation in the bill is $12.9 billion, and that is about $755 million over the fiscal year 2000 and $191 million below the budget request, the nondefense portion of the allocation is significantly less. For the nondefense portion of our bill we received $8.8 billion, which is about $210 million below the last fiscal year. Despite the bill's constrained funding levels for nondefense programs, it provides adequate funding for the continuation of high- priority programs, promising the greatest return on the investment of taxpayer dollars. Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers. This includes, of course, projects for flood control, navigation, shoreline protection, and a variety of other things. The bill acknowledges the importance of water infrastructure by funding the civil works program at the same level as last year, a little over $4 billion. Within the amount appropriated for the Corps of Engineers, $153 million is for general investigations and $1.38 billion is for the construction program, and about $1.8 billion for the operation and maintenance. Mr. Chairman, funding for title II, most of which is for the Bureau of Reclamation, totals $770 million, a reduction of $35 million from last year's fiscal level. The bill also includes no funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta restoration program, a project which I have been greatly interested, in California. The reason for this is because we did not fund any unauthorized projects and the authorization for CALFED expired this year. Therefore, it was not funded, to my regret. But to be consistent with all of the Members, we followed that rule. There are reductions in title III of the bill, which includes the budget of the Department of Energy, particularly the nondefense programs. Despite constrained funding levels, most DOE nondefense programs are funded at last year's level or slightly below. One exception to that policy is the Yucca Mountain program to site a permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel, high-level nuclear fuel. This program was increased about $413 million to maintain its schedule which calls for the Department of Energy to issue a site recommendation during the fiscal year 2001. We wanted to keep that on schedule, and thus we funded it accordingly. We sought to maintain the level of funding for science programs, and we increased that area over fiscal year 2000. We also recognized that there are delays in some ongoing projects such as the Spallation Neutron Source, and we were unable to fund several new science initiatives as proposed in the fiscal year 2001. Funding for the energy supply programs of the Department totals $576 million. This includes about $350 million for research and development of renewable energy technologies. We recognize that this is a little bit short of what the administration requested, and we wished that we had the funds to beef that up; but we feel that it is adequate to fund the renewable research effort. The bill provides $301 million for uranium facilities maintenance and remediation, a new account established to consolidate uranium programs that were spread through many other accounts. The largest spending category for the Energy and Water bill is that of environmental restoration and waste management of the Department of Energy. Funding for cleanup activities at the variety of sites in title III of the bill exceeds $6.4 billion for defense and nondefense programs. The bill also includes $6.1 billion for new National Nuclear Security Administration, a semiautonomous agency within the Department of Energy. Title IV of the bill provides $107 million reduction of $21 million in fiscal year 2000 for certain independent agencies of the Federal Government, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Mr. Chairman, I owe a great deal of gratitude to the hard-working members of my Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. They have labored with difficult fiscal constraints to produce a bill that I think is fair and balanced. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman and ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, who helped us and cooperated with us in crafting the bill. Perhaps more importantly than any, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. It has been a joy to work with him. He has been extremely helpful in crafting the bill. And then I certainly want to pay tribute to our staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in constructing an excellent bill. Mr. Chairman, I have been pleased to hear during the debate in the Committee on Rules the willingness of virtually, well, not virtually, every Member that spoke of a willingness to support this bill. I would hope that every Member of the House would support this bill. We feel it is an excellent bill within the constraints that we had to live with, and I would encourage every Member to support it. It is my privilege to present to the Committee of the Whole for its consideration H.R. 4733, making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide array of Federal government programs which include such diverse matters as national security, environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced scientific research, navigation, alternative energy sources, and nuclear power regulation. Programs funded by this bill affect multiple aspects of American life, having significant implications for domestic security, commercial competitiveness, and the advance of science. I am proud of the bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and I believe it merits the support of the entire membership of this body. Total funding for H.R. 4733 is $21.7 billion. This is $546 million more than fiscal year 2000 for energy and water development programs, but $951.8 million below the President's budget request. We were presented with an additional constraint in fiscal year 2001 because our 302b allocation consisted of two distinct parts: defense and non-defense. While the defense allocation in the bill is $12.893 billion which is [[Page H5213]] $755.5 million over fiscal year 2000 and $191 million below the budget request, the non-defense portion of the allocation is significantly less. For the non-defense portion of our bill, we received $8.85 billion which is $209.5 million below fiscal year 2000 and $760.7 million below the budget request. This was a severe constraint on our ability to provide funding for many programs in this bill. Despite the bill's constrained funding levels for non-defense programs, it provides adequate funding for the continuation of high- priority programs promising the greatest return on the investment of taxpayer dollars. Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development is unanimous in its belief that this program is among the most valuable within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. The national benefits of projects for flood control, navigation and shoreline protection demonstrably exceed project costs. The bill acknowledges the importance of water infrastructure by funding the civil works programs at $4.1 billion, an increase of $59.9 million over the amount requested by the Administration, and level with fiscal year 2000. Within the amount appropriated to the Corps of Engineers, $153.3 million is for general investigations, $1.38 billion is for the construction program, and $1.85 billion is for operation and maintenance. In addition, the bill includes $323.4 million for Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, project. The bill also fully funds the budget request of the regulatory program and the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. Mr. Chairman, funding for Title II, most of which is for the Bureau of Reclamation, totals $770.5 million--a reduction of $35.3 million from the fiscal year 2000 level. The bill includes no funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta restoration program whose authorization expires in fiscal year 2000 and fully funds the budget request of $38.4 million for the Central Valley Project restoration fund. There are reductions in Title III of the bill which includes the budget of the Department of Energy, particularly in the non-defense programs. Despite constrained funding levels, most DOE non-defense programs are funded at last year's level or slightly below. The one exception is the Yucca Mountain program to site a permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel. This program was increased to $413 million to maintain its schedule which calls for the Department of Energy to issue a site recommendation in fiscal year 2001. We sought to maintain level funding for science programs and provided $2.83 billion, an increase of $43.3 million over fiscal year 2000. However, there are delays in some on-going projects such as the Spallation Neutron Source, and we were unable to fund several new science initiatives proposed in fiscal year 2001. Funding for energy supply programs of the Department totals $576.5 million. This includes $350.5 million for research and development on renewable energy technologies. Although this falls short of the Administration's unrealistic budget request, it is a substantial and credible level of funding. The energy supply account also includes $231.8 million nuclear energy programs. The bill provides $22.5 million for the nuclear energy research initiative and $5 million, the full amount of the budget request, for the nuclear energy plant optimization program. The bill provides $301.4 million for uranium facilities maintenance and remediation, a new account established to consolidate uranium programs that were spread throughout other accounts. These programs were merged to enhance coordination and eliminate duplication in the environmental remediation work performed at the uranium enrichment facilities in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio. The largest spending category in the Energy and Water Bill is that of environmental restoration and waste management at Department of Energy sites. Funding for cleanup activities in title III of the bill exceeds $6.4 billion for defense and non-defense programs. The Committee is dedicated to the environmental restoration of areas that participated in the development and maintenance of our nuclear security complex. This bill reflects the Committee's continued efforts to promote actual, physical site cleanups and to accelerate the completion of remediation work at DOE sites. Accordingly, the Committee has provided $1.08 billion, the full amount of the budget request, for defense facilities closure projects. This account concentrates funding on discrete sites that are on schedule for cleanup completion by the year 2006. The Committee has also directed the Department to establish a cleanup program for those sites and projects that can be completed by 2010. The bill includes $6.16 billion for the new National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy. The bill provides $4.6 billion for stewardship of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, $861.5 million for defense nuclear nonproliferation programs, and $677.6 million for the naval reactors program. Title IV of the bill provides $107.5 million, a reduction of $21 million from fiscal year 2000, for certain independent agencies of the Federal Government, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Mr. Chairman, I owe a debt of gratitude to the hard-working and dedicated Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. They have labored under difficult fiscal constraints to produce a bill that is balanced and fair. I am especially grateful to the Ranking Minority Member, the Honorable Pete Visclosky. It is in large part due to his efforts that we present a bill that merits the support of all Members of the House. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support H.R. 4733 as reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and I reserve the balance of my time. [[Page H5214]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN00.001 [[Page H5215]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN00.002 [[Page H5216]] Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would begin by also commending the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and would point out to every Member of the body in this institution that this will be the last Energy and Water bill that the gentleman will bring to the House floor during his tenure as a Member of Congress, given the fact that he will now retire after the 106th Congress. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California is a very decent man. He is a God-fearing man whose family is the most important thing in his life, his wife, Jean, as well as his seven children. Clearly as important to him is his country. And whether it was his service in defense of this country as a member of the United States Navy; whether it was his service as a member of a school board ensuring that the youth of his community receive the best education possible for their future; whether it be as the mayor and chief executive of his local community or his years of service in this Congress, I certainly respect the gentleman's three great passions in life. {time} 1530 But I would be remiss, as I would have been remiss in full committee, Mr. Chairman, if I did not mention for one moment the other great passion in life of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and that is golf. For those who do not yet know the good work, the foursome of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) did win the recent Bob Michael's, Founder, Golf Tournament with the lowest team score. I salute the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). He has been a gentleman, a friend, and we will all miss him. I also want to add my thanks, my deepest thanks as a former staff member myself, to all of the staff involved on both sides of the aisle, whether they be professional committee staff, detailees, or associate staff. But today, because this is the last bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), I would also point out to the House, this is John McNutt's last bill. He is my associate staff member and has been for the last 7 years 6 months and 27 days, not that we are counting. But as I pointed out in my previous remarks before the full committee, Mr. McNutt is moving on with his life. He is going to be attending the University of Virginia Law School and made the wise choice, from an academic consideration, when he had the option of going to either UVA or the University of Notre Dame, that he chose Virginia. I do wish him well in his endeavor. I would advise all of the Members that I do support this bill. I do believe that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has done the best job humanly possible with this bill given the allocations the subcommittee had. But I would note that I for one did not vote for the budget resolution adopted by this institution, and I did not vote for the allocations adopted by the committee and have not agreed with the allocation we were given. On the civilian side particularly of the legislation, it gives us great trouble. The fact is we are $210 million today under a freeze level for civilian purposes. Let me note for the Members of this Chamber several problems that it causes. In the area of water projects, and there is hardly a Member in this institution who does not have a problem one way or the other with water in their district, the spending this year, while $60 million over the President's request, is $6 million under a freeze. Given the fact that the Corps today has responsibilities of over 400 multipurpose reservoirs, 12,000 miles of navigation channels, hundreds of ports, and 11.6 million acres of land, we fall woefully short. It is anticipated just to fully fund authorized active construction projects, those projects that this Congress has authorized, that are economically justified, and are supported by a non-Federal entity, we would need an additional $30 billion. It is further anticipated that if the shadows of the future are not unaltered, the backlog for critically deferred maintenance this coming fiscal year will amount to $450 million. The Assistant Secretary of the Army, Mr. Westphal, has indicated that, to ensure that projects proceed on the most efficient schedule possible, we should probably be spending almost $700 million more a year. People have noted in the past that there has been mission creep by the Corps, that, first, it is flood control projects, then it is navigation, then it is hydropower, shoreline protection, and recreation. But I would point out to the body that those are all responsibilities we collectively have given to the Corps. We have also seen fit, both the legislative branch and the executive branch, to give them additional responsibilities as far as environmental restoration, water treatment facilities, sewer treatment facilities, and the clean up of contaminated sites. Within the last couple of weeks, we had a very controversial debate and vote relative to trade with China. I would point out that global commerce is projected to double over the next 20 years, and the harbors and inland waterways that lead to them will have to be expanded and maintained for us to stay competitive, and that nearly half of the inland waterway locks and dams today are over 50 years old. To put it in another perspective, in 1999 constant dollars, in the 1960s, we were spending nearly $5 billion on water construction projects. Today for inflation adjusted dollars, we are spending about $1.7 billion. There is no money in the bill for a new recreation facility modernization initiative by the administration. There is no money for the Challenge 21 Riverine Restoration Program to move towards more nonstructural solutions to many of our flooding and water problems. They would also be looking to have greater coordination with environmental restoration. Given the fact that we have at least a two to one cost benefit ratio, I think it is a mistake not to further fund these programs. In the arena of science, I would mention renewables. There was a debate during the rule about gas prices going up. Whether one blames OPEC, the oil companies, EPA, ethanol, the fact is they have gone up. Funding in this bill currently as we debate it has gone down $12 million from last year's level. It is my anticipation and I appreciate the fact that it would appear that later today that figure will go up. Finally, I would point to an initiative that the administration asks for in the area of nanoscience and nanotechnology. In 1959, Richard Feynman delivered a famous lecture; and in it he challenged his audience to envision a time when materials could be manipulated and controlled on the smallest of scales. He said then in 1959 that, when they looked back at this age, they will wonder why it was not until 1960 that anybody began seriously to move in this direction, and here we are 40 years later. Nanoscale science and synthesis would result in a number of benefits: significant improvements in solar energy conservation, more energy efficient lighting, stronger, lighter materials that would improve efficiency in transportation, greatly improved chemical and biological sensing, and others. Again, a new science initiative would not be funded. I would simply close again by assuring Members that, within the allocations provided, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has done a very good job. I do support the bills, but I would have been remiss in my remark for not pointing out the deficiencies given the allocations that we were given that I did not support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, yield such time she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for purposes of a colloquy. Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into the colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California knows, I had intended to offer an amendment today on an issue of great importance to my district. I am not going to offer this amendment, however, with the understanding that the gentleman from California is willing to work with me on this matter. [[Page H5217]] I wish to bring to the gentleman's attention some serious concerns I have regarding the Indian Point 2 nuclear power facility in my district. This plant was shut down in February after a steam generator started leaking radioactive material into the atmosphere. It goes without saying that this was a distressing situation for my community. What merits mentioning, and what brings me to the floor today, however, are the string of revelations in the months following this incident which have fundamentally undermined the community's confidence in the safety of the plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself admitted in March that previous inspections of the plant were ``weak and incomplete.'' The NRC determined in May that operational deficiencies at the plant were serious enough to place it on the agency's watch list. Then we learned that the conduct of the NRC staff responsible for plant safety is now the subject of an investigation by the Inspector General. Despite my repeated requests, the NRC will not postpone their decision on the restart of this plant at least until the investigation is complete, as they would have us believe that it is somehow irrelevant. Just last week, an internal memo from the plant's operator was discovered revealing serious problems which occurred at the plant on the night of the leak. Mr. Chairman, it appears that the NRC saw this document only after stories were written about it in local newspapers. Mr. Chairman, there is a problem here. These are legitimate concerns, and it is reasonable for me and my constituents to expect for them to be given full and fair deliberation before that plant is restarted. I would like to make it clear on this floor that this is not the case, that this issue is not being dealt with reasonably, and it is unsettling my community. Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly that the NRC should postpone a decision on restart of Indian Point 2 until the serious and legitimate concerns that have arisen on this issue are addressed. At the very least, it would seem prudent to postpone the NRC's decision on restarting the plant until the final investigation report of the Inspector General's office is released and carefully reviewed by the NRC officials to ensure that the outstanding issues are identified and corrected. Would the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) agree to work with me in ensuring that the committee continue to provide strict oversight of this serious matter? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentlewoman from New York bringing this serious matter to the attention of the House, and I share her concerns over the serious nature of the problem at Indian Point 2 nuclear facility, and agree that the NRC inspector general should provide to the NRC all relevant information that its investigation developed prior to the decision and restart. Let me say to the gentlewoman that I will work closely with her to see that this issue is provided with continued congressional attention in the coming months. Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for his attention to this matter. I hope that this matter will be resolved in the interest of my constituents. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise, not so much to comment on the content of the legislation, as to take note, as has the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is bringing this bill to the floor for the last time. Without getting into the merits of the bill, which are considerably constricted because of the budget resolution, which I find to be ill- advised, I simply, Mr. Chairman, wanted to say that I think that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is one of the people who have added to the decency of this institution. In the years that he has been on the committee, I think he has been an extremely genial Member. I think he has been extremely fair-minded as chairman. I think he has worked very hard to try to produce a rational set of priorities in an irrational situation. I for one want to say that it has been a distinct pleasure for me to share our service in this institution. What I admire about the gentleman from California most of all is that he does not, he is not one of those Members who is prone to cheapshot the institution. He recognizes that this institution is a precious asset to the American people and tries to remind others of that fact in virtually everything he does. I simply want to congratulate him for the service he has provided to his district, to the country, to his State, to his party, and to this institution, and wish him good luck in whatever he does after he leaves this place. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) on the same issue that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) addressed. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, for more than 25 years, along with my colleagues in my area, I have been working with the communities throughout our Hudson Valley region to ensure the safety of the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant in Buchanan, New York. Over the past year, that plant has had to be shut down on two separate occasions. Prior thereto, over the past 25 years, this nuclear plant has had to be shut down on a number of occasions due to the failure of the plant's outmoded steam generators, insufficient emergency preparedness, and questions about the integrity of the nuclear plant. The facility has been plagued with safety problems over the years. It is the only nuclear power reactor in the entire country which is still operating with the outmoded Westinghouse Model 44 steam generators. Nevertheless, the NRC is presently considering an application by Consolidated Edison to restart the plant. During a recent public meeting, I joined with Senator Schumer, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and the citizens of our Hudson Valley region in requesting that the application for restarting this plant not be approved until the existing steam generators have been replaced and emergency and safety deficiencies outlined in the NRC's inspection team's report are remedied. Mr. Chairman, this nuclear facility is located only 35 miles from New York City and in the heart of our heavily populated Hudson Valley region. It is obvious that the replacement of these outmoded steam generators and the remediation of emergency and safety procedures at Indian Point 2 is vital to the safety and welfare of millions of our citizens. {time} 1545 Will the chairman be able to assist us in assuring the future safety of this nuclear facility? Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. I advise the gentleman from New York that I would be pleased to offer any assistance that I may be able to in monitoring this situation at Indian Point 2 and work with the gentleman to resolve the situation. Mr. GILMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished chairman for his time and attention on this pressing matter. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. I also wish to thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), as well as our ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their support, and the whole committee's hard work, both the full committee and the subcommittee. I also want to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), for his dedication and hard work and especially for his advice. [[Page H5218]] Because of the committee's efforts, the Houston-Galveston Navigation Project is appropriated the full $53.5 million needed to maintain the optimal construction schedule for the deepening and widening of the Houston Ship Channel. This subcommittee had the foresight to maintain this construction schedule. By providing the necessary funds now, this project's return on investment will save taxpayers many millions of dollars in increased construction costs. Also, the Port of Houston generates $300 million annual customs fees and $213 million annually in State and local taxes, which demonstrates that the Houston-Galveston Navigation Project will more than pay for itself in the long run, both for the local taxpayers but also for the Federal taxpayers of the United States. The continued expansion of the Port of Houston is important on many levels. More than 7,000 vessels navigate the ship channel each year. The port provides 5.5 billion in annual business revenues and creates directly and indirectly 196,000 jobs. It is anticipated that the number and size of vessels will only increase. Completing the widening and deepening of the ship channel in a timely manner will increase the safety and economic viability of the port and of the City of Houston. In addition to the Houston Ship Channel, there are several flood control projects that the Corps of Engineers, in partnership with our Harris County Flood Control District, have undertaken. Hunting Bayou Flood Control Project, $337,000 in this bill. This project will affect 29 square miles of the Hunting Bayou watershed and benefit over 7,000 homes and businesses located within that watershed. The environmental evaluation and the General Reevaluation Report should be completed on that and submitted to the Corps by November of this year. Another project of importance is the Greens Bayou Flood Control Project. This 213 square miles of watershed will provide important protection for hundreds of homes that are currently extremely vulnerable to flooding. Mr. Chairman, I again thank the committee for their hard work. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for the purpose of colloquy. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, the Office of River Protection at the Hanford site in my district is currently engaged in the world's largest and most pressing environmental cleanup project. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the privatization account at Hanford was $450 million. However, due to recent developments, privatization is no longer a viable option at this time. In light of these developments, the Department of Energy has identified a new path forward to ensure the timely cleanup of the waste. As a result of this new path forward, the Department identified an updated funding requirement of $370 million instead of the $450 million for FY 2001 to fully fund the necessary design and long-lead procurement to keep the project on schedule. I would like to ask the gentleman if he will insist that the necessary $300 million of design and long-lead procurement needs for this project will be preserved during the conference with the other body. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman by saying, absolutely, we will continue to press for that figure and do all we can to make sure the amount of money is available for fiscal year 2001. Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that commitment. The gentleman's assurance certainly gives me and my constituents in central Washington, and for that matter all of us in the Pacific Northwest, confidence that the final legislation will contain the full funding that has been identified for the work that is required this year. Finally, I wish to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) personally for all the efforts the gentleman has given on behalf of me and my constituents in my district. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and wish the gentleman the very best in his retirement. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a valuable member of the subcommittee. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of our energy and water appropriation bill. I also wish to thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their bipartisan approach to our bill. Unfortunately, this is our chairman's last year in Congress and his last energy and water bill. The gentleman from California has achieved many things during his tenure as chairman. He has been the driving force for reform of the Department of Energy. He has made sure that we honor our commitment to a balanced Federal budget and that we focus our scarce resources where they really need to go. I will miss the gentleman from California, as I am sure all of us will; and I want to thank him personally for his leadership, his friendship, and his very good nature. I want to also say a word to the staff of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for their tireless work on all our behalf. Mr. Chairman, our bill addresses important national priorities at the same time it honors our commitment to a balanced Federal budget. As the chairman can attest, there are always more requests for funding than our budget allocation can provide for. The no new-start policy contained in this bill is difficult but necessary. We need to focus our dollars on ongoing projects that are on schedule and on budget. And even with this strict requirement, our bill provides funding for projects that will benefit virtually every congressional district in our Nation. This is in stark contrast to the President's budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers, which was wholly inadequate. It is a poor reflection on the White House that each and every year this committee must add funds for our Nation's waterways and coastal areas. This is particularly true for my home State of New Jersey, where we have 137 miles of ocean coast that we need to protect. In addition, New Jersey has experienced severe and devastating floods, and the only long-term solution is effective flood mitigation. Our State is also committed to the preservation of wetlands. All of these important priorities were shortchanged in the President's budget. For over 170 years, the Army Corps of Engineers has provided solutions to flooding, dredging and environmental problems, as well as shore and beach protection. Our bill also maintains funding for flood safety, coastal protection, dredging, and environmental restoration. It restores funds for these vital projects in order to protect lives and property. Our bill also provides funding for the Department of Energy. Most importantly, we have increased our commitment to scientific research, providing $2.8 billion for the Office of Science, a $43 million increase. With this funding, important scientific research will continue in the area of high energy and nuclear physics, technology, basic energy sciences, biological and environmental research. I especially want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), for his support of $255 million for fusion research and $25 million for laser research. While I would have preferred more funding for this, we did increase fusion research above the current level. Fusion energy has the potential to be an unlimited and ultraclean source of energy for the world. And after a number of years of declining budgets for this program, and with the chairman's help, this is the second year of increased funding for fusion research. [[Page H5219]] The committee has also provided $19.6 million for the decommissioning of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton University. This decommissioning must stay on schedule and on budget, and this funding will allow us to do so. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the bill. I thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their support. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the committee. Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to have a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the committee, but I just noticed that both the chairman of the Whole House and the chairman of the subcommittee are both retiring this year, and I have to express my own personal regrets that they are retiring. They are both very distinguished gentlemen, and I have enjoyed serving with them. I have really enjoyed serving with the chairman of the subcommittee, not only as a fellow Californian; but we have been engaged together in issues for the State, and I remember when I was in the State legislature his work with the supercollider, where I really got to know him well; and I have appreciated his leadership here in the Congress. I want to thank him for the opportunity to discuss with him the funding for a critical project in my district, which is the central part of California. This is the second year I have sought appropriations to carry out a preconstruction engineering design of a flood control measure on the Pajaro River, which runs right through the City of Watsonville, California, as well as funding for the Pajaro River Basin Study. This is an area in my district with substantial flood control problems, which threatens homes and businesses in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. I have worked extensively with officials in both of these counties and the Corps of Engineers to resolve this problem in order to provide safety for the residents there. I recognize that the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development is under significant budgetary constraints this fiscal year and has thus adopted a policy to fund investigations at a level no higher than requested by the administration. The administration's request for investigations on the Pajaro River was $600,000, with an additional $50,000 request for the basin study. However, this request was prepared prior to the agreement between the Corps and the local sponsors, which subsequently set a higher level of funding for the project. The Corps has revised their earlier estimates, and has developed a new work plan and budget that calls for a total of $1.95 million in fiscal year 2001. They have submitted a revised estimate on their ability to spend which reflects this new higher amount. I would like to request that my good friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations, amend the amount as we go along to allocate to the investigations on the Pajaro River to reflect this agreement with the Corps and the new estimate of their ability to pay. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for yielding, and I want to state that I recognize the importance to his constituents to improve flood control on the Pajaro River. The Corps has demonstrated their ability to spend $1.95 million on the investigations of these two projects. Given the revision of the Corps's estimates since the submission of the President's budget, I pledge to do everything I can to help the gentleman receive additional monies from the Corps for purposes of implementing these worthy projects. Mr. FARR of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for working on this matter; and I look forward to working with him in the future. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire what time is remaining on each side. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) has 15 minutes remaining. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), for the purposes of a colloquy. Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I hope I can do it in 2 minutes. Before I engage in a colloquy, I do want to associate myself quickly with all the outstanding comments that have been made about the brilliant political career, the public service, and especially the attitude of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). People from one end of this place to the other really appreciate the spirit of the gentleman from California. The gentleman from California has done a great job and brought so much to public service in this country. And I hope the gentleman enjoys the game of golf from this point on, because the gentleman deserves his retirement. Mr. Chairman, the Spallation Neutron Source is one of the most important science initiatives of our generation and represents a $1.4 billion major construction project supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Science to build the world's's most powerful source of pulsed beams for scientific research and development. {time} 1600 With its advanced accelerator technology and world-class instrument design, SNS will be more than 12 times as powerful as the world's current leading neutron source in the U.K. and offer unprecedented research opportunities for up to 2,000 scientists each year. This research is crucial to supporting advances in biology, polymers, magnetic materials, superconductivity, and materials research that will continue to keep the U.S. economy strong and keep us at the forefront of scientific endeavors around the globe. SNS has been subject to many technical and management reviews in the past 4 years, including review by the DOE, several external independent review teams, the GAO, and the House Committee on Science. These reviews have shown conclusively that the technical basis of the SNS is sound and that the SNS management is on a solid path to complete the project within budget by 2006 as planned. All conditions prescribed in the committee report on last year's Energy and Water appropriations bill have been satisfied, and the House Committee on Science has recommended full funding of the SNS in fiscal year 2001. The SNS will fully obligate $190 million in this fiscal year, including the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $100 million in construction funds and $17.9 in R, plus the fiscal year 1999 balances brought forward of about $71.4 million. Significant design and construction activity has taken place in the last year, with most title I design completed, approximately $75 million in procurements being awarded and major excavation and grading of the 100-acre site well underway. Fully funding the fiscal year 2000 requested level is essential to maintain the current schedule to complete SNS in 2006 within the total project cost of $1.4 billion. I know how hard the chairman and his staff have worked to get this project to where we are today, and I appreciate that. I acknowledge the budget constraints that we are currently under and that so far we have not been able to provide the necessary funding that this project needs to meet the necessary milestones over the next 12 months. I am asking the commitment of the chairman that, as we work together during conference, we will do everything possible to significantly increase the funding for the Spallation Neutron Source. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for his response. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the request of the gentleman. I will certainly work in conference to adequately fund the Spallation Neutron Source and, of course, additional funds if that will help. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) a member of the [[Page H5220]] committee, as well as the subcommittee. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) in a short colloquy. As the gentleman knows, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now has before it certain legal issues relating to the off-site disposal of FUSRAP material. My question to the chairman is, will the gentleman confirm that the Committee on Appropriations does not wish to influence the judgment of the Commission on those issues? Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. If any committee of Congress wishes to take action regarding the off-site disposal issue the Commission is now considering, it ought to be the relevant authorization committee of the House that does it. I would have no objections to the authorizers of this body taking up such issues. But the Committee on Appropriations, appropriately, has chosen not to do so. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Chairman, even more importantly, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for a lifetime of service to his Nation. He served this country with great distinction in military uniform. And much like my mentor in politics, the late Olin E. ``Tiger'' Teague, who served this country in such a distinguished way for so many years, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) continued to serve his country after he took off the uniform and put on the civilian uniform of public servant. As someone who worked with the chairman both when he was chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations, now the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, I want to say it was an honor to work with him, to work under him, and to know him. He gives the name ``public service'' the very best of meaning because of his lifetime of service to our country. And there are military families living in better housing today, there are people in communities that are less prone to flood control today, there are millions of American citizens who, whether they know the name of the gentleman or not, are living a better life today and for many years to come for their families because of the service of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) to our country. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those kind remarks, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee. Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and I rise in very, very strong support of this bill. I wish good luck to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). He has done a great job here. We salute him. If the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) is still about, we salute him. And the staff has done a remarkable job, as well. The fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water appropriations bill is a balanced piece of legislation balancing the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, along with important portions of the Department of Interior and other agencies. This is a good and fiscally responsible bill, with the non-defense portion of it being some $200 million below last area. The Nation's energy policy is a prime focus of this bill. We have the opportunity here to improve what we can all agree is a lacking and flawed energy policy on the part of the Clinton-Gore administration. The bill provides for a variety of important education funding for our universities, as well as research and development at our national labs which are related to the energy supply. This includes nuclear energy research under NERI, under NEPO, and under the NEER programs along with investment in the future energy source called fusion and the Advanced Scientific Computing Research initiative that will bridge the software gap, thereby substantially improving our scientific research capacity. This bill also contains some fantastic work, I believe, on nuclear fuel supply, from the beginning of the fuel cycle involving mining, conversion and enrichment, to the end of the fuel cycle involving Yucca Mountain. A new potential cancer cure is advanced in this bill. One of the most successful on-time, on-budget programs at the Department of Energy is the fusion energy program. Fusion energy is treated fairly. The cleanup, finally, of our World War II legacy, our nuclear waste sites, is another important priority in this bill. It contains some excellent work that will refocus the Department of Energy on its responsibilities with a new priority on accomplishments by 2010. We have all the various interests of the American people at heart when we all have programs we hope will be strongly supported. If we have more money at some future time, I cannot say at that time or at this time that we will, but I am confident we will have an even better bill. I urge support of this bill. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. I thank the distinguished chairman for recognizing the need for two flood projects in my area, the Elmsford Saw Mill River area and the Ramapo River area, and for providing adequate funding for these projects. We thank the distinguished chairman for his good work. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4733, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, 2001 and want to thank the distinguished Committee chairman, the gentleman from California, Mr. Packard for his diligent work on producing this important bill. The Energy and Water Appropriations bill provides funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to provide necessary flood control protection against the devastating impact of flooding on lives and property. My constituents in Elmsford and Suffern, New York have and continue to suffer from the flooding of the Saw Mill River, as evidenced in 1999, when Hurricane Floyd dropped over 11 inches of rain on my congressional district, creating a devastating impact on human life and property. Included in Floyd's destruction were constituents who were faced with flood waters from both the Saw Mill River and the Ramapo River in southwestern N.Y.--destroying homes, businesses and creating severe financial stress. After witnessing the destruction in my district first-hand, I contacted the U.S. Army Corps and Chairman Packard for assistance. Accordingly, Chairman Packard has provided the Army Corps with adequate funding to begin the phases necessary to prevent such destruction in the future. I look forward to continuing my work with Chairman Packard as the flood control work proceeds in both Elmsford and Suffern. I thank Chairman Packard for his efforts and I urge my colleagues to support this important measure. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the subcommittee. Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very, very much. I rise today in support of this very excellent bill under tight budget constraints. I would like to also extend my thanks to the chairman. This is my first term on this subcommittee, and he has done an outstanding job, being actually new to the subcommittee himself. But the learning curve that I have had on this committee has been quite steep; and, with his leadership, it has made it much easier. And also, anyone who knows the chairman, much has been said about the golf, but he attacks his work the same way that he attacks the golf course and never stopping, and we have to be on our toes all the time. I just want to say how much I appreciate his friendship and really the honor of serving here with him. This bill is something under the tight budget constraints, like I said before, with no new starts as far as projects. The chairman is very well aware, and I think the Congress is, that there are [[Page H5221]] scores of billions of dollars that are authorized in projects which are waiting to be started; and because of the tight constraints that we have, it was impossible to have any new starts. I also want to emphasize how important this bill is for the upper Midwest, for the State of Iowa, as far as the Army Corps of Engineers, the projects that they have to deal with in my district as far as navigation on the rivers, and what an excellent job I think that they do and the constraints that we have. If I have a disappointment in the bill, it is in the area of renewable energy and as far as biorenewable energy research that I think is so very, very important for the future. Just in closing, again, I want to thank the chairman and extend my gratitude for the great job that he has done. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for the purpose of a colloquy. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, let me add my words of praise to the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) for his great service to this county. He is a great man and a friend. I am sure not only his constituents appreciate his service, but all his colleagues here and people of this great country. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for giving me the opportunity to discuss a dredging project that is vital to the Port of New York and New Jersey. As the gentleman knows, the Arthur Kill channel serves the Howland Hook Marine Terminal on Staten Island, one of the United States Army's strategic seaports of embarkation. The present 35-foot depth of the Arthur Kill serves as a considerable obstacle to large commercial and military vessels that may forestall any future growth or endanger the existence of these seaport facilities. The Port of New York and New Jersey, the Eastern Seaboard's largest, is an economic engine for the region and the entire Nation. Locally, Port commerce serves as a consumer market of 18 million Americans and is estimated to provide 165,000 jobs and $20 billion in economic activity. As a result of its location, goods that enter the United States through the Port can reach the homes of 110 million Americans within 24 hours. The New York site of the Arthur Kill was for years an eyesore, however, vacant of any real activity. Today, I am happy to note, that the New York-side is a vibrant and expanding area bursting at the seams with almost 1,000 good paying jobs and adding $20 million to the existing tax base. This new activity can all be predicated on the responsible measure to deepen the Arthur Kill channel, which will not only maintain the current business but will attract new businesses to the entire region, including New Jersey. The modernization and dredging efforts of the Arthur Kill is one of the most important economic issues for the New York and New Jersey region, as well as the entire Eastern Seaboard. In addition to the new jobs that will come with the adequate dredging, the completion of this project will help to ensure that the United States does not continue to lose more shipping business to Canadian shipping competitors in Halifax. Last year, the two largest shippers on the New York City side nearly relocated their operations to Halifax and have indicated they will do so unless considerable harbor improvements are completed by the year 2009. The chairman and the committee have done an excellent job in putting this bill together and crafting what I think is a fiscally responsible bill and has taken the key step in recognizing the importance of the Port of New York and New Jersey by providing funding to dredge the Kill Van Kull in Newark Bay. This is welcome news, Mr. Chairman, but it does not go far enough to ensure that the Port maintains its position to provide millions of consumers with low-cost goods in a timely fashion. The Arthur Kill is a natural waterway and tributary to the Kill Van Kull. It is not only vital but common sense to begin construction to dredge the waterway since the Kill Van Kull is already being dredged today. The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 authorized the deepening of the Arthur Kill channel from 35 to 41 feet. This is prudent. Construction to deepen the channel has been included in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget for $5 million. The Army Corps and the Port Authority, which is the local partner in this project, estimate that they will be ready to begin construction in November. We have been waiting for years for this opportunity, and I think it would be a big mistake not to take action now. The chairman has been a terrific leader in all of this, and I would like to thank him for allowing me, again, this opportunity to discuss with him this important project vital to my district. I respectfully request that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and other members of the Committee on Appropriations help to make this project a reality. {time} 1615 Before I hear from the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), I respectfully yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, first let me join in the encomiums to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his great work over the years and the decades, and we will miss him. Let me say that it is true that part of the port of New York is now bustling again and part of it still needs majo

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 27, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5211-H5237] ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 532 and rule [[Page H5212]] XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4733. {time} 1520 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to present to the Committee of the Whole for its consideration the bill, H.R. 4733, making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide array of Federal Government programs which include such diverse matters as national security, environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced scientific research, navigation, alternative energy sources, nuclear power regulations. Programs funded by this bill affect multiple aspects of American life having significant implications for domestic security, commercial competitiveness, and the advance of science. I am proud of this bill as reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and I believe it merits the support of every Member of this body. Total funding for H.R. 4733 is $21.7 billion. This is over $500 million more than the fiscal year 2000 for energy and water development programs, but almost a billion dollars below the President's budget request. We were presented with an additional constraint in fiscal year 2001 because our 302(b) allocation consisted of two distinct parts: defense and nondefense. While the defense allocation in the bill is $12.9 billion, and that is about $755 million over the fiscal year 2000 and $191 million below the budget request, the nondefense portion of the allocation is significantly less. For the nondefense portion of our bill we received $8.8 billion, which is about $210 million below the last fiscal year. Despite the bill's constrained funding levels for nondefense programs, it provides adequate funding for the continuation of high- priority programs, promising the greatest return on the investment of taxpayer dollars. Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers. This includes, of course, projects for flood control, navigation, shoreline protection, and a variety of other things. The bill acknowledges the importance of water infrastructure by funding the civil works program at the same level as last year, a little over $4 billion. Within the amount appropriated for the Corps of Engineers, $153 million is for general investigations and $1.38 billion is for the construction program, and about $1.8 billion for the operation and maintenance. Mr. Chairman, funding for title II, most of which is for the Bureau of Reclamation, totals $770 million, a reduction of $35 million from last year's fiscal level. The bill also includes no funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta restoration program, a project which I have been greatly interested, in California. The reason for this is because we did not fund any unauthorized projects and the authorization for CALFED expired this year. Therefore, it was not funded, to my regret. But to be consistent with all of the Members, we followed that rule. There are reductions in title III of the bill, which includes the budget of the Department of Energy, particularly the nondefense programs. Despite constrained funding levels, most DOE nondefense programs are funded at last year's level or slightly below. One exception to that policy is the Yucca Mountain program to site a permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel, high-level nuclear fuel. This program was increased about $413 million to maintain its schedule which calls for the Department of Energy to issue a site recommendation during the fiscal year 2001. We wanted to keep that on schedule, and thus we funded it accordingly. We sought to maintain the level of funding for science programs, and we increased that area over fiscal year 2000. We also recognized that there are delays in some ongoing projects such as the Spallation Neutron Source, and we were unable to fund several new science initiatives as proposed in the fiscal year 2001. Funding for the energy supply programs of the Department totals $576 million. This includes about $350 million for research and development of renewable energy technologies. We recognize that this is a little bit short of what the administration requested, and we wished that we had the funds to beef that up; but we feel that it is adequate to fund the renewable research effort. The bill provides $301 million for uranium facilities maintenance and remediation, a new account established to consolidate uranium programs that were spread through many other accounts. The largest spending category for the Energy and Water bill is that of environmental restoration and waste management of the Department of Energy. Funding for cleanup activities at the variety of sites in title III of the bill exceeds $6.4 billion for defense and nondefense programs. The bill also includes $6.1 billion for new National Nuclear Security Administration, a semiautonomous agency within the Department of Energy. Title IV of the bill provides $107 million reduction of $21 million in fiscal year 2000 for certain independent agencies of the Federal Government, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Mr. Chairman, I owe a great deal of gratitude to the hard-working members of my Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. They have labored with difficult fiscal constraints to produce a bill that I think is fair and balanced. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman and ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, who helped us and cooperated with us in crafting the bill. Perhaps more importantly than any, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. It has been a joy to work with him. He has been extremely helpful in crafting the bill. And then I certainly want to pay tribute to our staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in constructing an excellent bill. Mr. Chairman, I have been pleased to hear during the debate in the Committee on Rules the willingness of virtually, well, not virtually, every Member that spoke of a willingness to support this bill. I would hope that every Member of the House would support this bill. We feel it is an excellent bill within the constraints that we had to live with, and I would encourage every Member to support it. It is my privilege to present to the Committee of the Whole for its consideration H.R. 4733, making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide array of Federal government programs which include such diverse matters as national security, environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced scientific research, navigation, alternative energy sources, and nuclear power regulation. Programs funded by this bill affect multiple aspects of American life, having significant implications for domestic security, commercial competitiveness, and the advance of science. I am proud of the bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and I believe it merits the support of the entire membership of this body. Total funding for H.R. 4733 is $21.7 billion. This is $546 million more than fiscal year 2000 for energy and water development programs, but $951.8 million below the President's budget request. We were presented with an additional constraint in fiscal year 2001 because our 302b allocation consisted of two distinct parts: defense and non-defense. While the defense allocation in the bill is $12.893 billion which is [[Page H5213]] $755.5 million over fiscal year 2000 and $191 million below the budget request, the non-defense portion of the allocation is significantly less. For the non-defense portion of our bill, we received $8.85 billion which is $209.5 million below fiscal year 2000 and $760.7 million below the budget request. This was a severe constraint on our ability to provide funding for many programs in this bill. Despite the bill's constrained funding levels for non-defense programs, it provides adequate funding for the continuation of high- priority programs promising the greatest return on the investment of taxpayer dollars. Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development is unanimous in its belief that this program is among the most valuable within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. The national benefits of projects for flood control, navigation and shoreline protection demonstrably exceed project costs. The bill acknowledges the importance of water infrastructure by funding the civil works programs at $4.1 billion, an increase of $59.9 million over the amount requested by the Administration, and level with fiscal year 2000. Within the amount appropriated to the Corps of Engineers, $153.3 million is for general investigations, $1.38 billion is for the construction program, and $1.85 billion is for operation and maintenance. In addition, the bill includes $323.4 million for Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, project. The bill also fully funds the budget request of the regulatory program and the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. Mr. Chairman, funding for Title II, most of which is for the Bureau of Reclamation, totals $770.5 million--a reduction of $35.3 million from the fiscal year 2000 level. The bill includes no funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta restoration program whose authorization expires in fiscal year 2000 and fully funds the budget request of $38.4 million for the Central Valley Project restoration fund. There are reductions in Title III of the bill which includes the budget of the Department of Energy, particularly in the non-defense programs. Despite constrained funding levels, most DOE non-defense programs are funded at last year's level or slightly below. The one exception is the Yucca Mountain program to site a permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel. This program was increased to $413 million to maintain its schedule which calls for the Department of Energy to issue a site recommendation in fiscal year 2001. We sought to maintain level funding for science programs and provided $2.83 billion, an increase of $43.3 million over fiscal year 2000. However, there are delays in some on-going projects such as the Spallation Neutron Source, and we were unable to fund several new science initiatives proposed in fiscal year 2001. Funding for energy supply programs of the Department totals $576.5 million. This includes $350.5 million for research and development on renewable energy technologies. Although this falls short of the Administration's unrealistic budget request, it is a substantial and credible level of funding. The energy supply account also includes $231.8 million nuclear energy programs. The bill provides $22.5 million for the nuclear energy research initiative and $5 million, the full amount of the budget request, for the nuclear energy plant optimization program. The bill provides $301.4 million for uranium facilities maintenance and remediation, a new account established to consolidate uranium programs that were spread throughout other accounts. These programs were merged to enhance coordination and eliminate duplication in the environmental remediation work performed at the uranium enrichment facilities in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio. The largest spending category in the Energy and Water Bill is that of environmental restoration and waste management at Department of Energy sites. Funding for cleanup activities in title III of the bill exceeds $6.4 billion for defense and non-defense programs. The Committee is dedicated to the environmental restoration of areas that participated in the development and maintenance of our nuclear security complex. This bill reflects the Committee's continued efforts to promote actual, physical site cleanups and to accelerate the completion of remediation work at DOE sites. Accordingly, the Committee has provided $1.08 billion, the full amount of the budget request, for defense facilities closure projects. This account concentrates funding on discrete sites that are on schedule for cleanup completion by the year 2006. The Committee has also directed the Department to establish a cleanup program for those sites and projects that can be completed by 2010. The bill includes $6.16 billion for the new National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy. The bill provides $4.6 billion for stewardship of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, $861.5 million for defense nuclear nonproliferation programs, and $677.6 million for the naval reactors program. Title IV of the bill provides $107.5 million, a reduction of $21 million from fiscal year 2000, for certain independent agencies of the Federal Government, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Mr. Chairman, I owe a debt of gratitude to the hard-working and dedicated Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. They have labored under difficult fiscal constraints to produce a bill that is balanced and fair. I am especially grateful to the Ranking Minority Member, the Honorable Pete Visclosky. It is in large part due to his efforts that we present a bill that merits the support of all Members of the House. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support H.R. 4733 as reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and I reserve the balance of my time. [[Page H5214]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN00.001 [[Page H5215]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN00.002 [[Page H5216]] Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would begin by also commending the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and would point out to every Member of the body in this institution that this will be the last Energy and Water bill that the gentleman will bring to the House floor during his tenure as a Member of Congress, given the fact that he will now retire after the 106th Congress. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California is a very decent man. He is a God-fearing man whose family is the most important thing in his life, his wife, Jean, as well as his seven children. Clearly as important to him is his country. And whether it was his service in defense of this country as a member of the United States Navy; whether it was his service as a member of a school board ensuring that the youth of his community receive the best education possible for their future; whether it be as the mayor and chief executive of his local community or his years of service in this Congress, I certainly respect the gentleman's three great passions in life. {time} 1530 But I would be remiss, as I would have been remiss in full committee, Mr. Chairman, if I did not mention for one moment the other great passion in life of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and that is golf. For those who do not yet know the good work, the foursome of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) did win the recent Bob Michael's, Founder, Golf Tournament with the lowest team score. I salute the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). He has been a gentleman, a friend, and we will all miss him. I also want to add my thanks, my deepest thanks as a former staff member myself, to all of the staff involved on both sides of the aisle, whether they be professional committee staff, detailees, or associate staff. But today, because this is the last bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), I would also point out to the House, this is John McNutt's last bill. He is my associate staff member and has been for the last 7 years 6 months and 27 days, not that we are counting. But as I pointed out in my previous remarks before the full committee, Mr. McNutt is moving on with his life. He is going to be attending the University of Virginia Law School and made the wise choice, from an academic consideration, when he had the option of going to either UVA or the University of Notre Dame, that he chose Virginia. I do wish him well in his endeavor. I would advise all of the Members that I do support this bill. I do believe that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has done the best job humanly possible with this bill given the allocations the subcommittee had. But I would note that I for one did not vote for the budget resolution adopted by this institution, and I did not vote for the allocations adopted by the committee and have not agreed with the allocation we were given. On the civilian side particularly of the legislation, it gives us great trouble. The fact is we are $210 million today under a freeze level for civilian purposes. Let me note for the Members of this Chamber several problems that it causes. In the area of water projects, and there is hardly a Member in this institution who does not have a problem one way or the other with water in their district, the spending this year, while $60 million over the President's request, is $6 million under a freeze. Given the fact that the Corps today has responsibilities of over 400 multipurpose reservoirs, 12,000 miles of navigation channels, hundreds of ports, and 11.6 million acres of land, we fall woefully short. It is anticipated just to fully fund authorized active construction projects, those projects that this Congress has authorized, that are economically justified, and are supported by a non-Federal entity, we would need an additional $30 billion. It is further anticipated that if the shadows of the future are not unaltered, the backlog for critically deferred maintenance this coming fiscal year will amount to $450 million. The Assistant Secretary of the Army, Mr. Westphal, has indicated that, to ensure that projects proceed on the most efficient schedule possible, we should probably be spending almost $700 million more a year. People have noted in the past that there has been mission creep by the Corps, that, first, it is flood control projects, then it is navigation, then it is hydropower, shoreline protection, and recreation. But I would point out to the body that those are all responsibilities we collectively have given to the Corps. We have also seen fit, both the legislative branch and the executive branch, to give them additional responsibilities as far as environmental restoration, water treatment facilities, sewer treatment facilities, and the clean up of contaminated sites. Within the last couple of weeks, we had a very controversial debate and vote relative to trade with China. I would point out that global commerce is projected to double over the next 20 years, and the harbors and inland waterways that lead to them will have to be expanded and maintained for us to stay competitive, and that nearly half of the inland waterway locks and dams today are over 50 years old. To put it in another perspective, in 1999 constant dollars, in the 1960s, we were spending nearly $5 billion on water construction projects. Today for inflation adjusted dollars, we are spending about $1.7 billion. There is no money in the bill for a new recreation facility modernization initiative by the administration. There is no money for the Challenge 21 Riverine Restoration Program to move towards more nonstructural solutions to many of our flooding and water problems. They would also be looking to have greater coordination with environmental restoration. Given the fact that we have at least a two to one cost benefit ratio, I think it is a mistake not to further fund these programs. In the arena of science, I would mention renewables. There was a debate during the rule about gas prices going up. Whether one blames OPEC, the oil companies, EPA, ethanol, the fact is they have gone up. Funding in this bill currently as we debate it has gone down $12 million from last year's level. It is my anticipation and I appreciate the fact that it would appear that later today that figure will go up. Finally, I would point to an initiative that the administration asks for in the area of nanoscience and nanotechnology. In 1959, Richard Feynman delivered a famous lecture; and in it he challenged his audience to envision a time when materials could be manipulated and controlled on the smallest of scales. He said then in 1959 that, when they looked back at this age, they will wonder why it was not until 1960 that anybody began seriously to move in this direction, and here we are 40 years later. Nanoscale science and synthesis would result in a number of benefits: significant improvements in solar energy conservation, more energy efficient lighting, stronger, lighter materials that would improve efficiency in transportation, greatly improved chemical and biological sensing, and others. Again, a new science initiative would not be funded. I would simply close again by assuring Members that, within the allocations provided, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has done a very good job. I do support the bills, but I would have been remiss in my remark for not pointing out the deficiencies given the allocations that we were given that I did not support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, yield such time she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for purposes of a colloquy. Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into the colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California knows, I had intended to offer an amendment today on an issue of great importance to my district. I am not going to offer this amendment, however, with the understanding that the gentleman from California is willing to work with me on this matter. [[Page H5217]] I wish to bring to the gentleman's attention some serious concerns I have regarding the Indian Point 2 nuclear power facility in my district. This plant was shut down in February after a steam generator started leaking radioactive material into the atmosphere. It goes without saying that this was a distressing situation for my community. What merits mentioning, and what brings me to the floor today, however, are the string of revelations in the months following this incident which have fundamentally undermined the community's confidence in the safety of the plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself admitted in March that previous inspections of the plant were ``weak and incomplete.'' The NRC determined in May that operational deficiencies at the plant were serious enough to place it on the agency's watch list. Then we learned that the conduct of the NRC staff responsible for plant safety is now the subject of an investigation by the Inspector General. Despite my repeated requests, the NRC will not postpone their decision on the restart of this plant at least until the investigation is complete, as they would have us believe that it is somehow irrelevant. Just last week, an internal memo from the plant's operator was discovered revealing serious problems which occurred at the plant on the night of the leak. Mr. Chairman, it appears that the NRC saw this document only after stories were written about it in local newspapers. Mr. Chairman, there is a problem here. These are legitimate concerns, and it is reasonable for me and my constituents to expect for them to be given full and fair deliberation before that plant is restarted. I would like to make it clear on this floor that this is not the case, that this issue is not being dealt with reasonably, and it is unsettling my community. Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly that the NRC should postpone a decision on restart of Indian Point 2 until the serious and legitimate concerns that have arisen on this issue are addressed. At the very least, it would seem prudent to postpone the NRC's decision on restarting the plant until the final investigation report of the Inspector General's office is released and carefully reviewed by the NRC officials to ensure that the outstanding issues are identified and corrected. Would the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) agree to work with me in ensuring that the committee continue to provide strict oversight of this serious matter? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentlewoman from New York bringing this serious matter to the attention of the House, and I share her concerns over the serious nature of the problem at Indian Point 2 nuclear facility, and agree that the NRC inspector general should provide to the NRC all relevant information that its investigation developed prior to the decision and restart. Let me say to the gentlewoman that I will work closely with her to see that this issue is provided with continued congressional attention in the coming months. Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for his attention to this matter. I hope that this matter will be resolved in the interest of my constituents. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise, not so much to comment on the content of the legislation, as to take note, as has the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is bringing this bill to the floor for the last time. Without getting into the merits of the bill, which are considerably constricted because of the budget resolution, which I find to be ill- advised, I simply, Mr. Chairman, wanted to say that I think that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is one of the people who have added to the decency of this institution. In the years that he has been on the committee, I think he has been an extremely genial Member. I think he has been extremely fair-minded as chairman. I think he has worked very hard to try to produce a rational set of priorities in an irrational situation. I for one want to say that it has been a distinct pleasure for me to share our service in this institution. What I admire about the gentleman from California most of all is that he does not, he is not one of those Members who is prone to cheapshot the institution. He recognizes that this institution is a precious asset to the American people and tries to remind others of that fact in virtually everything he does. I simply want to congratulate him for the service he has provided to his district, to the country, to his State, to his party, and to this institution, and wish him good luck in whatever he does after he leaves this place. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) on the same issue that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) addressed. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, for more than 25 years, along with my colleagues in my area, I have been working with the communities throughout our Hudson Valley region to ensure the safety of the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant in Buchanan, New York. Over the past year, that plant has had to be shut down on two separate occasions. Prior thereto, over the past 25 years, this nuclear plant has had to be shut down on a number of occasions due to the failure of the plant's outmoded steam generators, insufficient emergency preparedness, and questions about the integrity of the nuclear plant. The facility has been plagued with safety problems over the years. It is the only nuclear power reactor in the entire country which is still operating with the outmoded Westinghouse Model 44 steam generators. Nevertheless, the NRC is presently considering an application by Consolidated Edison to restart the plant. During a recent public meeting, I joined with Senator Schumer, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and the citizens of our Hudson Valley region in requesting that the application for restarting this plant not be approved until the existing steam generators have been replaced and emergency and safety deficiencies outlined in the NRC's inspection team's report are remedied. Mr. Chairman, this nuclear facility is located only 35 miles from New York City and in the heart of our heavily populated Hudson Valley region. It is obvious that the replacement of these outmoded steam generators and the remediation of emergency and safety procedures at Indian Point 2 is vital to the safety and welfare of millions of our citizens. {time} 1545 Will the chairman be able to assist us in assuring the future safety of this nuclear facility? Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. I advise the gentleman from New York that I would be pleased to offer any assistance that I may be able to in monitoring this situation at Indian Point 2 and work with the gentleman to resolve the situation. Mr. GILMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished chairman for his time and attention on this pressing matter. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. I also wish to thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), as well as our ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their support, and the whole committee's hard work, both the full committee and the subcommittee. I also want to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), for his dedication and hard work and especially for his advice. [[Page H5218]] Because of the committee's efforts, the Houston-Galveston Navigation Project is appropriated the full $53.5 million needed to maintain the optimal construction schedule for the deepening and widening of the Houston Ship Channel. This subcommittee had the foresight to maintain this construction schedule. By providing the necessary funds now, this project's return on investment will save taxpayers many millions of dollars in increased construction costs. Also, the Port of Houston generates $300 million annual customs fees and $213 million annually in State and local taxes, which demonstrates that the Houston-Galveston Navigation Project will more than pay for itself in the long run, both for the local taxpayers but also for the Federal taxpayers of the United States. The continued expansion of the Port of Houston is important on many levels. More than 7,000 vessels navigate the ship channel each year. The port provides 5.5 billion in annual business revenues and creates directly and indirectly 196,000 jobs. It is anticipated that the number and size of vessels will only increase. Completing the widening and deepening of the ship channel in a timely manner will increase the safety and economic viability of the port and of the City of Houston. In addition to the Houston Ship Channel, there are several flood control projects that the Corps of Engineers, in partnership with our Harris County Flood Control District, have undertaken. Hunting Bayou Flood Control Project, $337,000 in this bill. This project will affect 29 square miles of the Hunting Bayou watershed and benefit over 7,000 homes and businesses located within that watershed. The environmental evaluation and the General Reevaluation Report should be completed on that and submitted to the Corps by November of this year. Another project of importance is the Greens Bayou Flood Control Project. This 213 square miles of watershed will provide important protection for hundreds of homes that are currently extremely vulnerable to flooding. Mr. Chairman, I again thank the committee for their hard work. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for the purpose of colloquy. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, the Office of River Protection at the Hanford site in my district is currently engaged in the world's largest and most pressing environmental cleanup project. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the privatization account at Hanford was $450 million. However, due to recent developments, privatization is no longer a viable option at this time. In light of these developments, the Department of Energy has identified a new path forward to ensure the timely cleanup of the waste. As a result of this new path forward, the Department identified an updated funding requirement of $370 million instead of the $450 million for FY 2001 to fully fund the necessary design and long-lead procurement to keep the project on schedule. I would like to ask the gentleman if he will insist that the necessary $300 million of design and long-lead procurement needs for this project will be preserved during the conference with the other body. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman by saying, absolutely, we will continue to press for that figure and do all we can to make sure the amount of money is available for fiscal year 2001. Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that commitment. The gentleman's assurance certainly gives me and my constituents in central Washington, and for that matter all of us in the Pacific Northwest, confidence that the final legislation will contain the full funding that has been identified for the work that is required this year. Finally, I wish to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) personally for all the efforts the gentleman has given on behalf of me and my constituents in my district. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and wish the gentleman the very best in his retirement. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a valuable member of the subcommittee. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of our energy and water appropriation bill. I also wish to thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their bipartisan approach to our bill. Unfortunately, this is our chairman's last year in Congress and his last energy and water bill. The gentleman from California has achieved many things during his tenure as chairman. He has been the driving force for reform of the Department of Energy. He has made sure that we honor our commitment to a balanced Federal budget and that we focus our scarce resources where they really need to go. I will miss the gentleman from California, as I am sure all of us will; and I want to thank him personally for his leadership, his friendship, and his very good nature. I want to also say a word to the staff of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for their tireless work on all our behalf. Mr. Chairman, our bill addresses important national priorities at the same time it honors our commitment to a balanced Federal budget. As the chairman can attest, there are always more requests for funding than our budget allocation can provide for. The no new-start policy contained in this bill is difficult but necessary. We need to focus our dollars on ongoing projects that are on schedule and on budget. And even with this strict requirement, our bill provides funding for projects that will benefit virtually every congressional district in our Nation. This is in stark contrast to the President's budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers, which was wholly inadequate. It is a poor reflection on the White House that each and every year this committee must add funds for our Nation's waterways and coastal areas. This is particularly true for my home State of New Jersey, where we have 137 miles of ocean coast that we need to protect. In addition, New Jersey has experienced severe and devastating floods, and the only long-term solution is effective flood mitigation. Our State is also committed to the preservation of wetlands. All of these important priorities were shortchanged in the President's budget. For over 170 years, the Army Corps of Engineers has provided solutions to flooding, dredging and environmental problems, as well as shore and beach protection. Our bill also maintains funding for flood safety, coastal protection, dredging, and environmental restoration. It restores funds for these vital projects in order to protect lives and property. Our bill also provides funding for the Department of Energy. Most importantly, we have increased our commitment to scientific research, providing $2.8 billion for the Office of Science, a $43 million increase. With this funding, important scientific research will continue in the area of high energy and nuclear physics, technology, basic energy sciences, biological and environmental research. I especially want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), for his support of $255 million for fusion research and $25 million for laser research. While I would have preferred more funding for this, we did increase fusion research above the current level. Fusion energy has the potential to be an unlimited and ultraclean source of energy for the world. And after a number of years of declining budgets for this program, and with the chairman's help, this is the second year of increased funding for fusion research. [[Page H5219]] The committee has also provided $19.6 million for the decommissioning of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton University. This decommissioning must stay on schedule and on budget, and this funding will allow us to do so. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the bill. I thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their support. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the committee. Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to have a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the committee, but I just noticed that both the chairman of the Whole House and the chairman of the subcommittee are both retiring this year, and I have to express my own personal regrets that they are retiring. They are both very distinguished gentlemen, and I have enjoyed serving with them. I have really enjoyed serving with the chairman of the subcommittee, not only as a fellow Californian; but we have been engaged together in issues for the State, and I remember when I was in the State legislature his work with the supercollider, where I really got to know him well; and I have appreciated his leadership here in the Congress. I want to thank him for the opportunity to discuss with him the funding for a critical project in my district, which is the central part of California. This is the second year I have sought appropriations to carry out a preconstruction engineering design of a flood control measure on the Pajaro River, which runs right through the City of Watsonville, California, as well as funding for the Pajaro River Basin Study. This is an area in my district with substantial flood control problems, which threatens homes and businesses in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. I have worked extensively with officials in both of these counties and the Corps of Engineers to resolve this problem in order to provide safety for the residents there. I recognize that the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development is under significant budgetary constraints this fiscal year and has thus adopted a policy to fund investigations at a level no higher than requested by the administration. The administration's request for investigations on the Pajaro River was $600,000, with an additional $50,000 request for the basin study. However, this request was prepared prior to the agreement between the Corps and the local sponsors, which subsequently set a higher level of funding for the project. The Corps has revised their earlier estimates, and has developed a new work plan and budget that calls for a total of $1.95 million in fiscal year 2001. They have submitted a revised estimate on their ability to spend which reflects this new higher amount. I would like to request that my good friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations, amend the amount as we go along to allocate to the investigations on the Pajaro River to reflect this agreement with the Corps and the new estimate of their ability to pay. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for yielding, and I want to state that I recognize the importance to his constituents to improve flood control on the Pajaro River. The Corps has demonstrated their ability to spend $1.95 million on the investigations of these two projects. Given the revision of the Corps's estimates since the submission of the President's budget, I pledge to do everything I can to help the gentleman receive additional monies from the Corps for purposes of implementing these worthy projects. Mr. FARR of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for working on this matter; and I look forward to working with him in the future. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire what time is remaining on each side. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) has 15 minutes remaining. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), for the purposes of a colloquy. Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I hope I can do it in 2 minutes. Before I engage in a colloquy, I do want to associate myself quickly with all the outstanding comments that have been made about the brilliant political career, the public service, and especially the attitude of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). People from one end of this place to the other really appreciate the spirit of the gentleman from California. The gentleman from California has done a great job and brought so much to public service in this country. And I hope the gentleman enjoys the game of golf from this point on, because the gentleman deserves his retirement. Mr. Chairman, the Spallation Neutron Source is one of the most important science initiatives of our generation and represents a $1.4 billion major construction project supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Science to build the world's's most powerful source of pulsed beams for scientific research and development. {time} 1600 With its advanced accelerator technology and world-class instrument design, SNS will be more than 12 times as powerful as the world's current leading neutron source in the U.K. and offer unprecedented research opportunities for up to 2,000 scientists each year. This research is crucial to supporting advances in biology, polymers, magnetic materials, superconductivity, and materials research that will continue to keep the U.S. economy strong and keep us at the forefront of scientific endeavors around the globe. SNS has been subject to many technical and management reviews in the past 4 years, including review by the DOE, several external independent review teams, the GAO, and the House Committee on Science. These reviews have shown conclusively that the technical basis of the SNS is sound and that the SNS management is on a solid path to complete the project within budget by 2006 as planned. All conditions prescribed in the committee report on last year's Energy and Water appropriations bill have been satisfied, and the House Committee on Science has recommended full funding of the SNS in fiscal year 2001. The SNS will fully obligate $190 million in this fiscal year, including the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $100 million in construction funds and $17.9 in R, plus the fiscal year 1999 balances brought forward of about $71.4 million. Significant design and construction activity has taken place in the last year, with most title I design completed, approximately $75 million in procurements being awarded and major excavation and grading of the 100-acre site well underway. Fully funding the fiscal year 2000 requested level is essential to maintain the current schedule to complete SNS in 2006 within the total project cost of $1.4 billion. I know how hard the chairman and his staff have worked to get this project to where we are today, and I appreciate that. I acknowledge the budget constraints that we are currently under and that so far we have not been able to provide the necessary funding that this project needs to meet the necessary milestones over the next 12 months. I am asking the commitment of the chairman that, as we work together during conference, we will do everything possible to significantly increase the funding for the Spallation Neutron Source. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for his response. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the request of the gentleman. I will certainly work in conference to adequately fund the Spallation Neutron Source and, of course, additional funds if that will help. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) a member of the [[Page H5220]] committee, as well as the subcommittee. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) in a short colloquy. As the gentleman knows, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now has before it certain legal issues relating to the off-site disposal of FUSRAP material. My question to the chairman is, will the gentleman confirm that the Committee on Appropriations does not wish to influence the judgment of the Commission on those issues? Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. If any committee of Congress wishes to take action regarding the off-site disposal issue the Commission is now considering, it ought to be the relevant authorization committee of the House that does it. I would have no objections to the authorizers of this body taking up such issues. But the Committee on Appropriations, appropriately, has chosen not to do so. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Chairman, even more importantly, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for a lifetime of service to his Nation. He served this country with great distinction in military uniform. And much like my mentor in politics, the late Olin E. ``Tiger'' Teague, who served this country in such a distinguished way for so many years, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) continued to serve his country after he took off the uniform and put on the civilian uniform of public servant. As someone who worked with the chairman both when he was chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations, now the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, I want to say it was an honor to work with him, to work under him, and to know him. He gives the name ``public service'' the very best of meaning because of his lifetime of service to our country. And there are military families living in better housing today, there are people in communities that are less prone to flood control today, there are millions of American citizens who, whether they know the name of the gentleman or not, are living a better life today and for many years to come for their families because of the service of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) to our country. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those kind remarks, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee. Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and I rise in very, very strong support of this bill. I wish good luck to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). He has done a great job here. We salute him. If the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) is still about, we salute him. And the staff has done a remarkable job, as well. The fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water appropriations bill is a balanced piece of legislation balancing the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, along with important portions of the Department of Interior and other agencies. This is a good and fiscally responsible bill, with the non-defense portion of it being some $200 million below last area. The Nation's energy policy is a prime focus of this bill. We have the opportunity here to improve what we can all agree is a lacking and flawed energy policy on the part of the Clinton-Gore administration. The bill provides for a variety of important education funding for our universities, as well as research and development at our national labs which are related to the energy supply. This includes nuclear energy research under NERI, under NEPO, and under the NEER programs along with investment in the future energy source called fusion and the Advanced Scientific Computing Research initiative that will bridge the software gap, thereby substantially improving our scientific research capacity. This bill also contains some fantastic work, I believe, on nuclear fuel supply, from the beginning of the fuel cycle involving mining, conversion and enrichment, to the end of the fuel cycle involving Yucca Mountain. A new potential cancer cure is advanced in this bill. One of the most successful on-time, on-budget programs at the Department of Energy is the fusion energy program. Fusion energy is treated fairly. The cleanup, finally, of our World War II legacy, our nuclear waste sites, is another important priority in this bill. It contains some excellent work that will refocus the Department of Energy on its responsibilities with a new priority on accomplishments by 2010. We have all the various interests of the American people at heart when we all have programs we hope will be strongly supported. If we have more money at some future time, I cannot say at that time or at this time that we will, but I am confident we will have an even better bill. I urge support of this bill. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. I thank the distinguished chairman for recognizing the need for two flood projects in my area, the Elmsford Saw Mill River area and the Ramapo River area, and for providing adequate funding for these projects. We thank the distinguished chairman for his good work. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4733, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, 2001 and want to thank the distinguished Committee chairman, the gentleman from California, Mr. Packard for his diligent work on producing this important bill. The Energy and Water Appropriations bill provides funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to provide necessary flood control protection against the devastating impact of flooding on lives and property. My constituents in Elmsford and Suffern, New York have and continue to suffer from the flooding of the Saw Mill River, as evidenced in 1999, when Hurricane Floyd dropped over 11 inches of rain on my congressional district, creating a devastating impact on human life and property. Included in Floyd's destruction were constituents who were faced with flood waters from both the Saw Mill River and the Ramapo River in southwestern N.Y.--destroying homes, businesses and creating severe financial stress. After witnessing the destruction in my district first-hand, I contacted the U.S. Army Corps and Chairman Packard for assistance. Accordingly, Chairman Packard has provided the Army Corps with adequate funding to begin the phases necessary to prevent such destruction in the future. I look forward to continuing my work with Chairman Packard as the flood control work proceeds in both Elmsford and Suffern. I thank Chairman Packard for his efforts and I urge my colleagues to support this important measure. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the subcommittee. Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very, very much. I rise today in support of this very excellent bill under tight budget constraints. I would like to also extend my thanks to the chairman. This is my first term on this subcommittee, and he has done an outstanding job, being actually new to the subcommittee himself. But the learning curve that I have had on this committee has been quite steep; and, with his leadership, it has made it much easier. And also, anyone who knows the chairman, much has been said about the golf, but he attacks his work the same way that he attacks the golf course and never stopping, and we have to be on our toes all the time. I just want to say how much I appreciate his friendship and really the honor of serving here with him. This bill is something under the tight budget constraints, like I said before, with no new starts as far as projects. The chairman is very well aware, and I think the Congress is, that there are [[Page H5221]] scores of billions of dollars that are authorized in projects which are waiting to be started; and because of the tight constraints that we have, it was impossible to have any new starts. I also want to emphasize how important this bill is for the upper Midwest, for the State of Iowa, as far as the Army Corps of Engineers, the projects that they have to deal with in my district as far as navigation on the rivers, and what an excellent job I think that they do and the constraints that we have. If I have a disappointment in the bill, it is in the area of renewable energy and as far as biorenewable energy research that I think is so very, very important for the future. Just in closing, again, I want to thank the chairman and extend my gratitude for the great job that he has done. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for the purpose of a colloquy. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, let me add my words of praise to the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) for his great service to this county. He is a great man and a friend. I am sure not only his constituents appreciate his service, but all his colleagues here and people of this great country. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for giving me the opportunity to discuss a dredging project that is vital to the Port of New York and New Jersey. As the gentleman knows, the Arthur Kill channel serves the Howland Hook Marine Terminal on Staten Island, one of the United States Army's strategic seaports of embarkation. The present 35-foot depth of the Arthur Kill serves as a considerable obstacle to large commercial and military vessels that may forestall any future growth or endanger the existence of these seaport facilities. The Port of New York and New Jersey, the Eastern Seaboard's largest, is an economic engine for the region and the entire Nation. Locally, Port commerce serves as a consumer market of 18 million Americans and is estimated to provide 165,000 jobs and $20 billion in economic activity. As a result of its location, goods that enter the United States through the Port can reach the homes of 110 million Americans within 24 hours. The New York site of the Arthur Kill was for years an eyesore, however, vacant of any real activity. Today, I am happy to note, that the New York-side is a vibrant and expanding area bursting at the seams with almost 1,000 good paying jobs and adding $20 million to the existing tax base. This new activity can all be predicated on the responsible measure to deepen the Arthur Kill channel, which will not only maintain the current business but will attract new businesses to the entire region, including New Jersey. The modernization and dredging efforts of the Arthur Kill is one of the most important economic issues for the New York and New Jersey region, as well as the entire Eastern Seaboard. In addition to the new jobs that will come with the adequate dredging, the completion of this project will help to ensure that the United States does not continue to lose more shipping business to Canadian shipping competitors in Halifax. Last year, the two largest shippers on the New York City side nearly relocated their operations to Halifax and have indicated they will do so unless considerable harbor improvements are completed by the year 2009. The chairman and the committee have done an excellent job in putting this bill together and crafting what I think is a fiscally responsible bill and has taken the key step in recognizing the importance of the Port of New York and New Jersey by providing funding to dredge the Kill Van Kull in Newark Bay. This is welcome news, Mr. Chairman, but it does not go far enough to ensure that the Port maintains its position to provide millions of consumers with low-cost goods in a timely fashion. The Arthur Kill is a natural waterway and tributary to the Kill Van Kull. It is not only vital but common sense to begin construction to dredge the waterway since the Kill Van Kull is already being dredged today. The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 authorized the deepening of the Arthur Kill channel from 35 to 41 feet. This is prudent. Construction to deepen the channel has been included in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget for $5 million. The Army Corps and the Port Authority, which is the local partner in this project, estimate that they will be ready to begin construction in November. We have been waiting for years for this opportunity, and I think it would be a big mistake not to take action now. The chairman has been a terrific leader in all of this, and I would like to thank him for allowing me, again, this opportunity to discuss with him this important project vital to my district. I respectfully request that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and other members of the Committee on Appropriations help to make this project a reality. {time} 1615 Before I hear from the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), I respectfully yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, first let me join in the encomiums to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his great work over the years and the decades, and we will miss him. Let me say that it is true that part of the port of New York is now bustling again and part of it still needs major development. The channels we

Summary:

All articles in House section

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 27, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5211-H5237] ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 532 and rule [[Page H5212]] XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4733. {time} 1520 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to present to the Committee of the Whole for its consideration the bill, H.R. 4733, making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide array of Federal Government programs which include such diverse matters as national security, environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced scientific research, navigation, alternative energy sources, nuclear power regulations. Programs funded by this bill affect multiple aspects of American life having significant implications for domestic security, commercial competitiveness, and the advance of science. I am proud of this bill as reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and I believe it merits the support of every Member of this body. Total funding for H.R. 4733 is $21.7 billion. This is over $500 million more than the fiscal year 2000 for energy and water development programs, but almost a billion dollars below the President's budget request. We were presented with an additional constraint in fiscal year 2001 because our 302(b) allocation consisted of two distinct parts: defense and nondefense. While the defense allocation in the bill is $12.9 billion, and that is about $755 million over the fiscal year 2000 and $191 million below the budget request, the nondefense portion of the allocation is significantly less. For the nondefense portion of our bill we received $8.8 billion, which is about $210 million below the last fiscal year. Despite the bill's constrained funding levels for nondefense programs, it provides adequate funding for the continuation of high- priority programs, promising the greatest return on the investment of taxpayer dollars. Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers. This includes, of course, projects for flood control, navigation, shoreline protection, and a variety of other things. The bill acknowledges the importance of water infrastructure by funding the civil works program at the same level as last year, a little over $4 billion. Within the amount appropriated for the Corps of Engineers, $153 million is for general investigations and $1.38 billion is for the construction program, and about $1.8 billion for the operation and maintenance. Mr. Chairman, funding for title II, most of which is for the Bureau of Reclamation, totals $770 million, a reduction of $35 million from last year's fiscal level. The bill also includes no funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta restoration program, a project which I have been greatly interested, in California. The reason for this is because we did not fund any unauthorized projects and the authorization for CALFED expired this year. Therefore, it was not funded, to my regret. But to be consistent with all of the Members, we followed that rule. There are reductions in title III of the bill, which includes the budget of the Department of Energy, particularly the nondefense programs. Despite constrained funding levels, most DOE nondefense programs are funded at last year's level or slightly below. One exception to that policy is the Yucca Mountain program to site a permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel, high-level nuclear fuel. This program was increased about $413 million to maintain its schedule which calls for the Department of Energy to issue a site recommendation during the fiscal year 2001. We wanted to keep that on schedule, and thus we funded it accordingly. We sought to maintain the level of funding for science programs, and we increased that area over fiscal year 2000. We also recognized that there are delays in some ongoing projects such as the Spallation Neutron Source, and we were unable to fund several new science initiatives as proposed in the fiscal year 2001. Funding for the energy supply programs of the Department totals $576 million. This includes about $350 million for research and development of renewable energy technologies. We recognize that this is a little bit short of what the administration requested, and we wished that we had the funds to beef that up; but we feel that it is adequate to fund the renewable research effort. The bill provides $301 million for uranium facilities maintenance and remediation, a new account established to consolidate uranium programs that were spread through many other accounts. The largest spending category for the Energy and Water bill is that of environmental restoration and waste management of the Department of Energy. Funding for cleanup activities at the variety of sites in title III of the bill exceeds $6.4 billion for defense and nondefense programs. The bill also includes $6.1 billion for new National Nuclear Security Administration, a semiautonomous agency within the Department of Energy. Title IV of the bill provides $107 million reduction of $21 million in fiscal year 2000 for certain independent agencies of the Federal Government, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Mr. Chairman, I owe a great deal of gratitude to the hard-working members of my Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. They have labored with difficult fiscal constraints to produce a bill that I think is fair and balanced. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman and ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, who helped us and cooperated with us in crafting the bill. Perhaps more importantly than any, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. It has been a joy to work with him. He has been extremely helpful in crafting the bill. And then I certainly want to pay tribute to our staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in constructing an excellent bill. Mr. Chairman, I have been pleased to hear during the debate in the Committee on Rules the willingness of virtually, well, not virtually, every Member that spoke of a willingness to support this bill. I would hope that every Member of the House would support this bill. We feel it is an excellent bill within the constraints that we had to live with, and I would encourage every Member to support it. It is my privilege to present to the Committee of the Whole for its consideration H.R. 4733, making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide array of Federal government programs which include such diverse matters as national security, environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced scientific research, navigation, alternative energy sources, and nuclear power regulation. Programs funded by this bill affect multiple aspects of American life, having significant implications for domestic security, commercial competitiveness, and the advance of science. I am proud of the bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and I believe it merits the support of the entire membership of this body. Total funding for H.R. 4733 is $21.7 billion. This is $546 million more than fiscal year 2000 for energy and water development programs, but $951.8 million below the President's budget request. We were presented with an additional constraint in fiscal year 2001 because our 302b allocation consisted of two distinct parts: defense and non-defense. While the defense allocation in the bill is $12.893 billion which is [[Page H5213]] $755.5 million over fiscal year 2000 and $191 million below the budget request, the non-defense portion of the allocation is significantly less. For the non-defense portion of our bill, we received $8.85 billion which is $209.5 million below fiscal year 2000 and $760.7 million below the budget request. This was a severe constraint on our ability to provide funding for many programs in this bill. Despite the bill's constrained funding levels for non-defense programs, it provides adequate funding for the continuation of high- priority programs promising the greatest return on the investment of taxpayer dollars. Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development is unanimous in its belief that this program is among the most valuable within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. The national benefits of projects for flood control, navigation and shoreline protection demonstrably exceed project costs. The bill acknowledges the importance of water infrastructure by funding the civil works programs at $4.1 billion, an increase of $59.9 million over the amount requested by the Administration, and level with fiscal year 2000. Within the amount appropriated to the Corps of Engineers, $153.3 million is for general investigations, $1.38 billion is for the construction program, and $1.85 billion is for operation and maintenance. In addition, the bill includes $323.4 million for Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, project. The bill also fully funds the budget request of the regulatory program and the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. Mr. Chairman, funding for Title II, most of which is for the Bureau of Reclamation, totals $770.5 million--a reduction of $35.3 million from the fiscal year 2000 level. The bill includes no funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta restoration program whose authorization expires in fiscal year 2000 and fully funds the budget request of $38.4 million for the Central Valley Project restoration fund. There are reductions in Title III of the bill which includes the budget of the Department of Energy, particularly in the non-defense programs. Despite constrained funding levels, most DOE non-defense programs are funded at last year's level or slightly below. The one exception is the Yucca Mountain program to site a permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel. This program was increased to $413 million to maintain its schedule which calls for the Department of Energy to issue a site recommendation in fiscal year 2001. We sought to maintain level funding for science programs and provided $2.83 billion, an increase of $43.3 million over fiscal year 2000. However, there are delays in some on-going projects such as the Spallation Neutron Source, and we were unable to fund several new science initiatives proposed in fiscal year 2001. Funding for energy supply programs of the Department totals $576.5 million. This includes $350.5 million for research and development on renewable energy technologies. Although this falls short of the Administration's unrealistic budget request, it is a substantial and credible level of funding. The energy supply account also includes $231.8 million nuclear energy programs. The bill provides $22.5 million for the nuclear energy research initiative and $5 million, the full amount of the budget request, for the nuclear energy plant optimization program. The bill provides $301.4 million for uranium facilities maintenance and remediation, a new account established to consolidate uranium programs that were spread throughout other accounts. These programs were merged to enhance coordination and eliminate duplication in the environmental remediation work performed at the uranium enrichment facilities in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio. The largest spending category in the Energy and Water Bill is that of environmental restoration and waste management at Department of Energy sites. Funding for cleanup activities in title III of the bill exceeds $6.4 billion for defense and non-defense programs. The Committee is dedicated to the environmental restoration of areas that participated in the development and maintenance of our nuclear security complex. This bill reflects the Committee's continued efforts to promote actual, physical site cleanups and to accelerate the completion of remediation work at DOE sites. Accordingly, the Committee has provided $1.08 billion, the full amount of the budget request, for defense facilities closure projects. This account concentrates funding on discrete sites that are on schedule for cleanup completion by the year 2006. The Committee has also directed the Department to establish a cleanup program for those sites and projects that can be completed by 2010. The bill includes $6.16 billion for the new National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy. The bill provides $4.6 billion for stewardship of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, $861.5 million for defense nuclear nonproliferation programs, and $677.6 million for the naval reactors program. Title IV of the bill provides $107.5 million, a reduction of $21 million from fiscal year 2000, for certain independent agencies of the Federal Government, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Mr. Chairman, I owe a debt of gratitude to the hard-working and dedicated Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. They have labored under difficult fiscal constraints to produce a bill that is balanced and fair. I am especially grateful to the Ranking Minority Member, the Honorable Pete Visclosky. It is in large part due to his efforts that we present a bill that merits the support of all Members of the House. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support H.R. 4733 as reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and I reserve the balance of my time. [[Page H5214]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN00.001 [[Page H5215]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN00.002 [[Page H5216]] Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would begin by also commending the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and would point out to every Member of the body in this institution that this will be the last Energy and Water bill that the gentleman will bring to the House floor during his tenure as a Member of Congress, given the fact that he will now retire after the 106th Congress. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California is a very decent man. He is a God-fearing man whose family is the most important thing in his life, his wife, Jean, as well as his seven children. Clearly as important to him is his country. And whether it was his service in defense of this country as a member of the United States Navy; whether it was his service as a member of a school board ensuring that the youth of his community receive the best education possible for their future; whether it be as the mayor and chief executive of his local community or his years of service in this Congress, I certainly respect the gentleman's three great passions in life. {time} 1530 But I would be remiss, as I would have been remiss in full committee, Mr. Chairman, if I did not mention for one moment the other great passion in life of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and that is golf. For those who do not yet know the good work, the foursome of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) did win the recent Bob Michael's, Founder, Golf Tournament with the lowest team score. I salute the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). He has been a gentleman, a friend, and we will all miss him. I also want to add my thanks, my deepest thanks as a former staff member myself, to all of the staff involved on both sides of the aisle, whether they be professional committee staff, detailees, or associate staff. But today, because this is the last bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), I would also point out to the House, this is John McNutt's last bill. He is my associate staff member and has been for the last 7 years 6 months and 27 days, not that we are counting. But as I pointed out in my previous remarks before the full committee, Mr. McNutt is moving on with his life. He is going to be attending the University of Virginia Law School and made the wise choice, from an academic consideration, when he had the option of going to either UVA or the University of Notre Dame, that he chose Virginia. I do wish him well in his endeavor. I would advise all of the Members that I do support this bill. I do believe that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has done the best job humanly possible with this bill given the allocations the subcommittee had. But I would note that I for one did not vote for the budget resolution adopted by this institution, and I did not vote for the allocations adopted by the committee and have not agreed with the allocation we were given. On the civilian side particularly of the legislation, it gives us great trouble. The fact is we are $210 million today under a freeze level for civilian purposes. Let me note for the Members of this Chamber several problems that it causes. In the area of water projects, and there is hardly a Member in this institution who does not have a problem one way or the other with water in their district, the spending this year, while $60 million over the President's request, is $6 million under a freeze. Given the fact that the Corps today has responsibilities of over 400 multipurpose reservoirs, 12,000 miles of navigation channels, hundreds of ports, and 11.6 million acres of land, we fall woefully short. It is anticipated just to fully fund authorized active construction projects, those projects that this Congress has authorized, that are economically justified, and are supported by a non-Federal entity, we would need an additional $30 billion. It is further anticipated that if the shadows of the future are not unaltered, the backlog for critically deferred maintenance this coming fiscal year will amount to $450 million. The Assistant Secretary of the Army, Mr. Westphal, has indicated that, to ensure that projects proceed on the most efficient schedule possible, we should probably be spending almost $700 million more a year. People have noted in the past that there has been mission creep by the Corps, that, first, it is flood control projects, then it is navigation, then it is hydropower, shoreline protection, and recreation. But I would point out to the body that those are all responsibilities we collectively have given to the Corps. We have also seen fit, both the legislative branch and the executive branch, to give them additional responsibilities as far as environmental restoration, water treatment facilities, sewer treatment facilities, and the clean up of contaminated sites. Within the last couple of weeks, we had a very controversial debate and vote relative to trade with China. I would point out that global commerce is projected to double over the next 20 years, and the harbors and inland waterways that lead to them will have to be expanded and maintained for us to stay competitive, and that nearly half of the inland waterway locks and dams today are over 50 years old. To put it in another perspective, in 1999 constant dollars, in the 1960s, we were spending nearly $5 billion on water construction projects. Today for inflation adjusted dollars, we are spending about $1.7 billion. There is no money in the bill for a new recreation facility modernization initiative by the administration. There is no money for the Challenge 21 Riverine Restoration Program to move towards more nonstructural solutions to many of our flooding and water problems. They would also be looking to have greater coordination with environmental restoration. Given the fact that we have at least a two to one cost benefit ratio, I think it is a mistake not to further fund these programs. In the arena of science, I would mention renewables. There was a debate during the rule about gas prices going up. Whether one blames OPEC, the oil companies, EPA, ethanol, the fact is they have gone up. Funding in this bill currently as we debate it has gone down $12 million from last year's level. It is my anticipation and I appreciate the fact that it would appear that later today that figure will go up. Finally, I would point to an initiative that the administration asks for in the area of nanoscience and nanotechnology. In 1959, Richard Feynman delivered a famous lecture; and in it he challenged his audience to envision a time when materials could be manipulated and controlled on the smallest of scales. He said then in 1959 that, when they looked back at this age, they will wonder why it was not until 1960 that anybody began seriously to move in this direction, and here we are 40 years later. Nanoscale science and synthesis would result in a number of benefits: significant improvements in solar energy conservation, more energy efficient lighting, stronger, lighter materials that would improve efficiency in transportation, greatly improved chemical and biological sensing, and others. Again, a new science initiative would not be funded. I would simply close again by assuring Members that, within the allocations provided, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has done a very good job. I do support the bills, but I would have been remiss in my remark for not pointing out the deficiencies given the allocations that we were given that I did not support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, yield such time she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for purposes of a colloquy. Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into the colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California knows, I had intended to offer an amendment today on an issue of great importance to my district. I am not going to offer this amendment, however, with the understanding that the gentleman from California is willing to work with me on this matter. [[Page H5217]] I wish to bring to the gentleman's attention some serious concerns I have regarding the Indian Point 2 nuclear power facility in my district. This plant was shut down in February after a steam generator started leaking radioactive material into the atmosphere. It goes without saying that this was a distressing situation for my community. What merits mentioning, and what brings me to the floor today, however, are the string of revelations in the months following this incident which have fundamentally undermined the community's confidence in the safety of the plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself admitted in March that previous inspections of the plant were ``weak and incomplete.'' The NRC determined in May that operational deficiencies at the plant were serious enough to place it on the agency's watch list. Then we learned that the conduct of the NRC staff responsible for plant safety is now the subject of an investigation by the Inspector General. Despite my repeated requests, the NRC will not postpone their decision on the restart of this plant at least until the investigation is complete, as they would have us believe that it is somehow irrelevant. Just last week, an internal memo from the plant's operator was discovered revealing serious problems which occurred at the plant on the night of the leak. Mr. Chairman, it appears that the NRC saw this document only after stories were written about it in local newspapers. Mr. Chairman, there is a problem here. These are legitimate concerns, and it is reasonable for me and my constituents to expect for them to be given full and fair deliberation before that plant is restarted. I would like to make it clear on this floor that this is not the case, that this issue is not being dealt with reasonably, and it is unsettling my community. Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly that the NRC should postpone a decision on restart of Indian Point 2 until the serious and legitimate concerns that have arisen on this issue are addressed. At the very least, it would seem prudent to postpone the NRC's decision on restarting the plant until the final investigation report of the Inspector General's office is released and carefully reviewed by the NRC officials to ensure that the outstanding issues are identified and corrected. Would the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) agree to work with me in ensuring that the committee continue to provide strict oversight of this serious matter? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentlewoman from New York bringing this serious matter to the attention of the House, and I share her concerns over the serious nature of the problem at Indian Point 2 nuclear facility, and agree that the NRC inspector general should provide to the NRC all relevant information that its investigation developed prior to the decision and restart. Let me say to the gentlewoman that I will work closely with her to see that this issue is provided with continued congressional attention in the coming months. Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for his attention to this matter. I hope that this matter will be resolved in the interest of my constituents. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise, not so much to comment on the content of the legislation, as to take note, as has the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is bringing this bill to the floor for the last time. Without getting into the merits of the bill, which are considerably constricted because of the budget resolution, which I find to be ill- advised, I simply, Mr. Chairman, wanted to say that I think that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is one of the people who have added to the decency of this institution. In the years that he has been on the committee, I think he has been an extremely genial Member. I think he has been extremely fair-minded as chairman. I think he has worked very hard to try to produce a rational set of priorities in an irrational situation. I for one want to say that it has been a distinct pleasure for me to share our service in this institution. What I admire about the gentleman from California most of all is that he does not, he is not one of those Members who is prone to cheapshot the institution. He recognizes that this institution is a precious asset to the American people and tries to remind others of that fact in virtually everything he does. I simply want to congratulate him for the service he has provided to his district, to the country, to his State, to his party, and to this institution, and wish him good luck in whatever he does after he leaves this place. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) on the same issue that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) addressed. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, for more than 25 years, along with my colleagues in my area, I have been working with the communities throughout our Hudson Valley region to ensure the safety of the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant in Buchanan, New York. Over the past year, that plant has had to be shut down on two separate occasions. Prior thereto, over the past 25 years, this nuclear plant has had to be shut down on a number of occasions due to the failure of the plant's outmoded steam generators, insufficient emergency preparedness, and questions about the integrity of the nuclear plant. The facility has been plagued with safety problems over the years. It is the only nuclear power reactor in the entire country which is still operating with the outmoded Westinghouse Model 44 steam generators. Nevertheless, the NRC is presently considering an application by Consolidated Edison to restart the plant. During a recent public meeting, I joined with Senator Schumer, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and the citizens of our Hudson Valley region in requesting that the application for restarting this plant not be approved until the existing steam generators have been replaced and emergency and safety deficiencies outlined in the NRC's inspection team's report are remedied. Mr. Chairman, this nuclear facility is located only 35 miles from New York City and in the heart of our heavily populated Hudson Valley region. It is obvious that the replacement of these outmoded steam generators and the remediation of emergency and safety procedures at Indian Point 2 is vital to the safety and welfare of millions of our citizens. {time} 1545 Will the chairman be able to assist us in assuring the future safety of this nuclear facility? Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. I advise the gentleman from New York that I would be pleased to offer any assistance that I may be able to in monitoring this situation at Indian Point 2 and work with the gentleman to resolve the situation. Mr. GILMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished chairman for his time and attention on this pressing matter. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. I also wish to thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), as well as our ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their support, and the whole committee's hard work, both the full committee and the subcommittee. I also want to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), for his dedication and hard work and especially for his advice. [[Page H5218]] Because of the committee's efforts, the Houston-Galveston Navigation Project is appropriated the full $53.5 million needed to maintain the optimal construction schedule for the deepening and widening of the Houston Ship Channel. This subcommittee had the foresight to maintain this construction schedule. By providing the necessary funds now, this project's return on investment will save taxpayers many millions of dollars in increased construction costs. Also, the Port of Houston generates $300 million annual customs fees and $213 million annually in State and local taxes, which demonstrates that the Houston-Galveston Navigation Project will more than pay for itself in the long run, both for the local taxpayers but also for the Federal taxpayers of the United States. The continued expansion of the Port of Houston is important on many levels. More than 7,000 vessels navigate the ship channel each year. The port provides 5.5 billion in annual business revenues and creates directly and indirectly 196,000 jobs. It is anticipated that the number and size of vessels will only increase. Completing the widening and deepening of the ship channel in a timely manner will increase the safety and economic viability of the port and of the City of Houston. In addition to the Houston Ship Channel, there are several flood control projects that the Corps of Engineers, in partnership with our Harris County Flood Control District, have undertaken. Hunting Bayou Flood Control Project, $337,000 in this bill. This project will affect 29 square miles of the Hunting Bayou watershed and benefit over 7,000 homes and businesses located within that watershed. The environmental evaluation and the General Reevaluation Report should be completed on that and submitted to the Corps by November of this year. Another project of importance is the Greens Bayou Flood Control Project. This 213 square miles of watershed will provide important protection for hundreds of homes that are currently extremely vulnerable to flooding. Mr. Chairman, I again thank the committee for their hard work. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for the purpose of colloquy. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, the Office of River Protection at the Hanford site in my district is currently engaged in the world's largest and most pressing environmental cleanup project. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the privatization account at Hanford was $450 million. However, due to recent developments, privatization is no longer a viable option at this time. In light of these developments, the Department of Energy has identified a new path forward to ensure the timely cleanup of the waste. As a result of this new path forward, the Department identified an updated funding requirement of $370 million instead of the $450 million for FY 2001 to fully fund the necessary design and long-lead procurement to keep the project on schedule. I would like to ask the gentleman if he will insist that the necessary $300 million of design and long-lead procurement needs for this project will be preserved during the conference with the other body. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman by saying, absolutely, we will continue to press for that figure and do all we can to make sure the amount of money is available for fiscal year 2001. Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that commitment. The gentleman's assurance certainly gives me and my constituents in central Washington, and for that matter all of us in the Pacific Northwest, confidence that the final legislation will contain the full funding that has been identified for the work that is required this year. Finally, I wish to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) personally for all the efforts the gentleman has given on behalf of me and my constituents in my district. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and wish the gentleman the very best in his retirement. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a valuable member of the subcommittee. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of our energy and water appropriation bill. I also wish to thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their bipartisan approach to our bill. Unfortunately, this is our chairman's last year in Congress and his last energy and water bill. The gentleman from California has achieved many things during his tenure as chairman. He has been the driving force for reform of the Department of Energy. He has made sure that we honor our commitment to a balanced Federal budget and that we focus our scarce resources where they really need to go. I will miss the gentleman from California, as I am sure all of us will; and I want to thank him personally for his leadership, his friendship, and his very good nature. I want to also say a word to the staff of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for their tireless work on all our behalf. Mr. Chairman, our bill addresses important national priorities at the same time it honors our commitment to a balanced Federal budget. As the chairman can attest, there are always more requests for funding than our budget allocation can provide for. The no new-start policy contained in this bill is difficult but necessary. We need to focus our dollars on ongoing projects that are on schedule and on budget. And even with this strict requirement, our bill provides funding for projects that will benefit virtually every congressional district in our Nation. This is in stark contrast to the President's budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers, which was wholly inadequate. It is a poor reflection on the White House that each and every year this committee must add funds for our Nation's waterways and coastal areas. This is particularly true for my home State of New Jersey, where we have 137 miles of ocean coast that we need to protect. In addition, New Jersey has experienced severe and devastating floods, and the only long-term solution is effective flood mitigation. Our State is also committed to the preservation of wetlands. All of these important priorities were shortchanged in the President's budget. For over 170 years, the Army Corps of Engineers has provided solutions to flooding, dredging and environmental problems, as well as shore and beach protection. Our bill also maintains funding for flood safety, coastal protection, dredging, and environmental restoration. It restores funds for these vital projects in order to protect lives and property. Our bill also provides funding for the Department of Energy. Most importantly, we have increased our commitment to scientific research, providing $2.8 billion for the Office of Science, a $43 million increase. With this funding, important scientific research will continue in the area of high energy and nuclear physics, technology, basic energy sciences, biological and environmental research. I especially want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), for his support of $255 million for fusion research and $25 million for laser research. While I would have preferred more funding for this, we did increase fusion research above the current level. Fusion energy has the potential to be an unlimited and ultraclean source of energy for the world. And after a number of years of declining budgets for this program, and with the chairman's help, this is the second year of increased funding for fusion research. [[Page H5219]] The committee has also provided $19.6 million for the decommissioning of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton University. This decommissioning must stay on schedule and on budget, and this funding will allow us to do so. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the bill. I thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their support. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the committee. Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to have a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the committee, but I just noticed that both the chairman of the Whole House and the chairman of the subcommittee are both retiring this year, and I have to express my own personal regrets that they are retiring. They are both very distinguished gentlemen, and I have enjoyed serving with them. I have really enjoyed serving with the chairman of the subcommittee, not only as a fellow Californian; but we have been engaged together in issues for the State, and I remember when I was in the State legislature his work with the supercollider, where I really got to know him well; and I have appreciated his leadership here in the Congress. I want to thank him for the opportunity to discuss with him the funding for a critical project in my district, which is the central part of California. This is the second year I have sought appropriations to carry out a preconstruction engineering design of a flood control measure on the Pajaro River, which runs right through the City of Watsonville, California, as well as funding for the Pajaro River Basin Study. This is an area in my district with substantial flood control problems, which threatens homes and businesses in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. I have worked extensively with officials in both of these counties and the Corps of Engineers to resolve this problem in order to provide safety for the residents there. I recognize that the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development is under significant budgetary constraints this fiscal year and has thus adopted a policy to fund investigations at a level no higher than requested by the administration. The administration's request for investigations on the Pajaro River was $600,000, with an additional $50,000 request for the basin study. However, this request was prepared prior to the agreement between the Corps and the local sponsors, which subsequently set a higher level of funding for the project. The Corps has revised their earlier estimates, and has developed a new work plan and budget that calls for a total of $1.95 million in fiscal year 2001. They have submitted a revised estimate on their ability to spend which reflects this new higher amount. I would like to request that my good friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations, amend the amount as we go along to allocate to the investigations on the Pajaro River to reflect this agreement with the Corps and the new estimate of their ability to pay. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for yielding, and I want to state that I recognize the importance to his constituents to improve flood control on the Pajaro River. The Corps has demonstrated their ability to spend $1.95 million on the investigations of these two projects. Given the revision of the Corps's estimates since the submission of the President's budget, I pledge to do everything I can to help the gentleman receive additional monies from the Corps for purposes of implementing these worthy projects. Mr. FARR of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for working on this matter; and I look forward to working with him in the future. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire what time is remaining on each side. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) has 15 minutes remaining. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), for the purposes of a colloquy. Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I hope I can do it in 2 minutes. Before I engage in a colloquy, I do want to associate myself quickly with all the outstanding comments that have been made about the brilliant political career, the public service, and especially the attitude of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). People from one end of this place to the other really appreciate the spirit of the gentleman from California. The gentleman from California has done a great job and brought so much to public service in this country. And I hope the gentleman enjoys the game of golf from this point on, because the gentleman deserves his retirement. Mr. Chairman, the Spallation Neutron Source is one of the most important science initiatives of our generation and represents a $1.4 billion major construction project supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Science to build the world's's most powerful source of pulsed beams for scientific research and development. {time} 1600 With its advanced accelerator technology and world-class instrument design, SNS will be more than 12 times as powerful as the world's current leading neutron source in the U.K. and offer unprecedented research opportunities for up to 2,000 scientists each year. This research is crucial to supporting advances in biology, polymers, magnetic materials, superconductivity, and materials research that will continue to keep the U.S. economy strong and keep us at the forefront of scientific endeavors around the globe. SNS has been subject to many technical and management reviews in the past 4 years, including review by the DOE, several external independent review teams, the GAO, and the House Committee on Science. These reviews have shown conclusively that the technical basis of the SNS is sound and that the SNS management is on a solid path to complete the project within budget by 2006 as planned. All conditions prescribed in the committee report on last year's Energy and Water appropriations bill have been satisfied, and the House Committee on Science has recommended full funding of the SNS in fiscal year 2001. The SNS will fully obligate $190 million in this fiscal year, including the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $100 million in construction funds and $17.9 in R, plus the fiscal year 1999 balances brought forward of about $71.4 million. Significant design and construction activity has taken place in the last year, with most title I design completed, approximately $75 million in procurements being awarded and major excavation and grading of the 100-acre site well underway. Fully funding the fiscal year 2000 requested level is essential to maintain the current schedule to complete SNS in 2006 within the total project cost of $1.4 billion. I know how hard the chairman and his staff have worked to get this project to where we are today, and I appreciate that. I acknowledge the budget constraints that we are currently under and that so far we have not been able to provide the necessary funding that this project needs to meet the necessary milestones over the next 12 months. I am asking the commitment of the chairman that, as we work together during conference, we will do everything possible to significantly increase the funding for the Spallation Neutron Source. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for his response. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the request of the gentleman. I will certainly work in conference to adequately fund the Spallation Neutron Source and, of course, additional funds if that will help. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) a member of the [[Page H5220]] committee, as well as the subcommittee. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) in a short colloquy. As the gentleman knows, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now has before it certain legal issues relating to the off-site disposal of FUSRAP material. My question to the chairman is, will the gentleman confirm that the Committee on Appropriations does not wish to influence the judgment of the Commission on those issues? Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. If any committee of Congress wishes to take action regarding the off-site disposal issue the Commission is now considering, it ought to be the relevant authorization committee of the House that does it. I would have no objections to the authorizers of this body taking up such issues. But the Committee on Appropriations, appropriately, has chosen not to do so. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Chairman, even more importantly, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for a lifetime of service to his Nation. He served this country with great distinction in military uniform. And much like my mentor in politics, the late Olin E. ``Tiger'' Teague, who served this country in such a distinguished way for so many years, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) continued to serve his country after he took off the uniform and put on the civilian uniform of public servant. As someone who worked with the chairman both when he was chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations, now the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, I want to say it was an honor to work with him, to work under him, and to know him. He gives the name ``public service'' the very best of meaning because of his lifetime of service to our country. And there are military families living in better housing today, there are people in communities that are less prone to flood control today, there are millions of American citizens who, whether they know the name of the gentleman or not, are living a better life today and for many years to come for their families because of the service of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) to our country. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those kind remarks, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee. Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and I rise in very, very strong support of this bill. I wish good luck to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). He has done a great job here. We salute him. If the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) is still about, we salute him. And the staff has done a remarkable job, as well. The fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water appropriations bill is a balanced piece of legislation balancing the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, along with important portions of the Department of Interior and other agencies. This is a good and fiscally responsible bill, with the non-defense portion of it being some $200 million below last area. The Nation's energy policy is a prime focus of this bill. We have the opportunity here to improve what we can all agree is a lacking and flawed energy policy on the part of the Clinton-Gore administration. The bill provides for a variety of important education funding for our universities, as well as research and development at our national labs which are related to the energy supply. This includes nuclear energy research under NERI, under NEPO, and under the NEER programs along with investment in the future energy source called fusion and the Advanced Scientific Computing Research initiative that will bridge the software gap, thereby substantially improving our scientific research capacity. This bill also contains some fantastic work, I believe, on nuclear fuel supply, from the beginning of the fuel cycle involving mining, conversion and enrichment, to the end of the fuel cycle involving Yucca Mountain. A new potential cancer cure is advanced in this bill. One of the most successful on-time, on-budget programs at the Department of Energy is the fusion energy program. Fusion energy is treated fairly. The cleanup, finally, of our World War II legacy, our nuclear waste sites, is another important priority in this bill. It contains some excellent work that will refocus the Department of Energy on its responsibilities with a new priority on accomplishments by 2010. We have all the various interests of the American people at heart when we all have programs we hope will be strongly supported. If we have more money at some future time, I cannot say at that time or at this time that we will, but I am confident we will have an even better bill. I urge support of this bill. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. I thank the distinguished chairman for recognizing the need for two flood projects in my area, the Elmsford Saw Mill River area and the Ramapo River area, and for providing adequate funding for these projects. We thank the distinguished chairman for his good work. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4733, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, 2001 and want to thank the distinguished Committee chairman, the gentleman from California, Mr. Packard for his diligent work on producing this important bill. The Energy and Water Appropriations bill provides funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to provide necessary flood control protection against the devastating impact of flooding on lives and property. My constituents in Elmsford and Suffern, New York have and continue to suffer from the flooding of the Saw Mill River, as evidenced in 1999, when Hurricane Floyd dropped over 11 inches of rain on my congressional district, creating a devastating impact on human life and property. Included in Floyd's destruction were constituents who were faced with flood waters from both the Saw Mill River and the Ramapo River in southwestern N.Y.--destroying homes, businesses and creating severe financial stress. After witnessing the destruction in my district first-hand, I contacted the U.S. Army Corps and Chairman Packard for assistance. Accordingly, Chairman Packard has provided the Army Corps with adequate funding to begin the phases necessary to prevent such destruction in the future. I look forward to continuing my work with Chairman Packard as the flood control work proceeds in both Elmsford and Suffern. I thank Chairman Packard for his efforts and I urge my colleagues to support this important measure. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the subcommittee. Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very, very much. I rise today in support of this very excellent bill under tight budget constraints. I would like to also extend my thanks to the chairman. This is my first term on this subcommittee, and he has done an outstanding job, being actually new to the subcommittee himself. But the learning curve that I have had on this committee has been quite steep; and, with his leadership, it has made it much easier. And also, anyone who knows the chairman, much has been said about the golf, but he attacks his work the same way that he attacks the golf course and never stopping, and we have to be on our toes all the time. I just want to say how much I appreciate his friendship and really the honor of serving here with him. This bill is something under the tight budget constraints, like I said before, with no new starts as far as projects. The chairman is very well aware, and I think the Congress is, that there are [[Page H5221]] scores of billions of dollars that are authorized in projects which are waiting to be started; and because of the tight constraints that we have, it was impossible to have any new starts. I also want to emphasize how important this bill is for the upper Midwest, for the State of Iowa, as far as the Army Corps of Engineers, the projects that they have to deal with in my district as far as navigation on the rivers, and what an excellent job I think that they do and the constraints that we have. If I have a disappointment in the bill, it is in the area of renewable energy and as far as biorenewable energy research that I think is so very, very important for the future. Just in closing, again, I want to thank the chairman and extend my gratitude for the great job that he has done. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for the purpose of a colloquy. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, let me add my words of praise to the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) for his great service to this county. He is a great man and a friend. I am sure not only his constituents appreciate his service, but all his colleagues here and people of this great country. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for giving me the opportunity to discuss a dredging project that is vital to the Port of New York and New Jersey. As the gentleman knows, the Arthur Kill channel serves the Howland Hook Marine Terminal on Staten Island, one of the United States Army's strategic seaports of embarkation. The present 35-foot depth of the Arthur Kill serves as a considerable obstacle to large commercial and military vessels that may forestall any future growth or endanger the existence of these seaport facilities. The Port of New York and New Jersey, the Eastern Seaboard's largest, is an economic engine for the region and the entire Nation. Locally, Port commerce serves as a consumer market of 18 million Americans and is estimated to provide 165,000 jobs and $20 billion in economic activity. As a result of its location, goods that enter the United States through the Port can reach the homes of 110 million Americans within 24 hours. The New York site of the Arthur Kill was for years an eyesore, however, vacant of any real activity. Today, I am happy to note, that the New York-side is a vibrant and expanding area bursting at the seams with almost 1,000 good paying jobs and adding $20 million to the existing tax base. This new activity can all be predicated on the responsible measure to deepen the Arthur Kill channel, which will not only maintain the current business but will attract new businesses to the entire region, including New Jersey. The modernization and dredging efforts of the Arthur Kill is one of the most important economic issues for the New York and New Jersey region, as well as the entire Eastern Seaboard. In addition to the new jobs that will come with the adequate dredging, the completion of this project will help to ensure that the United States does not continue to lose more shipping business to Canadian shipping competitors in Halifax. Last year, the two largest shippers on the New York City side nearly relocated their operations to Halifax and have indicated they will do so unless considerable harbor improvements are completed by the year 2009. The chairman and the committee have done an excellent job in putting this bill together and crafting what I think is a fiscally responsible bill and has taken the key step in recognizing the importance of the Port of New York and New Jersey by providing funding to dredge the Kill Van Kull in Newark Bay. This is welcome news, Mr. Chairman, but it does not go far enough to ensure that the Port maintains its position to provide millions of consumers with low-cost goods in a timely fashion. The Arthur Kill is a natural waterway and tributary to the Kill Van Kull. It is not only vital but common sense to begin construction to dredge the waterway since the Kill Van Kull is already being dredged today. The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 authorized the deepening of the Arthur Kill channel from 35 to 41 feet. This is prudent. Construction to deepen the channel has been included in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget for $5 million. The Army Corps and the Port Authority, which is the local partner in this project, estimate that they will be ready to begin construction in November. We have been waiting for years for this opportunity, and I think it would be a big mistake not to take action now. The chairman has been a terrific leader in all of this, and I would like to thank him for allowing me, again, this opportunity to discuss with him this important project vital to my district. I respectfully request that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and other members of the Committee on Appropriations help to make this project a reality. {time} 1615 Before I hear from the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), I respectfully yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, first let me join in the encomiums to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his great work over the years and the decades, and we will miss him. Let me say that it is true that part of the port of New York is now bustling again and part of it still needs majo

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 27, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H5211-H5237] ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 532 and rule [[Page H5212]] XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4733. {time} 1520 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4733) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having been read the first time. Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to present to the Committee of the Whole for its consideration the bill, H.R. 4733, making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide array of Federal Government programs which include such diverse matters as national security, environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced scientific research, navigation, alternative energy sources, nuclear power regulations. Programs funded by this bill affect multiple aspects of American life having significant implications for domestic security, commercial competitiveness, and the advance of science. I am proud of this bill as reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and I believe it merits the support of every Member of this body. Total funding for H.R. 4733 is $21.7 billion. This is over $500 million more than the fiscal year 2000 for energy and water development programs, but almost a billion dollars below the President's budget request. We were presented with an additional constraint in fiscal year 2001 because our 302(b) allocation consisted of two distinct parts: defense and nondefense. While the defense allocation in the bill is $12.9 billion, and that is about $755 million over the fiscal year 2000 and $191 million below the budget request, the nondefense portion of the allocation is significantly less. For the nondefense portion of our bill we received $8.8 billion, which is about $210 million below the last fiscal year. Despite the bill's constrained funding levels for nondefense programs, it provides adequate funding for the continuation of high- priority programs, promising the greatest return on the investment of taxpayer dollars. Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers. This includes, of course, projects for flood control, navigation, shoreline protection, and a variety of other things. The bill acknowledges the importance of water infrastructure by funding the civil works program at the same level as last year, a little over $4 billion. Within the amount appropriated for the Corps of Engineers, $153 million is for general investigations and $1.38 billion is for the construction program, and about $1.8 billion for the operation and maintenance. Mr. Chairman, funding for title II, most of which is for the Bureau of Reclamation, totals $770 million, a reduction of $35 million from last year's fiscal level. The bill also includes no funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta restoration program, a project which I have been greatly interested, in California. The reason for this is because we did not fund any unauthorized projects and the authorization for CALFED expired this year. Therefore, it was not funded, to my regret. But to be consistent with all of the Members, we followed that rule. There are reductions in title III of the bill, which includes the budget of the Department of Energy, particularly the nondefense programs. Despite constrained funding levels, most DOE nondefense programs are funded at last year's level or slightly below. One exception to that policy is the Yucca Mountain program to site a permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel, high-level nuclear fuel. This program was increased about $413 million to maintain its schedule which calls for the Department of Energy to issue a site recommendation during the fiscal year 2001. We wanted to keep that on schedule, and thus we funded it accordingly. We sought to maintain the level of funding for science programs, and we increased that area over fiscal year 2000. We also recognized that there are delays in some ongoing projects such as the Spallation Neutron Source, and we were unable to fund several new science initiatives as proposed in the fiscal year 2001. Funding for the energy supply programs of the Department totals $576 million. This includes about $350 million for research and development of renewable energy technologies. We recognize that this is a little bit short of what the administration requested, and we wished that we had the funds to beef that up; but we feel that it is adequate to fund the renewable research effort. The bill provides $301 million for uranium facilities maintenance and remediation, a new account established to consolidate uranium programs that were spread through many other accounts. The largest spending category for the Energy and Water bill is that of environmental restoration and waste management of the Department of Energy. Funding for cleanup activities at the variety of sites in title III of the bill exceeds $6.4 billion for defense and nondefense programs. The bill also includes $6.1 billion for new National Nuclear Security Administration, a semiautonomous agency within the Department of Energy. Title IV of the bill provides $107 million reduction of $21 million in fiscal year 2000 for certain independent agencies of the Federal Government, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Mr. Chairman, I owe a great deal of gratitude to the hard-working members of my Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. They have labored with difficult fiscal constraints to produce a bill that I think is fair and balanced. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman and ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations, who helped us and cooperated with us in crafting the bill. Perhaps more importantly than any, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. It has been a joy to work with him. He has been extremely helpful in crafting the bill. And then I certainly want to pay tribute to our staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in constructing an excellent bill. Mr. Chairman, I have been pleased to hear during the debate in the Committee on Rules the willingness of virtually, well, not virtually, every Member that spoke of a willingness to support this bill. I would hope that every Member of the House would support this bill. We feel it is an excellent bill within the constraints that we had to live with, and I would encourage every Member to support it. It is my privilege to present to the Committee of the Whole for its consideration H.R. 4733, making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide array of Federal government programs which include such diverse matters as national security, environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced scientific research, navigation, alternative energy sources, and nuclear power regulation. Programs funded by this bill affect multiple aspects of American life, having significant implications for domestic security, commercial competitiveness, and the advance of science. I am proud of the bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and I believe it merits the support of the entire membership of this body. Total funding for H.R. 4733 is $21.7 billion. This is $546 million more than fiscal year 2000 for energy and water development programs, but $951.8 million below the President's budget request. We were presented with an additional constraint in fiscal year 2001 because our 302b allocation consisted of two distinct parts: defense and non-defense. While the defense allocation in the bill is $12.893 billion which is [[Page H5213]] $755.5 million over fiscal year 2000 and $191 million below the budget request, the non-defense portion of the allocation is significantly less. For the non-defense portion of our bill, we received $8.85 billion which is $209.5 million below fiscal year 2000 and $760.7 million below the budget request. This was a severe constraint on our ability to provide funding for many programs in this bill. Despite the bill's constrained funding levels for non-defense programs, it provides adequate funding for the continuation of high- priority programs promising the greatest return on the investment of taxpayer dollars. Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works program of the Corps of Engineers. The Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development is unanimous in its belief that this program is among the most valuable within the Subcommittee's jurisdiction. The national benefits of projects for flood control, navigation and shoreline protection demonstrably exceed project costs. The bill acknowledges the importance of water infrastructure by funding the civil works programs at $4.1 billion, an increase of $59.9 million over the amount requested by the Administration, and level with fiscal year 2000. Within the amount appropriated to the Corps of Engineers, $153.3 million is for general investigations, $1.38 billion is for the construction program, and $1.85 billion is for operation and maintenance. In addition, the bill includes $323.4 million for Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries, project. The bill also fully funds the budget request of the regulatory program and the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. Mr. Chairman, funding for Title II, most of which is for the Bureau of Reclamation, totals $770.5 million--a reduction of $35.3 million from the fiscal year 2000 level. The bill includes no funding for the CALFED Bay-Delta restoration program whose authorization expires in fiscal year 2000 and fully funds the budget request of $38.4 million for the Central Valley Project restoration fund. There are reductions in Title III of the bill which includes the budget of the Department of Energy, particularly in the non-defense programs. Despite constrained funding levels, most DOE non-defense programs are funded at last year's level or slightly below. The one exception is the Yucca Mountain program to site a permanent geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel. This program was increased to $413 million to maintain its schedule which calls for the Department of Energy to issue a site recommendation in fiscal year 2001. We sought to maintain level funding for science programs and provided $2.83 billion, an increase of $43.3 million over fiscal year 2000. However, there are delays in some on-going projects such as the Spallation Neutron Source, and we were unable to fund several new science initiatives proposed in fiscal year 2001. Funding for energy supply programs of the Department totals $576.5 million. This includes $350.5 million for research and development on renewable energy technologies. Although this falls short of the Administration's unrealistic budget request, it is a substantial and credible level of funding. The energy supply account also includes $231.8 million nuclear energy programs. The bill provides $22.5 million for the nuclear energy research initiative and $5 million, the full amount of the budget request, for the nuclear energy plant optimization program. The bill provides $301.4 million for uranium facilities maintenance and remediation, a new account established to consolidate uranium programs that were spread throughout other accounts. These programs were merged to enhance coordination and eliminate duplication in the environmental remediation work performed at the uranium enrichment facilities in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio. The largest spending category in the Energy and Water Bill is that of environmental restoration and waste management at Department of Energy sites. Funding for cleanup activities in title III of the bill exceeds $6.4 billion for defense and non-defense programs. The Committee is dedicated to the environmental restoration of areas that participated in the development and maintenance of our nuclear security complex. This bill reflects the Committee's continued efforts to promote actual, physical site cleanups and to accelerate the completion of remediation work at DOE sites. Accordingly, the Committee has provided $1.08 billion, the full amount of the budget request, for defense facilities closure projects. This account concentrates funding on discrete sites that are on schedule for cleanup completion by the year 2006. The Committee has also directed the Department to establish a cleanup program for those sites and projects that can be completed by 2010. The bill includes $6.16 billion for the new National Nuclear Security Administration, a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy. The bill provides $4.6 billion for stewardship of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, $861.5 million for defense nuclear nonproliferation programs, and $677.6 million for the naval reactors program. Title IV of the bill provides $107.5 million, a reduction of $21 million from fiscal year 2000, for certain independent agencies of the Federal Government, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Mr. Chairman, I owe a debt of gratitude to the hard-working and dedicated Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. They have labored under difficult fiscal constraints to produce a bill that is balanced and fair. I am especially grateful to the Ranking Minority Member, the Honorable Pete Visclosky. It is in large part due to his efforts that we present a bill that merits the support of all Members of the House. Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support H.R. 4733 as reported by the Committee on Appropriations, and I reserve the balance of my time. [[Page H5214]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN00.001 [[Page H5215]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN00.002 [[Page H5216]] Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would begin by also commending the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) and would point out to every Member of the body in this institution that this will be the last Energy and Water bill that the gentleman will bring to the House floor during his tenure as a Member of Congress, given the fact that he will now retire after the 106th Congress. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California is a very decent man. He is a God-fearing man whose family is the most important thing in his life, his wife, Jean, as well as his seven children. Clearly as important to him is his country. And whether it was his service in defense of this country as a member of the United States Navy; whether it was his service as a member of a school board ensuring that the youth of his community receive the best education possible for their future; whether it be as the mayor and chief executive of his local community or his years of service in this Congress, I certainly respect the gentleman's three great passions in life. {time} 1530 But I would be remiss, as I would have been remiss in full committee, Mr. Chairman, if I did not mention for one moment the other great passion in life of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and that is golf. For those who do not yet know the good work, the foursome of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) did win the recent Bob Michael's, Founder, Golf Tournament with the lowest team score. I salute the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). He has been a gentleman, a friend, and we will all miss him. I also want to add my thanks, my deepest thanks as a former staff member myself, to all of the staff involved on both sides of the aisle, whether they be professional committee staff, detailees, or associate staff. But today, because this is the last bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), I would also point out to the House, this is John McNutt's last bill. He is my associate staff member and has been for the last 7 years 6 months and 27 days, not that we are counting. But as I pointed out in my previous remarks before the full committee, Mr. McNutt is moving on with his life. He is going to be attending the University of Virginia Law School and made the wise choice, from an academic consideration, when he had the option of going to either UVA or the University of Notre Dame, that he chose Virginia. I do wish him well in his endeavor. I would advise all of the Members that I do support this bill. I do believe that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has done the best job humanly possible with this bill given the allocations the subcommittee had. But I would note that I for one did not vote for the budget resolution adopted by this institution, and I did not vote for the allocations adopted by the committee and have not agreed with the allocation we were given. On the civilian side particularly of the legislation, it gives us great trouble. The fact is we are $210 million today under a freeze level for civilian purposes. Let me note for the Members of this Chamber several problems that it causes. In the area of water projects, and there is hardly a Member in this institution who does not have a problem one way or the other with water in their district, the spending this year, while $60 million over the President's request, is $6 million under a freeze. Given the fact that the Corps today has responsibilities of over 400 multipurpose reservoirs, 12,000 miles of navigation channels, hundreds of ports, and 11.6 million acres of land, we fall woefully short. It is anticipated just to fully fund authorized active construction projects, those projects that this Congress has authorized, that are economically justified, and are supported by a non-Federal entity, we would need an additional $30 billion. It is further anticipated that if the shadows of the future are not unaltered, the backlog for critically deferred maintenance this coming fiscal year will amount to $450 million. The Assistant Secretary of the Army, Mr. Westphal, has indicated that, to ensure that projects proceed on the most efficient schedule possible, we should probably be spending almost $700 million more a year. People have noted in the past that there has been mission creep by the Corps, that, first, it is flood control projects, then it is navigation, then it is hydropower, shoreline protection, and recreation. But I would point out to the body that those are all responsibilities we collectively have given to the Corps. We have also seen fit, both the legislative branch and the executive branch, to give them additional responsibilities as far as environmental restoration, water treatment facilities, sewer treatment facilities, and the clean up of contaminated sites. Within the last couple of weeks, we had a very controversial debate and vote relative to trade with China. I would point out that global commerce is projected to double over the next 20 years, and the harbors and inland waterways that lead to them will have to be expanded and maintained for us to stay competitive, and that nearly half of the inland waterway locks and dams today are over 50 years old. To put it in another perspective, in 1999 constant dollars, in the 1960s, we were spending nearly $5 billion on water construction projects. Today for inflation adjusted dollars, we are spending about $1.7 billion. There is no money in the bill for a new recreation facility modernization initiative by the administration. There is no money for the Challenge 21 Riverine Restoration Program to move towards more nonstructural solutions to many of our flooding and water problems. They would also be looking to have greater coordination with environmental restoration. Given the fact that we have at least a two to one cost benefit ratio, I think it is a mistake not to further fund these programs. In the arena of science, I would mention renewables. There was a debate during the rule about gas prices going up. Whether one blames OPEC, the oil companies, EPA, ethanol, the fact is they have gone up. Funding in this bill currently as we debate it has gone down $12 million from last year's level. It is my anticipation and I appreciate the fact that it would appear that later today that figure will go up. Finally, I would point to an initiative that the administration asks for in the area of nanoscience and nanotechnology. In 1959, Richard Feynman delivered a famous lecture; and in it he challenged his audience to envision a time when materials could be manipulated and controlled on the smallest of scales. He said then in 1959 that, when they looked back at this age, they will wonder why it was not until 1960 that anybody began seriously to move in this direction, and here we are 40 years later. Nanoscale science and synthesis would result in a number of benefits: significant improvements in solar energy conservation, more energy efficient lighting, stronger, lighter materials that would improve efficiency in transportation, greatly improved chemical and biological sensing, and others. Again, a new science initiative would not be funded. I would simply close again by assuring Members that, within the allocations provided, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has done a very good job. I do support the bills, but I would have been remiss in my remark for not pointing out the deficiencies given the allocations that we were given that I did not support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, yield such time she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for purposes of a colloquy. Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into the colloquy with the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California knows, I had intended to offer an amendment today on an issue of great importance to my district. I am not going to offer this amendment, however, with the understanding that the gentleman from California is willing to work with me on this matter. [[Page H5217]] I wish to bring to the gentleman's attention some serious concerns I have regarding the Indian Point 2 nuclear power facility in my district. This plant was shut down in February after a steam generator started leaking radioactive material into the atmosphere. It goes without saying that this was a distressing situation for my community. What merits mentioning, and what brings me to the floor today, however, are the string of revelations in the months following this incident which have fundamentally undermined the community's confidence in the safety of the plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself admitted in March that previous inspections of the plant were ``weak and incomplete.'' The NRC determined in May that operational deficiencies at the plant were serious enough to place it on the agency's watch list. Then we learned that the conduct of the NRC staff responsible for plant safety is now the subject of an investigation by the Inspector General. Despite my repeated requests, the NRC will not postpone their decision on the restart of this plant at least until the investigation is complete, as they would have us believe that it is somehow irrelevant. Just last week, an internal memo from the plant's operator was discovered revealing serious problems which occurred at the plant on the night of the leak. Mr. Chairman, it appears that the NRC saw this document only after stories were written about it in local newspapers. Mr. Chairman, there is a problem here. These are legitimate concerns, and it is reasonable for me and my constituents to expect for them to be given full and fair deliberation before that plant is restarted. I would like to make it clear on this floor that this is not the case, that this issue is not being dealt with reasonably, and it is unsettling my community. Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly that the NRC should postpone a decision on restart of Indian Point 2 until the serious and legitimate concerns that have arisen on this issue are addressed. At the very least, it would seem prudent to postpone the NRC's decision on restarting the plant until the final investigation report of the Inspector General's office is released and carefully reviewed by the NRC officials to ensure that the outstanding issues are identified and corrected. Would the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) agree to work with me in ensuring that the committee continue to provide strict oversight of this serious matter? Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the gentlewoman from New York bringing this serious matter to the attention of the House, and I share her concerns over the serious nature of the problem at Indian Point 2 nuclear facility, and agree that the NRC inspector general should provide to the NRC all relevant information that its investigation developed prior to the decision and restart. Let me say to the gentlewoman that I will work closely with her to see that this issue is provided with continued congressional attention in the coming months. Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for his attention to this matter. I hope that this matter will be resolved in the interest of my constituents. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise, not so much to comment on the content of the legislation, as to take note, as has the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is bringing this bill to the floor for the last time. Without getting into the merits of the bill, which are considerably constricted because of the budget resolution, which I find to be ill- advised, I simply, Mr. Chairman, wanted to say that I think that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is one of the people who have added to the decency of this institution. In the years that he has been on the committee, I think he has been an extremely genial Member. I think he has been extremely fair-minded as chairman. I think he has worked very hard to try to produce a rational set of priorities in an irrational situation. I for one want to say that it has been a distinct pleasure for me to share our service in this institution. What I admire about the gentleman from California most of all is that he does not, he is not one of those Members who is prone to cheapshot the institution. He recognizes that this institution is a precious asset to the American people and tries to remind others of that fact in virtually everything he does. I simply want to congratulate him for the service he has provided to his district, to the country, to his State, to his party, and to this institution, and wish him good luck in whatever he does after he leaves this place. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) on the same issue that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) addressed. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) in a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, for more than 25 years, along with my colleagues in my area, I have been working with the communities throughout our Hudson Valley region to ensure the safety of the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant in Buchanan, New York. Over the past year, that plant has had to be shut down on two separate occasions. Prior thereto, over the past 25 years, this nuclear plant has had to be shut down on a number of occasions due to the failure of the plant's outmoded steam generators, insufficient emergency preparedness, and questions about the integrity of the nuclear plant. The facility has been plagued with safety problems over the years. It is the only nuclear power reactor in the entire country which is still operating with the outmoded Westinghouse Model 44 steam generators. Nevertheless, the NRC is presently considering an application by Consolidated Edison to restart the plant. During a recent public meeting, I joined with Senator Schumer, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and the citizens of our Hudson Valley region in requesting that the application for restarting this plant not be approved until the existing steam generators have been replaced and emergency and safety deficiencies outlined in the NRC's inspection team's report are remedied. Mr. Chairman, this nuclear facility is located only 35 miles from New York City and in the heart of our heavily populated Hudson Valley region. It is obvious that the replacement of these outmoded steam generators and the remediation of emergency and safety procedures at Indian Point 2 is vital to the safety and welfare of millions of our citizens. {time} 1545 Will the chairman be able to assist us in assuring the future safety of this nuclear facility? Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. GILMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. I advise the gentleman from New York that I would be pleased to offer any assistance that I may be able to in monitoring this situation at Indian Point 2 and work with the gentleman to resolve the situation. Mr. GILMAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank our distinguished chairman for his time and attention on this pressing matter. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. I also wish to thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), as well as our ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their support, and the whole committee's hard work, both the full committee and the subcommittee. I also want to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), for his dedication and hard work and especially for his advice. [[Page H5218]] Because of the committee's efforts, the Houston-Galveston Navigation Project is appropriated the full $53.5 million needed to maintain the optimal construction schedule for the deepening and widening of the Houston Ship Channel. This subcommittee had the foresight to maintain this construction schedule. By providing the necessary funds now, this project's return on investment will save taxpayers many millions of dollars in increased construction costs. Also, the Port of Houston generates $300 million annual customs fees and $213 million annually in State and local taxes, which demonstrates that the Houston-Galveston Navigation Project will more than pay for itself in the long run, both for the local taxpayers but also for the Federal taxpayers of the United States. The continued expansion of the Port of Houston is important on many levels. More than 7,000 vessels navigate the ship channel each year. The port provides 5.5 billion in annual business revenues and creates directly and indirectly 196,000 jobs. It is anticipated that the number and size of vessels will only increase. Completing the widening and deepening of the ship channel in a timely manner will increase the safety and economic viability of the port and of the City of Houston. In addition to the Houston Ship Channel, there are several flood control projects that the Corps of Engineers, in partnership with our Harris County Flood Control District, have undertaken. Hunting Bayou Flood Control Project, $337,000 in this bill. This project will affect 29 square miles of the Hunting Bayou watershed and benefit over 7,000 homes and businesses located within that watershed. The environmental evaluation and the General Reevaluation Report should be completed on that and submitted to the Corps by November of this year. Another project of importance is the Greens Bayou Flood Control Project. This 213 square miles of watershed will provide important protection for hundreds of homes that are currently extremely vulnerable to flooding. Mr. Chairman, I again thank the committee for their hard work. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for the purpose of colloquy. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman is aware, the Office of River Protection at the Hanford site in my district is currently engaged in the world's largest and most pressing environmental cleanup project. The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for the privatization account at Hanford was $450 million. However, due to recent developments, privatization is no longer a viable option at this time. In light of these developments, the Department of Energy has identified a new path forward to ensure the timely cleanup of the waste. As a result of this new path forward, the Department identified an updated funding requirement of $370 million instead of the $450 million for FY 2001 to fully fund the necessary design and long-lead procurement to keep the project on schedule. I would like to ask the gentleman if he will insist that the necessary $300 million of design and long-lead procurement needs for this project will be preserved during the conference with the other body. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the gentleman by saying, absolutely, we will continue to press for that figure and do all we can to make sure the amount of money is available for fiscal year 2001. Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that commitment. The gentleman's assurance certainly gives me and my constituents in central Washington, and for that matter all of us in the Pacific Northwest, confidence that the final legislation will contain the full funding that has been identified for the work that is required this year. Finally, I wish to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) personally for all the efforts the gentleman has given on behalf of me and my constituents in my district. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and wish the gentleman the very best in his retirement. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), a valuable member of the subcommittee. (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of our energy and water appropriation bill. I also wish to thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their bipartisan approach to our bill. Unfortunately, this is our chairman's last year in Congress and his last energy and water bill. The gentleman from California has achieved many things during his tenure as chairman. He has been the driving force for reform of the Department of Energy. He has made sure that we honor our commitment to a balanced Federal budget and that we focus our scarce resources where they really need to go. I will miss the gentleman from California, as I am sure all of us will; and I want to thank him personally for his leadership, his friendship, and his very good nature. I want to also say a word to the staff of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development for their tireless work on all our behalf. Mr. Chairman, our bill addresses important national priorities at the same time it honors our commitment to a balanced Federal budget. As the chairman can attest, there are always more requests for funding than our budget allocation can provide for. The no new-start policy contained in this bill is difficult but necessary. We need to focus our dollars on ongoing projects that are on schedule and on budget. And even with this strict requirement, our bill provides funding for projects that will benefit virtually every congressional district in our Nation. This is in stark contrast to the President's budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers, which was wholly inadequate. It is a poor reflection on the White House that each and every year this committee must add funds for our Nation's waterways and coastal areas. This is particularly true for my home State of New Jersey, where we have 137 miles of ocean coast that we need to protect. In addition, New Jersey has experienced severe and devastating floods, and the only long-term solution is effective flood mitigation. Our State is also committed to the preservation of wetlands. All of these important priorities were shortchanged in the President's budget. For over 170 years, the Army Corps of Engineers has provided solutions to flooding, dredging and environmental problems, as well as shore and beach protection. Our bill also maintains funding for flood safety, coastal protection, dredging, and environmental restoration. It restores funds for these vital projects in order to protect lives and property. Our bill also provides funding for the Department of Energy. Most importantly, we have increased our commitment to scientific research, providing $2.8 billion for the Office of Science, a $43 million increase. With this funding, important scientific research will continue in the area of high energy and nuclear physics, technology, basic energy sciences, biological and environmental research. I especially want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), for his support of $255 million for fusion research and $25 million for laser research. While I would have preferred more funding for this, we did increase fusion research above the current level. Fusion energy has the potential to be an unlimited and ultraclean source of energy for the world. And after a number of years of declining budgets for this program, and with the chairman's help, this is the second year of increased funding for fusion research. [[Page H5219]] The committee has also provided $19.6 million for the decommissioning of the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor at Princeton University. This decommissioning must stay on schedule and on budget, and this funding will allow us to do so. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the bill. I thank the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their support. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a member of the committee. Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to have a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the committee, but I just noticed that both the chairman of the Whole House and the chairman of the subcommittee are both retiring this year, and I have to express my own personal regrets that they are retiring. They are both very distinguished gentlemen, and I have enjoyed serving with them. I have really enjoyed serving with the chairman of the subcommittee, not only as a fellow Californian; but we have been engaged together in issues for the State, and I remember when I was in the State legislature his work with the supercollider, where I really got to know him well; and I have appreciated his leadership here in the Congress. I want to thank him for the opportunity to discuss with him the funding for a critical project in my district, which is the central part of California. This is the second year I have sought appropriations to carry out a preconstruction engineering design of a flood control measure on the Pajaro River, which runs right through the City of Watsonville, California, as well as funding for the Pajaro River Basin Study. This is an area in my district with substantial flood control problems, which threatens homes and businesses in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. I have worked extensively with officials in both of these counties and the Corps of Engineers to resolve this problem in order to provide safety for the residents there. I recognize that the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development is under significant budgetary constraints this fiscal year and has thus adopted a policy to fund investigations at a level no higher than requested by the administration. The administration's request for investigations on the Pajaro River was $600,000, with an additional $50,000 request for the basin study. However, this request was prepared prior to the agreement between the Corps and the local sponsors, which subsequently set a higher level of funding for the project. The Corps has revised their earlier estimates, and has developed a new work plan and budget that calls for a total of $1.95 million in fiscal year 2001. They have submitted a revised estimate on their ability to spend which reflects this new higher amount. I would like to request that my good friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations, amend the amount as we go along to allocate to the investigations on the Pajaro River to reflect this agreement with the Corps and the new estimate of their ability to pay. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for yielding, and I want to state that I recognize the importance to his constituents to improve flood control on the Pajaro River. The Corps has demonstrated their ability to spend $1.95 million on the investigations of these two projects. Given the revision of the Corps's estimates since the submission of the President's budget, I pledge to do everything I can to help the gentleman receive additional monies from the Corps for purposes of implementing these worthy projects. Mr. FARR of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for working on this matter; and I look forward to working with him in the future. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire what time is remaining on each side. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) has 15 minutes remaining. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), for the purposes of a colloquy. Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I hope I can do it in 2 minutes. Before I engage in a colloquy, I do want to associate myself quickly with all the outstanding comments that have been made about the brilliant political career, the public service, and especially the attitude of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). People from one end of this place to the other really appreciate the spirit of the gentleman from California. The gentleman from California has done a great job and brought so much to public service in this country. And I hope the gentleman enjoys the game of golf from this point on, because the gentleman deserves his retirement. Mr. Chairman, the Spallation Neutron Source is one of the most important science initiatives of our generation and represents a $1.4 billion major construction project supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Science to build the world's's most powerful source of pulsed beams for scientific research and development. {time} 1600 With its advanced accelerator technology and world-class instrument design, SNS will be more than 12 times as powerful as the world's current leading neutron source in the U.K. and offer unprecedented research opportunities for up to 2,000 scientists each year. This research is crucial to supporting advances in biology, polymers, magnetic materials, superconductivity, and materials research that will continue to keep the U.S. economy strong and keep us at the forefront of scientific endeavors around the globe. SNS has been subject to many technical and management reviews in the past 4 years, including review by the DOE, several external independent review teams, the GAO, and the House Committee on Science. These reviews have shown conclusively that the technical basis of the SNS is sound and that the SNS management is on a solid path to complete the project within budget by 2006 as planned. All conditions prescribed in the committee report on last year's Energy and Water appropriations bill have been satisfied, and the House Committee on Science has recommended full funding of the SNS in fiscal year 2001. The SNS will fully obligate $190 million in this fiscal year, including the fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $100 million in construction funds and $17.9 in R, plus the fiscal year 1999 balances brought forward of about $71.4 million. Significant design and construction activity has taken place in the last year, with most title I design completed, approximately $75 million in procurements being awarded and major excavation and grading of the 100-acre site well underway. Fully funding the fiscal year 2000 requested level is essential to maintain the current schedule to complete SNS in 2006 within the total project cost of $1.4 billion. I know how hard the chairman and his staff have worked to get this project to where we are today, and I appreciate that. I acknowledge the budget constraints that we are currently under and that so far we have not been able to provide the necessary funding that this project needs to meet the necessary milestones over the next 12 months. I am asking the commitment of the chairman that, as we work together during conference, we will do everything possible to significantly increase the funding for the Spallation Neutron Source. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for his response. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the request of the gentleman. I will certainly work in conference to adequately fund the Spallation Neutron Source and, of course, additional funds if that will help. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) a member of the [[Page H5220]] committee, as well as the subcommittee. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) in a short colloquy. As the gentleman knows, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now has before it certain legal issues relating to the off-site disposal of FUSRAP material. My question to the chairman is, will the gentleman confirm that the Committee on Appropriations does not wish to influence the judgment of the Commission on those issues? Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. If any committee of Congress wishes to take action regarding the off-site disposal issue the Commission is now considering, it ought to be the relevant authorization committee of the House that does it. I would have no objections to the authorizers of this body taking up such issues. But the Committee on Appropriations, appropriately, has chosen not to do so. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Mr. Chairman, even more importantly, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) for a lifetime of service to his Nation. He served this country with great distinction in military uniform. And much like my mentor in politics, the late Olin E. ``Tiger'' Teague, who served this country in such a distinguished way for so many years, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) continued to serve his country after he took off the uniform and put on the civilian uniform of public servant. As someone who worked with the chairman both when he was chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations, now the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, I want to say it was an honor to work with him, to work under him, and to know him. He gives the name ``public service'' the very best of meaning because of his lifetime of service to our country. And there are military families living in better housing today, there are people in communities that are less prone to flood control today, there are millions of American citizens who, whether they know the name of the gentleman or not, are living a better life today and for many years to come for their families because of the service of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) to our country. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those kind remarks, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee. Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time, and I rise in very, very strong support of this bill. I wish good luck to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). He has done a great job here. We salute him. If the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) is still about, we salute him. And the staff has done a remarkable job, as well. The fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water appropriations bill is a balanced piece of legislation balancing the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy, along with important portions of the Department of Interior and other agencies. This is a good and fiscally responsible bill, with the non-defense portion of it being some $200 million below last area. The Nation's energy policy is a prime focus of this bill. We have the opportunity here to improve what we can all agree is a lacking and flawed energy policy on the part of the Clinton-Gore administration. The bill provides for a variety of important education funding for our universities, as well as research and development at our national labs which are related to the energy supply. This includes nuclear energy research under NERI, under NEPO, and under the NEER programs along with investment in the future energy source called fusion and the Advanced Scientific Computing Research initiative that will bridge the software gap, thereby substantially improving our scientific research capacity. This bill also contains some fantastic work, I believe, on nuclear fuel supply, from the beginning of the fuel cycle involving mining, conversion and enrichment, to the end of the fuel cycle involving Yucca Mountain. A new potential cancer cure is advanced in this bill. One of the most successful on-time, on-budget programs at the Department of Energy is the fusion energy program. Fusion energy is treated fairly. The cleanup, finally, of our World War II legacy, our nuclear waste sites, is another important priority in this bill. It contains some excellent work that will refocus the Department of Energy on its responsibilities with a new priority on accomplishments by 2010. We have all the various interests of the American people at heart when we all have programs we hope will be strongly supported. If we have more money at some future time, I cannot say at that time or at this time that we will, but I am confident we will have an even better bill. I urge support of this bill. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. I thank the distinguished chairman for recognizing the need for two flood projects in my area, the Elmsford Saw Mill River area and the Ramapo River area, and for providing adequate funding for these projects. We thank the distinguished chairman for his good work. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4733, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, 2001 and want to thank the distinguished Committee chairman, the gentleman from California, Mr. Packard for his diligent work on producing this important bill. The Energy and Water Appropriations bill provides funding for the Army Corps of Engineers to provide necessary flood control protection against the devastating impact of flooding on lives and property. My constituents in Elmsford and Suffern, New York have and continue to suffer from the flooding of the Saw Mill River, as evidenced in 1999, when Hurricane Floyd dropped over 11 inches of rain on my congressional district, creating a devastating impact on human life and property. Included in Floyd's destruction were constituents who were faced with flood waters from both the Saw Mill River and the Ramapo River in southwestern N.Y.--destroying homes, businesses and creating severe financial stress. After witnessing the destruction in my district first-hand, I contacted the U.S. Army Corps and Chairman Packard for assistance. Accordingly, Chairman Packard has provided the Army Corps with adequate funding to begin the phases necessary to prevent such destruction in the future. I look forward to continuing my work with Chairman Packard as the flood control work proceeds in both Elmsford and Suffern. I thank Chairman Packard for his efforts and I urge my colleagues to support this important measure. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), a member of the subcommittee. Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very, very much. I rise today in support of this very excellent bill under tight budget constraints. I would like to also extend my thanks to the chairman. This is my first term on this subcommittee, and he has done an outstanding job, being actually new to the subcommittee himself. But the learning curve that I have had on this committee has been quite steep; and, with his leadership, it has made it much easier. And also, anyone who knows the chairman, much has been said about the golf, but he attacks his work the same way that he attacks the golf course and never stopping, and we have to be on our toes all the time. I just want to say how much I appreciate his friendship and really the honor of serving here with him. This bill is something under the tight budget constraints, like I said before, with no new starts as far as projects. The chairman is very well aware, and I think the Congress is, that there are [[Page H5221]] scores of billions of dollars that are authorized in projects which are waiting to be started; and because of the tight constraints that we have, it was impossible to have any new starts. I also want to emphasize how important this bill is for the upper Midwest, for the State of Iowa, as far as the Army Corps of Engineers, the projects that they have to deal with in my district as far as navigation on the rivers, and what an excellent job I think that they do and the constraints that we have. If I have a disappointment in the bill, it is in the area of renewable energy and as far as biorenewable energy research that I think is so very, very important for the future. Just in closing, again, I want to thank the chairman and extend my gratitude for the great job that he has done. Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for the purpose of a colloquy. Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella). Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, let me add my words of praise to the gentleman from California (Chairman Packard) for his great service to this county. He is a great man and a friend. I am sure not only his constituents appreciate his service, but all his colleagues here and people of this great country. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for giving me the opportunity to discuss a dredging project that is vital to the Port of New York and New Jersey. As the gentleman knows, the Arthur Kill channel serves the Howland Hook Marine Terminal on Staten Island, one of the United States Army's strategic seaports of embarkation. The present 35-foot depth of the Arthur Kill serves as a considerable obstacle to large commercial and military vessels that may forestall any future growth or endanger the existence of these seaport facilities. The Port of New York and New Jersey, the Eastern Seaboard's largest, is an economic engine for the region and the entire Nation. Locally, Port commerce serves as a consumer market of 18 million Americans and is estimated to provide 165,000 jobs and $20 billion in economic activity. As a result of its location, goods that enter the United States through the Port can reach the homes of 110 million Americans within 24 hours. The New York site of the Arthur Kill was for years an eyesore, however, vacant of any real activity. Today, I am happy to note, that the New York-side is a vibrant and expanding area bursting at the seams with almost 1,000 good paying jobs and adding $20 million to the existing tax base. This new activity can all be predicated on the responsible measure to deepen the Arthur Kill channel, which will not only maintain the current business but will attract new businesses to the entire region, including New Jersey. The modernization and dredging efforts of the Arthur Kill is one of the most important economic issues for the New York and New Jersey region, as well as the entire Eastern Seaboard. In addition to the new jobs that will come with the adequate dredging, the completion of this project will help to ensure that the United States does not continue to lose more shipping business to Canadian shipping competitors in Halifax. Last year, the two largest shippers on the New York City side nearly relocated their operations to Halifax and have indicated they will do so unless considerable harbor improvements are completed by the year 2009. The chairman and the committee have done an excellent job in putting this bill together and crafting what I think is a fiscally responsible bill and has taken the key step in recognizing the importance of the Port of New York and New Jersey by providing funding to dredge the Kill Van Kull in Newark Bay. This is welcome news, Mr. Chairman, but it does not go far enough to ensure that the Port maintains its position to provide millions of consumers with low-cost goods in a timely fashion. The Arthur Kill is a natural waterway and tributary to the Kill Van Kull. It is not only vital but common sense to begin construction to dredge the waterway since the Kill Van Kull is already being dredged today. The Water Resources Development Act of 1999 authorized the deepening of the Arthur Kill channel from 35 to 41 feet. This is prudent. Construction to deepen the channel has been included in the President's fiscal year 2001 budget for $5 million. The Army Corps and the Port Authority, which is the local partner in this project, estimate that they will be ready to begin construction in November. We have been waiting for years for this opportunity, and I think it would be a big mistake not to take action now. The chairman has been a terrific leader in all of this, and I would like to thank him for allowing me, again, this opportunity to discuss with him this important project vital to my district. I respectfully request that the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and other members of the Committee on Appropriations help to make this project a reality. {time} 1615 Before I hear from the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), I respectfully yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, first let me join in the encomiums to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for his great work over the years and the decades, and we will miss him. Let me say that it is true that part of the port of New York is now bustling again and part of it still needs major development. The channels we