3:20 PM EDT

Ron Packard, R-CA 48th

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.

3:28 PM EDT

Pete Visclosky, D-IN 1st

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.

[End Insert]

3:28 PM EDT

Pete Visclosky, D-IN 1st

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.

[End Insert]

3:40 PM EDT

Ron Packard, R-CA 48th

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.

3:41 PM EDT

David R. Obey, D-WI 7th

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.

3:43 PM EDT

Benjamin Arthur Gilman, R-NY 20th

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: 15:45]

Will the chairman be able to assist us in assuring the future safety of this nuclear facility?

3:48 PM EDT

Doc Hastings, R-WA 4th

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.

3:48 PM EDT

Doc Hastings, R-WA 4th

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.

3:50 PM EDT

Doc Hastings, R-WA 4th

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.

3:51 PM EDT

Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-NJ 11th

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.

3:54 PM EDT

Sam Farr, D-CA 17th

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.

3:55 PM EDT

Sam Farr, D-CA 17th

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.

3:57 PM EDT

Ron Packard, R-CA 48th

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.

3:57 PM EDT

Ron Packard, R-CA 48th

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.

3:57 PM EDT

Ron Packard, R-CA 48th

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.

3:58 PM EDT

Zach Wamp, R-TN 3rd

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: 16:00]

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&D, 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.

3:58 PM EDT

Zach Wamp, R-TN 3rd

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: 16:00]

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&D, 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.

4:02 PM EDT

Chet Edwards, D-TX 11th

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?

4:02 PM EDT

Chet Edwards, D-TX 11th

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?

4:02 PM EDT

Ron Packard, R-CA 48th

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.

4:02 PM EDT

Chet Edwards, D-TX 11th

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.

4:07 PM EDT

Benjamin Arthur Gilman, R-NY 20th

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.

4:07 PM EDT

Tom Latham, R-IA 5th

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.

4:14 PM EDT

Jerrold Nadler, D-NY 8th

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 are talking about are in the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. FOSSELLA), and I appreciate his leadership on this project.

I rise on this because I believe this project is vital not only to the district of the gentleman from New York (Mr. FOSSELLA) but to the entire port region of New York and New Jersey.

The Kill Van Kull is the boundary between Staten Island on the south and Bayonne on the north and leads from New York Harbor to New York Bay, and we are presently dredging that to achieve a depth of 45 feet, blasting through solid rock to get to 45 feet.

If achieved or when achieved, I should say, this will open up access to the ports of Newark and Elizabeth. The Arthur Kill is an extension of the Kill Van Kull where the shore of Staten Island turns a little south, and that has to be part of the same project. That will afford access to Howland Hook and Staten Island.

Without that part of it, the Kill Van Kull project helps New Jersey but does not help New York.

With that part, the Kill Van Kull project helps both States.

It was always anticipated and intended that the ports of New York and New Jersey would be for the benefit of both States, and the little added piece of the Arthur Kill is critical to enabling the New York as well as the New Jersey side of the port to be accessed by the existing Kill Van Kull project.

So this project has to be looked at as a unified whole, and the Arthur Kill as an extension of the existing Kill Van Kull project. When completed, the project together will afford the ability of bigger ships to get to New York, Elizabeth, and Howland Hook and will give us a leg up on retaining our port business in the United States as against the port of Halifax, Nova Scotia, which is not in the United States, obviously.

So I appreciate the cooperation of the gentleman in helping us to achieve this dual nature project.

4:17 PM EDT

Ron Packard, R-CA 48th

Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. FOSSELLA), and I would like to say that I can see how a reasonable person would conclude that the Arthur Kill is an extension of the Kill Van Kull. I understand how the completion in totality of this project will benefit both New York and New Jersey.

I thank the gentleman much for his efforts to ensure that this project moves expeditiously forward. I will do what I can in conference to find the funds to fund the project.