THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

This is a good bill. Notwithstanding what happens on the amendment dealing with the wetlands, I intend to support it, and I want to again commend the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. PACKARD), and the

[Page: H6517]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I have a series of colloquies that I would like to take care of, if we can during the general debate time, and to begin that series I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. CANNON).

   Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me express my appreciation for the hard work of the gentleman from California (Mr. PACKARD) and that of the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. VISCLOSKY), in putting together this bill that is before us today.

   I know they were approached with many requests that simply could not all be accommodated. I, along with a number of our colleagues, sought funding for a study to be conducted by Oakridge Laboratory of the Atlas Uranium Mill Tailings site in Moab, Utah. I know the gentleman from California is familiar with this issue as this site sits within 750 feet of the Colorado River which runs drinking water for 25 million people.

   I understand that funding was not provided because this particular study is not currently authorized. It is my hope that in the coming year, we will secure adequate authorization. At that point would the chairman be willing to work with us to secure funding in the future for this vital study and other remediation efforts?

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, we did not fund any unauthorized projects, and thus this could not be funded. I will be more than happy to work with the gentleman in the future years.

   Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. COOK).

   Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. PACKARD) and the entire committee and their staff for the good bill they brought before us. They worked hard to cut wasteful spending out of the Department of Energy's budget.

   I do appreciate this opportunity to engage the chairman, the gentleman from California, in a colloquy, and I would like to urge the gentleman to make the Department of Energy's tight budget even tighter. I believe more cuts can be made to questionable grants awarded under the nuclear energy research initiative or NERI program including cold fusion and others.

   Now cold fusion can receive a grant, then the grant administrators are simply not taking seriously their responsibility to the taxpayers. We have to question the adequacy of DOE's peer review process. The whole NERI project needs to be looked at under a microscope. The Department of Energy is not doing this. They are reviewing only the cold fusion grant.

   Now here is a perfect opportunity to stop the traditional government solution of throwing more money at a problem in the hope that it will go away. The American people are tired of paying more taxes simply because the government sometimes does not know what it is doing.

   The general focus of the other cuts that I suggest are an unnecessary administrative cost.

   I hope my colleague can also work to restore or increase funds for several critical programs such as the computational and technological research to ensure that the cleanup of the Defense sites remains on schedule and to guarantee the Department of Energy can adequately fund its payment in lieu of taxes. The DOE has been in arrears on its obligations in these counties since 1994, and with all the money taxpayers give DOE, they should be able to be current on the PILT.

   We also need to ensure the safekeeping of our nuclear secrets by increasing counterintelligence funding.

   Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has raised funding in this bill for counterintelligence, and I commend him for it, but we need to make sure the job is done right by increasing this funding by about $2 million more.

   Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the gentleman from California and the committee will work to make some of these changes in conference to address these concerns and save the American taxpayers money.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. COOK. I yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. PACKARD. The gentleman is correct. We will be more than pleased to work with him in conference, and we are trying to resolve this issue.

   Mr. COOK. I thank the gentleman very much for engaging me in this colloquy.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. GIBBONS).

   Mr. GIBBONS. First of all, I want to congratulate the gentleman from California for his leadership and hard work on this bill, and his time and commitment is appreciated by me and the entire Congress. And for this reason, Mr. Chairman, I am here at the well to discuss the ability of the State of Nevada and all affected local governments in the State to carry out their oversight authority of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as was granted to them under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

   Currently the Department of Energy is conducting tests to determine if Yucca Mountain will be a suitable permanent repository site for nuclear waste. When the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 was created, Members of this body felt that it was imperative for the State of Nevada and all affected local governments to have sufficient resources to carry out their own oversight.

   These necessary moneys are used to properly oversee tests the Department of Energy is carrying out to determine whether or not Yucca Mountain is suitable as a permanent nuclear waste site. This is a very critical part of the 1982 act because it allowed for Nevada and, particularly its residents, to have confidence in the scientific studies and especially the validity of those tests that the Department of Energy has been conducting.

   These resources will allow for State and local governments to continue to perform their own independent validation and oversight tests to ensure the best science is used to determine site suitability. It has been my experience that local scientists have been nonbiased and have produced needed assurances that only the best scientific data is used to determine the hydrologic and geologic character of the Yucca Mountain area.

   We have nearly 2 million people in Nevada, and their safety and quality of life in this debate should not be ignored, making it imperative that we provide the financial resources to ensure the State of Nevada and affected local governments are able to monitor and report on this activity.

   Therefore, I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the House conferees work with me to get $4.727 million for the State of Nevada and $5.432 million for the affected local governments. These appropriated amounts are consistent with the moneys appropriated in the Senate Fiscal Year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.

   And as time moves closer to designate Yucca Mountain as a permanent nuclear repository, it becomes imperative that we address the scientific and safety concerns of the citizens of Nevada, and again I would thank the gentleman from California (Mr. PACKARD) for his work on this bill and appreciate his willingness to work with me on this very important issue.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. GIBBONS. I yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the gentleman that I do understand the Yucca Mountain issue, particularly as it relates to the Nevada people, and I will do my best to work with the gentleman in resolving the issues. It is a very, very important issue nationally as well as in the gentleman's state.

   Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his understanding on this very important issue. These moneys are important to Nevada and to its future.

   Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. UDALL).

   Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take this opportunity

[Page: H6518]  GPO's PDF

   I am glad that the gentleman has agreed to accept our amendment, and I look forward to discussing it in more detail at the appropriate time.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. WAMP), a member of the committee.

   Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I seek time to thank the distinguished chairman of this subcommittee and to thank the excellent staff with which he works every day and also to engage him in a colloquy.

[Time: 17:30]

   This is an issue of great importance to our Nation.

   As the gentleman knows, the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant is located in the district that I serve. These facilities were on the front lines of the Cold War and were an integral part in bringing that long conflict to a successful and victorious end. The workers in Oak Ridge selflessly served our country and did a magnificent job.

   As their representative here in the House, I am acutely aware that our national security depends on adequately funding their mission and making sure our aging weapons plants are properly maintained and modernized. However, earlier this year the President submitted a budget that was insufficient to maintain the current activity level at the Y-12 plant. Recognizing this shortfall, the House Committee on National Security provided a $38.6 million increase in funds for the Y-12 weapons plant and environmental management activities there in Oak Ridge.

   Because of the small allocation and the extreme pressures placed on the subcommittee, the chairman was not able to fully fund this request. While I understand that not much can be done at this time, I would like to make a strong appeal to the chairman of the subcommittee that when the conference committee convenes, that every effort is made to adequately fund the critical missions of nuclear weapons, stockpile and stewardship and modernization of their facilities.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is very much aware of the fact that we have very limited funding, and if additional funds become available between now and conference, we will do our best to make sure that the gentleman's concerns are addressed in conference.

   Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

   Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. POMBO).

   Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the subcommittee is aware, I have an amendment at the desk that has been made in order. The purpose of this amendment is to take $150,000 from the ``General Investigation'' section under Title 1 for a project in my district and place that amount in the ``General Construction'' section of that same project. After discussing this in detail with the gentleman from California (Mr. PACKARD), while this is an authorized project and I view it as sound policy, I have decided not to offer that amendment at this time.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from California.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for not offering this amendment. I will work with the gentleman as we proceed through the regular process and through the conference. I understand this project, and I agree that it merits reimbursement funding at the appropriate time during the conferencing.

   Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, the Corps did not include this in its current budget request. In order to ensure that this project is included in the Corps' next fiscal year budget proposal, I drafted this amendment and appreciate the gentleman taking an interest in seeing this important issue resolved.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, I am aware of the importance this holds to Stockton, California, the city where the gentleman certainly has a great interest in his district, and I will work to see that they are promptly repaid by the Federal Government for authorizing Federal flood control work projects as it carries out on behalf of the Corps. I will do my best.

   Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

   The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. VISCLOSKY) has 13 1/2 minutes remaining; the gentleman from California (Mr. PACKARD) has 1 1/2 minutes remaining.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire if the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. VISCLOSKY) would be willing to yield 5 minutes for the purpose of engaging in colloquies with various Members.

   Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is the gentleman may need up to 6 minutes, and I am happy to yield him that 6 minutes for purposes of control.

   The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California will control 6 additional minutes.

   There was no objection.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana.

   Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. WATKINS) for the purpose of a colloquy.

   Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from California and also the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana, the committee members and staff for the great job they have done on this bill.

   As my colleagues know, I had the privilege of serving for 10 years on this subcommittee, and I miss the opportunities of being there for a lot of the discussion and debate. But I do appreciate the committee including funding for the southeast Oklahoma water study which is in my district. The study would determine what benefits and needs there are for the potential use of that water in southeast Oklahoma. It is my understanding that the study will also include two hydroelectric projects under consideration at Pine Creek Dam on Little River and at the Broken Bow Re-Regulation Dam on Mountain Fork River, both in my district.

   Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is correct.

   I want to thank the gentleman for his expertise and input and experience on this, and I look forward to working with the gentleman on this very important project.

   Mr. WATKINS. I thank the Chairman.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. HORN) for the purpose of a colloquy.

   Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. PACKARD), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. VISCLOSKY), the ranking member, and all members of the committee, as well as the very fine staff. I have read through most of this very thorough report which goes on for roughly 201 pages; and in those pages we can see fairness. We can see responsibility and thinking about the national interests in all of these various projects that affect millions of our fellow citizens.

   For millions of Americans, my colleagues on the subcommittee have shown the way in building what needs to be done to prevent floods, to utilize and purify our waters in many ways, and to enable us to have great harbors.

   I thank the chairman of the subcommittee on behalf of the five congressional districts in Los Angeles County where 500,000 people are in the flood plain. It is a very expensive project, but hopefully it will be almost the last year of construction. The flood area is in the most devastated part of the county of Los Angeles. 400,000 aerospace workers became unemployed starting in March of 1988 and for the next decade.

   On top of that then, FEMA imposed flood insurance on this project, and millions of dollars were extracted from thousands of low income workers.

[Page: H6519]  GPO's PDF

   The subcommittee and its members were wise to finish this project which affects so many people in a county of 10 million residents.

   Again, I thank the gentleman (Mr. PACKARD) and all of the members of the subcommittee for their help. They have shown fairness and recognition of a population in need, and we thank him for it.

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

   Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. HILL).

   Mr. HILL of Montana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the subcommittee for the work they have done on this bill, and I want to draw the gentleman's attention today to an issue that is important to the people of Montana.

   Last year, Congress authorized the sale of certain Federally owned cabin sites on Canyon Ferry Reservoir. The proceeds from the sale, estimated to be $18 million to $20 million, will be used to improve fish and wildlife habitat and recreational access along the Missouri River. In addition, the sale of the cabin sites would enhance the local property tax base.

   The Congress made the sale of the cabin sites contingent on the establishment of a $3 million Canyon Ferry Broad Water County Trust, funded in full or in part by in-kind projects carried out by the Bureau of Reclamation. Unfortunately, this bill does not contain any money for these projects.

   Does the Chairman believe that it is critical for the Bureau of Reclamation, working in conjunction with the cabin site owners and the local units of government, to identify specific improvement projects around Cabin Ferry in order to ensure that the intent of the Cabin Ferry legislation is fulfilled?

   Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. HILL of Montana. I yield to the gentleman from California.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents