“ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996” published by Congressional Record on July 12, 1995

Volume 141, No. 112 covering the 1st Session of the 104th Congress (1995 - 1996) was published by the Congressional Record.

The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.

“ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H6838-H6883 on July 12, 1995.

The publication is reproduced in full below:

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 171 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 1905.

{time} 1028

in the committee of the whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 1905) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with Mr. Oxley in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, July 11, 1995, the bill had been read through page 24, line 18, and title III was open for amendment at any point.

Are there further amendments to title III?

amendment offered by mr. obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, numbered 25.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: On page 16, on line 1, insert ``(less $40,000,000)'', before ``to remain''.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for a mutual agreement to limit the debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto, like we did similarly yesterday, to 40 minutes, with the time equally divided between the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and myself.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] will be recognized for 20 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is the third cutting amendment that I will have offered on this bill. Let me simply explain what it does. This amendment cuts $40 million in the bill for the advanced light water reactor program.

What I would simply say is ``Here we go again'' as President Reagan used to say, with another example of corporate welfare for the nuclear industry. Essentially what these funds do is to help large corporations obtain design certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This amounts to the Government funding a portion of the licensing costs of large corporations in order to comply with its own regulations.

The committee has heard volumes of testimony this year from organization after organization saying, ``Let the marketplace determine what is commercially viable; the Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.''

How many times have you heard that? Yet these remarks apparently have fallen on deaf ears, or, alternatively, the committee has determined these

concepts do not apply to the nuclear industry.

Since 1974, the Federal Government has spent $26 billion on nuclear fission programs. This has occurred despite the fact that not one American utility has successfully ordered a nuclear powerplant in all of that time. The House budget resolution, which was passed with so much fanfare, presumes to set criteria for Government science funding, emphasizing that long-term noncommercial R&D with the potential for scientific discovery ought to be funded. What should not be funded, according to that budget resolution, are programs whose economic feasibility and commercialization should be left to the marketplace.

Over and over we have heard those same themes, yet when it comes to actually cutting the corporate welfare out of appropriation bills, this House seems to back away again, and again, and again.

Now, the nuclear industry makes a number of arguments for their program, which I am sure we will hear today. I would simply respond to those arguments as follows:

First of all, nuclear energy supplies about 20 percent of our Nation's electricity; 72 percent of utility executives said in a recent poll conducted by the International Energy Group that their company would never consider ordering a nuclear powerplant. So the industry seems to have determined that the current mix is just fine as far as they are concerned.

Second, I would ask, since when does industry want the Government involved in things like product design? I guess the answer is only when there are Federal dollars available.

The NRC is charged with determining enhanced safety margins and regulatory acceptance of these designs. Their ultimate action on these proposals will be a determinant and will demonstrate to potential customers whether the U.S. Government considers them sound, not whether or not DOE is provided dollars to support industry design efforts.

I would also say, third, that we have received letters in all of our offices indicating that ``Failure to meet commitments to the specified amount, $100 million, jeopardizes DOE's ability to recoup the moneys already invested in the program.''

Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have been here for quite a while, and I cannot recall anything quite so brazen. I want to make it quite clear, despite that veiled threat, the nuclear industry is legally committed to repaying DOE. Their threat to renege, in my view, borders on the outrageous or the scandalous.

The fourth point I would simply make is that trying to convince somebody that the promotion of nuclear technology through the export of nuclear powerplants to foreign countries in Southeast Asia, that somehow promotes nonproliferation, is an argument I simply cannot swallow. Has anybody in the nuclear industry checked what is going on in North Korea lately?

So I would simply say, in conclusion, this amendment comes back to one central point: Are you for cutting corporate welfare, or do you want to exempt the nuclear industry? Are you for letting the marketplace pick winners and losers, or does the nuclear industry get a buy on the one too? Are you going to respond to the threats of the industry that they are not going to repay previous funding, despite a legal obligation, or are you going to buckle to those threats?

Last night, we met on the labor-health-education appropriation bill. That bill is being cut by $9.5 billion below last year. We are wiping out assistance to senior citizens who make less than $10,000 a year, so they do not have to choose between paying prescription drugs and keeping their houses warm in the winter. We cut back almost $700 million in student aid, not with my vote, but that is what the subcommittee did. We have seen huge reductions in job training, despite this House's vote for things like NAFTA and GATT. We are abandoning workers who desperately need help to be retrained.

So it just seems to me with all of these cuts, for us to say that we are going to continue to subsidize one of the wealthiest industries in this country with funding such as this represents a badly warped sense of priorities. I would urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of our ranking member, Mr. Obey, in trying to reduce spending in our country. I share that concern, and I compare my record with just about anyone here, I think, on that cutting effort.

But often as I drive down the interstate highways, 4, 6, or 8 lanes wide, or travel through urban areas with elevated highways, I think where would we be today if Dwight Eisenhower, former President, had not had the vision, the farsightedness, to prepare for today's transportation requirements and needs. And as we approach amendments like this, I wonder, where will our children and grandchildren be a few years from now if we do not today be farsighted and visionary to prepare for the energy that they are going to require if we are to continue our standard of living and be competitive in world markets for industry.

I have children and grandchildren. I think of our two grandsons here, Justin and Austin. They are just little right now. But when they start looking for a job, there may not be jobs here. They may have to go overseas somewhere else.

Yesterday afternoon we struck $20 million in a program to prepare for a reactor for the next century, a gas turbine modular helium cooled reactor, which would be very efficient and very safe in a nuclear reactor.

Now, today the only reactor we really have working and the only one we have in the future available to this committee is the light water reactor, and this is the fifth year of a 5-year program for the advanced light water reactor. To enhance that reactor, to build a reactor that would be competitive in world markets that would be as safe as could be for a light water reactor, now we want to stop the fifth year of a program that we are well down the road in the fourth year already?

The administration's request for this program for the advanced light water reactor was $49.7 million. We cut that back to $40 million. But this is industry coshared at this point. This year, when you look at the budget for the advanced light water reactor research and safety, the U.S. Government would put in $100 million and the industry would put in $170 million.

The industry has been putting their money in, because the CEO's of large companies who are today generating electricity realize they have to be prepared for the next century, even though most of them will not be CEO's at that time. They will be retired. But they have their vision. They are putting their money up front. It would be a terrible mistake today for our government to renege on the commitment of the fifth year of a 5-year contract when we already have 4 years invested.

{time} 1040

I urge a ``no'' vote on this well-intended amendment. It just does not fit with the needs of our society today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191, noes 227, not voting 16, as follows:

AYES--191

AbercrombieAckermanBaeslerBaldacciBarciaBarrett (WI)BecerraBeilensonBermanBilbrayBluteBoniorBorskiBrowderBrown (FL)CampCardinChabotChapmanChristensenChryslerClayCoburnCollins (GA)Collins (IL)ConditConyersCooleyCostelloCunninghamDannerDealDeFazioDellumsDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDuncanEdwardsEnsignEshooEvansFarrFattahFields (LA)FlakeFogliettaFordFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)FurseGanskeGephardtGibbonsGoodlingGrahamGutierrezHall (OH)HamiltonHancockHarmanHastings (FL)HefleyHillearyHilliardHincheyHoekstraHoldenHornHostettlerJacobsJeffersonJohnson (SD)Johnson, E.B.JohnstonJonesKanjorskiKapturKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KildeeKingstonKleczkaKlugLaFalceLaHoodLantosLevinLewis (GA)LipinskiLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLutherMaloneyMantonMarkeyMartinezMatsuiMcCarthyMcDermottMcHaleMcInnisMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMenendezMetcalfMfumeMiller (CA)MingeMinkMoranNadlerNealNeumannOberstarObeyOlverOrtonOwensPallonePastorPayne (NJ)PelosiPeterson (FL)Peterson (MN)PetriPomeroyPortmanPoshardRahallRamstadRangelReedRichardsonRiversRoseRothRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushSaboSandersSanfordSchroederSchumerSensenbrennerSerranoShadeggShaysSisiskySkaggsSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (WA)SouderStarkStenholmStuddsStumpTalentTannerTateThompsonThurmanTorkildsenTorresTuckerUptonVelazquezVentoViscloskyVolkmerWampWardWatersWatt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWhitfieldWiseWoolseyWydenWynnYatesZimmer

NOES--227

AllardArcherArmeyBachusBaker (CA)Baker (LA)BallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBentsenBereuterBevillBilirakisBlileyBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBoucherBrewsterBrown (CA)BrownbackBryant (TN)Bryant (TX)BunnBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCanadyCastleChamblissChenowethClaytonClementClingerClyburnCobleColemanCombestCoxCoyneCramerCraneCrapoCremeansCubinDavisde la GarzaDeLauroDeLayDiaz-BalartDickeyDooleyDornanDoyleDreierDunnDurbinEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEverettEwingFawellFazioFields (TX)FilnerFlanaganFoleyForbesFowlerFranks (CT)FrelinghuysenFrisaFunderburkGalleglyGejdensonGekasGerenGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGoodlatteGordonGossGreenGreenwoodGundersonGutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastertHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHeinemanHergerHobsonHokeHoughtonHoyerHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJackson-LeeJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamKasichKellyKennellyKimKingKlinkKnollenbergKolbeLargentLathamLaTouretteLaughlinLazioLeachLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LightfootLincolnLinderLivingstonLucasManzulloMartiniMascaraMcCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcHughMcIntoshMcKeonMeekMeyersMicaMiller (FL)MinetaMolinariMollohanMontgomeryMoorheadMorellaMurthaMyersMyrickNethercuttNeyNorwoodNussleOrtizOxleyPackardParkerPaxonPayne (VA)PickettPomboPryceQuillenQuinnRadanovichRegulaRiggsRobertsRoemerRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenSalmonSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchaeferSchiffScottSeastrandShawShusterSkeenSkeltonSmith (TX)SolomonSpenceSprattStearnsStockmanStupakTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TejedaThomasThornberryThorntonTiahrtTorricelliTownsTraficantVucanovichWaldholtzWalkerWalshWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhiteWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)Zeliff

NOT VOTING--16

AndrewsBishopBrown (OH)Collins (MI)DoolittleEngelFoxFrostHefnerLongleyMoakleyPorterReynoldsStokesTauzinWilliams

{time} 1104

The Clerk announced the following pair:

On this vote:

Mr. Stokes for, with Mr. Porter against.

Messrs. CANADY of Florida, LAZIO of New York, ROHRABACHER, and EVERETT, and Mrs. MORELLA changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

Messrs. GEPHARDT, PETERSON of Florida, WATTS of Oklahoma, SHADEGG, HOLDEN, and McHALE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

announcement by the chairman

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair announces that there was a delay, apparently, in the bell system, so a little more leeway was allowed on the time for voting.

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. KLUG

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 14.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Klug: Page 16, line 2, insert before the period the following:

: Provided, That, of such amount, $44,772,000 shall be available to implement the provisions of section 1211 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13316).

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes equally divided.

The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous-consent request was that the debate be limited to 40 minutes, 20 minutes on each side on this amendment and all amendments thereto. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] would control the 20 minutes on this side, and the gentleman from Wisconsin

[Mr. Klug] would control the 20 minutes on the other side.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no objection.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment in front of us simply does one thing today, which is to reaffirm this Congress' commitment and, frankly, the American public's commitment to renewable energy, both solar and wind power. This money does not increase the deficit. It simply forces the Committee on Appropriations and the conferees to decide where else to offset spending cuts in order to fund what we think is a very high priority for the American public.

Solar renewable energy programs were gutted from the current funding level of $388 million to $221 million. That represents a 43-percent cut. This amendment increases solar renewable funding to $266 million which we think, frankly, better illustrates the priorities of this Congress, but still I might add at the end of the day results in a 31-

percent reduction. This ensures that the United States remains a strong player in energy markets and moves toward self-sufficiency and away from foreign oil imports.

As we all know, there is obviously a finite amount of fossil fuels. I think it is a mistake to continue in many ways to fund outdated post-

mature technologies when we are beginning to veer away from wind and solar, which are beginning to show some promise. Fundamentally, what this does is reaffirm this Congress' commitment in basic research in these areas and not necessarily in applied technology.

Overwhelmingly, the American public supports renewable energy programs as an investment in our future.

There was an election last fall, as we know, and which this Congress has been attempting to execute its agenda which said downside and shrink governments. I think the American public understands there are some areas where we may want to spend still more money. According to a survey conducted by Vince Bregala, a pollster for Presidents Reagan and Bush, 85 percent agreed that the Federal Government should continue to support partnerships with American business to promote sales of renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies through research and development. Seventy-five percent agreed that with the overall reduction in the Department of Energy's budget, resources should be redirected toward renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies.

I stand here today to offer this amendment with a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, including the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], who I point out chairs the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on Commerce, the Gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman], the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it very clear to my colleagues that what this amendment fundamentally does is invest in America's future, a future clearly defined by the American public.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], former chairman of the subcommittee and longstanding Member.

Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and urge the Members to support the subcommittee. Throughout this bill we have had to take cuts on programs that are very popular. We realize that there are other ways that we could go in different directions on these things, but the subcommittee has studied this, the full Committee on Appropriations has approved the bill, and actually, I just urge the Members to vote in support of the committee.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Thurman].

Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, a responsible energy policy requires that we focus our attention and research toward the infinite supply of renewable energy alternatives. As we begin to enter the 21st century, we must begin to shift our reliance away from our finite supply of fossil fuels.

The promotion of renewable energy sources is more important now than ever before. We should have learned by past oil crises that we can not continue to ignore our increasing dependence on imported oil. For the first time, we are now importing more than 50 percent of our oil. Oil accounts for a large part of our trade imbalance. The harsh reality is that the world's oil supply will one day run out. There is nothing that this Congress or our Government can do to change that.

To the extent that we foster the development and use of alternative renewable sources like solar technology, we can act responsibly to reduce our dependence on imported oil.

I am disturbed by the committee's slashing of the solar and renewable energy programs from their current funding level of $338 to $221 million, a 43-percent cut. This amendment would restore $45 million, which still leaves these programs with 31 percent less than they got last year.

I am also concerned about the budget circumstances we must work within. This amendment does not exempt renewables from cuts, it merely seeks to distribute the deficit reduction burden more fairly.

The development of renewable energy technologies stimulates job creation, stimulates the economy, and helps American businesses become more competitive.

The University of Florida's Solar Energy and Energy Conservation Laboratory and the Florida Solar Energy Center have uniquely influenced the development of solar energy. Breakthroughs at these laboratories have helped foster a solar energy industry in Florida that has created high technology jobs. Current developments at these labs continue to create opportunities for U.S. entrepreneurs and industries.

Our investments in solar technologies are just beginning to yield returns in the form of energy security and a cleaner environment. We would be taking a giant step backward if we were to retreat from the successes that solar programs have made. This amendment will ensure that the United States remains a strong player in alternative energy markets of the 21st century.

During the 1970's, the United States was the recognized world leader in solar technology. During the last 20 years, the rest of the world, recognizing the enormous potential solar energy holds, has dramatically increased its commitment to funding solar energy research.

Now, as we stand on the brink of the 21st century, we find ourselves playing catch-up with nations who used to follow us. We should be leading the pack, not playing follow the leader. This amendment will not reverse a 20-year decline in the Federal Government's commitment to our energy future, but it will prevent us from falling even further behind.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg], a very valued member of this committee and a hard-working Member.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the courtesy of the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].

I do rise in opposition to this amendment, Mr. Chairman. This is a basic question of priorities. To the solar industry's credit, solar technology is no longer at a basic research and development level. It is in fact a commercial technology, ready for use as an energy source in a variety of applications. It is ready, but in many ways, the public is not.

Frankly, I am skeptical that solar energy will ever be the prominent energy source, due to the expense of manufacturing solar panels and the limits in their energy-producing capabilities. I do expect that solar energy will continue as a secondary energy provider for specific energy needs, such as isolated structures which need a limited supply of energy. I am more optimistic about the future of other energy programs, like fusion, for example, which would be a substitute for the current dependence on fossil fuels.

I want to repeat what has been said by others, Mr. Chairman. We are not cutting the entire solar and renewable energy program. Current funding allows continued research into this area at the most basic research and development level. I believe the solar energy program and any other applied technology must prove itself in the marketplace.

I believe that only when the cost to obtain and process fossil fuels becomes increasingly more expensive will the time become right for alternative energy sources, including solar energy. This way they can compete in a free market. I believe the energy debate is more appropriately resolved by the consumer in that free market.

{time} 1115

Let the consumer decide. Let the market work freely. Currently, the relatively low cost of fossil fuels in the form of petroleum, natural gas, and coal keeps these energy sources at the forefront.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a good bill. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] has worked very carefully with the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], the ranking member, and the rest of the subcommittee, to produce a fiscally responsible bill while maintaining a productive energy and water program.

We could debate the merits of increasing funds for every Federal program ad infinitum. If my colleagues are committed to balancing the Federal budget, then they should support the bill as it is and vote in opposition to this amendment. We only seem, in Congress, to try to nourish things that just will not grow in the marketplace. Now, there is a place for this, but frankly we did not cut funding out entirely. We reduced it at a level where we restored enough money to do the job. Let us give it time to work its will.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate and I feel very strongly that we ought to let the market set the pace for the investments in this country in our energy supply. The real question is whether or not all the amendments that have just been passed that provide tremendous subsidies to the nuclear industry, which have absolutely the single highest cost of electricity that is produced in this country.

It does not seem to me to make a lot of sense that we are going to not provide any research, real primary research, for renewables, but will provide for actual applied research for the nuclear industry. It makes no sense.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman makes a point, but this frankly is not research, what the gentleman is talking about.

All I am saying, and I think the gentleman from Massachusetts agrees with me, is that we have not cut out the idea of considering renewables. They are not being cut away.

In fact, the basic research has been done. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] is talking about applied research. I would say to my colleague that this is the money that this committee has found to be substantial enough to create what he needs to make his project work. Let the marketplace decide.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I point out to my colleagues that this is a bipartisan amendment and, hopefully, by the time we end debate, that the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett], and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] from my side of the aisle will be here to help us out.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, who has been a key ally in this entire fight.

(Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, in 1992, the Congress passed the Energy Policy Act by a vote of 363 to 60, and it passed by a Democratic-

controlled Congress and was signed into law by a Republican President.

This so-called EPACT 92 demonstrated that Congress could address pressing issues of a national energy policy in a very bipartisan way.

Now, in 1995, we stand at another historic juncture. In January, we passed the balanced budget amendment, which I sponsored, by overwhelming vote and I will continue to fight for a balanced budget amendment.

Mr. Chairman, while our country needs this balanced Federal budget, we also need uninterrupted reliable sources of energy. Such energy supplies will assure our continued economic growth in this country and our national security. Some of these sources of energy include nuclear, fossil fuels, and natural gas.

However, the country also needs to develop a robust capability in the critically important area of solar and renewable energies. And this is not only solar; it is also biomass, it is wind, it is every other type of energy that we can think of, because other type of energy that we can think of, because some day, the whole era of fossil fuels will be gone.

EPACT 92 created a 5-year plan authorizing funding to help demonstrate and commercialize new technologies such as biomass, geothermal, solar and wind energy. As we enter the third year of that 5-year plan, it would be irresponsible now to renege on our Government's commitment.

Mr. Chairman, that is why I urge my colleagues to support the Klug amendment earmarking $44.8 million of the energy and water bill for the Solar Technology Transfer Program. Even with this amendment, we are talking about a reduction of 31 percent from last year's level.

It is not widely realized that by the beginning of 1994, renewable energy technologies provided over 8 percent of the Nation's domestic energy production, more than doubling the contributions since 1973.

Renewable energy technologies combined are now producing about 7 quads of energy annually. Roughly half is produced from biomass, over 40 percent from hydroelectric, and the balance from the mix of geothermal, wind, and solar resources.

Between 1973 and 1993, renewable electric

capacity, including hydropower, grew by over 70 percent, from about 58 megawatts in 1973 to 100 megawatts in 1993. Of this, the renewable technologies that emerged during the late 1970's and 1980's, solar, geothermal, and biomass, grew from 500 megawatts in 1973 to over 10,000 megawatts today; the equivalency of 17 large coal-fired powerplants.

Clearly, renewable energy is becoming an increasingly important component of our national energy policy. I do not believe we should short-circuit this industry's growth by choking its funding.

Some people may ask, well, maybe this is because the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or NREL, is located in my district, and, yes, it is. I have been out there and I know the work they are doing and it is very important and I think there is much progress being made in this particular area.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the Record two news articles on behalf of this district. The first one details NREL's receipt of the U.S. Small Business Administration's Dwight D. Eisenhower Award for Excellence, while the other describes NREL's winning of the 1995 Federal Design Achievement Award from the National Endowment for the Arts.

I believe this material will help the Members get a better picture of NREL and I submit these articles as part of the Record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:

National Renewable Energy Laboratory: We empower America with new energy choices

NREL is dedicated to putting clean, renewable energy to work for you.

Our research transforms wind and sunlight into abundant electricity for your home. We're finding ways to turn fast-growing plants into liquid transportation fuels and valuable chemicals. Better buildings, industrial processes, and recycling methods will help you save energy and reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil.

But making sure that new energy technologies are both practical and affordable is an awesome challenge. At our 300-acre campus in Golden, Colorado, more than 480 scientists conduct research in fields ranging from bio-chemistry to solid-state physics. Many of our specialized laboratories are available for cost-shared research with U.S. companies as they develop new products and services at competitive prices.

We also work with electric utilities, regulatory bodies and state energy offices to make sure that new technologies reach their full potential as quickly as possible.

A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, NREL's diverse research programs include:

Analytic studies--Studying the economic aspects, environmental effects, and policy issues related to energy use.

Biofuels--Finding better ways to turn trees, grasses and agricultural waste into cleaner-burning transportation fuels.

Buildings--Developing new materials and systems to reduce energy use in homes and offices.

Fuel use--Studying the use of alternative fuels in fleets of cars, vans and trucks.

Industrial processes--Finding ways to reduce waste and improve the efficiency of industrial processes.

Photovoltaics--Developing efficient solar cells and modules for converting sunlight to electricity.

Resource Assessment--Studying and measuring renewable resources such as sunlight and wind.

Solar thermal electricity--Developing economical systems for transforming the sun's heat to electricity.

Solar thermal industries--Exploring ways to use solar heat for manufacturing and other industrial processes.

Superconductivity--Pursuing practical, low-cost materials to conduct electricity without loss.

Waste management--Finding ways to recover landfill gas, recycle tires and plastic, and generate power using garbage destined for landfills.

Renewable

Americans have made great strides in conserving energy since the oil embargoes of the 1970s. But our need for energy--especially electricity and transportation fuel--continues to grow by about 3% each year. Renewable resources can help meet this growing need without pollution or dependence on foreign oil.

There's no shortage of renewable resources. For example, the sunlight falling on the United States in just one day contains more than twice the energy Americans consume in an entire year. Strong, steady winds in North Dakota alone could supply about 35% of our nation's electricity needs. Fast-growing plants, geothermal energy and ocean energy are three other renewable resources awaiting the right technologies for harvesting.

We've made a good start. About 8% of our nation's energy now comes from renewable resources, primarily falling water

(hydropower). Continued research by NREL and its industry partners could help increase the contribution of renewables to 30% by the year 2030.

Clean

Imagine a world powered by clean energy technologies.

Rows of sleek solar panels gleam in the sun, using semiconductor materials to directly convert light into electricity. Wind turbines spin out power for large cities without the millions of tons of air pollutants emitted by an oil- or coal-fired power plant every year. Solar thermal systems capture the sun's abundant renewable energy to heat water or drive industrial processes.

These are only a few renewable energy technologies at work today. Many more are on the horizon. For example, NREL is exploring ways to use sunlight to clean up contaminated soil and groundwater. We're also developing methods for recycling plastic

and making better use of garbage now dumped in landfills.

Our research preserves America's environmental heritage. It can also lead to a more sustainable energy future.

secure

Founded in 1977 in response to oil embargoes, NREL is diversifying U.S. energy options in many ways.

One of those ways is finding alternatives to gasoline, much of which is now made from imported petroleum. NREL is working with U.S. companies to squeeze more ethanol from corn kernels and the woody parts of other plans. We also collect data on the performance of alternatively fueled vehicles and share the results with automobile manufacturers.

In addition to fuels research, NREL is strengthening America's energy security with more efficient buildings. Our guidelines for passive solar homes are used by builders and architects throughout the nation to slash typical home energy costs by as much as 90%. We're also developing ways to rate the energy efficiency of buildings.

Renewable energy and energy efficiency not only lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil--they strengthen the economy as well.

competitive

About half of NREL's federal funding returns to the private sector through subcontracts and cost-shared research agreements.

Thanks to this support, U.S. companies now compete in international markets for wind turbines and blades. American-made solar panels are supplying electricity to thousands of Brazilians. And a leading U.S. ceramics producer may soon replace imported ceramic powders with ones made locally.

Wind energy is already cost-competitive in areas with good wind resources, and solar panels are finding hundreds of remote uses throughout the nation. Ultra-efficient appliances, more reliable electronic components, and better adhesives are just a few other products coming your way as the result of NREL's research.

The renewable energy technologies now being developed at NREL can fill every kind of energy need. They're a smart choice for America.

____

NREL Receives National SBA Award

GOLDEN, Colo., April 20/PRNewsire/--The Dwight D. Eisenhower Award for Excellence, the national award given annually by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), will be presented to the Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) on May 4 during Small Business Week activities in Washington, D.C.

The Eisenhower award annually recognizes large federal prime contractors that excel in their support of small business. In 1994, NREL awarded more than $85.5 million in purchases and subcontracts to small companies--about 77 percent of its total procurements. Of this amount, 25 percent went to businesses owned by women or minorities.

NREL Director Dr. Charles F. Gay said the award is especially significant because the laboratory also was named 1994 Corporation of the Year by Minority Enterprises Inc.

``This award is a credit to the many outstanding NREL employees who are committed to the success of small businesses,'' Gay said.

The SBA award recognizes success in guiding entrepreneurs of diverse backgrounds through the complexities of government procurement.

``We are very active in our outreach and mentoring of small, minority and women-owned firms,'' said Ed Green, NREL's manager of procurement and small-business liaison.

``Linking with small businesses is only half the job. The other part is supporting these firms during contract performance to assure mutual success.''

In addition to economic support, NREL has spawned 27 spin-off companies. Laboratory facilities and expertise are available to small businesses, and NREL hosts seminars to help those businesses market their products and services.

To be eligible for the Eisenhower award, a federal prime contractor first must win an SBA Award of Distinction. NREL was one of two organizations in the six states of SBA's Region VIII to receive this award in 1993.

The SBA's Office of Government Contracting selected finalists in three categories this year: research and development, service and construction. NREL won the Eisenhower award in the research and development category.

____

NREL Wins U.S. Design Award

One of the federal government's most energy-efficient buildings was honored with a 1995 Federal Design Achievement Award from the National Endowment for the Arts.

Golden Mayor Marv Kay was on hand for the ceremony that honored regional winners.

The Solar Energy Research Facility, part of the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Denver West Office Park, is one of 77 federal projects honored nationwide for superior architectural design. SERF and the other winners are now in contention for the nation's highest honor--the Presidential Design Award for Excellence, which will be awarded at the White House this fall.

SERF is a state-of-the-art laboratory facility used for advanced photovoltaic solar cell research.

SERF's unique design incorporates energy efficiency features that reduce energy consumption by 30% to 40%. This reduces annual heating, cooling and lighting costs by almost

$200,000. Energy-saving features include the use of daylight to illuminate office areas and corridors.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to express my admiration for the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug]. Many of the things that he does, I am totally supportive of. In this case I cannot be supportive. He is suggesting in this amendment that we earmark $44.8 million for the innovative and renewable technologies transfer program.

We have heard a lot of rhetoric today about the importance of developing solar energy. This has nothing to do with the development of solar energy. Zero. In fact, this will hurt the development of solar energy. What we are doing here is we are talking about a transfer program. We are talking about promotion. We are talking about marketing. We are talking about commercialization. We are not talking about research and development. In fact, we are spending $44 million, if this amendment succeeds, by taking it away from research and development. Some of that money may well come from research and development of solar energy.

Being the chairman of the subcommittee dealing with this issue, I know how much money we have had to cut from the budgets of energy and environmental research in this country. The fact is we did everything we could to protect the fundamental research and what we had to do is cut programs that dealt with promotion and marketing and commercialization of which this is the perfect example.

We need to focus the Federal Government effort on research and development, fundamental research and development that cannot be done by the private sector. Fundamental research in solar was protected. In fact, because it is not coming from anywhere, it is just suggested it is going to be a general cut throughout our budget in this area, this could well come from solar energy research and development money. Certainly it is going to come from somewhere. It might come from fundamental research and development in other type of energies that we need to do research and development on.

Mr. Chairman, what in essence we are doing is taking money away from a budget of research and development that has already been strained to the braking point. We are taking money away from a budget that has already been strained to the breaking point and we are putting it into marketing and commercialization for specific interests that are involved with pushing these products overseas. I think this is green pork. What we are suggesting here by this amendment is green pork, taking the Federal Government away from its essential role on energy research and development and putting it into promotion.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the gentleman that his own committee is in conflict with the statement that the gentleman just made.

Looking at what has been authorized here, which this money will go toward, it is the Solar Thermal Program to determine the economic viability of dish/Stirling, power tower, and trough systems, it is the concentrated solar energy to break down toxic organic wastes, the development of technologically advanced, higher efficiency wind turbines, the integrated biomass feedstock production. These are all specific programs that were identified by the committee that will be put back in the budget.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, we specifically deauthorized the use of funds for solar technology transfer. What we tried to focus in on at the committee and subcommittee level was direct and solid research and development because that cannot be done by anybody else but the Federal Government.

This indeed is taking the money, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], $44 million basically from across-the-

board cuts to channel it into a program that is aimed at marketing

and commercialization.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If the gentleman will yield further, the fact is that what we are talking about is what is in the authorization. What we are talking about is whether or not these industries need this kind of basic research in order to be successful.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But we are not financing basic research. It is promotion. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, if I might point out one of the reasons we have had such strong bipartisan support on this amendment is we are talking about renewables across the board, including wind. So this amendment cannot be seen as simply a debate about solar technology. That is one reason that the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono], both of whom had a great deal of success in California with wind power, so clearly understand.

Second, if I may make the point to my colleagues that if we are trying to figure out where we are going to get the money to pay for this, might I suggest we apply some of the $20 million we eliminated yesterday from the nuclear program that 3 to 1 this House agreed was absolutely out of date.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts

[Mr. Markey].

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me the time. I very much compliment him on the making of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is really to a very large extent the critical debate that we are going to have out here on the floor. Renewable energy now provides 10 percent of the energy in our country. But it is still in its nascent stage. Whether it be solar voltaic, which has dropped dramatically from upward of 26 cents a kilowatt hour down to 8 or 9 cents a kilowatt hour just over the past decade; wind, which has dropped from 30 cents a kilowatt hour down to 4 or 5 cents a kilowatt hour in the last 10 years, we are seeing dramatic changes in the way in which electricity and energy are generated in this country.

Unfortunately the bill as it is presently constructed still tilts dramatically toward the older technologies. There is $236 million in this budget for fission technology. This is a 40-year-old technology that is already out in the marketplace with one of the wealthiest industries in the United States, the electric utility industry, perfectly capable of doing all additional research on that technology.

In addition, there is $230 million in here for fusion technology. Money is here for coal research. Money is here for all kinds of research on the older technologies.

{time} 1130

Now, I really would not mind if the committee cut out all the money for solar and all money for wind if they cut out all the money for fusion and fission. I really would not care. Then it would be a fair fight out in the marketplace. I would feel a lot better about it.

But if you are going to continue the subsidies for the mature industries, it is wrong to have a 43-percent cut for the nascent competitors of solar and wind and geothermal and conservation. That is what disturbs me most about this whole debate. It has either got to be one way or the other, an amendment to cut out all subsidies or an amendment to keep comparable subsidies for all the competing energy technologies.

There is a good reason for it. We are so overly dependent upon imported oil. Sixty percent of the oil is imported. If we are going to break our dependence on that, we have to have these domestic, indigenous sources of energy developed. Those are going to be the renewables. We need ways in which we are going to lower the cost of energy. Only by having competing technologies do we reduce the overall likelihood we are going to see increases in the traditional fossil fuel or nuclear power generated electricity.

We need to reduce the smog in order to reduce the global warming phenomenon, in order to reduce the acid rain problem. These are benign technologies that reduce our need to have more intrusive environmental laws which pass here on the floor of Congress.

So for all of those reasons, the Klug amendment takes us in the right direction.

The history, however, out here on the floor of the House is if it does not glow, it gets no dough. The nuclear budget continues to be enhanced.

The reason we need this is like the fax machine or telephone, while they may have a nascent discovery and application, it takes 20 and 30 years to finally get them to the marketplace. That is what we have found, and that is why I support the Klug amendment.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close the debate please?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].

Mr. KLUG. Second, Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] has 11 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has 7 minutes remaining.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this very sensible amendment.

It is sensible because it does not assume that we will be forever able to draw on our current sources of energy. It is sensible because it would ensure that the Department of Energy has a balanced research portfolio that does not short-change important potential sources of energy. It is sensible because it backs programs in which business and government work together to achieve national goals that would be ignored without these programs. It is sensible because it funds programs that have had bipartisan support. It is sensible because it recognizes that every DOE program must share in budget cuts. And it is sensible because it accomplishes all this without increasing the bottom line of this bill.

Our Nation should not be ignoring renewable energy in the vain hope that fossil fuels will solve our problems forever. This amendment restores needed funding for renewable energy research--funding for well managed programs that would still be cut by almost one-third if this amendment is passed.

Vote for this amendment and vote for a sensible approach to ensure that this Nation can meet its future energy needs.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], who has been a strong champion of renewables and a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. FAZIO of California. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding me this time.

I yield to no Member in my respect for the gentleman from Alabama

[Mr. Bevill] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers]. I have served with them on this subcommittee for 16 years.

During that time, I have been a great advocate of renewable energy, but this bill is $2 billion less than the President's budget. It is

$1.5 billion less than last year spent in this area of spending, and I understand, as the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] has indicated, that we are all going to have to absorb reductions. There is no question that all forms of energy research and development will have to take their fair share.

But I stand here today for the first time in opposition to my chairman and ranking member on this matter, because I believe we have taken an inordinately deep cut in renewable spending. A 43-percent cut simply is out of whack with all of the other proposals that have been made to reduce spending. We have simply asked too much of an area that is on the upturn. It is a growing area for exports, an important area of small business in this country.

These are proven performers, technological trend setters. We are not where we were 20 years ago where this is merely an ideological issue. Today renewable energy is part of the energy grid. Utilities across this country are adopting these as low cost alternatives.

We have an opportunity in this amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] to begin to restore some balance to our energy policy.

Now, I have really stood in opposition to all of the cuts in the nuclear fission program, because I truly believe we need a balanced energy policy. We have forgotten the lines at the gas stations. Maybe I have been here too long, folks, but I think many of us have forgotten in our desire to find areas to cut that there is a potential for an energy crisis again. It is out there ahead of us. We are almost at 60 percent reliance on imported fuel from the Middle East and other parts of the world.

This Congress has got to keep in mind that we are headed in the wrong direction, and this amendment makes a modest step back toward the right direction.

I ask for its support.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I think we have heard a lot of talk about how we are not supposed to pick winners and losers in the Congress of the United States.

This is a blatant attempt to pick a winner, and the winner is the nuclear industry. We are cutting 31 percent of the renewable energy budget in this bill.

This attempt by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and others is to attempt to put a few dollars back into a budget that has already gutted renewable energy supplies of this country. Why do we not recognize that it is the nuclear industry who has single-handedly raised the cost of electricity for the ordinary citizen of this country and we still have not taken into account how we are going to get rid of the nuclear waste?

This is an energy supply that is clean. It is an energy supply that is renewable. It will enable us to gain some independence from the foreign creditors that are breathing down our necks. Let us say to OPECers, let us say to the rest of the world that wants to continue our dependence on foreign oil that we are sick and tired of it, that we are going to develop our own independent energy sources, and if we need government assistance to develop those new sources, we are going to put the money in and break the dependence on the big nuclear industry and our foreign traders.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], who has a new idea now, a new thought.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to point out again we are hearing over and over again that this is in some way juxtaposing some new type of energy research with solar energy research. This debate has nothing to do with the research and development policies on solar energy or any other kind of energy except for the fact that it will take money from research and development programs across the board in energy, some of which are renewable, I might add, and take that research and development money and take and put it into a transfer program, a program that is totally designed for promotion, marketing, and commercialization.

I think our Members should also be aware that the prime beneficiary of the $44 million that is being taken out of energy research and development and put into this promotion marketing commercialization effort, the prime beneficiary is not an American company but a German company, a German company, called Siemens Co., which is the leader, yes, in this type of technology, but we will be providing them funds to help them with the promotion of solar energy.

Now, this is not, again, this gentleman, by the way, took great pains during the authorization process to see that solar energy research and development was protected.

I happen to believe that is a very probable and potential source, a good source, of energy in the future if it is developed. We, in fact, by the way, let me also add that we also made sure that there were major cuts in fusion and nuclear energy programs.

I have become the target of nuclear energy people across the country who are as mad as hell that I have cut, that Dana Rohrabacher has cut their budget for research and development in the nuclear area.

The fact is we have tried to maintain a balanced research and development program.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The fact of the matter is there is a 43 percent cut in this bill by solar and renewable energies and a 13 percent in nuclear.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Not in research and development, only in promotion, which is what this bill deals with.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].

Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Klug amendment to restore funding for renewable energy programs in the Department of Energy.

Like my constituents in Connecticut, I believe that no Federal program should be spared from reductions. But fiscal responsibility doesn't mean cutting everything without regard to its value; it means making priorities for our scarce dollars.

Energy-efficient technology opens markets abroad and creates jobs at home, and it must be one of our highest priorities.

As a manufacturer of wind energy equipment in my State puts it,

``Renewable energy is an investment into the economic and environmental future of the country.''

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Klug amendment.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].

Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I commend him for his efforts to shift the priorities in this bill in the right direction.

This is not about an increase. It is about choices. It is about energy independence, about sustainable economic growth.

Yes, the solar and renewable accounts do, to a great degree, go to applied research and even to technology transfer. Yes, private industry may not find it profitable enough, quick enough, to go it alone. But that is just another way of saying that the marketplace does not work perfectly. It does not account well for the external costs of the current dominance of fossil fuel sources, and it does not account well for the external benefits in terms of energy independence, jobs, balance of payments, and the avoidance of environmental costs.

This is exactly the kind of situation, therefore, in which some modest government program of R&D assistance, to bridge the gap in a marketplace that is too preoccupied with an immediate payoff, is entirely appropriate.

I commend the gentleman for his amendment, and urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me make several points in closing, if I could.

First of all, let me reiterate to my colleague what the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer] said, that fundamentally we made a decision in this Congress just 3 years ago that we would make an important transition from an era of fossil fuel to an era that included Federal funding for new emerging renewable technologies. That was just 3 years ago.

And the choice now is as I think a number of my colleagues on the other side, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] have pointed out, here we find a situation where this bill continues to fund substantial amounts of money for coal research which we have been doing for 60 years, nuclear research which we have been doing for 40 years, and while it is true those programs are cut, they are not cut as dramatically as the renewable program under the markup we now find ourselves in from the committee.

Finally, again, if I could say this one more time, this is not a vote about solar. This is a vote about renewables. That includes wind. It includes other technologies as well as solar technology.

And finally, to primarily my Republican colleagues, let me assure them this does not add to the deficit. This is simply shifting money around and trying to reestablish a priority in this Congress that the American public overwhelmingly supports and this Congress overwhelmingly supported just 3 years ago.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee has long been a supporter of the renewables, including solar, wind, geothermal, everything. We have long been a supporter.

But no item, no appropriation in this budget has increased as much as solar has. Solar alone, not all the other renewables, just solar, since 1991, in the last 5 years, this committee has increased the appropriations for solar research, including what we even cut out here this year, by 93 percent. Name any other item we have in our bill other than waste management and environmental cleanup that we have increased that much. None have we increased as much as we have solar.

This committee this year heard a lot about corporate welfare and how often we heard it yesterday about the reactor, ``Oh, this is corporate welfare. We are helping some utility some place or General Electric or Westinghouse build a reactor,'' for our country, hopefully, someday or someplace overseas that we might be able to sell one. Call that corporate welfare.

So our committee this year got to examining just where are the solar dollars going. The gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] hit it right on the head. We found that much of the solar research really was not going into research. It is not going into solar panels. It is not going into wind research for better windmills, even though we have a lot of windmills in California, farms of them out there. Some have been closed down; we even built several around the country we have had to close down because of the environment.

So this committee examined these very closely this year and realized we were not getting the bang for the taxpayers' buck in solar. We still support solar, but we have to draw the line.

It has been said here this morning that we are cutting research. We are not cutting research. What we took out of this bill is not as the gentlewoman from Connecticut said, making jobs for the United States. Making jobs for Germany is one example because what we took out, what we reduced this year, primarily we eliminate the solar international marketing program, solar international marketing program, solar technology transfer. We're paying some company this year to put up solar panels on the roof, technology transfer, or energy storage systems. We have been long trying to build a solar battery. We have been working on that for quite some time; not much success; maybe some day we will have it. We have not closed the door on it, but we just found this year that we had to make some choices. We found that 50 percent of the budget request is for cost-sharing arrangements with industry, 50 percent. We did not cut it 50 percent; we left some of it in, but we cut those big programs. The limited resources we have we decided should not be used in corporate welfare, but be directed toward basic science and research programs.

So, if you adopt this amendment, of $44 million, almost $45 million, it will reduce funding for all the other research that is being done around over the country, other research for renewables which are so vitally needed. What we are cutting out, what is unnecessary, is paying companies to try to use solar. This is all we are doing.

We are cutting out corporate welfare.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, noes 208, not voting 12, as follows:

AYES--214

AbercrombieAckermanAllardBaeslerBaldacciBarciaBarrett (WI)BartlettBecerraBeilensonBentsenBereuterBermanBilirakisBishopBluteBoehlertBoniorBorskiBoucherBrewsterBrowderBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Bryant (TX)CampCardinClayClaytonClementClyburnColemanCollins (IL)ConditConyersCostellode la GarzaDealDeFazioDeLauroDellumsDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDunnDurbinEdwardsEngelEnsignEshooEvansFarrFattahFazioFilnerFlakeFlanaganFogliettaFordFrank (MA)Franks (CT)FurseGejdensonGephardtGerenGillmorGilmanGoodlingGordonGreenGundersonGutierrezHall (OH)HamiltonHancockHarmanHastings (FL)HefleyHilliardHincheyHoekstraHornHoughtonJackson-LeeJacobsJeffersonJohnson (CT)Johnson (SD)Johnson, E. B.JohnstonKapturKellyKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKimKleczkaKlugLaFalceLantosLeachLevinLewis (GA)LincolnLipinskiLoweyLutherMaloneyMantonMarkeyMartinezMatsuiMcCarthyMcDermottMcHaleMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeekMenendezMetcalfMeyersMfumeMiller (CA)MinetaMingeMinkMoorheadMoranMorellaNadlerNealNeumannNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOrtonOwensPallonePastorPayne (NJ)Payne (VA)PelosiPeterson (FL)Peterson (MN)PetriPomboPomeroyPortmanPoshardRahallRamstadRangelReedRichardsonRiversRobertsRoemerRothRoybal-AllardRushSaboSandersSawyerSchaeferSchroederSchumerScottSensenbrennerSerranoShaysSkaggsSlaughterSmith (NJ)SprattStarkStenholmStuddsTaylor (MS)TejedaThomasThompsonThorntonThurmanTorkildsenTorresTorricelliTownsTuckerUptonVelazquezVentoVolkmerVucanovichWaldholtzWardWatersWatt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeldon (PA)WilliamsWiseWoolseyWydenWynnYatesZimmer

NOES--208

ArcherArmeyBachusBaker (CA)Baker (LA)BallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartonBassBatemanBevillBilbrayBlileyBoehnerBonillaBonoBrownbackBryant (TN)BunnBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCanady CastleChabotChamblissChapmanChenowethChristensenChryslerClingerCobleCoburnCollins (GA)CombestCooleyCoxCoyneCramerCraneCrapoCremeansCubinCunninghamDannerDavisDeLayDiaz-BalartDickeyDoolittleDornanDoyleDreierDuncanEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEverettEwingFawellFields (LA)Fields (TX)FoleyForbesFowlerFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrisaFunderburkGalleglyGanskeGekasGibbonsGilchrestGonzalezGoodlatteGossGrahamGreenwoodGutknechtHall (TX)HansenHastertHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHeinemanHergerHillearyHobsonHokeHoldenHostettlerHoyerHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJohnson, SamJonesKanjorskiKasichKingKingstonKlinkKnollenbergKolbeLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLaughlinLazioLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LightfootLinderLivingstonLoBiondoLofgrenLucasManzulloMartiniMascaraMcCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMicaMiller (FL)MolinariMollohanMontgomeryMurthaMyersMyrickNethercuttNeyNorwoodOxleyPackardParkerPaxonPickettPorterPryceQuillenQuinnRadanovichRegulaRiggsRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoseRoukemaRoyceSalmonSanfordSaxtonScarboroughSchiffSeastrandShadeggShawShusterSisiskySkeenSkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SolomonSouderSpenceStearnsStumpStupakTalentTannerTateTaylor (NC)ThornberryTiahrtTraficantViscloskyWalkerWalshWampWeldon (FL)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYoung (AK)Young (FL)Zeliff

NOT VOTING--12

AndrewsBrown (OH)Collins (MI)FoxFrostHefnerLongleyMoakleyReynoldsStockmanStokesTauzin

{time} 1210

Messrs. CHRISTENSEN, COYNE, EWING, LIVINGSTON, HOLDEN, SOUDER, KINGSTON, HILLEARY, EHRLICH, SCHIFF, and PORTER, and Mrs. ROUKEMA changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

Ms. BROWN of Florida, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mrs. CLAYTON, and Messrs. THOMPSON, POMBO, RAHALL, SCHUMER, FATTAH, POMEROY, GENE GREEN of Texas, YATES, and KIM changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

So the amendment was agreed to.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment offered by Mr. SANDERS

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, numbered 38.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders: Page 18, strike lines 8 through 20.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman agree to some limitation on time?

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that I am going to be withdrawing the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I will be withdrawing this amendment, which would reduce by $3.2 billion in fiscal year 1996 funding for the nuclear weapons activities of the U.S. Department of Energy. Instead, I will be offering an amendment to the fiscal year 1996 defense appropriations bill, which in fact will take a bigger bite out of wasteful Federal spending for unneeded unclear weaponry.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it is absurd for this country to keep producing and deploying huge amounts of nuclear weaponry, and ignore the fact that the cold war is over. This mindless spending costs the American taxpayer over $30 billion a year.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this country has many, many problems. We have people sleeping out on the street; we have children who are hungry; we have elderly people who cannot afford their prescription drugs; we have millions of middle-class families who cannot afford to send their kids to college; we have 30 million people who cannot afford health insurance. We have many problems, but one problem we do not have is a lack of nuclear weaponry.

It may be of esoteric interest to some scientists as to how many times over we can destroy humanity, whether it is 100 times over or 50 times over, through the use of nuclear weapons. That may be of interest to some people, but it really is not one of the pressing problems that this country has right now.

The cold war is over. We should not be spending $30 billion a year on nuclear weaponry, $300 billion a year over a 10-year period.

{time} 1215

Mr. Chairman, we have some 20,000 nuclear warheads in our Nation's arsenal. That seems to me to be enough.

Mr. Chairman, I am withdrawing this amendment today but will be bringing it back in a more appropriate fashion through the Department of Defense appropriation. I believe very strongly that we must get our priorities right. We do not need more money on nuclear weaponry when we are cutting program after program that tens of millions of middle-

income and working-class Americans depend upon. I look forward to the support of my colleagues when this amendment resurfaces in the Department of Defense appropriation.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Vermont?

There was no objection.

amendment offered by mr. ward

Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Ward: On Page 16, line 1, insert

``(less $1,000,000)'' before ``to remain''.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the time on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes equally divided.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, will the gentleman be willing to amend that to 12 minutes?

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous-consent request is for 12 minutes, 6 minutes on each side, time to be controlled by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] will be recognized for 6 minutes and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] will be recognized for 6 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].

Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment seeks to strike a special earmark in this bill for sonoluminescence. Sonoluminescence is the act of bombarding water with sound waves which excites air bubbles to flash light. This is a legitimate course of study. There is no question of that. But neither the Energy Department nor any of the energy labs in this country have requested money for this program. This is a special earmark.

I would hasten to point out, though, that the gentleman from California who has earmarked this money in the budget does not have this in his district. This is not something that the gentleman from California has done for someone in his district. The gentleman and I have talked about this. I want to hasten to make sure that there is no question in any Member's mind that this is a piece of pork in his district. This is not.

What it is is a reasonable disagreement about how we should be spending our science research dollars. I feel that we should not earmark $1 million when the Department of Energy has not asked for the money, when the lab that is doing the work has not asked for the money, when, in fact, a former director of that lab has been quoted, and this is from Science Magazine, December of last year, the last 6 months, the former director of this lab was quoted as saying that it was highly improbable that researchers can achieve the desired results from this money.

There was no evidence presented at any hearing with respect to this million dollars. There was report language added, but in the subcommittee on which I serve there was never a discussion, a public hearing back and forth on this issue.

What I feel we need to do today, my colleagues, is to strike $1 million to show that we are not going to micromanage America's science programs by spending this earmarked $1 million.

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

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to talk about fundamental basic research, which is supposed to be the purpose of my subcommittee and the purpose of the Committee on Science. There are some things that cannot get done in the private sector and that is what we try to do in Government. The fact is that this is a program that has nothing to do with my district. In fact, it has nothing to do, I do not know anyone as an individual, there is no friend of mine on this project. It is something that came to my attention from other scientists who suggested it was a good idea, and it was something that was an example of how huge programs that we have, in fusion and all these other mega programs that we spend billions of dollars on, crowd out the small research programs that have a high potential but never get the money because they do not have lobbyists, they do not have any of the big guys behind them.

This program is aimed at achieving a modest amount of fusion energy from a very modest, a $2 million investment over 2 years, research program. It is the first year of the program, so we are asking for $1 million this year and, after 2 years, we will know whether or not this potential research program is viable. But this is exactly the kind of program the Federal Government should be doing.

It is pure research. It is not one of these mega bureaucracies where the money goes into administration. In fact, if the Ward amendment is successful and this money is then cut out from going to this program, the money will likely be channeled directly into one of these mega programs. It might be paying for the office of public relations for one of those programs instead of research and development.

This is scientific research, earmarked by the way. There is nothing wrong with an earmark in the sense that this is, if it is peer reviewed, and this is a peer-reviewed, competitive program, we are not asking for this money to be given to just any company or any laboratory. And the fact that it is an earmark does not make it wrong. We had the debate in the subcommittee. In fact, this is very similar to the earmarking that is for coal research, which I know the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] is very in favor of.

So I would ask my colleagues to support this fundamental research program that deserves it. We have the support of many scientists: Dr. Seth

Putterman of UCLA, Dr. Kenneth Suslick of the University of Illinois, and Dr. William Moss at Lawrence Livermore. These are men that are preeminent in their field. They think it is a worthwhile program. I think that these are just the type of things the Federal Government should do. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark].

(Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage my distinguished colleague from California, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

This is a wonderful project. The gentleman knows it will go to Livermore, CA, and shooting light on these bubbles will cause a lot of wonderful things. Do you know what else they make in Livermore, CA?

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

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

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Lawrence Livermore happens to be the laboratory that develops a lot of types of energy.

Mr. STARK. It is right in the center, reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, of the finest champagne country in the world. What this will do is irradiate that champagne that comes from California, much to the disadvantage of New York, where they do not make such very good champagne.

I understand that the gentleman, and Texas has a problem with it, too. The gentleman from Wisconsin supports this amendment because the bubbles in beer will be irradiated and that will put the gentleman from Missouri at a disadvantage. So that I want to say that if you want to waste $1 million trying to make California champagne better, which you cannot do, then we welcome this money. But if you really think that there is a place for $1 million and fewer bubbles or better beer, we could spend that money elsewhere.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I take it that this is tongue in cheek? I just would like my colleagues to know that.

Mr. STARK. This is bubbles in a bottle, shining a little light on the bubbles for California champagne is certainly worth $1 million of the taxpayers' money.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. If it produces energy for the American people.

Mr. STARK. Enough energy to blow those corks right out on New Year's Eve.

Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark]. Of course, I would mention to him this is the first time I have risen to offer an amendment on the floor, and he should not scare me that way.

Two quick points, in response to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]. The million dollars will go back to the treasury. It is being taken completely out of the budget of the Energy Department.

Second, if the Department of Energy feels that this research is important and they have in the past expended money on this research, in fact since 1934, there has been research going on in this field, they will have the opportunity and certainly have the wherewithal to make these kinds of expenditures.

Remember, this is the Department of Energy energy lab. I think that answers those points.

As I said, this is my first time standing to offer an amendment.

I will close by saying that we need to show that we can give $1 million back to the treasury when it has been earmarked in a legislative committee without a hearing, without a public discussion, on the subcommittee on which I serve. We need to show that we are not going to micromanage every million dollars spent by the Department of Energy, and we need to do it today. Please support the Ward amendment.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the committee appreciates the cooperation by the gentleman from Kentucky as a beginner. In Kentucky we do not call them ``beginners,'' we call them ``maidens.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Baker].

Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak nor did I know until the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] just informed me that this project was indeed to be done at one of the laboratories, whether it is Livermore or one of the defense laboratories. I have never heard so much smoke and mirrors, let alone bubbles on this debate.

First of all, this was in the bill. The bill had a hearing. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward] was there. But he did not bring this amendment up, nor did he discuss this project. So do not say this is some secret earmark that some scientist dreamed up to pork it up. And he was very kind in his remarks to exclude pork in this. But there is no reason to go after a basic science program, $1 million, yet, when it has had a hearing and it went through the process and nobody said

``bubble'' during that hearing.

So now we use the word ``earmark.'' Well, this is an earmark. If this is such a tremendous earmark, why are not the lobbyists here saying, we have to have this; this is for fossil fuel? Or we have to have this; this is for wind?

This is basic research and we ought to be doing more of it and not less. This is also to improve and give us an alternative to the various fusion programs that everybody is taking pot shots at here on the floor.

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

Mr. BAKER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

{time} 1230

Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, on the point of this coming before the committee, it was as part of 60 pages of report language that I did not see prior to the time we sat down to discuss the bill.

Mr. BAKER of California. I will excuse the gentleman, then, but I think it is frivolous to bring it up on the floor, to say that out of the 60 pages, this is the one project that the gentleman would like to eliminate.

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

Mr. BAKER of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, is this the same type of basic research as why the fly lands on the ceiling and not on the wall?

Mr. BAKER of California. This is the same kind of skepticism that says we cannot balance our budget. We can. This is good basic science. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward].

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 276, noes 141, not voting 17, as follows:

AYES--276

AbercrombieAckermanAllardArcherBaeslerBaker (LA)BaldacciBarciaBarrett (WI)BartonBassBecerraBeilensonBentsenBermanBevillBishopBluteBoniorBorskiBrewsterBrowderBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Bryant (TX)CallahanCampCanadyCardinChabotChapmanChristensenChryslerClayClaytonClementClyburnColemanCollins (GA)Collins (IL)Collins (MI)ConditConyersCostelloCoyneCramerCremeansCunninghamDannerde la GarzaDeFazioDeLauroDellumsDeutschDickeyDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleDuncanDunnDurbinEdwardsEhrlichEngelEnglishEnsignEshooEvansFarrFattahFazioFields (LA)Fields (TX)FilnerFlakeFlanaganFogliettaFoleyFordFowlerFrank (MA)Franks (NJ)FurseGanskeGejdensonGephardtGerenGibbonsGilchrestGonzalezGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGreenGundersonGutierrezHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamiltonHancockHarmanHastings (FL)HefleyHilliardHincheyHobsonHoekstraHoldenHornHoyerHutchinsonHydeInglisJackson-LeeJacobsJeffersonJohnson (CT)Johnson (SD)Johnson, E. B.JohnstonJonesKanjorskiKapturKasichKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKingstonKleczkaKlinkLaFalceLaHoodLantosLargentLathamLaTouretteLeachLevinLewis (GA)LincolnLipinskiLoBiondoLoweyLutherMaloneyMantonManzulloMarkeyMartinezMartiniMascaraMatsuiMcCarthyMcCreryMcDermottMcHaleMcInnisMcIntoshMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeekMenendezMetcalfMeyersMfumeMiller (CA)Miller (FL)MinetaMingeMinkMontgomeryMoranMurthaMyrickNadlerNealNeumannOberstarObeyOlverOrtonOwensPalloneParkerPastorPayne (NJ)Payne (VA)PelosiPeterson (FL)Peterson (MN)PetriPickettPomeroyPorterPortmanPoshardRahallRamstadRangelReedRegulaRichardsonRiggsRiversRoemerRos-LehtinenRoseRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushSaboSalmonSandersSanfordSawyerSaxtonSchroederSchumerScottSensenbrennerSerranoShawShaysSisiskySkaggsSkeltonSlaughterSmith (WA)SprattStarkStearnsStenholmStokesStuddsStupakTannerTateTaylor (MS)TejedaThompsonThorntonThurmanTorkildsenTorresTorricelliTownsTraficantTuckerUptonVelazquezVentoViscloskyVolkmerWaldholtzWardWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWhiteWhitfieldWilsonWiseWolfWoolseyWydenWynnYatesYoung (FL)Zimmer

NOES--141

ArmeyBachusBaker (CA)BallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBatemanBereuterBilbrayBilirakisBlileyBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBoucherBrownbackBryant (TN)BunnBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCalvertCastleChamblissChenowethClingerCobleCombestCooleyCoxCraneCrapoCubinDavisDealDeLayDiaz-BalartDoolittleDornanDreierEhlersEmersonEverettEwingFawellForbesFranks (CT)FrelinghuysenFrisaFunderburkGalleglyGekasGillmorGilmanGrahamGreenwoodGutknechtHansenHastertHastings (WA)HayworthHeinemanHergerHillearyHokeHostettlerHoughtonHunterJohnson, SamKellyKimKingKlugKnollenbergKolbeLaughlinLazioLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LightfootLinderLivingstonLofgrenLucasMcCollumMcDadeMcHughMicaMolinariMollohanMorellaMyersNethercuttNeyNorwoodNussleOxleyPackardPaxonPomboPryceQuillenQuinnRadanovichRobertsRogersRothScarboroughSchaeferSchiffSeastrandShadeggShusterSkeenSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)SolomonSouderSpenceStumpTalentTaylor (NC)ThomasThornberryTiahrtVucanovichWalkerWalshWampWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWickerWilliamsYoung (AK)Zeliff

NOT VOTING--17

AndrewsBrown (OH)CoburnFoxFrostHayesHefnerIstookLongleyMcKeonMoakleyMoorheadOrtizReynoldsRohrabacherStockmanTauzin

{time} 1250

The Clerk announced the following pair:

On this vote:

Mr. Frost for, with Mr. McKeon against.

Messrs. MICA, KIM, and WALSH changed their vote from ``aye'' to

``no.''

Messrs. ALLARD, McDERMOTT, HOBSON, PORTER, CHRISTENSEN, HALL of Texas, CHRYSLER, CONDIT, COLLINS of Georgia, and JONES changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

So the amendment was agreed to.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike that last word. I would like to take this opportunity to engage in a brief colloquy with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], the chairman of the subcommittee, to clarify the intent of the subcommittee to appropriate $150,000 to fund the Corps of Engineers' study for a 9.1-mile section of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Palm Beach County, FL.

I am very pleased that the subcommittee made the decision to fund this study, but due to the unique circumstances regarding this project, I believe it is necessary to clarify the congressional intent on how the Corps should proceed with this study.

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

Mr. SHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. The gentleman has accurately portrayed this. We put it in the report accompanying H.R. 1905 and it directs the Corps of Engineers to do a reconnaissance study as to the waterway.

Mr. SHAW. That is correct. However, the traditional definition of a reconnaissance study is not adequate to describe the focus that is needed by the Corps to study this portion of the Intracoastal Waterway.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield further, no question about it. This thing has been studied to death. And there are a lot of projects like this. And the authorization goes back to 1945. So we will be pushing, helping the gentleman clear this up.

Mr. SHAW. The chairman is absolutely correct. It was on March 2, 1945, that the Congress authorized the channel depth in this area of the Intracoastal Waterway to be 12 feet deep; however, over the years it was only dredged to 10 feet.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. It is my understanding that because the project has already been authorized by the Corps, all that is necessary is a narrowly refocused reevaluation study to determine the economic viability at this time, and the $150,000 appropriation can be used for this purpose.

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for allowing me to discuss this project with him to clarify that it is the congressional intent that this $150,000 appropriation be used for a reevaluation study.

amendment offered by mr. volkmer

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Volkmer: Page 16, Line 1 insert

``(less $8,000,000)'' before ``to remain''.

(Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike $8 million from the legislation, from the appropriation, in order to remove the funds for the conceptual design and for the spallation source conceptual design at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory proposed there for Oak Ridge.

After the cancellation of the advanced neutron source, which we canceled out, the Department proposed ANS-lite, the spallation source, to provide work at Oak Ridge for the scientists whom DOE had promised the ANS.

It appears to me, when we look at this program, even though there may be some worthwhile end results if the project is carried out, at this time when we have the budgetary restraints that we have, I think we need to review these types of projects before they actually get started and say, now, is this really where we want to put our money and how much is it going to eventually cost and where are we going to get the money from to fully fund it, all the way down the road to carry out this project?

I am sure that nobody wants to sit here and start a project and then 2 years from now or 3 years from now when you have gone down that road and spent so much money, find out, hey, it is going to cost too much. That is exactly what ANS is all about, the advanced neutron source. That is what we did.

Should we do it again? I say no. I would say that we should not do it again. I really do not believe that we should use taxpayers' money to keep Federal employees, even though they may be real good scientists, some of them our best scientists, and other ancillary employees that assist them and work there, that we should be spending money to come up with scientific projects because their project which they thought they would be working on got canceled.

I believe that just like when we have base closings, just like when we cut back on USDA employees, everyplace else, that those Federal employees have to suffer like everybody else is going to have to suffer under these budgetary times.

The second thing I would like to point out is that it is projected that even though we may be just starting out with a design stage, $8 million for design, that it is projected that the total cost of this by the time you get through with construction and everything is going to be around $1 billion. It is $1 billion out of this budget, out of this appropriation. That has to come from somewhere, folks. Is it going to come from other research projects? Is it going to come from renewable resources? We just had a vote on that. That committee has already cut back. They did not like that amendment. Does it mean further cuts in those projects, in those type of programs, in that type of research? It is going to mean cuts somewhere in order to have a research program that is questionable as to whether we actually have to do it.

The other thing that really concerned me about this, it is supposedly because the ANS project was being done at Oak Ridge, that Oak Ridge is going to end up with this, too, even though there is no question about it that Los Alamos is a lot better equipped to do this if you are going to do it.

Why did the DOE not decide to let the various laboratories bid on it just like they do other projects? Why did they not say, let's open it up, let's have a bid on it, and let the various laboratories decide which one would do it. Oh, no.

The reason is, and I will go back to it, the reason is, it is a jobs program. It is a $1 billion jobs program from Oak Ridge, TN. They do not want their scientists to be unemployed.

I have a whole bunch of people out there, folks, that are not working. I have a whole bunch of them. If they are going to do this for scientists who make $100, $150,000, $200,000, $75,000----

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Volkmer was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to do this in order to keep these scientists on the payroll rather than telling them that,

``Sorry, we're not going to do this, we're not going to expend this money to keep you on the payroll,'' we are going to keep them on the payroll, why do we not say, ``We're going to help the other poor people with school lunches, we're not going to cut back on Medicare for our senior citizens''?

No, no. No, no. It appears that right now they would much rather pay high-priced scientists to keep them on the payroll than it would be for other people in this country. I do not think that that is a very good idea. I never have.

{time} 1300

I have said the same thing when it comes to military procurement; if we do not need a certain airplane or we do not need submarines or aircraft carriers anymore, I do not think we should keep shipyards in business. I do not think we should keep aircraft manufacturers in business just to keep people on the payroll.

But that is what this project does is keep people on the payroll down at Oak Ridge rather than say to them, ``No, you are going to have to go find a job elsewhere.''

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the proper intent of our colleague and friend from Missouri to save money and try to help us with this patriotic challenge to balance the Federal budget.

I tell you, we are at a critical time right now with this issue on this floor of the U.S. House of Representatives as we move forward to not make dramatic mistakes in this country. We have got to separate good sense from nonsense, and I will tell you right now, to say that scientific investment in basic research that will not be accomplished by the private sector, we know that anyone that knows, and I am not a scientist but I understand, and I know a lot of real good scientists, and I do represent Oak Ridge, TN, and I am proud some of the finest scientists in the world Nobel Prize winners, like Dr. Cliff Shull, in neutron science, are in Oak Ridge, TN.

I take great disagreement with the gentleman from Missouri in what he called a jobs program. This is about research in the areas of pharmaceuticals electronic materials, metallurgy, ceramics, chemistry, biology, superconductivity, condensed matter, physics, and let me walk you though briefly where we have been on this issue.

The advanced neutron sources was a major project. It was what President Reagan would call throwing the ball deep on staying ahead of the rest of the world with respect to research and technology. It was too expensive, sir. Maybe $3 billion, if it would have been built, a lot of money. It was also a nuclear-based, reactor-based project.

We had a nonproliferation problem that we were going to have to address with the reactor-based neutron project. This new project is an accelerator-based project, not a nuclear reactor-based project.

So you do not have the waste problem to deal with, and you have far less expense.

But here is the critical issue: We in the new Republican majority are trying to make statements about basic research versus applied technology, separating the role of the private sector from the critical need for the Federal Government of the United States of America to continue making basic investments so that we stay competitive globally, so we can, sir, save lives, and I mean that.

When you are talking neutron science, you are talking about potential cures for severe medical problems, major breakthroughs.

So, here, are we going to be just absolute libertarians that the Federal Government should even barely exist or not exist at all, or are we going to say in a very conservative budget balancing, stand firm in your conviction, so that the Federal Government has a legitimate role in certain key areas, and that is basic research? And this is at the most basic level, sir, a very good investment, and this is not particularly where this facility is going to be built. We have not selected where the neutron source is going to be built.

This is where the design is going to take place, and this is $8 million. Last year's budget for the ANS was $20 million. We are retreating from that because this is a time of belt tightening and budget restraint. We are doing that.

But we have got to continue the design in this direction so that we are prepared if this Congress makes the decision next year and the year after and

the year after to go forward with the construction of this project to say this is where it should go.

I would respectfully disagree, strongly, that Los Alamos is the place for this project because we have been working on this project in Oak Ridge since the inception of neutron science.

Our national competitiveness is at stake. This project warrants our support. It is a small amount of money, and if we in this fever, and I am glad that the fever pitch is here, to balance the budget and cut spending, but this is where I will guarantee you this Congress is going too far if we just say let us just discontinue funding in all of our basic research efforts in science and technology in this country. We will live to regret this if we go forward with killing this initial design money.

The scientists and the technological community agree, including the leaders of the University of Missouri, where our sponsor of this bill hails, support this project.

I clearly believe we need to defeat the Volkmer amendment and stand up for the basic research that this Federal Government can do well.

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, this has been a very discouraging day in the House. I have watched peer review science being just put aside by this House in almost a mindless cannibalism of basic science programs. That is a very, very disturbing kind of thing.

If this country is going to move in important ways into the next century, the thing we need is new discovery and new knowledge. This Congress, on this floor today, is putting aside our commitment to the new discovery and that new knowledge, and we are doing so in almost a gleeful way. It is almost fun; you know. ``Here is a project that I do not understand the title of, so it cannot be worth anything. Let us just throw it away.'' And that is exactly what is happening out here today.

It is very discouraging because if this country is going to lead in the global economy, we had better be able to produce the new products of the future.

The gentleman from Missouri a few minutes ago talked about jobs. Where in the world does he think jobs are going to come from if we do not develop the new knowledge and new discoveries that make it possible to create those jobs? I mean maybe he thinks we can be a nation of hamburger flippers and so on that has no economic base to compete in the global economy. Maybe he thinks that is where we are going to find those jobs.

But this amendment, this amendment suggests we are going to go even further down the pike than we have gone before in terms of wiping out the commitment this Government and this Nation should have to basic science.

Now, I am the first to admit this is money we have spent in the name of science over the past years that has not been very good investment, and we ought to take care of that and we ought to make certain we prioritize science.

What we have said, as we prioritize, is that basic science ought to be our goal. This amendment goes after a core basic science program.

Let me tell you what the payoff could be in terms of jobs: Neutrons are an indispensable tool for research in nearly all areas of physics, chemistry, biology, health and materials. Much of the research using neutrons is important to fulfilling the

scientific and technological missions of the Department of Energy and will have large technological and economic payoffs, particularly in fields like polymer technology, hydrogen-containing materials, high-

temperature superconductors, and the structural studies of catalytic and biological materials. I cannot think of a thing more important in terms of this Nation in terms of developing products of the future and communication skills than to have high-

temperature superconductors.

This is the underlying research we are talking about here to doing high-temperature superconductivity, and the gentleman wants to wipe it out, do away with it. I cannot imagine why that makes sense.

The fruits of neutron research will impact the development of new products such as high-tech plastics that are lighter and stronger, that are lighter and stronger than steel. It will allow us to build new generations of silicon chips for electronics. It means better computer disks and video tapes. It means better pharmaceuticals. It means high-

performance magnets for motors, and transformers. Those are the things that are going to produce the jobs in the next century. In the knowledge economy of the next century, those are all the items where we are going to be the job generators of the future.

And we want to kill it on the floor today? We have killed off several other basic research programs that are going to take away from the future, and the gentleman from Missouri stands up and wants to kill off another one. It makes absolutely no sense. It is discouraging and disappointing.

If you really do believe that science has something to do with this Nation's ability to do the economy of the future, then, by golly, do not vote for this amendment, and stop voting for some of the rest of them that are out here that are mindless cannibalism of basic research.

It is time we stand up for the future, and this amendment is a regression into the past.

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I was just struck in listening to the gentleman who just spoke about his moral outrage at the cut of basic science.

Now, I share his concern that basic science can be a producer of jobs in the future, but to come on this floor and express the moral outrage that he expressed in this Congress' cutting basic science, I wish I could have heard him express the moral outrage when we cut in this House, based upon the Republican rescissions package, money for women and infants and childrens programs, money that goes to help pregnant women deliver healthy babies, and you are talking about making an investment in this country's future.

I will tell you where the Democrats make their investment. The Democrats make their investment in people, because we know in this country we are not going to be a strong country if we produce babies that are sick babies, who do not have the nutrition they need, but the Republicans did not express that moral outrage when it came to cutting the WIC program. The Republicans did not express the moral outrage when it came to cutting the Meals on Wheels Program or cutting the programs that help our senior citizens.

And this morning when we were in the well of the House speaking on the 1 minutes, I kept hearing how the Democrats refused to reform health care; the Republicans are stuck with cutting $280 billion from Medicare over the next 7 years, and when I spoke, I spoke about Herb McCollock in my district who is going to be spending on average 100----

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. No, I will not yield.

On average----

Mr. WALKER. Will the gentleman not yield?

Mr. VOLKMER. The gentleman from Rhode Island has the floor. I would appreciate it if the gentleman would----

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island controls the time.

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

Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to carry on.

Like I said before in my presentation, there is no question about it, ANS was ended because ANS was going to cost too dang much money. We already had spent millions of dollars on it; throw it away, throw it away.

But we had people on the payroll down there. We have got to keep them working. But we do not worry about, like the gentleman from Rhode Island says, we do not worry about young women that are out here going to have babies; because they are poor, tough, you are not going to get any help. We do not worry about the senior citizens in my district who are going to have to pay over $100 a month on Medicare part B in a few years under their program. We do not worry about them, because they are only getting $300 or $400 a month Social Security. You are going to take it and do that.

And you say, ``No, we need basic research.'' Yes, we need basic research. But, like I said, we have got to establish priorities.

Theirs is they want the scientists. They want them to have the money. I, like the gentleman from Rhode Island, I want to take care of the people that are here today that are suffering, and under your programs, they are going to suffer a heck of a lot more.

I do not see that as a very good priority. To me that is the question here today: Whether you want to keep scientists who make over $100,000 a year on the payroll or if you want to say ``no'' to them, and we are going to help other people out here, we are going to help that young mother that is going to have that baby so that she has a healthy baby, so that she does not have to have an operation or something in order to have that baby, so that she does not have to worry about it, so that she can get just plain old milk and help, you know, for the baby.

Why are my senior citizens, you know, the gentleman, the chairman, you come from a State that has a little cold weather. I have cold weather. But LIPEAP is gone. LIHEAP is gone, lower-income energy assistance. I did not hear the gentleman from Pennsylvania yelling about that. I have got senior citizens out home this winter, come this winter they are going to have a heck of a time. They are going to have to make a decision whether they want to eat or heat their house.

Yes, folks, they are going to have to make that decision. And yet you say let us pay today, let us pay $100,000, $150,000 to these scientists to keep them on the payroll. But you will not give me 1 penny, not 1 penny to help my low-income people pay heating bills this winter.

Well, folks, to me that also is a lot of what we are talking about here today. You can talk all you want about basic research. I am saying it is priorities.

I want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island. He hit the nail on the head. We are interested in people.

{time} 1315

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] for yielding because I think we have just gotten the perfect explanation of the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, the difference between the minority and majority, and thank goodness the American people, in their wisdom, have helped us have a majority that is in the right direction.

The difference is, and the two gentlemen, one from Rhode Island and one from Missouri, have just described it:

The Republicans are for knowledge. We are for science and knowledge. The Democrats are for welfare. The Republicans want to put money into trying to get new knowledge for the future so that we can produce the jobs of the future. The Democrats want to increase and expand the number of welfare checks we pay in the future. The Democrats believe that the way in which you advance into the future is to grow welfare programs bigger, and bigger, and bigger so that more and more people are not working, but are simply getting a check from Government, while what we want to do is grow the science of the country so that everybody can work in the future and we will have no need for welfare checks.

That is a big difference. We have having it defined on the floor.

The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer] has just perfectly described his amendment. His amendment is in favor of cutting back on the development of new discovery and new knowledge in favor of welfare checks. He wants to make certain that we have enough money to continue to pay welfare checks even if it comes out of the hide of the science programs needed to produce the jobs in the future. The gentleman says right now we want to focus on spending the money on the people here right now. We have already accumulated massive debt for the people in future generations, and what we are now saying is we want to continue to spend the money for all of that, continue to pile on the debt and hand them the bill in the future, and also hand them no new knowledge, no new discoveries, and, therefore no new jobs.

It is the perfect description of the difference between the two parties, the party of welfare and the party of knowledge.

Now I got to tell my colleague, ``If you think the next century is going to be the century where we are going to develop the welfare economy, the Democrats are your party, and they just defined themselves. If you believe the next century is going to be the knowledge economy, that we are going to have the information economy, then you've heard them describe the situation. You ought to vote against this amendment and then vote for expanding new opportunities for knowledge and discovery.''

This is the perfect prescription. I am glad we have had this debate. The gentleman from Rhode Island and the gentleman from Missouri have described it perfectly:

The Democrats, the party of welfare; the Republicans, the party of knowledge.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania another way of putting it is the old saying, ``You can either give a man a fish and feed him for a day, or teach him how to fish, and he can feed himself for the rest of his life.'' That is the question of opportunities. Pure science will provide us with those jobs of tomorrow or teaching people how to fish. Clearly this amendment is to give them a fish to feed them for a day. We ought to defeat it and teach them how to fish so that the opportunity for jobs tomorrow will be there.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, we have not heard pure science. We have heard pure bunkum. Let me simply tell my colleagues what the real differences are between the parties as I see them.

Let me stipulate I think both political parties have had a fine tradition in this country. But I think there are some very distinct differences between our party today and theirs, and they do not have to do with who wants to write welfare checks.

I sat last night in the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and I saw that committee take a number of specific steps which cut the guts out of efforts to help middle-class working families, not welfare recipients, but people who work and sweat every day to make enough money to keep a decent living standard, take care of their grandparents, take care of their parents and worry about sending their kids to school at the same time. And I saw that subcommittee last night cut $2 billion dollars out of, not welfare programs, but education programs to provide help to local school districts. The next biggest whack came at the expense of low-income elderly, disabled and poor kids, a billion and a half dollars cut from programs such as Healthy Start and Head Start. Head Start has been demonstrated to produce less welfare dependency, fewer pregnancies, and less high school dropout tendencies than kids that have not gone to Head Start programs.

The next biggest cut came in programs to train people to get them off welfare.

We hear people in this place talk out of both sides of their mouth and do a duplicitous routine, pretending they are really going to go after welfare. But then, when it comes right down to it, what happened last night is that they gutted virtually every program to help take people off welfare and get them into training programs and working programs. Example: displaced worker program.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, how many of you voted for NAFTA? or GATT? I did not because that was an elitist rip-off of working American and working people, but what did they do? What did they do? They wind up, they wind up saying that for displaced workers--and these are not welfare cases--these are people who worked for 20 and 30 years, and now being put out of jobs and are asking after they paid taxes for a long, long time to finally get some of that money back in order to help retrain them for a decent job. And what did your party do last night in Labor-H? They cut the guts out of programs like that. Then what you have done, you have also attacked the NLRB. You made it easier for corporations to violate wage and hour restrictions. You made it easier for them to set up bogus pension systems. You made it easier for them to treat workers like cattle.

Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, you bet you there is a difference between the parties. What is happening in this country is we are ceasing to be a country with a large and growing middle class. Fewer and fewer people are getting tickets into that middle class, and a whole lot more people who used to live like middle-class workers are now thinking of themselves as being lower-class workers, poor workers. And what is happening is, you are taking actions which seriously damage the ability of this society to stay tied together regardless of income because of your attack on working people, your attack on the poor. And yet you stand here, and you have done it on a number of votes today and yesterday, you have defended corporate welfare, all if it's for the nuclear industry. If it is for Westinghouse, if it is for GE, oh, my God, shovel the money out the door. We can't spend it fast enough.

It just seems to me there is a big difference between the parties. We all have our faults, and frankly we deserved to lose the last election because we were lousy salesmen, we fought among ourselves, and we got diverted on some issues we should not have been diverted on, and the public taught us a lesson. Frankly I think it was good for our party that they did, but my colleagues are misreading that election if they think that election produced a battle cry from the American people to cut working people, cut education, cut health care, cut Medicare, but oh, by all means, keep corporate welfare.

Baloney.

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

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the gentleman from Pennsylvania who spoke earlier that this money does not go to welfare if this amendment carries. The money stays unspent. It does not increase the deficit; it reduces the deficit. So, if the gentleman is really interested in balancing the budget, he would vote for this amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has expired.

(On request of Mr. Volkmer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

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

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. VOLKMER. Got to remember we have got to borrow the money to spend this $8 million to keep these scientists on the payroll. That is what we are going to have to do.

Now it is not only corporate welfare who benefits. We heard the gentleman from Pennsylvania talk about all the things that will naturally flow from this basic research.

Impossible. It is a possibility; it is not a necessary. It is not that it will happen. It is a problematical out there. In the meantime we are spending all this money, and we are making the cuts.

I would just like to point out, and the gentleman mentioned I did not know this, that in the retraining programs under NAFTA, Mr. Chairman, they have cut that money? I just had a plant close in my district in the last month. In a small town the largest employer is going to Mexico; they are going to Mexico. Now, if they have gone ahead and proposed to cut those funds, I do not know what those people are going to do. That was our last hope, the only hope. There is no other plant out there. This is a farming community. We do not have another plant for them to go to work at.

Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out just one other thing.

The Federal Reserve, not exactly a left-wing pinko, Democratic institution. They have just completed their second study of wealth in this country; and what that showed is that in the 1980's we saw the richest one-half of 1 percent of American families increase their share of national wealth from 24 to 31 percent of the total national wealth. They increased their wealth by $2 trillion, more than twice as much as the national debt went up during that same period. And yet they want to give them more. They want to cut back on programs for working people to give tax cuts to people who make $200,000 a year, and then they want to defend themselves as defenders of the middle class?

What a joke.

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

Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. VOLKMER. They also want to repeal the EITC, the earned income tax credit.

Mr. OBEY. Which raises taxes for lower-income people.

I say to my colleagues, you're real friends of the working folks; aren't you?

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, somehow we strayed away from the intent of this particular amendment, and the program that the gentleman's committee put in here got away to why we are in such straits we are today. I guess I am not quite the oldest person here, but pretty close to it. This House has spent 40 years spending itself into prosperity that the gentleman talked about.

Now we ask for a small investment here in our future, that we might be competitive in the world. I can recall 40 years ago as a teenager working for an industry. That industry is not here any more, and I say to the gentleman, Mr. Obey, I didn't vote for GATT, I didn't vote for NAFTA. I don't know where that puts me; in no man's land I guess. But I am still concerned about the future. I am concerned, and this committee is concerned, about children, healthy children, women, and infant children, in another appropriation bill providing for them. But, if we do not have jobs in this country, if we are exporting all the jobs, importing all the products that we now import that we once produced in this country because we do not have the technology today to be competitive in the world, how are we going to pay the taxes to do these things you are talking about?

So I remember years ago we were in business, a family business. My dad wanted to cut everything out. No investment; he did not want to take any chances. Yet the money coming in the front door, but do not invest anything and get more people coming in the front door. I remember my dad was a great businessmen, better than I will ever be, but I tried to talk my dad into making some investment, and we finally did, and we did double the business.

So this is where we are today as a nation. Do we want to say we are going to save $8 million here, a drop in the bucket? I know it is a lot of money, but a drop in the bucket when we are thinking about being competitive in the world. This is what we are trying to do here, provide this resource that we can provide the tools that industry can be more competitive in the world, and this is all we are asking for.

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

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. ROEMER. I would just say, and I feel fascinated, as my colleagues know, in listening to the debate, and, apart from the debate on the merits, on the scientific merits, and the research and so forth in this particular argument, I would encourage my colleagues on the floor and listening in their offices that, if we are going to have good technology jobs, many of which are at Oak Ridge, if we are going to have good scientific jobs in the future, we have got to support Head Start programs. We cannot cut those Head Start programs. That will be coming to the floor in about 2 weeks, as the gentleman from Indiana knows, but we certainly cannot be cutting title I funds. We certainly cannot be taking 60,000 young kids off of Head Start rolls. These kids are the future for the Oak Ridge Laboratories, and for national laboratories, and for our scientific base and for these good jobs that are going to lead this country forward in the 21st century.

So, I would say, if we are going to be consistent here, if we are going to invest in young people, and science, and basic research, I would say that when this Education, Labor, HHS bill comes up, I would hope that we would join together in a bipartisan way to support the educational endeavors in this country.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] is entitled to his opinion here. I am afraid he is putting the cart out in front of the horse here.

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield one more time?

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

{time} 1330

Mr. ROEMER. I do not think the horse is in front of the cart or the cart is in front of the horse at all. I think the two are directly interconnected. If you cannot invest in your people and education----

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Where are these young people going to work? In Japan, Germany, Latin America, someplace, in GATT? Where are they going to work if we do not create the technology in this country? That comes first or you are not going to have jobs. They are not going to pay the taxes to do the things we want to do for the children. We want to do it, but you have to have the investments first.

Mr. ROEMER. If you cannot have the young people with the knowledge, skills and talent to work with this high technology, then you are going to have a problem.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Let us discuss that in a bill coming up in a couple weeks. We are talking about $8 million.

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

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WALKER. The fact is that would be one of the reasons why this Nation has a good education program, and we should continue to have a good education program, because we do pursue new knowledge and new discoveries. The fact is that the way in which we pay for most education is paid for at the state and local level through moneys gleaned from profitable businesses and from homeowners and all those people who profit from having real jobs.

Now, the fact is that when we go after the underlying new discoveries that will produce the jobs of the future, we are undermining our ability to continue to do all the good things that these gentlemen have talked about.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. We spent 40 years doing it their way.

Mr. WALKER. Average middle-class Americans, the working man that we all want to support, deserve to have jobs not only now, but in the future. That is what this issue is all about here, is whether or not we are going to create those jobs for the new discoveries.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148, noes 275, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 490]

AYES--148

AckermanAllardBaeslerBaldacciBarciaBarrett (WI)BecerraBeilensonBentsenBoniorBorskiBrown (CA)ChabotChapmanClayClaytonColemanCollins (IL)Collins (MI)ConditConyersCostelloCoyneDannerDeFazioDeLauroDellumsDeutschDicksDingellDoggettDoyleDurbinEdwardsEngelEnsignEshooEvansFarrFattahFazioFields (LA)FlakeFogliettaFordFrank (MA)FurseGephardtGerenGreenHall (OH)HarmanHastings (FL)HincheyHoldenHostettlerJackson-LeeJacobsJeffersonJohnson (SD)JohnstonKanjorskiKapturKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KildeeKleczkaKlinkLaFalceLantosLevinLewis (GA)LincolnLipinskiLoweyLutherMaloneyMantonManzulloMarkeyMartinezMascaraMcCarthyMcDermottMcHaleMcInnisMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMenendezMfumeMiller (CA)MingeNealNeumannOberstarObeyOlverOrtonOwensPastorPayne (NJ)Peterson (FL)Peterson (MN)PetriPomeroyPoshardRahallRangelReedRiversRothRoybal-AllardRushSaboSandersSchroederSchumerSensenbrennerSerranoShaysSkaggsSkeltonSlaughterStarkStenholmStokesStuddsStupakTaylor (MS)TejedaThompsonThorntonThurmanTorresTownsTuckerVelazquezVentoViscloskyVolkmerWatersWatt (NC)WaxmanWoolseyWydenYatesZimmer

NOES--275

AbercrombieArcherArmeyBachusBaker (CA)Baker (LA)BallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBereuterBermanBevillBilbrayBilirakisBishopBlileyBluteBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBoucherBrewsterBrowderBrown (FL)BrownbackBryant (TN)Bryant (TX)BunnBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCardinCastleChamblissChenowethChristensenChryslerClementClingerClyburnCobleCoburnCollins (GA)CombestCooleyCoxCramerCraneCrapoCremeansCubinCunninghamDavisde la GarzaDealDeLayDiaz-BalartDickeyDixonDooleyDoolittleDornanDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEverettEwingFawellFields (TX)FilnerFlanaganFoleyForbesFowlerFranks (CT)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrisaFrostFunderburkGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGreenwoodGundersonGutknechtHall (TX)HamiltonHancockHansenHastertHastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHeinemanHergerHillearyHilliardHobsonHoekstraHokeHornHoughtonHoyerHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJohnson (CT)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamJonesKasichKellyKennellyKimKingKingstonKlugKnollenbergKolbeLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLaughlinLazioLeachLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LightfootLinderLivingstonLoBiondoLofgrenLucasMartiniMatsuiMcCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcHughMcIntoshMcKeonMeekMetcalfMeyersMicaMiller (FL)MinetaMinkMolinariMollohanMontgomeryMoorheadMoranMorellaMurthaMyersMyrickNadlerNethercuttNeyNorwoodNussleOxleyPackardPalloneParkerPaxonPayne (VA)PelosiPickettPomboPorterPortmanPryceQuillenQuinnRadanovichRamstadRegulaRichardsonRiggsRobertsRoemerRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoseRoukemaRoyceSalmonSanfordSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchaeferSchiffScottSeastrandShadeggShawShusterSisiskySkeenSmith (MI) Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SolomonSouderSpenceStearnsStockmanStumpTalentTannerTateTaylor (NC)ThomasThornberryTiahrtTorkildsenTorricelliTraficantUptonVucanovichWaldholtzWalkerWalshWampWardWatts (OK)Weldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerWilliamsWilsonWiseWolfWynnYoung (AK)Young (FL)Zeliff

NOT VOTING--11

AndrewsBrown (OH)FoxGutierrezHefnerLongleyMoakleyOrtizReynoldsSprattTauzin

{time} 1352

Messrs. NEY, UPTON, SMITH of Michigan, COBURN, CUNNINGHAM, and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to

''no.''

Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?

If not, the Clerk will designate title IV.

The text of title IV is as follows:

TITLE IV

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION

For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as amended, notwithstanding section 405 of said Act, and for necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman and the alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission and for payment of the Federal share of the administrative expenses of the Commission, including services as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, to remain available until expended,

$142,000,000.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456, section 1441, $17,000,000, to remain available until expended.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Salaries and Expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, including the employment of aliens; services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; publication and dissemination of atomic information; purchase, repair, and cleaning of uniforms, official representation expenses (not to exceed $20,000); reimbursements to the General Services Administration for security guard services; hire of passenger motor vehicles and aircraft, $468,300,000, to remain available until expended, of which $11,000,000 shall be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That from this appropriation, transfer of sums may be made to other agencies of the Government for the performance of the work for which this appropriation is made, and in such cases the sums so transferred may be merged with the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That moneys received by the Commission for the cooperative nuclear safety research program, services rendered to foreign governments and international organizations, and the material and information access authorization programs, including criminal history checks under section 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, may be retained and used for salaries and expenses associated with those activities, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and collections estimated at

$457,300,000 in fiscal year 1996 shall be retained and used for necessary salaries and expenses in this account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced

by the amount of revenues received during fiscal year 1996 from licensing fees, inspection services and other services and collections, excluding those moneys received for the cooperative nuclear safety research program, services rendered to foreign governments and international organizations, and the material and information access authorization programs, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1996 appropriation estimated at not more than

$11,000,000.

Office of Inspector General

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, including services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, $5,000,000, to remain available until expended; and in addition, an amount not to exceed 5 percent of this sum may be transferred from Salaries and Expenses, Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Provided, That notice of such transfers shall be given to the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate: Provided further, That from this appropriation, transfers of sums may be made to other agencies of the Government for the performance of the work for which this appropriation is made, and in such cases the sums so transferred by be merged with the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and collections shall be retained and used for necessary salaries and expenses in this account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of revenues received during fiscal year 1996 from licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and collections, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1996 appropriation estimated at not more than $0.

NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD

Salaries and Expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section 5051, $2,531,000, to be transferred from the Nuclear Waste Fund and to remain available until expended.

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Tennessee Valley Authority Fund

For the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, as amended (16 U.S.C. ch. 12A), including purchase, hire, maintenance, and operation of aircraft, and purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles, $103,339,000, to remain available until expended.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title IV?

amendment offered by mr. klug

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Klug: Page 25, line 6, strike

``$142,000,000'' and insert ``$0''.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that we have before us now, my colleagues, is an amendment offered by myself, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], and also the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton].

I would like to congratulate the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], and the hard work the committee did on making some very significant cuts already in the Appalachian Regional Commission. Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission provides additional money to 13 States, which, as you might take from the title, run along the Appalachian mountain range, stretching from New York on the north, through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. Now, keep that list in mind, if you would, Mr. Chairman, because I suspect most of the speakers we will hear from on the other side of this issue, as luck would have it, happen to fall from the 13 States which are directly affected by this money.

Since 1965, we have spent more than $7 billion in the Appalachian region, trying to bolster economic growth in these 13 States. And I think to ask ourselves, Mr. Chairman, what have we gotten for that $7 billion of investment and why it is 30 years later we are still trying to fund the exact same programs?

What the Appalachian Regional Commission does is essentially allow 13 States in this country to double dip into infrastructure money, money to do economic development, and money also to do highway and water construction and projects like that.

I do not begrudge my colleagues for this additional help because clearly in 1965, when we first established ARC, there was a clear economic need that these States and many of these specific regions were disadvantaged compared to the rest of the country. But here we are again, 30 years later still spending millions of dollars trying to jumpstart the economy of 13 States.

I have to ask my colleagues from the Southeast, what is it that makes a community in Alabama or a community in Tennessee or a community from West Virginia or Virginia or New York that is poor different from a community in Wisconsin, or New Mexico, Oregon, or Idaho, or Utah, or whatever the case might be?

I think this was a well-intentioned program

established in 1965. Frankly, it has long outlived its usefulness. While it was established in 1965, it did not take very long for President Nixon to put ARC on the radar screen, but the Nixon administration could not beat it. The Reagan administration tried as well, Mr. Chairman, back in the 1980's and found themselves equally unsuccessful. And I think this is the great challenge for this Congress.

As I was saying, there was an election last fall that I think challenged this Congress to a new mandate. The mandate was to make tough decisions about spending and to begin eliminating programs that could no longer be justified. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] and I, Members of the Tennessee delegation, I think, will have a similar argument a short time on the Tennessee Valley Authority established back in the 1930's. And here we are with the Appalachian Commission established in 1965 to fund development money for these projects.

Now, listen to this, which, I think, is going to be interesting. There is little evidence that ARC has contributed to the long-term economic health of Appalachian. During the 1980's, there was strong economic growth in the Appalachian region. ARC's budget was cut by over 40 percent during the same period. And unbelievably, unemployment rates fell by 38 percent.

So there is clearly no correlation in ARC money with what is going on in those areas. It has to do with economic development and the growth of the country as a whole.

Now, let me point out some of the very important projects that we have managed to fund over the years with the Appalachian Regional Commission, beginning just back in February, when to develop the economic region of the country they paid--they did not pay; taxpayers paid--$750,000 to help the Carolina Panthers build a new football facility. We had a little team up in Green Bay called the Green Bay Packers. I have to tell you, there is not one Federal dollar involved in Lambeau Field. The Packers have been around since 1920. Why is it that the Federal Government is building football stadiums?

Along the way, we have also helped build the Alabama Music Hall of Fame, a program to attract German travelers to West Virginia, build an access road to a Pennsylvania ski resort, helped do a limestone cave display in Georgia. Let us go back to the athletic theme for a minute.

{time} 1400

There was $1.2 million for the National Track and Field Hall of Fame and, of course, the NASCAR Hall of Fame, a study on the migration of the elderly, a grant to train workers for a BMW plant, and on and on the list goes.

So here we are, Mr. Chairman, $750,000 for a football stadium, billions of dollars for a region and hundreds of millions of dollars here in 1995. I would suggest to my colleagues in this House, although many of my colleagues from much of the Southeast may fundamentally disagree, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ward], and I say it is time to put an end to the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, now we know why the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] is so opposed to the Appalachian Regional Commission. Is it the Carolina Panthers, in opposition to the Green Bay Packers, which motivates this gentleman to try to strike the entire Appalachian Regional Commission effort to end poverty in the most poverty stricken part of the country? Now we know the truth.

The real truth is the Appalachian Regional Commission works to end poverty in the most poverty stricken part of our Nation. Let me point out to the body that the poverty in Appalachia is intractable. Income in these areas is still 17 percent below the national average. The region's poverty rate is 16 percent higher than the national average. In areas like mine, the poverty rate is over 25 percent. Even with ARC funding, Appalachian counties receive 14 percent less in total Federal dollars than the rest of the counties of the State of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], even with Appalachian Regional Commission funding.

Many areas of the country have enjoyed the benefits of economic growth and expansion over many decades, but not Appalachia. Yes, on the edges there have been improvements over the years, and we are proud of that. That proves ARC works. However, there are still core counties in Appalachia that simply cannot make it without the work of the Appalachian Regional Commission. The ARC works the way I think the majority in this body would like for other programs to work. It is sort of like a block grant or Federal revenue sharing; local grassroots people involved in their problems getting their local officials involved first, then their Governor, then the Appalachian Regional Commission. All of the Governors support the ARC, Republican and Democrat, because it is the model for the future, a grassroots program with local, State, and Federal governmental involvement.

Mr. Chairman, the ARC funding in this bill has been cut in half. The chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], and ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], have done a superb job of reforming this agency. They cut the funding in half. Already ARC has been reformed.

No. 2, Mr. Chairman, the budget that passed this body contains $40 million more than this bill does. This bill is under the House-passed budget resolution, $40 million under it. It is one-half the current level, so already we have reformed, and we have cut and made it more efficient.

Mr. Chairman, please do not snuff out the life of this agency that is making so much of a difference in the lives of poor people, in a part of the country that has been ravaged by nature, by the loss of jobs in the coal and textile business, and others. Give us a chance. This organization works to help poor people help themselves from poverty. It works. Poverty rates have been halved in the region. Incomes have increased. High school graduates have doubled during this period of time.

The dollars are targeted to the most severely distressed counties, putting the money where it is really needed, in drinking water lines, sewer treatment for families without indoor plumbing, even in this day and age, and in health care clinics and hospitals in places that had none before, in job skills training for workers displaced from coal mines and textile shops, since closed.

Mr. Chairman, this appropriation bill continues the ARC, but as I have said before, it reforms it. It directs that the remaining moneys be focused on basic infrastructure and health needs. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation, and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], chairman of the subcommittee, will later tell you that they have passed through the subcommittee a new authorization bill for the ARC. It will be authorized and modified and reformed.

The facts speak for themselves. ARC works. It is a model of a conservative nature, in my judgment, that marries the best of the voluntarism in the country with local, State, and governmental help, in order to help us to walk up the stepladder on our own. That is what we most desperately want.

I hope Members will oppose the Klug amendment. Help us keep the ARC alive. We have cut it in half. It is being authorized. It is underneath the budget resolution that has passed both bodies of the Congress now, House and Senate. Please give us a chance to help ourselves. Oppose Klug.

Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. My friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], has raised some good questions, as he has on other amendments. However, I think the gentleman from Indiana

[Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] have dealt with these questions, and they have crafted a very good package for us to continue this program. The gentleman from Kentucky just stated some very strong arguments in favor of the ARC.

The ARC's mission is to equip Appalachian citizens with entrepreneurial skills and enterprise development resources they need to create self-sustaining local economies where people take control over their own economic destiny and contribute as taxpayers to the national economy.

Mr. Chairman, I know a lot of people from the rest of the country may have questions about this program, so I would like to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer], who shares our interest in this program in Alabama.

I would ask the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman agree with me that ARC is a proven example of an effective Federal, State, and local partnership that has had a dramatic effect in improving the lives of Appalachian citizens?

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

Mr. BROWDER. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. CRAMER. My colleague from Alabama is correct, Mr. Chairman. ARC, as was stated by our colleague from Kentucky, has helped in slashing the region's poverty rate in half. We have cut the infant mortality rate by two-thirds. We have reduced unemployment rates as well. However, despite these successes, this region still has very much economic needs and unmet needs. We have 399 counties that are classified as severely distressed under ARC and 115 of those counties are still severely distressed. We have come a long way, but we have not come the way that we need to go. That is why this amendment is not justified at this time.

As was pointed out by my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky, is the gentleman from Alabama aware that this Committee on Appropriations has already cut ARC funding by 50 percent from fiscal year 1995 funding level?

Mr. BROWDER. I am aware of that cut, Mr. Chairman. That is why I cannot support a further cut that would place a heavier burden on some of the most distressed communities in the country.

Mr. CRAMER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, this is not the time that Congress should consider further reductions. The Committee on Public Works and Transportation, finally referred to as the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is completing oversight hearings over ARC. We are in the middle of that oversight review.

This will be a 5-year reauthorization bill that would reform and in fact streamline ARC. This bill eliminates some of the Commission's activities and better targets its resources to the areas of greatest need. One important aspect of ARC is that it is a bipartisan program. At least it has bipartisan support.

Our Governor there in Alabama, Fob James, has stated that ARC is unique in that it is a shared partnership of Federal, State, and local governments. As such, he says ARC provides flexibility to address the needs of the people, and allows Governors and local governments to set priorities, so it is one of the few programs that is responsive to local and State needs. We only request that this program be retained and other programs in fact modeled after it.

Mr. BROWDER. Governor James' statement is right on point, and ARC is responsive to local and State needs and should be retained, Mr. Chairman. I thank

the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] for his time in support of ARC. I am sure that my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, after hearing this colloquy, wants to withdraw this amendment and let us move on with this very deserving program. I thank the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. CRAMER. I thank my colleague from Alabama for his interest and support for a program that has as its mission to help communities create self-sustaining economies.

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

Mr. BROWDER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I think it might also be interesting to point out, in addition to what the gentleman from Alabama just said, that a lot of other solid conservative Governors who are in favor of cutting wasteful spending have given wholehearted support to the Appalachian Regional Commission. Governor George Pataki of New York, Governor George Allen of Virginia, Governor Don Sundquist of Tennessee, Kirk Fordice of Mississippi, have all given the ARC their ringing public endorsements, because they realize that ARC is an example of a proven program which works, and works well. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. BROWDER. I appreciate the comments from my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi. I think that demonstrates widespread support for this program.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. We have not been a bit bashful in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to move to kill agencies, to move to substantially downsize and to streamline. We are killing the ICC, we are substantially downsizing and streamlining the Federal Maritime Commission, we are in the process of imposing tough reforms on Amtrak in order to see if it can be saved.

GSA, we have stopped the construction of courthouses. We are saving hundreds of millions of dollars through actions on our committee. Indeed, when we looked at the Appalachian Regional Commission, as I said, we have asked ourselves with all of the programs under our jurisdictions, ``What can we do here to change this program?''

I really came to two conclusions. The first conclusion was that this kind of a program is in many respects a model program. This is the kind of a program we should be urging the Federal Government and the States and the localities to adopt as a model. Why? Because the decisions are not being made by a bunch of bureaucrats here in Washington, but are being made by local officials and State officials in cooperation with the Appalachian Regional Commission, which, indeed, as Members may know, is controlled in large measure by the 13 Appalachian Governors.

I would remind particularly my Republican friends that 8 of those 13 Governors are Republican Governors, and all of them, all 13, have communicated to us their vigorous support of this program, because it is a program that works.

My good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, has talked about the boondoggles. He is right, there have been some boondoggles. There is a need for reform. That is precisely what we have done in our committee. We have changed. We have tightened up. We have said that ``if you are a severely distressed county, then you qualify for help, but if you are not a distressed county, you do not get any help.''

We have not only tightened the requirements, we have cut by $100 million a year, $500 million over the life of the next 5 years, a reduction of spending, so we have stepped up to the plate. We have reformed an already outstanding program. We have reduced spending by

$500 million.

My good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, says there is no evidence that the program works. The National Science Foundation studied it and released a report where they compared distressed counties in ARC with distressed counties that are not in ARC. What was their conclusion, not my conclusion, their conclusion? That there was a 48-percent faster economic growth rate in the severely distressed counties in the Appalachian region compared to the ones that are not in the Appalachian region. If anything, this suggests that we should be looking at this as a model program if we want to help severely distressed counties across America.

Indeed, there has been substantial progress, and that is why many of the counties in the ARC region no longer qualify under our tightened requirements. That is why only the distressed counties will be the ones which will be supported, and indeed, of the 399 counties in the Appalachian Regional Commission, virtually all of them were distressed counties 20 years ago. Today 115 of them are distressed counties.

There has been very, very substantial improvement. However, the fact remains that many of these counties are severely distressed, and as has been pointed out, the counties in the Appalachian Regional Commission, even with this ARC support, receive 14 percent less Federal funding than other counties like the counties from Wisconsin, of my good friend who has offered this amendment. Therefore, there is still a need. This is a model program. We should be vigorously supporting this program.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to close by quoting a letter from the 13 Appalachian Governors who strongly support this; indeed, a letter from Tom Ridge, Governor of Pennsylvania, a former Member of this House, who says, ``The governing structure of the Appalachian Regional Commission serves as a significant model for how the national and State governments can work together in the administration of Federal funding programs.''

In summary, there is a need for ARC; the program works. There has been abuse; we have reformed it. The ARC authorization bill provides those reforms. We have cut $500 million in spending over the next 5 years. We are doing what the people sent us here to do. That is to streamline, to reform, to reduce spending, but also to continue supporting the building of needed infrastructure for America, particularly in the pockets of poverty for America.

For all of those reasons I would urge my colleagues to join us in a bipartisan effort to defeat this amendment and support this very worthy program.

{time} 1415

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has expired.

(On request of Mr. Klug, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Shuster was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. KLUG. I just want to understand, tell me what it is in 1995 that makes a distressed county in Pennsylvania or West Virginia or Alabama eligible for funds when the same distressed application does not apply to the other 37 States?

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for this question. It is an excellent question. The reason why this should be supported is because we are not talking about an isolated county but we are talking about a region of America that has been severely disadvantaged. Indeed if my friend from Wisconsin wants to come to our committee and say that there needs to be a Great Lakes Commission, or whatever you would like to call it, to accomplish the same kind of thing that we are doing for the Appalachian Regional Commission, I welcome you to do that. I will support this kind of an effort.

No matter where we find these pockets of poverty in America, we should be doing the kinds of things that we are successfully doing in the Appalachian region. I would be very happy to support him in extending this kind of a program to other pockets of poverty across America. It is a great idea, and I welcome the gentleman to come to our committee.

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

Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. GILCHREST. I would like to make a comment, not only is it pockets of poverty in a particular region but a program like the Appalachian Regional Commission is way ahead of its time. We know it has been in effect for a few decades now. This is the kind of program that we want to use Federal dollars because it is Federal-State combination dollars. It leverages money. For every dollar we put down there, the Federal Government is going to get back $5 in taxes. But it is a model program.

We talk about block-granting programs, how can the Federal Government help these local communities in a much more efficient manner. The Appalachian Regional Commission is that model program.

Mr. KLUG. I ask the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], are these counties not already eligible for public works money and for economic development money? What I do not understand is how these 13 States are somehow different from the rest of the world.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, several years ago when I chaired the Economic Development Subcommittee in partnership with my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], we held hearings here in Washington and throughout Appalachia and elsewhere around the country in distressed areas. One of the witnesses, the mayor of Sneedville, KY, said to the committee, ``Before the Appalachian Regional Commission came along, we were so far down, we had to look up to see bottom.''

What characterized Appalachia for the nearly 100 years before 1965 was 80 acres and a mule. It was isolation.

You have heard about the hills and the mountains of Appalachia. People being isolated. It would take 30 miles for one community to visit another, to go around through the hollows. And why there were generations of intestinal illness from people drinking their own sewage because of the hard pan that would not allow the sewage to filter through, and they needed advanced sewage treatment systems and they could not afford them.

You have head about the domination of King Coal throughout the Appalachian region, and the whole purpose of ARC was to break that domination, to break the isolation, to build roads, to provide communication, to provide access to markets, to give people an opportunity, to build clinics, to provide health, to build the educational/vocational training centers and the health clinics, to give them an opportunity to get out from looking up to see bottom.

At the time the Appalachian Commission was created, the people throughout the 13-State region averaged 45 percent of the average national income. Forty-five percent. After 20 years of ARC, they were up to 82 percent of national income.

The previous speaker talked about growth in Appalachia during the 1980's. That was because of the investments made during the 1960's and the 1970's. That was because there were wise investments made, job opportunities created, industrial parks developed, vocational training centers developed, and skills and jobs came to Appalachia.

At Tennessee, we heard from Tilda Kemplin, director of a day care center, a day training center for children of poor families, who talked about how they had elevated the level of education of these children who had little children who had little opportunity.

In concluding her statement, she said, ``Gentleman, when you go back to Washington, please try to look over the top of the dollar and don't see George Washington but see a child. See a child whose life has been rebuilt and reborn.''

That is what Appalachia is all about. Sure, you can go around and you can pick up any number of projects and say, oh, that was a waste, building a stadium, building this and building that. But that is your judgment. That is a Washington judgment. Those projects were decided by people who live in the area, who have suffered with poverty, who have lost jobs, who made a decision based on a plan of economic development on what suits them best, what can help them grow. That was a local decision. You are going to say, ``We are going to substitute our judgment for yours''? No. That is wrong.

We have made changes in the way the Appalachia Regional Commission functions. During the time when I was chairman and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] was the ranking Republican, we brought that bill to the floor. We have reformed the way the Federal Economic Development Administration operates, changed the eligibility standards to terminate those counties that were grandfathered in to require new ways of determining eligibility, and those bills have passed this House on a basis of 4-to-1 votes during the Reagan administration, the Bush administration, on a bipartisan basis, because people realized that this is a commission that works, this is a program that helps people, this is a program that gets to the real needs, helps create real jobs and lift people out of poverty.

It was in West Virginia that we went to, I think it was Martinsburg, WV, where we held a hearing, and the mayor of the city took us to his little store and in back of the cash register on the wall hung a sign that said, ``God Never Put Nobody in a Place Too Small To Grow.'' God never put nobody in Appalachia to be condemned to a life of poverty.

Mr. Chairman, we are a country. We worked together to build America. Let's work to build Appalachia.

Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug amendment to eliminate funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission.

It is an amendment whose time has not come.

The energy and water appropriations bill that we are considering today already reduces Federal spending on ARC by $142 million for fiscal year 1996.

That is a real cut of 50 percent.

Sometimes in Congress we confuse the issue of cuts in spending by talking about cuts that are not actually cuts. They are just reductions in estimated future spending increases that really are not cuts at all. They are only imaginary.

That is not the case with ARC in this bill. H.R. 1905 reduces ARC spending from $282 million for fiscal year 1995 to $142 million for fiscal year 1996.

The Klug amendment proposes to go further and completely eliminate ARC. Plain and simple, this is just a bad idea.

For the poverty-stricken areas in Kentucky and the other parts of Appalachia that ARC helps, a 50-percent cut is a very, very tough hit. To wipe out ARC completely would be nothing short of disastrous.

Even now when we are finally making the tough reductions in spending necessary to balance the budget, there are scores of other Federal programs that are not getting cut by 50 percent of anything near this figure.

But we are asking ARC beneficiaries, some of the poorest and neediest people in America, to take a 50-percent hit. They are already doing their fair share and more in helping Congress to get the Nation's fiscal house in order.

Trying to up the ante to a 100-percent cut like the Klug amendment proposes literally adds insult and further hurt to an already aching injury.

The Appalachian Regional Commission is one of those rare Government programs that get results. Because of ARC, infant mortality rates in Appalachia are down 67 percent. ARC spending on education has helped double high school graduation rates.

ARC has helped put in roads to link lonely, isolated areas. It has built water treatment plants for communities that could not treat their sewage.

I know personally that in Kentucky ARC has made a real difference in the essential quality of life in the most impoverished areas in my home State.

Everyone knows that Federal agencies have to tighten their belts if we are going to balance the Federal budget. And under this bill ARC has tightened its belt plenty.

But if the Klug amendment passes, we would be tightening the belt so much that we would end up strangling the victim.

The Klug amendment asks us to take from the poorest of the poor. It is that simple. ARC is an agency that helps some of our neediest communities, and to kill it now would be a sad setback.

We are already cutting ARC funding by 50 percent. Half of the loaf is gone. It would be a sad day if we were to adopt the Klug amendment and

take the other half away.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that there are many Members of the House who have a stronger record than I do on cutting Government spending. But the Klug amendment is one proposal that goes too far.

It does not slice off the fat of Government spending. It does not just cut into bone. It rips the heart and soul out of the program. It is a wholesale amputation.

I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Klug amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I represent a place a long way from Appalachia, and I do not serve on this committee, but I wanted to rise today in support of the Appalachian Regional Commission and in support of my colleagues who understand how well it works. Both Republicans and Democrats will defend the results of the good work of this Commission.

I also rise because I want to talk about a couple of matters of the atmospherics in this House and in America which occasion amendments like this.

One of the atmospherics, it seems to me, that is beginning to seep into this Chamber is, if it is more than a couple of decades old, it is bad and it does not work anymore. Despite the fact that the data and the facts and the statistics and the evidence may show otherwise, too many people, sometimes a majority tragically in this Chamber, just go by the criteria that ``if it's more than two decades old, we've got to get rid of it, it doesn't work.'' I think that is wrong on the face of it. Let's not govern that way.

When I was first elected 17 years ago and I went to a Kiwanis or Rotary meeting, they were having a retirement lunch for a woman who had been directing that county's welfare office for I think close to 30 years.

{time} 1430

She was one of the first welfare department employees in America, and I will never forget, she said this in her little remarks, this wonderful elderly woman, she said, ``When I first went to work in this job 40-some years ago,'' she said, ``I asked how long will this job last,'' and she said, ``My boss at that time said, `Well, until the Depression goes away.' '' And she looked out at those Rotarians, and she smiled, and she said, ``You see, for thousands of people in this country, the Depression has never gone away.''

Well, that is what the Appalachian Regional Commission is about. For a lot of folks in Appalachia, the problems have not gone away. They are new to them. They are new to poverty, and this program will help lift them out as it helped their predecessors come out.

Just because it is old does not mean it does not work.

There is another atmospheric that occasions amendments like this. Let me close by mentioning that. There have been in my lifetime two great political slogans. One came in the 1960's and the other one in the 1970's. The one in the 1960's was when a young President stood out here on the East Front and said, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.'' The other great political slogan of my lifetime came in the 1970's when another President looked at America through that window, that eye of the television camera, and during a Presidential debate said, ``I will tell you what the question is, my fellow Americans: Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?''

Now, those are two very different Americas. I will take Jack Kennedy's. Support the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to my good friend from Wisconsin, but I would like to make a couple of quick points.

We all know that for every dollar that the U.S. Government spends, we do not often get that money back, but if we look at a program like the Appalachian Regional Commission, and when we spend a dollar on this particular program, very often we get at least $5 back into the Federal Treasury as a result of the infrastructure created that attracts new jobs. So I think as a program, it is powerfully positive for a region that is deserving and needs it.

The other comment is, what is the difference between the Appalachian region and some other areas of the country? My district is not in the Appalachian region. We do not have any mountains. We are not isolated. So we get no money from ARC in the first district of Maryland.

If you go to places like my good friend from Kentucky has described, and other regions of Appalachia, places like Turkey Fork, Stinking Creek, or Hell for Certain, these places are so mountainous the rivers and creeks and streams barely have room to meander through them.

What did we do with the interstate highway plan when we created that in the 1950's? We did not go through the Appalachian region, because it was too mountainous. We have decided to do that for a couple of decades with the ARC, and the highway program that can bring jobs to that community is 75 percent complete. Let us hold onto this for just a few more years.

The poverty rate is down. Infant mortality rate is down. This is a good program. It is the type of program that we want the Federal Government to be involved in.

If you are fiscally conservative and you are sensitive to the needs of people, you will vote for the ARC.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned some egregious examples of things that may have been funded by the Appalachian Regional Commission, and nobody is here to defend those projects.

I think the chairman of the Committee on Transportation Infrastructure has indicated we have undertaken numerous reforms that are going to tighten criteria for the Appalachian Regional Commission. What the gentleman from Wisconsin did not mention, however, are the many, many accomplishments the ARC has created and the job opportunities created by ARC.

Projects which have been funded by the ARC over the last 10 years are projected to create 108,000 new jobs and to help retain 80,000 more jobs. I think these are the kinds of statistics, the kinds of criteria we need to look at.

As the gentleman from Maryland has said, the highway system which really is the lifeblood of any area, if you do not have transportation in and out of your area, you are never going to be able to grow or have any kind of economic growth. We have got that system nearly completed.

The poverty rate, as has been mentioned, has been cut in half, from 31 percent to 15 percent. Infant mortality rate has slowed dramatically. We have created water and sewer systems. These are not boondoggles. These are not goldplated projects. These are the lifeblood of the community to be able to have decent water and sewer systems.

Health care, a network of more than 400 Appalachian Regional Commission-funded primary care clinics and hospitals now serve over 4 million Appalachians a year. Again, these are facilities that did not even exist in the most depressed, most hard-bitten area of our entire country.

We have had jobs skills training, small-business assistance; there have been a myriad of programs that really have made a difference that have not been boondoggles.

The gentleman from Wisconsin said you have done it all, but the fact is the job still remains to be done.

I think what needs to be emphasized here is Appalachia is not receiving any kind of special dispensation or any kind of extra help. As a matter of fact, they are disadvantaged below the rest of the

country now. They actually receive less in terms of Federal funding than any other region of the country, even with the Appalachian Regional Commission help.

But as has been indicated, there is work left to be done. The highway program is not yet complete. Per capita income is still 17 percent below the national average. The poverty rate is 16 percent higher. These are disturbing statistics.

Appalachia has made a dramatic difference, but the work needs to be continued and completed.

I thank the gentleman very much for yielding and urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for his statement.

One quick comment to the gentleman from Wisconsin: When we had the hearings on the Appalachian Regional Commission, I asked for a plan; what are we going to need to stop funding this type of program for Appalachia to come up with the rest of the country, and they have gotten to work on finding a way so that within the next 4 or 5 years this particular program will not be needed. It is a different region. The funds are necessary to complete the task. There is a plan to do that.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

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

Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] has expired.

(At the request of Mr. Klug and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gilchrest was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Mr. KLUG. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I say to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], you took some time off before you joined me here in Congress in 1990 to work out West. Is that right? Where did you work?

Mr. GILCHREST. I worked within a designated wilderness area in the Bitterroot Mountains of northern Idaho.

Mr. KLUG. So there are mountains in Idaho as there are mountains in Washington, and Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah? These may not be quite as colorful.

Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time----

Mr. KLUG. What is the difference?

Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time, let me make a distinction. Do you want to know the distinction between the Bitterroot Mountains of Idaho and the Appalachian region, the Blue Ridge Mountains and this region, the difference is the Bitterroot Mountains, and I will make a distinction with Idaho, it is a national forest, a designated area where there are very few people. There are mostly elk, bear, and so on. In the Appalachian region, in an area that has been so eloquently described by a number of Members here, is a different area because of its geography, but it is also different because you have people there.

Are you going to ask people in the area where the 25 percent of the highway has not been completed so we cannot bring jobs there, they are all going to have to move, or are we going to leverage a few dollars to create jobs for these folks?

Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of this bipartisan amendment, I am pleased to join my colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], in offering this amendment to eliminate funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Let us be clear about what this amendment is all about. If we cannot eliminate programs like the Appalachian Regional Commission, we are sending a clear message to the American public that we are not serious about eliminating duplicative Federal programs, and we will be sending a message that we are not serious about ending old-fashioned pork-

barrel programs that benefit narrow geographical interests.

That is why both the National Taxpayers' Union and Citizens Against Government Waste have endorsed this amendment.

Earlier this year the Committee on the Budget, which I sit on, passed a resolution that proposed the termination of the Appalachian Regional Commission in the next fiscal year. To quote from the committee report, it says,

There is little evidence that the ARC can be credited with improvements in the economic health of Appalachia. The programs supported by the ARC are duplicative activities funded by other Federal agencies such as the Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Program and the Department of Housing and Community Development block grant program.

Thus, like many other deficit hawks in the House, I was shocked and amazed to see the appropriations bill come out of the committee with continued funding for ARC at levels of $142 million next year.

How can we face the taxpayers of this country and tell them that we should delay our rate of deficit reduction in order to fund this duplicative, parochial program? How can we face our senior citizens and tell them that we are making cuts of almost $300 billion in Medicare over the next 7 years so that we can accommodate programs like this that benefit only a few selective geographical areas?

Finally, I would like to conclude by quoting the final sentence of the House budget resolution committee report, which argued for termination of the Appalachian Regional Commission,

The ARC provides resources to poor rural communities in areas that are no worse off than many other areas outside the Appalachian region and, therefore, no more deserving of special Federal attention.

Like many other Members, several of these poorer communities are in my district. They are no less deserving of assistance just because they are not located in Appalachia, and I will give you a specific example: San Juan County, UT, is in the top 10-percent poorest counties in the United States, the top 10-percent highest unemployment rate in the United States, the top 10-percent youngest counties in the United States. This county is not eligible for any funding from the Appalachian Regional Commission to help fund their schools or their economic development projects or their highway systems.

The real question here now, and I admire my friends, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] and the chairman of the Transportation Committee, and they have eloquently described what benefit this Commission has provided to the poor in those communities. This is not a question of whether the ARC has provided a benefit. This is not even a question as to whether or not the Federal Government can and should be involved in providing economic

assistance to poor communities, and there are many in this body who believe that the Federal Government has absolutely no role whatsoever in doing that.

But even if they assume it does have a role in doing that, why is the role limited to a regional area? Why do we not have such a program that says, ``Let us identify the 25 or 30 poorest counties in the Nation and provide assistance to those counties even though they are not in Appalachia?''

Now, the chairman of the subcommittee said to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], ``If you wish to create the Great Lakes Regional Commission, come on in, I would support you.'' How about the Mountain States Regional Commission? How about a regional commission in the Northwest, where they have been hit terribly by logging declines? How about the central farming States that have been hit terribly?

Now, for those of you in this body who believe that the Federal Government ought to be expanding and creating more commissions to pump more Federal dollars into local communities, then you will vote against this amendment. If you believe that even though we ought to be helping poorer communities we ought to help them on the basis of need and not geographic location, you will vote for this amendment. If you believe the Federal Government has no role in providing that assistance, you will vote for this amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has expired.

(On request of Mr. Rahall, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Orton was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

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

Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes an excellent point for the ARC by the example he uses that the ARC has been helpful to regional and local economies in the Appalachian region.

The EDA is now trying to take that same example and, by the reforms we are helping the EDA to make, take the successes of the ARC and spread it across the country and help regions such as the gentleman points out in Utah. But let us not zero out the ARC. It has been so successful by involving local communities at the grassroots level, taking their input and bringing it up; a bottoms-up effort. That is exactly what we ought to be spreading to the EDA as the gentleman points out.

Mr. ORTON. The gentleman really raises the crux of this whole debate. If, in fact, this body believes that we should go out and expand the concept, create more regional commissions, fund it with Federal dollars, and put the money into those regional commissions for these kinds of programs, then, in fact, they should vote against the Klug amendment. But in so doing, you have to make a choice. That means we are going to be spending not $147 million. We are going to be spending billions of dollars in putting money out into all of those other regional commissions and communities, and if we are going to do that, you have to pay for it or you are going to borrow the money from the future by increasing the deficit, and so if you are going to pay for it, you either have to pay for it by cutting other programs or you have to pay for it by raising taxes.

I do not believe this body is willing to do either of those. I do not want to increase the debt. So I would urge adoption of the Klug amendment.

{time} 1445

Mr. RAHALL. Well, the gentleman does not take into account that the ARC has created jobs over the years of its existence. Creation of jobs means revenue generated----

Mr. ORTON. But that argument is an argument that any money the Federal Government spends creates jobs and increases the economy. That argument----

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has expired.

(On request of Mr. Rogers and by unanimous consent, Mr. Orton was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

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

Mr. ORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. ROGERS. Does the gentleman's State benefit from a thing called the Central Utah Project?

Mr. ORTON. It is questionable whether the State benefits from it, but the State does receive money to build it, yes.

Mr. ROGERS. As a matter of fact, there have been over a billion dollars spent on the Central Utah Project----

Mr. ORTON. Over the past 35 years.

Mr. ROGERS. We increased the funding for that project in this bill by how much, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Four million dollars.

Mr. ROGERS. Four million dollars----

Mr. ORTON. That is a water project very similar to the TVA, a dozen other water projects throughout the Nation. It is----

Mr. ROGERS. Does the gentleman want us to zero out the project----

Mr. ORTON. Different from the ARC.

Mr. ROGERS. Does the gentleman want us to zero out that project?

Mr. ORTON. It is different from the ARC. The ARC is direct money going to communities to pay for highways, for the kinds of----

Mr. ROGERS. It is OK in central Utah, but not in Appalachia.

Mr. ORTON. The gentleman is talking about apples and oranges. He is talking about the construction of water projects which have gone out through the entire United States, or he is talking about specific funding going to local communities simply because they are located in a particular regional area.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] has expired.

(On request of Mr. Klug and by unanimous consent, Mr. Orton was allocated to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

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

Mr. ORTON. I yield to gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. KLUG. I think the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Orton] makes a good point, though I mean everybody in this Chamber's State receives some money, but the question is whether this series of 13 States gets additional money on top of the normal economic development money.

I say to the gentleman, ``Mr. Orton, for example you have mountains in Utah, and I still don't understand Mr. Gilchrest's argument that your mountains are different than West Virginia's mountains because they have more or less people in them. I mean you have ski resorts in Utah. I mean were you eligible to receive Federal funds to help build ski resorts in Utah or Colorado?''

Mr. ORTON. We did not get any money to build a road to a ski resort in Utah as they did in Pennsylvania.

Mr. KLUG. I will tell the gentleman another story. It is interesting the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] was over here talking about northern Minnesota and contrasting Appalachia. There is a Hockey Hall of Fame in northern Minnesota, not built with any Federal dollars. There is a Bowling Hall of Fame in Milwaukee, not built with any Federal dollars. But there is an Alabama Music Hall of Fame and the NASCAR Hall of Fame built with Federal ARC dollars, and that is what we are talking about is double- and triple-dipping for----

parliamentary inquiries

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the Chair has been extending the time beyond the 5 minutes, and we have gone 55 minutes now. I hate to do this, but I am going to object if the Chair extends any Member's time beyond the 5-minute allocation.

Mr. KLUG. Would the gentleman and my colleagues on the other side be willing to agree to a time-limit period at this time?

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. I say to the gentleman, if he is willing at this time.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I think we are making pretty good progress. I suppose we can go along with the procedure for a little while longer and see how we are in a few minutes.

Mr. KLUG. If the gentleman objects to a time limit, I understand.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

(Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlemen from Wisconsin, Florida, and Utah.

The Energy and Water development appropriations bill provides $142 million for the programs of the Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC]. This appropriation cuts the ARC's current year funding in half. It is

$41 million less than the President's request; it is $40 million less than the authorization which our Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development unanimously passed 2 weeks ago; and it is $41 million less than the fiscal year 1996 assumption included in the just-

passed budget conference agreement.

If we use as a baseline a hard freeze at fiscal year 1995 funding levels for the ARC, this appropriation will save $980 million over 7 years. As ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I can tell you that the ARC has contributed more than its fair share to deficit reduction.

This amendment seeks to cut what little is left and eliminate all funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Thirty years ago, Appalachia was considered a region apart because its development lagged so far behind the rest of the Nation. With the help of the ARC, the region has made great strides. Yet, one generation cannot overcome a century of neglect.

Although the ARC has helped the region make significant progress, many problems persist. These problems are particularly acute in central Appalachia, where the poverty rate is 27 percent, rural per capita income is only two-thirds of the national average, and unemployment rates are almost double the Nation's average.

The amendment which is before us would kill any effort to turn this around. It would halt development of the Appalachian Development Highway System with only three-fourths of the 3,000 mile system complete and it would cut off the ARC's funding for economic development; cutting Appalachian communities' investments in education, small businesses, and health care.

Mr. Chairman, almost 30 years ago, Congress made a commitment to Appalachia and its people. We promised to help it overcome its isolation, to enhance its quality of life, and to restore pride to this critical area of our Nation. That commitment is not yet fulfilled, and this amendment would make the situation worse.

I urge Members to oppose the amendment.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

(Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in sharp opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug]. I hope that my fellow Members of the freshman class are paying close attention. Several weeks ago I had occasion to hear an address by the Speaker of the House. In those remarks the Speaker talked about the need for dramatic decentralization of government where, and I quote,

``local folks are solving local problems with local strategies.'' Now, Mr. Chairman, I know of only one Federal program which is qualified to serve as a model for this approach, and that is the Appalachian Regional Commission. Mr. Chairman, dollar for dollar the ARC is one of the best bargains we get in Congress each year.

Now, as the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Pennsylvania related, the ARC is a model for local, State, and Federal cooperation. Under this model, local officials suggest options and refer them to their Governor. The Governor then prioritizes a list and sends it to the national office, which works in conjunction with the Governors to select applications for approval. Most of these projects are then administered locally by local planning and development districts located in the community selected.

The Federal dollars used under ARC serve to leverage many more times that amount in State and local matches. In many cases the ratio of local and State funds to Federal dollars is as much as five to one, as the gentleman from Maryland pointed out. This is a bottom-up program, not a Washington solution for local problems.

It is important for us to understand where the money goes. There is

$142 million in this bill for ARC. Of that amount 58 percent will go to the ARC highway program.

The highway portion of ARC was authorized by Congress in 1965. It is nearing 75-percent completion. By act of Congress these highways have been brought under the national highway system. These roads are every bit as legitimate as the highways in other sections of the country that have been paved with Federal dollars under the interstate system. And I can tell my colleagues from personal experience that, when ARC money assists in building four-lane highways, it means greater business growth, increased access, expanded markets, and more taxpayers for the entire United States of America.

I should also point out, Mr. Chairman, that ARC is not the kind of bloated Federal bureaucracy that we hear about a lot. This little agency has only about 50 employees nationwide. Most of the overhead is paid for by the States.

In addition, it cannot be stressed too much that ARC has been cut in half in this bill. It was funded at $282 million in fiscal year 1995. Under this bill, it is reduced by 50 percent, and, Mr. Chairman, that is real budget progress and real budget savings. Actually the energy and water appropriation bill recommendation of $142 million is less than the amount adopted by this House in the budget resolution conference report last month.

I am firmly committed to cutting the budget and cutting programs which do not work, but ARC does work, it is a program that has proven itself. It is not a Federal handout where we take money out of somebody's pocket and write somebody else a check. It develops infrastructure to create private jobs in the private sector. It is working for economic development, and, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Klug amendment and support the ARC program.

Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

(Mr. WISE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I am going to depart from my prepared remarks and deal with a lot of the issues that have been raised. The one gentleman asked why, why is a mountain different in Utah or wherever, Wisconsin, from a mountain in West Virginia, or Kentucky, or wherever. We are talking about a region. We are not talking about a mountain someplace. We are talking about a region and a common tradition, unfortunately often a common tradition of poverty, not because people were inept, not because people did not try, but because of a whole lot of cultural, historical, and industrial factors. Nobody questioned, for instance, coming out of central West Virginia, nobody questioned why it was that we had such low-energy costs for so many years. That coal had a price to it. It had a human price to it. It has a price in roads that were never built, and schools that were never funded, and children that never got educated that that coal came out cheaply and it built this country. That is one of the reasons we are in the situation we are in. Nobody ever talked about absentee ownership, the fact that from so many other parts of the country there was absentee ownership of central Appalachia, and so that is one reason.

I want to--someone asked the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure why would one county be different from another, and he properly replied because we are talking about a regional approach, not a county approach, not a city-

by-city approach, but a regional approach. I think it is worthwhile to note, my colleagues of the House, that Appalachia in fiscal year 1994 had 8.2 percent of the U.S. population, 8.2 percent, and received, even with the ARC going to 13 of the States, Appalachia received 7.5 percent of total Federal expenditures. We are 14 percent per capita below the rest of the country in Federal expenditures, and that is with the ARC, and this would now drop even more because this will cut the Appalachian Regional Commission from roughly $280 to $140 million, which incidentally in terms of the Federal deficit this year we are talking about two one hundred thousandths; that is, 0.002, two one hundred thousandths of the Federal deficit.

There have been questions about why is one county different from another. Let me make a point. Madison, WI, Dane County, median family income, $41,529; unemployment, 3.1 percent. Owsley County, KY, which came before our subcommittee, $12,200 in median family income; unemployment, 8.4 percent; poverty rate, 52 percent. We are dealing with a special set of circumstances.

The gentleman from Mississippi pointed out the value of the Appalachian regional system of highways. Studies conclusively show that in ARC counties with a four-lane ARC highway, job creation has been three times as high in as in counties that do not have that.

{time} 1500

Incidentally, this is money that is coming back to the Federal Treasury. Just recently in my district was announced an ARC grant that would create a water system to an industrial area. I calculated that based upon the average income of the jobs that will be created there, the Federal Government, the Federal taxpayer, will receive their money back in about 1\1/2\ years, of what went into the ARC, and for that they got several hundred tax paying, job holding citizens, and all of us are better as a result.

Every region has its own approach. Indeed, interestingly enough, the Economic Development Administration and others may be moving more and more towards the ARC model. I think that is important too. We are talking about grassroots up. Thirteen Governors make up this board. You apply from the local level to the statehouse, then to Washington. But the 13 Governors agree, the majority of which are members of the Republican Party this year. They all support this, as well as all the Democrat Governors. Why? Because they know it is a proven job creator.

We are talking $142 million for 13 State regions that clearly have the benefits that have been proven with the ARC.

Incidentally, the job is not done. You do not pull this one back and think you have solved something. You may have made the situation worse, particularly with the highway system that is three-quarters of the way complete. But if you do not complete it, many portions of it will never achieve the promise that they had before.

So I would urge my colleagus to reject this amendment. Appalachia has made great strides, but we still have a ways to go. This is a relatively small amount of money, that has been cut in half from what it was last year, but is so important to a 13 State region.

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

Mr. WISE. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

(Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the comments of my colleague and friend from West Virginia. The gentleman has made an excellent statement. I think the points the gentleman has made are very important. It shows the people of the Appalachian region are finally taking their economic destinies in their own hands. This is all the more important a reason to keep this program going.

The $142 million contained in H.R. 1905 for the ARC, represents a 50-

percent reduction in funds compared with fiscal year 1995--which was set at $283 million.

The ARC reauthorization bill, reported out of subcommittee, reflects a 35-percent cut in authorized funding levels--set at $182 million.

I repeat--this funding is a 50-percent cut in funding for a vitally important program--the ARC.

Many of my colleagues are arguing that they voted for the Kasich budget, and therefore will have to vote for the Klug amendment to kill the ARC.

That is no longer a fact. The budget conference report does contain funding for the ARC--Mr. Kasich having agreed to its funding in conference with the Senate.

Thirteen Governors--eight Republicans and five Democrats--

representing the Appalachian region, have asked you to defeat the Klug amendment.

Support 21 million Americans who live in Appalachia, in more than 400 distressed counties, who are just now entering the mainstream of America's economy--who are just now taking control of their economic destines and becoming contributing taxpayers. Don't take away their only means of breaking the cycle of poverty. Defeat the Klug amendment.

In addition, the ARC reauthorization bill, which has been marked up by the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development, reflects a 35-percent reduction in the authorization level for ARC in the out years.

We have done our best to be a part of spending cuts and deficit reduction with respect to ARC funding--and we believe the $142 million in this bill, down from $283 million in fiscal year 1995, reflects our fair share toward reaching those important goals.

I am reminded, Mr. Chairman, of a newspaper article from one of our State newspapers, written by a reporter who has no love for the ARC. Ironically, in his effort to be caustic about the ARC, the reporter inadvertently used words that, in fact, tell you what is good about the program.

The lead sentence in the article stated: If you drive a car, flush a toilet, or swallow a gulp of water in West Virginia, you have felt the influence of the ARC.

That statement is a statement of fact--and something I believe we can be proud of.

Indeed, the funds that have come from ARC appropriations over the years have been used to make safe drinking water available to hundreds of small, isolated communities whose children would never have been safe from disease and possible death from impure elements in their drinking water had ARC not been there to provide it. More than 700,000 Appalachians now have access to clean water and sanitation facilities.

The funds have been used to build the Appalachian Development Highway--3,025 miles of road linking rural, isolated towns and hamlets to the rest of the State--and to the rest of the world--for the first time. Through ARC funds, we were able to move towering, rugged mountains out of the path of those who needed to be able to travel beyond their small towns to find good jobs, better homes, an education--a way to break the cycle of poverty.

But aside from water and sewer projects, and aside from highway development, there is the fact that the ARC has helped develop my State's travel and tourism industry--an industry that is crucial to continued job creation in our State.

ARC has also funded adult literacy programs so that unemployed persons needing to read and write in order to find a job, can get that help. ARC helped the Governor's cabinet on children and families plan on how to distribute scarce resources so that the most needy children would be served. ARC funds assisted the State in a tremendously successful effort to teach real West Virginia State history in grades four through eight throughout the public school system. We are really proud of the way the funds have been used to upgrade the quality of education of Appalachia's children.

ARC funds have gone to create or assist 766 businesses, creating 8,000 new jobs. A network of more than 400 primary care clinics and hospitals has been completed with ARC funding, now serving 4 million Appalachians a year.

There are 13 States in the Appalachian Region--and all 13 Governors of those States--eight of whom are Republicans, five of whom are Democrats--all hope and pray that you will defeat the Klug amendment and save the ARC so that it can continue to help those living at and below poverty levels--to help raise themselves up and, as I've said before, to break the cycle of poverty that surrounds them in Appalachia.

There are more than 400 counties in the 13-State region, where 21 million people reside, and who are just now being brought into the mainstream of the American economy, making them contributors to society rather than drains on our national resources. People in Appalachia, through ARC funding, have been enabled--empowered--to take control of their lives, of their economic destinies, and become contributing taxpayers to the Nation's economy.

When I see a newspaper article, intended to deride the ARC, begin with the words, ``If you've ever driven a car, taken a drink of water, or flushed a toilet, you've felt the influence of the ARC,'' then I know that ARC is working just as it was intended to work.

For if any one of you here on this floor didn't have a toilet to flush, or didn't have safe drinking water available to you and your children, or didn't have a decent road to drive on--you'd darn well be wondering what the Federal Government was spending your tax dollars on. In West Virginia, and in 12 other Appalachian States, we're sending their taxes back to them where, at their discretion, decisions are made as to how it will be spent.

This is a model program that ought to appeal to every Member on this floor--conservative to liberal--because it sends tax dollars where they are needed, and allows the recipient population to decide where those dollars will go. The ARC model could very well be a better model than block grants for turning Federal programs back to the States.

Think about it. Reject the Klug amendment. Save the ARC.

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug amendment. You know, the gentleman is getting the reputation of cutting out projects in other parts of the United States, but I know that he leaves his projects alone and does not use the cutting knife when he should be doing so in his own State.

Mr. Chairman, I was on the Committee on Public Works and Transportation from 1963 through 1964 when the Appalachian Regional Commission was conceived and planned and worked out. I know that it is a good program. I helped start it, and it has worked miracles in the Appalachian area.

I live in the heart of Appalachia. I represent a county that was the seventh poorest in the United States. But this is not a pork-barrel bill. This is a bill that helps a region, and, in helping a region, it helps the whole United States of America. It is a good program. It should not be eliminated. Actually it should not suffer a 50-percent loss, but we are willing to accept that. But let us not cut it any further. Hungry people, people who do not have an opportunity in life, they should be building themselves up by their own bootstraps, and this gives a helping hand for them to accomplish that goal.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug amendment.

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

Mr. QUILLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the First District of Tennessee, a district they now call by his name after 33 quality years of service.

Mr. Chairman, let me say as a freshman conservative Republican Member of this body, who came here to this Congress a few months ago with the No. 1 goal of staying here to see the Federal Government's budget come into balance, I came here knowing that I represented a part of this country where TVA and the Appalachian Regional Commission have provided quality service for a number of years, and that we would have to cut spending in the programs in my backyard. And we are going to do that. This amendment and the next amendment are taking a budget and shrinking it substantially with severe cuts.

But when I took office I said to the elected representation at the local level throughout my district, will you please tell me as I go to Washington to represent the citizens that you and I represent together, what has worked the best? What is the most effective Federal programs you can refer to?

Let me tell you, the Appalachian Regional Commission was at the top of the list, time after time, because it is hard dollars for roads and gas and sewers and utilities and things that create a better economy in this region. It is a quality service, a critical service, and this is a step toward a balanced budget, a 50 percent cut in funding. This is what a conservative Republican would support, not oppose, as we seek to share this patriotic burden to balance the Federal budget across the board. The ARC has taken a 50-percent cut.

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again I urge defeat of the Klug amendment, and ask everyone to support that effort, because the Appalachian Regional Commission does a tremendously good job.

Mr. BAESLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug amendment. Rather than restate all the reasons everybody else has said, I just join in them.

Not only does the Appalachian Regional Commission make a difference in those counties and States which it serves, it makes a very big difference in those which it does not serve. My district has only eight counties that are qualified and adjoin the district of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] but because of the eight that are qualified and because the districts in Appalachia are improved, the quality of life is improved, the whole State of Kentucky benefits, not just ARC counties. It gives our whole State educational opportunities, economic development opportunities, and I urge strong support for the ARC and strong opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].

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

Mr. BAESLER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BOUCHER. I thank my colleague from Kentucky for yielding. I join him in strong opposition to the Klug amendment, which threatens the very substantial progress that we are making in the Appalachian region in our effort to become a part of the American economic mainstream.

Since 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission has been a major force in our economic progress, enabling the construction of industrial parks, water systems, wastewater systems, access roads to those industrial parks, in many instances shell buildings. We are growing economically as a consequence of what the Appalachian Regional Commission is doing. Libraries have been built, schools in our region have become more capable and have expanded their course offerings, enabling the people in our area to have access to the same kind of instruction that students in the more financially fortunate parts of the country have long had access to. Factories have opened and new jobs have been created. But we still have a very long way to go.

In my district in the southwestern part of Virginia, unemployment rates in some of our counties are in excess of 20 percent. I know that is a

situation that pertains in many of the counties that exist in the Appalachian region elsewhere across that 12-State area. The ARC is a very important part to our answer to that set of problems, and it is a wise investment in the future of our regional economy and the economy of the Nation as a whole.

It has been pointed out by some of the other speakers that when the ARC makes an investment in an industrial park or other job creating facility, that the economy expands, that the tax base expands, and that as a consequence of that, the Government more than gets its money back based upon the very modest investment that is made in Federal dollars in the first instance.

I have figures showing that for every dollar the ARC invests in an industrial park or other job creating facility, that $12 in private sector investment is stimulated. That clearly shows the very important economic effect that the ARC is having. It shows that it is a wise investment in our economic future, and for that reason I join the gentleman in his strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BAESLER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a personal note here. I grew up in the Appalachian Mountains, and I remember the little one-lane roads, the dusty dirt roads, the lack of utilities, the small one-room schools. I remember how it was.

If you go into eastern Kentucky where I came from today, you will see a tremendous improvement. We still have a way to go. But now there are nice highways, nice schools, utilities reaching into the homes, paved highways.

I remember my grandmother, you had to go about 3 or 4 miles up a hollow on dirt roads. And when it was raining, you could not get there. And I remember when she was very ill, we were concerned if she was going to be able to get out of that hollow to make it to the hospital. Today, you can drive all the way to where her home was at.

It did make a big difference, but there are still things that need to be done. There has been a cut, 50 percent, but we need to continue this program. It is working, one of the few Federal programs that does work, but the reason it does work is because of the community input into it.

I urge defeat of the Klug amendment.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I am up here because of one thing, and that is because the sponsor of this bill gave a very effective, very articulate opening statement. As I listened to that statement, had I not know better, I would have said how could anyone disagree with what the gentleman from Wisconsin is saying? How could anyone oppose this amendment?

Well, let me tell you why I am here in strong opposition to this amendment. I am here because what he said was very effective, it was very articulate, and it was very wrong.

You know, if you can close someone's mind by giving an effective opening statement, you can win a trial. Do you know that a trial can be won in a 1-minute opening statement if everybody accepts what is said as true and quits listening? But let me tell you, I am here for the reason that what was said in the opening statement is incomplete, it is inaccurate, and it certainly is not the complete story.

We were told in the opening statement that the people that you would hear advocating for the ARC were going to be from Alabama, they were going to be from Tennessee, they were going to be from West Virginia. We were not told about the gentleman from Minnesota, the gentleman from Montana, the gentleman from California, the gentleman from New York that I may yield to if I have enough time. We were not told any of that. And had you quit listening, had the Members back in their office quit listening, they might have gotten the wrong impression that this was something that only Members from the ARC States were advocating.

Not true. Let me tell you what is even worse then that, and let me tell you something about the flawed argument. When the California floods came, did I, from Alabama, come out here and say ``We have got floods in California. Knee deep?'' No. I came and I voted to assist those people.

I am from Alabama. I could have got up and said ``Let's vote for no earthquake relief in California, or the floods in the Midwest.'' I could have said you are going to hear from people in the Midwest. And the gentleman from Utah who sponsors this bill, he comes before us and says, ``We need to support the people on the Indian reservations.'' I have never come down here and said ``I do not have any Indian reservations.'' I do not have any military bases, but I vote for military expenditures.

What an outlandish, illogical argument. Let us not buy this.

Let me conclude in saying then he gave a description of the ARC which was even more inaccurate than who he said would be speaking for this amendment. This is about reducing the number of infant deaths, infant death mortality. This is about clean drinking water. This is about roads for people to get to work and haul their products. But we were told about a few examples that had been limited in the legislation before us, not something that is going to happen but something that happened before and we changed.

Finally, we are not talking about adding. We are talking about a 50-

percent cut.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

{time} 1515

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose this attempt to strip an impoverished region of precious funds.

I admit that I have little confidence in most Government programs. Since I came to Congress 3 years ago, I have always supported budget proposals that release the strangle-hold that the Federal Government has on our local communities. Washington, DC, has gorged itself on tax dollars long enough.

However, the Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] is not like most Federal Government programs. It works. I do not know of any Federal programs which involves State Governors and local officials in the decision making process more than ARC. Working through the 69 local development districts that ARC supports, projects originate at the local level, as community leaders determine what programs best serve their needs. As the 104th Congress makes historic and systemic change in the way Washington works, I believe that ARC is already performing in a way that we wish all of our Government programs could operate. It truly is a unique Federal-State-local partnership that should be used as a model for future cooperative efforts, not torn apart.

I understand that times are hard. Sacrifices must be made in all areas if we are going to get the budget deficit under control. My record reflects a strong commitment to reaching a zero budget deficit by 2002 and the subcommittee's bill addresses the necessity to reduce Federal funds for ARC programs. Mr. Chairman, as the bill now exists funding for ARC will be cut in half. That is a significant cut for a program which has in the past provided Appalachian communities with water and sewer systems, access to rural health care centers, child care centers, educational training, job skill training, and affordable housing. Nevertheless, I have heard from a number of local officials in western Maryland who insist that ARC can still play a vital role in our communities. It will simply be leaner, something that all Government programs could be.

Some Members are asking why ARC is still necessary. It has a proven track record of improving the conditions of the Appalachian region. However, the poverty rate for Appalachia is still 16 percent higher than the national average. Appalachia's per capita income is only 83 percent of the U.S. average. Over 20 percent of the youth in northern and southern rural areas grow up in poverty and an even higher 34 percent of youth in central Appalachia live in poverty. In fact, 115 of ARC's 399 counties are classified as severely distressed, which means that they suffer from unemployment rates that are 150 percent of the national average and poverty rates are at least 150 percent of the national average.

There are too many Government programs that are outdated and inefficient. The Federal bureaucracy is bloated and needs a serious diet. But gutting ARC does not address our problems, it only creates new ones. I urge defeat of this amendment and support the subcommittee's recommended appropriation.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton].

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I think we have beaten up on the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Klug] a little too much. This fellow is doing a great job in trying to cut the expenses. I do not happen to think this is a great idea for a variety of reasons.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman means his amendment is certainly not a great idea.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, absolutely. His amendment is not a good idea. I obviously support the ARC. But the thing that I want to mention is that there are two categories of expenses. One is an expense expense; the other is an investment expense. This is really an investment expense.

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] has expired.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I object.

The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.

Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

(Mr. BEVILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and in support of the Appalachian Regional Commission program. Actually in all the years that I have been in this Congress, I do not recall a program receiving the enthusiastic support that this program has received. Today made me feel proud just to have played a role and a part in funding this program, and I wish I could take credit for creating it, but actually, it was created the year before I came to Congress.

I recall, reading the act, when it was passed. It said that the Appalachian area of the United States is the most depressed area of the United States and this is to assist this area of our country to get back on its feet. And I think it uses the words, to give it an ``equal economic opportunity.'' And that is what it has done.

This is a program that is working, and we do not get to stand up here often, I am sorry to say, and say that this program has worked. This program is doing the job that the Members of Congress intended when they passed it. It is working, and it has been very effective.

I commend those of my colleagues, I notice that we had our former chairman here, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar], who is very knowledgeable about this program. He was chairman of the authorizing subcommittee. He, as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], called it a model program. He is the present chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

We had the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] here, former chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to stand up and tell us what a good program it is. These are Members that have no connection with the program whatsoever, as far as the area of the country is concerned.

I think my colleague from Alabama made a good point. When we have these emergencies in other parts of the country, we do not get up here and say, This is just regional and it should not exist. We do not get up here and say, These people do not need this help. We are not going to make this a Federal program, and it is not benefiting my State, all of that kind of thing.

This program--for example, just picking out one thing, because there are many--but this program has made it possible in the Appalachian area of this country, the most depressed area of the United States, for every person in that part of the country to be within 30 minutes of some type of medical care, the first time in history, within 30 minutes. Most of them are little rural clinics, cost practically nothing. They have a registered nurse. They have access to a doctor they can call on the phone.

The preventive medicine, my gosh, think of the children that are getting inoculations in those mountain areas now in the Appalachian area that never did get any preventive medicine before. That saves this treasury money. I am sorry you think that is bad, but I think it is good. I think it is good. It is saving the National Treasury money. It is saving the taxpayers of the whole Nation money, because it is benefiting the entire Nation.

So we could go on and on here, but you have covered it so thoroughly. We have in the Appalachian area now stronger vocational schools. We have got the health care centers I mentioned. We have got roads throughout rural areas that could not get the roads before. They are using this partnership actually, which is, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] said, it is a model program for the United States. I think it ought to be extended to cover the whole United States, because these counties now that have been lifted out of poverty and are now on their own feet and the people are working and the people are getting health care and the people are getting good training at the technology schools. And as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] pointed out, they are coming out of this program because they do not need it anymore.

But we have got 115 more counties still left in the Appalachian area that need help and are poverty stricken and that is out of 399 counties. Can you tell me another program that has succeeded like this? This is exactly what you and I on both sides of the aisle have been advocating, joint partnership, a program where the Governors approve these applications.

So I just want to point out that this program has worked and let us be proud of it and proud that it has worked because it is helping people. That is what our Federal Government is about.

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say I am here not to beat up on our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], just to make sure he is defeated in his amendment.

Also, I want to talk about Utah. I do not want to see us get into regional warfare or State-by-State warfare here. Maybe that billion is needed in Utah, but it is not apples to oranges; it is apples to rocks. It is $1 billion for a State, whether it is Utah or California, whatever area. We are talking again, about $142 million for 13 States. I am not going to belabor this point. I know we are close to a vote.

I will tell you something. There is a difference in Appalachia and a difference in the entire region. The more we pool those regions up within those States, the better off we will help surrounding States and other areas, for example, in Ohio, that will have to pay for the distressed economies in their States. In Ohio, part of us are in Appalachia, part of us are not in Appalachian; but again, it benefits the whole.

The one thing I would also tell you, I think I bring a different perspective than any other speaker. I used to work for Appalachia. I was on Appalachia's payroll, federally paid. I worked in the Ohio Appalachian office. I was program manager for education, health, and child development programs.

They paid part of the salary. We ran the show. Local development districts, for a minute, how they work in Ohio. We have real people. Tom Closser down in Marion, OH, we have John Quinlin in the Omega region, they are called local development districts. They have mayors that respond to them. They have mayors that have input. We have OMERSA program run by a gentleman named Craig Closser in Zanesville, OH, who is helping over a couple hundred schools. Small amounts of money we put in that program when I worked there in 1979, very small amounts of money, sometimes $20,000 to help with a road, with a joint, shared activity with the local government that creates 100, 300, 400 jobs.

We have reams of statistics. There may have been some bad projects, but you do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We are taking a 50-percent cut. I think that is important. These have been good projects. This is something that all of us should support. Let us not get into some warfare from State to State or region to region. We need the help.

Mr. KLINK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I also vehemently speak against my friend from Wisconsin's amendment. I thank him, though, for offering the amendment because it has made me think about something that has been an ultimate success not only for this Nation but for the region of this country in which I grew up, the region which my family is from. And the gentleman from eastern Kentucky who spoke just a few speakers ago spoke so eloquently and from his heart, I know, reminded me myself of growing up in a little town called Summit Mills in Somerset County in southwestern Pennsylvania.

Back in the late 1950's, I went to one of the one-room schools he was talking about, where we had no running water. Where we had only two outhouses out back and you had the overflow that went in the creek. And that is where the kids swam with the raw sewage in the same stream, which is where you would go out to swim.

We could not understand why people were dying of unusual diseases and unusual forms of cancer. We thought that half the roads were supposed to be dirt roads. Of course, certain times of the year you just did not travel from point A to point B, and people knew they were supposed to lay up supplies. After the Appalachian Regional Commission was founded 30 years ago, things began to change. America discovered Appalachia because one of the networks--I wish I could remember which one it was--

ran a news documentary about Appalachia. We did not get it. We were watching, but what was so unusual? This is the way we lived. It is the way things were.

I also was reminded by one of the last speakers who talked about the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], who talked about the vaccinations. I can remember several of the kids that were my own age, one who was in my class, some who were younger than me who got polio. I remember them finally bringing the whole community, from up in the mountain tops, grew up very near the Mason-Dixon line and Mt. Davis which is in the district of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], the highest points in the State of Pennsylvania, that brought everybody down.

The took us to the old high school gym. Everybody took three different doses of polio vaccine over a 3-week period so that we would not have to

deal with that anymore. You see, while things have changed, while we have had a dramatic turnaround in the last 30 years, we have not made up for 100-plus years of neglect. We have indeed cut the infant mortality rate. We have indeed doubled the percentage of high school graduates. We have cut down on the outward migration of people who are leaving our area. We have reduced unemployment.

In fact, if you take those 399 counties that were included, you are right, only 115 now have poverty. So we are not there yet. I would say to the sponsors of this bill, while this may be a number in a budget, to those of us who have watched members of families die of unusual illnesses and cancers because they did not have a well, could not afford to drill one, did not know about the technology and they were drinking water that flowed into a cistern with all kinds of elements of all sorts and one family member would die, this is not lines on budget, on a Federal budget. This is about the lives of Americans. It is about the Federal Government and the State and local governments working together.

It is about a program that has averaged less than 4 percent in administrative costs. It is about a success that has worked. We are cutting it in half. I cannot understand, because, you see, I still come from an area in Pittsburgh where 4 years ago as a television newscaster I said to the people in the city of Pittsburgh who work at the station, I said, give me a camera crew, I will shoot a story for you. We are going to call it the rural third world. They were dumbfounded.

As we went to towns like Outcrop in Fayette County, the way it still is in those towns today, those towns not yet reached by the Appalachian Regional Commission or any other agency, where the outhouses still sit in the front yards of the houses, where when the winter wind blows, if they have curtains over the windows, they flow back and forth. Where there is maybe one coal stove in the center of the house with holes in the walls and in the ceilings and floors so that the heat can radiate to other parts of that room, where there is one hand pump in the middle of town where people can still go and they can pump their buckets of water, take it back, heat it on that same stove if they wanted to heat it to bathe or to wash their clothes.

{time} 1550

People still live this way today in Appalachia. It is a whole region that has been neglected for over 100 years. We cannot make that up in 10 years or 20 years or 30 years, but, Mr. Chairman, we are getting there. We are asking the Nation to take a look at Appalachia, to vote against the gentleman's amendment, and to help this region come back into the 20th century before the 21st century gets here.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the discussion on this amendment, which has gone on for an hour and 35 minutes now, end at 3:45, the time to be equally divided between the parties.

The CHAIRMAN. To clarify, the unanimous-consent request offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] was that the debate end at 3:45.

Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

Mr. KLUG. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, if I could extend an invitation to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Chairman, we need 10 minutes on our side, which is what I told my colleague, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker]. We miscommunicated. Twenty minutes more and we will be all right.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would say to the gentleman, he can have 10 of the 15. How much more generous could I be?

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] please repeat his request?

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all discussion on this amendment and any amendments thereto be divided and restricted to 15 minutes, 10 minutes to be controlled by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and 5 minutes on this side.

Mr. BEVILL. Reserving the right to object, could we get 5 minutes over here, Mr. Chairman?

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

Mr. BEVILL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I would inform the gentleman, we would have 10 minutes, and the gentleman would have 5 minutes.

The CHAIRMAN. It is my understanding that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] will have 10 minutes, and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] will have 5 minutes. Is that correct?

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no objection.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my freshman colleague, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Brownback].

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say thanks for what the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] is doing here. I know a lot of people are opposed to this amendment, and I think it has been a very healthy discussion. I have sat here a long time and a lot of people have been watching this going on for a long time. What I think he is doing that is so important is we are moving to balance the budget.

These are then tough choices that we have to make. We are having a good discussion, I think, of a tough choice. Here is a program that has been very successful over a period of 30 years. It is a program that has had some failures over 30 years. I will bet we could find that any program in the Federal Government has had both successes and failures over 30 years.

I think the question we have to ask ourselves today, then: Is this program worth continuing, adding more debt on our kids with the successes that it promises into the future or the potential failures on the path that it is on? I think that is the central question we have to ask. Is this worth putting more debt on the kids?

Mr. Chairman, I think it is great we have cut it in half? I understand the program, though, was at $50 million under the Bush administration, so it has had some up as well as it being knocked on back as well. I just put that question to us, and I say that it seems to me, at the end, in the final analysis, that the biggest problem we are facing as a Nation today is not necessarily what is going on in the Midwest or the Appalachian region or the West or the Northeast or the South, it is the stupid debt and the amount we keep adding to it and growing. If this is worth continuing today what about next year, and the year after that when we really get to the tough choices, in year 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to balance the budget?

I would suggest that now is the time to make the tough choice. I think we should support the Klug amendment. I think it has been a legitimate debate. I think the program has had good successes. It has had some failures. We are at a point in time in history where we just cannot mortgage the kids any further. That is why I would urge Members to support the Klug amendment.

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

Mr. BROWNBACK. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I assume the gentleman voted for the budget resolution conference report that came back from the House and Senate conference, is that correct?

Mr. BROWNBECK. Yes, I did, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, does the gentleman realize that in that budget conference the budget allowed for

$182 million for the Appalachian Regional Commission? Was the gentleman aware of that?

Mr. BROWNBACK. The budget resolution also called for the elimination of TVA.

Mr. ROGERS. I am talking about the conference report that came back, the House and Senate conference on the budget that came to the House.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I also voted for the budget that came out of the Committee on the Budget that called for the elimination of TVA. Did the gentleman vote for that one?

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, I did. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, it is not TVA, it is ARC. Does the gentleman realize that the budget conference that he voted for that came out of the Senate and House conference provided for $182 million for the ARC and this bill only has

$140 million in it?

Mr. BROWNBACK. I did realize that.

Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of inquiry. I understand I have 5 minutes remaining, under the agreement.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.

Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I will not take the full time. I simply wanted to rise to say this.

I had not intended to speak, Mr. Chairman, and I think almost everyone knows I am one of the most conservative Members of this Congress, but the ARC is one of the most conservative agencies in the entire Federal Government. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out a few minutes ago, just 4 percent of this agency's budget are spent for administrative costs. This is one of the least bureaucratic, least top-heavy agencies in the entire Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, I come from Tennessee, and I come from a district where very little is done by the ARC, but I do know of the good work that has been done throughout our region and throughout these entire 13 States by these agencies. I want to salute the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and particularly my good friend, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], for his yeoman work on this particular amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of ARC and in strong opposition to this amendment. This agency is already taking a 50-

percent cut in this bill. If every department and agency in the Federal Government was receiving a 50-percent cut, it would be amazing. We would be operating with a surplus.

As the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] pointed out a few minutes ago, throughout this country, every region, every State has money that is being spent by the Federal Government in some project or by some agency. As the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] pointed out, the central Utah project, has had over $1 billion spent on it. This is just

$142 million, and is very small in comparison to many, many projects we could name throughout this entire country.

I rise and urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support one of the finest and most conservative agencies in the entire Federal Government, an agency that is working to bring the Federal Government home to the people, not spending money here in Washington, but spending it out in the country to help some of our poorest citizens in this Nation. I think it is a fine organization and it deserves the support of this entire body.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Inglis].

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Earlier in this debate, while I was in the Committee on the Judiciary, I understood there was some discussion of a project in my district involving a training stadium at Wofford College. I can tell the Members that I do not fault the people at Wofford for seeking that ARC funding, nor do I fault the Carolina Panthers for wanting to have the team training there. That has nothing to do with it.

What I do fault, Mr. Chairman, is an old way of thinking here in the Congress among us as Members. Shame on us if we cannot move on with this revolution. Shame on us if we cannot think more creatively about how to solve these problems. The ARC has done some excellent work over the years. It was created long ago and did some great work.

The problem with Federal programs is they never die. This is a time to bring this one to a nice death. It is good that the bill calls for a significant cut. I think it is time to take it straight to zero, though. The reason is we have to

think more revolutionarily, if that is a verb or an adjective, I guess that was, or maybe it was an adverb, I am not sure. In any event, we have to think more revolutionarily about how to do this thing.

Sure, it is good to get a grant every once in a while in our districts, but let us think that through. If we just got rid of the unfunded Federal mandates, how much money would there be in the State of South Carolina to deal with our needs? Tremendous amounts of money.

This is the heart of the revolution. We have to start at both ends. We have to eliminate the Federal control through the unfunded Federal mandates, but then we have to stop looking at Uncle Sam as the great sugardaddy that is going to give us this free money from Washington to build a water system here or a road there. We have to think more creatively. We have to be able to see the whole revolution. The revolution involves downsizing this Federal Government, shrinking it to core business, and allowing the States to serve the functions that they can better serve.

There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is no free money from Washington. This money that we are about to spend is going to go on to the deficit and be added onto the debt. Our children will be paying for this amount for years to come. We have a great opportunity here to complete this revolution, but do it from both ends. We have already taken action on unfunded Federal mandates. We need to go in and repeal some existing ones.

The other part is right here, right now, on this amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin, an excellent amendment. Let us just get rid of the ARC. Let us finally bring to an end a program that served a very useful life, but now its time has come. I congratulate the gentleman for his amendment.

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

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. RAHALL. The gentleman speaks of this great revolution, Mr. Chairman. It seems like this gentleman is speaking about an economic Jihad against all Federal Government. That seems to be the best description of the revolution to which the gentleman referred.

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the best people to know how to allocate needs within South Carolina, I submit, are people in Columbia, people in Spartanburg, and Greenville. I daresay that not many of those folks would spend some of the money that has been spent the way ARC has spent their money. We create these programs, they fit those categories, and then the money is spent that way.

What we have to do is be willing to think more creatively and say to the locals: ``You run it, you raised the money.'' Let us not have this pool of money that comes from Washington. I understand that the gentleman from Kentucky will likely tell me that it has been a local decision. I understand that. But it appears to be free money. That is the problem.

Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to demean the efforts of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug]. I think he means well and is doing a good job for his people and he is consistent. We have differences of opinion. I can recall as a freshman Member going to visit the grand opening of the Tennessee-Tombigbee, called the biggest pork barrel project in our Nation.

All the news media gathered around their good old friend Jamie Whitten, the former chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and said ``Well, they call you the pork-barrel king, Congressman. What do you have to say about that? This is a great day for you, isn't it?'' Jamie Whitten looked at the camera and he says, ``I want it to be known that I played a part in investing the American taxpayers' dollars in the heartland of America. My son will get a job, my grandson will get a job, his son and his granddaughter have a shot at getting a job.''

I am going to vote against this amendment, and I am going to vote against the amendment to cut the TVA. We have to cut, and I offered to cut on the foreign aid bill, 1 percent. I did not see all these hawks running around. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, Israel got $13 billion in aid, loans, and grants last year,

$21,000 for every man, woman, and child, and they did not get cut by this Congress.

Do Members want to hear something else? This is not taking off on Israel. Israel has a $1 billion trade surplus with America and a $7.5 billion trade deficit with Europe. Come on, Mr. Chairman. I want to make the cuts. I am not going to cut from America. I am not going to cut another damned thing from our people who need it. I think Congress should set its priorities in place. I would ask the Congress to vote

``no'' on this overwhelmingly, and vote ``no'' on the amendment to cut the TVA.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time I have remaining.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this has been a long debate this afternoon and an important one. It is amazing we are even at this point in Congress, where we are not debating a 50-percent cut for ARC, we are debating whether or not it should be eliminated.

Again, while I may disagree with the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] on the level, or my colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], who has done an excellent job rallying opposition to this amendment, I think we all have to ask ourselves, where are we today in 1995.

Let me just make three more points. First of all, this program was established in 1965, and we have poured billions of dollars into the region. If we listen to the economics we have heard from the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest]; for example, we spent $1 and then got $5 back. That is a great deal. Why do we not spend the entire U.S. economy there and somehow we will magically multiply by five? Those economics just do not make sense.

Now we are told there was an agreement in the authorizing committee that will phase it out over 5 years. We have had this debate over the budget. Why is 7 years magical? What is magical about 7 years? The bottom line is with a $200 billion deficit, I say the decision is not 5 years from now, the decision is finally today, in 1995.

{time} 1545

Just years after this program was established, the Nixon administration took the first shot at it. Then the Reagan administration took a strong shot at it. We have talked about how tough the programs are in ARC today and where we are.

In the first Bush administration budget, the recommendation was only

$50 million in funding. Today with a 50-percent reduction, we are at

$142 million in funding. The truth of the matter is since the early 1970's, this program has been on everybody's hit list who has objectively stood back and looked at it. I do not begrudge my colleagues involved in the 13 States involved in the Appalachian Regional Commission. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink] I think explained rather passionately, there was a need for this program when it was set up in the 1960's, dramatically illustrated on television and fought for very passionately by President Johnson. But here we are 30 years later. How much longer? How many billions more? How many hundreds of millions of dollars more?

I know that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] has assured us we will be all done in 5 years, but do you really want to bet in this Chamber what happens 3 years from now, that it has got to be just 2 years more, and we cannot do it the year after that because it is another election, so it will have to be 2 more years after that.

I am sure the Governors love the money because it is money they do not have to ask their own citizens for. But the problem is this is a double-dipping and in some cases triple-dipping program that has fundamentally benefited 13 States in this country at the disadvantage of the other 37.

Finally for my colleagues in this Chamber, I think you have to ask yourself fundamentally, what is it today about a poor community in West Virginia or Georgia or Kentucky that is different from New Mexico or Wisconsin or Missouri? The answer is, absolutely nothing. We should do economic development for these communities but it should be in the Economic Development Administration, so that all 50 States in this country are treated equally.

Appalachia needed help. My friends, 30 years of help is enough.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, these are indeed historic times. This Congress has adopted the first balanced budget resolution in over a generation. We have successfully shifted the debate from more and more big Federal programs to fiscal restraint and responsibility. In this vein, I applaud the work of Chairmen Myers and Livingston and the committee in crafting an energy and water appropriations bill that reflects this goal.

Nevertheless, I remain concerned that certain programs prime for elimination may escape intact, battered; and bruised but still standing. The Appalachian Regional Commission [ARC] plainly falls into this category.

ARC was formed in 1965 as a temporary response to poverty in a broad section of the United States known as Appalachia. Thirty

years later, we continue to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually on ARC activities that are largely duplicated by several agencies, including DOT's Federal Highways Program and HUD's Community Development Block Grant Program. The legitimate programs the ARC funds, from building highways to sewer projects, will continue to be funded.

However, ARC has a long history of funding projects that have a rather dubious impact on poverty. The ARC has spent taxpayer money on projects ranging from the NASCAR Hall of Fame to a football stadium for the NFL's Carolina Panthers. ARC has spent $100,000 for a film history of West Virginia and another $25,000 to attract German travelers to that same State. During this time of scarce financial resources, we must ask the question, Where is the Federal role here?

I am pleased to join with Representatives

Klug and Orton to offer this bipartisan amendment to eliminate funding for the ARC. Many will argue that the chairman's mark already contains a substantial reduction in ARC funding for fiscal year 1996 and beyond. However, we are all aware of numerous temporary commissions that have outlived their original mission but continue to survive for political reasons. The Reagan and Bush administrations were successful in dramatically cutting the funding for ARC only to see the program flourish again in future years. In fact, President Bush's first budget called for $50 million for ARC, a paltry sum compared to the $142 million that this bill calls for, even with a 40 percent cut.

Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we act boldly and rip out the roots of ARC now to ensure it doesn't grow back. Many members have correctly noted that the heavy lifting toward a balanced budget begins with the appropriations bills. Let's match our rhetoric with action and take the overdue step of eliminating the Appalachian Regional Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 108, noes 319, not voting 7, as follows:

AYES--108

AllardAndrewsArcherArmeyBaker (CA)BarciaBartonBassBereuterBilirakisBoehnerBrownbackBurtonCampCanadyCastleChabotChristensenChryslerCobleCoburnCoxCraneCunninghamDeLayDoggettDornanDreierDunnEnsignEshooFawellFields (TX)FlanaganFoleyFowlerFranks (NJ)FrisaFunderburkGossGundersonHarmanHastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHoekstraHokeHornHutchinsonInglisJohnson, SamKasichKimKingstonKlugLargentLinderLoBiondoLutherManzulloMartiniMcCollumMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMeehanMetcalfMiller (FL)MingeNethercuttNeumannNussleOrtonOxleyParkerPaxonPetriPorterRamstadRohrabacherRothRoukemaRoyceSalmonSanfordSensenbrennerShadeggShawShaysSmith (MI)Smith (WA)SolomonSouderStearnsStockmanTalentTateThornberryTiahrt TorkildsenTorricelliUptonWalkerWeldon (FL)WhiteWolfZeliffZimmer

NOES--319

AbercrombieAckermanBachusBaeslerBaker (LA)BaldacciBallengerBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBatemanBecerraBeilensonBentsenBermanBevillBilbrayBishopBlileyBluteBoehlertBonillaBoniorBonoBorskiBoucherBrewsterBrowderBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)Bryant (TN)Bryant (TX)BunnBunningBurrBuyerCallahanCalvertCardinChamblissChapmanChenowethClayClaytonClementClingerClyburnColemanCollins (GA)Collins (IL)Collins (MI)CombestConditConyersCooleyCostelloCoyneCramerCrapoCremeansCubinDannerDavisde la GarzaDealDeFazioDeLauroDellumsDeutschDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDingellDixonDooleyDoolittleDoyleDuncanDurbinEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEngelEnglishEvansEverettEwingFarrFattahFazioFields (LA)FilnerFlakeFogliettaForbesFordFrank (MA)Franks (CT)FrelinghuysenFrostFurseGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGephardtGerenGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGrahamGreenGreenwoodGutierrezGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamiltonHancockHansenHastings (FL)HayesHeinemanHergerHillearyHilliardHincheyHobsonHoldenHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHunterHydeIstookJackson-LeeJacobsJeffersonJohnson (CT)Johnson (SD)Johnson, E. B.JohnstonJonesKanjorskiKapturKellyKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKingKleczkaKlinkKnollenbergKolbeLaFalceLaHoodLantosLathamLaTouretteLaughlinLazioLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LightfootLincolnLipinskiLivingstonLofgrenLoweyLucasMaloneyMantonMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCarthyMcCreryMcDadeMcDermottMcHaleMcHughMcKinneyMcNultyMeekMenendezMeyersMfumeMicaMiller (CA)MinetaMinkMolinariMollohanMontgomeryMoorheadMoranMorellaMurthaMyersMyrickNadlerNealNeyNorwoodOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOwensPackardPallonePastorPayne (NJ)Payne (VA)PelosiPeterson (FL)Peterson (MN)PickettPomboPomeroyPortmanPoshardPryceQuillenQuinnRadanovichRahallRangelReedRegulaRichardsonRiggsRiversRobertsRoemerRogersRos-LehtinenRoseRoybal-AllardRushSaboSandersSawyerSaxtonSchaeferSchiffSchroederSchumerScottSeastrandSerranoShusterSisiskySkaggsSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (NJ)Smith (TX)SpenceSprattStarkStenholmStokesStuddsStumpStupakTannerTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TejedaThomasThompsonThorntonThurmanTorresTownsTraficantTuckerVelazquezVentoViscloskyVolkmerVucanovichWaldholtzWalshWampWardWatersWatt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeldon (PA)WellerWhitfieldWickerWilliamsWilsonWiseWoolseyWydenWynnYatesYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

FoxHastertHefnerLongleyMoakleyReynoldsScarborough

{time} 1607

The Clerk announced the following pair:

On this vote:

Mr. Scarborough for, with Mr. Moakley against.

Messrs. DREIER, KIM, and FOLEY changed their vote from ``no'' to

``aye.''

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

amendment offered by mr. klug

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, marked as amendment No. 9.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Klug: Page 29, line 1, strike

``$103,339,000'' and insert ``$0''.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 60 minutes, which will be equally divided between the author of the amendment, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], and 30 minutes by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill].

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Indiana?

There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN. It is the order of the Chair that the debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and any amendments thereto will be 60 minutes in length, divided equally between the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill].

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, what we have before us is a test much like the test we just went through on the Appalachian Regional Commission, which is to ask this Congress to fundamentally reevaluate programs set up decades ago and which continue to live on, perhaps with justification, as I suspect my colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee

[Mr. Quillen], and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], and the other side of the fight will argue.

But from my perspective, frankly, I think we have to ask ourselves why in 1995 the Federal Government is still involved in the hydroelectric business. Mr. Chairman, my great wish is we could have a discussion today about whether or not the Tennessee Valley Authority itself should be privatized.

You see, American taxpayers have already invested millions upon millions of dollars in the Tennessee Valley Authority, which now, frankly, owes the taxpayers of the United States $28 billion, $28 billion.

Now, this fight we are about to have in the next hour is not about the power side of the Tennessee Valley Authority. It is about ancillary relationships and ancillary businesses which have grown up around the Tennessee Valley Authority over the course of the last 60 years.

Beginning in the 1930's, the Federal Government began building a series of hydroelectric dams across the United States, the first of which, and really the kind of granddaddy of all those projects, was the Tennessee Valley Authority. It did a marvelous job fulfilling the mission, bringing electricity to much of the Southeast, and to help do important flood control projects. Over the course of time, TVA has begun, like many government projects do, to morph and change and develop an entirely different mission than its original core mission.

Ronald Reagan, back in the 1980's, used to like to say the closest we could ever get to eternity in this lifetime was a Federal project, and so it is with the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Now, again, much like the previous debate, I have to give credit to my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers], the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], because they have made very difficult decisions. We have substantially lowered the amount of money to be given TVA this year for operations, aside from its power operations, which stand on its own and operate with the taxpayer-financed debt I referred to a minute ago.

Now, in the appropriations process, TVA has had three programs for years, one of which was a research center which has been zeroed out. Again, I know that is tough for the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] and my colleagues in Tennessee, and I can understand their hesitation to cut the programs still deeper.

There are still two programs which exist, a stewardship program which involves operation and maintenance of dams and reservoirs, and I think you are going to hear an argument in a minute that says if TVA does not do those projects, somebody else, perhaps the Corps of Engineers, might. That may be true.

I then make the argument what you can achieve is consolidation and slim down a number of other services by consolidating those funds, and perhaps that is an argument we should have.

But, in addition, there is another nearly $19

million for tourism and marketing. There is a series of recreational facilities located at the heart of the TVA region, which is another

$3.3 million.

Finally, logger education, regional water supply, et cetera, would total about another $10.9 million, which is another $103 million, because this is actually the money that is given to TVA this year by the taxpayers around this country to run the power marketing administration in the southeast corner of the United States.

I think it is time that we begin to ask the Tennessee Valley Authority to stand on its own and to operate on its own, and if these services are valuable and if they benefit the residents of the Southeastern United States, again I think we have to ask ourselves why it is that the residents of the Southeastern United States are not paying for tourism.

I think the Federal Government has a responsibility and obligation to the water projects. I think the Federal Government had an obligation and responsibility to first build those power-plants. But here we are, my colleagues, 60 years after the construction of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Bonneville Power Administration in Pacific Northwest and a whole series of other hydroelectric plants around the country, with nearly a quarter of the Department of Energy staff working on the power and marketing administrations, generating, selling, and marketing electric power.

We cannot, I think, move to privatize TVA today. It is too complicated a subject. In time we may have that debate as we do the Alaska Power Marketing Administration, which we will do this year, thanks to the leadership of Chairman Young, and thanks to the fine works of my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle], we are likely to do in the Southeast Power Marketing Administration, the Southwest, maybe, fingers crossed, the Western Power Marketing Administration.

The issue before us today is, narrowly, whether the Federal Government will cut its relationship to fund the ongoing operations of the Tennessee Valley Authority, not directly tied in to the power business itself.

So I urge my colleagues, if we are serious, as the National Taxpayers Union suggests, to reevaluate Federal projects and to make tough, difficult decisions and to begin to close down government relationships that have gone on for 10, 20, 30, 50, and 60 years, then the Tennessee Valley Authority is the place to begin today.

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

{time} 1615

Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of control, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], and I yield the other 15 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] will each control 15 minutes of debate time.

There was no objection.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].

Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I stand here, before my colleagues, today as a former member of the TVA Board as well as a former chairman of the TVA Caucus. I rise in strong opposition to the Klug amendment and strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this measure. I sure want to invite the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] down to the Tennessee Valley area sometime because I think he totally misunderstands the mission of TVA as well as the debt. I know he mentioned awhile ago a debt of $28 billion, and he is referring to power funds and power debt. Since 1959, we have been under the self-financing act because of the U.S. Congress. We have paid back year after year after year the moneys that were originally borrowed to start TVA back in 1933.

Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] sends out colleague letters and makes statements, he always wants to confuse ratepayers' dollars with appropriated dollars. Over 97 percent of the TVA budget is from power funds, from those funds that are spent or from power bills that people pay on a monthly basis. They do not come from the taxpayers from around the country. He is constantly confusing those issues, and I think the time is right to set the record straight.

My colleagues, adopting this amendment would be a serious mistake. If it is adopted, flood control on the Tennessee River would cease, protection of TVA's reservoir shorelines would not be accomplished, and proper care of over 170 acres of park land would not be maintained. If TVA were to disappear, most of the functions would have to be picked up by the appropriate Federal agency, like the Army Corps of Engineers, the Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the EPA. There are no provisions in the Klug amendment providing for transfer of these duties, and there is no additional funding for these other departments or agencies. Wisconsin and all the other States have provisions, have money, have funding in order to provide for these services, and yet TVA is the vehicle that is used in the seven-State region in order to provide for these services.

But what I want to talk about in my very brief remarks left is the valuable assistance TVA provides for the poor rural counties in seven States which would be eliminated by Mr. Klug's amendment. When TVA began just over 60 years ago, only 3 farmers in 100 had electricity.

Defeat the Klug amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as a former member of the TVA Board and former chairman of the TVA congressional caucus, I rise in very strong opposition to the Klug amendment and strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.

My friends, adopting this amendment would be a serious mistake. If it is adopted, flood control on the Tennessee River would cease, protection of TVA's reservoir shorelines would not be accomplished, and proper care of over 170 acres of park land would not be maintained. If TVA were to disappear, most of these functions would have to be picked up by the appropriate Federal agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers, the Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the EPA.

There are no provisions in the Klug amendment providing for the transfer of these duties or additional funding for these departments.

But what I want to talk about in my brief remarks, is the valuable assistance TVA provides for the poor rural counties in seven States which would be eliminated by Mr. Klug's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague who offers this amendment is not from the seven-State region which TVA services. Perhaps he does not realize the important role TVA plays as a regional development agency.

For those who are not from the valley, let me relate to you a story that emphasizes TVA's importance. In the early 1940's when TVA was not yet a decade old, an old farmer stood up in church on Sunday morning to give a testimonial. ``The greatest thing on this Earth is to have the love of God in your heart,'' he said, ``and the next greatest thing is to have electricity in your house.''

The farmer knew what he was talking about. He could remember the days before electricity when a coal-oil fired lamp was the only source of light at night, when a block of ice in the icebox was all that kept his meat and milk from spoiling. TVA introduced light and comfort into the farmer's life, and he and his family were grateful. Electricity was a symbol of progress. Electricity brought the Tennessee Valley into the modern age.

When TVA began just over 60 years ago, only three farmers in 100 had electricity. Floods ravaged the countryside every spring. Soils from farm lands were washed away with the rains. Good jobs were scarce. Over the next half of a century, TVA worked with other Federal agencies, the States, business, industry, and the farmers to help solve many of these problems.

These activities continue to this day. While TVA provides electricity to over 7 million citizens in seven States, it is also a resource development agency, charged by Congress to help develop the Tennessee Valley region.

Let me repeat this because I think it gets into the heart of the debate today. TVA is a resource development agency, charged by Congress to help develop the Tennessee Valley region.

TVA is a partner with communities in the Tennessee Valley, providing expertise, support, and ideas needed to help distressed rural areas. TVA's Rural Development Program, which provides valuable assistance to small- and medium-sized businesses to expand their operations and employment, would be terminated under the pending amendment. Mr. Chairman, the small business sector is the only sector of the economy that is creating jobs right now. We should be adopting legislation which encourages growth for small businesses, not discouraging it.

TVA has a program also targeted for elimination by the gentleman's amendment which focuses on the valley's most distressed counties which have unemployment in excess of 10 percent, per capita income less than 60 percent of the national average, a poverty rate of 26 percent, and derive more than 24 percent of total personal income from Government transfer payments like welfare and food stamps.

Under this program, TVA works with local communities in developing economic development projects, education and skills training, waste management, and business competitiveness. Mr. Chairman, TVA turns down requests for assistance each day because they are unable to meet the demand for this program.

I would like to make a final point regarding some of the misconceptions and outright inaccuracies made by the gentleman from Wisconsin. Representative Klug presumes that the Federal taxpayer is subsidizing TVA's power program.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is that prior to 1959, TVA's power operations were financed primarily by Federal appropriations. However, in 1959 Congress passed the TVA Self-Financing Act.

Public Law 86-157 required that TVA's power program be self-

sustaining--no longer funded by Federal appropriations. The 1959 act even directed TVA to pay back the Government for its initial appropriations out of future power revenues.

The fact is that TVA must charge sufficient electric rates to cover the costs of operations, maintenance, and capital improvements for the power program. Not one single Federal cent goes into TVA's power programs. So when Representative Klug states that TVA provides Government subsidized power, obviously he has been misinformed or ill-

advised.

Mr. Chairman, TVA's appropriation has already been reduced by 28 percent under the bill. I believe we have taken our fair share of cuts. I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment.

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this afternoon this subcommittee is taking a responsible position on the TVA, cutting what we felt was--could be cut, unnecessary spending, maybe areas that the Tennessee Valley Authority did not belong in, but retaining its right, its responsibility, to operate the rest of its traditional business responsibilities.

A few years ago when the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] and I were on the committee it was reckless. We have to say it was not run prudently as a business should be run. Rates were set arbitrarily with little regard about the ratepayer, and it got way out of hand. There was waste, a tremendous amount of waste, but through the years we have trimmed this down, and I think this year is a huge step. We have reduced the appropriation from last year's level by 26 percent, and that is a level of $39,534,000 less than last year, and we have reduced the President's request for this by 25 percent, $37,134,000.

We have made significant cuts. Please support the committee.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].

(Mr. RAMSTAD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] for yielding this time to me and for his efforts at deficit reduction.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the Klug amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think, as my little niece would put it, we have to get real around here about deficit reduction, and, if we cannot cut this

$103 million, we are not going to be able to balance this budget.

Mr. Chairman, as one taxpayers' group put it, this is pure pork. How can we justify Federal tax dollars, Federal taxpayers' dollars, going to such functions as boat landings, campgrounds, and logger education? Mr. Chairman, most of these functions, whether it is boat landings, or campgrounds, or logger education, can and should clearly be operated by State and local governments. Of course the operation of the dams and reservoirs are properly functions of the Army Corps of Engineers. If we truly intend to balance the budget, we must examine each and every program in the budget and ask whether or not it is something we should require taxpayers across the country to pay for.

In this case, Mr. Chairman, the answer is a resounding no. We must, must, have the political courage to shut down such programs as this or allow States to take them over.

Mr. Chairman, the American taxpayers are sick and tired, with all due respect to my good friends from Tennessee who are here fighting hard and representing the Tennessee Valley Authority well, but with all respect to them, Mr. Chairman, this is pork-barrell politics in its pure form, and American taxpayers are sick and tired of such politics. Mr. Chairman, this is a real test of whether this Congress is serious about fiscal discipline.

I urge a vote for the American taxpayer. Vote for the Klug amendment.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder].

Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Klug amendment to eliminate the Tennessee Valley Authority's appropriated budget. My district is not located in the Tennessee Valley, yet I support continued funding of TVA. This amendment is bad for a number of reasons.

As we have been told, TVA's remaining funds are necessary to carry out Federal responsibilities in areas such as flood control, land management, and resource stewardship. If TVA does not carry out these responsibilities, they will have to be carried out by other Federal agencies such as EPA, the Corps of Engineers, or the U.S. Forestry Service.

Where are the savings purportedly attained through this amendment? There are no savings because these agencies would need additional funds to carry out these activities. If this amendment passes, land management, flood control, and resource stewardship programs would still be needed and will have to be carried out by other Federal agencies. Therefore, the cost savings will not be realized.

Now the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has made a very good argument perhaps, that programs should be evaluated. That would perhaps need to be taken up by other agencies. Perhaps we could have that discussion. But this amendment does not provide for that discussion. This amendment zeros out this program without a discussion of whether or not these functions should be funded in another part of the Federal budget.

I think the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] in their committee have done a very good job of tightening the belt and cutting this program down to what we think is reasonable, and I think that it is something that this Congress should approve because it is a good agency, it provides good functions, and those functions would have to be carried out whether they were in the TVA or not.

I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], another classmate of mine and a fierce deficit hawk.

Mr. ZIMMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I commend him for this fight that he has undertaken. The Tennessee Valley Authority is part of our history, it is a proud part of our history, but there comes a time when you have to go back to first principles, especially when we are under the constraints of a balanced budget requirement, and one of the questions that we should ask ourselves with respect to any government program is: Is it appropriate that government--government at any level--fund this program in the first place? I would submit that items such as running boat landings, and campgrounds, and tourism simply are not the appropriate realm for government activity. I would submit that other activities that are covered by this cut, although they may be appropriately within the realm of government, are not within the realm of the Federal Government. This is a quintessentially regional and local program. It is for the benefit of the people who live in the Tennessee Valley, and I do not doubt that there is a considerable benefit to them. But the people who benefit from the program should pay for the program. It should be done, if they choose, by their State, county, and local governments, but it should not be paid for by people living in other parts of the country.

If we had a surplus instead of a multi-hundred-billion-dollar deficit, I think it might be appropriate to fund programs which are not absolutely necessary but which are merely desirable or appealing from a political or regional point of view, but we do not have that luxury, and I think as we scrutinize every single program, regardless of the noble history, regardless of the sentiment, regardless of the good feeling that they have generated over the past several decades, we have to be clear-eyed, we have to be analytical, and we have to reject those programs that do not meet the test. I believe that the TVA programs covered by the amendment do not meet the test, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].

Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug amendment to eliminate TVA funding.

Colleagues, before you cast your vote for the Klug amendment, consider the ramifications of your vote.

Surely no one in this Chamber is going to blindly believe that the numerous functions of TVA are simply going to disappear into the woodwork if this amendment were to pass?

Let us consider some of TVA's responsibilities for just a moment. TVA's work ensures that over 650 miles of the Tennessee River is navigable to meet the needs of America's intercostal water transportation system by operating some 48 locks and dams.

TVA also has the responsibility for the upkeep of over 250,000 acres of Federal land and the largest contiguous forest east of the Mississippi River, known as Land Between the Lakes.

Are we to simply believe the Klug amendment is going to eliminate TVA's responsibility to operate all of these dams and lands?

Are we to assume that if this amendment passes, then the Federal Government will have cleansed itself from its obligations concerning TVA and its functions?

I would certainly hope that no one in this Chamber would believe that.

What is more, under current law, TVA's functions are to be carried out by TVA, and this amendment does not take that into consideration.

Colleagues, TVA is already going to see a reduction of 28 percent of its funding and the elimination of many of its programs as part of the Appropriations Committee's recommendations.

With so much uncertainty involved with this amendment, I certainly do not want to leave TVA's important functions to the whims and wishes of more Government agencies and departments in Washington.

Colleagues, there is a better solution than the Klug amendment.

{time} 1630

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

(Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug amendment. This amendment would callously eliminate funding for necessary activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority without making any provision for how these functions will be accomplished.

The Tennessee Valley Authority was created in 1933 to provide flood control, improve navigation, promote economic development, and provide electricity in the Tennessee Valley. Its accomplishment are legendary.

I am concerned that my colleague who is offering the amendment fails to fully understand what the effects of his amendment would be.

First, the TVA power program operates entirely without Federal subsidy--it is a user financed program which never adds to Federal expenditures or to the deficit. Funds from the power program cannot be used to make up the funding shortfall.

The remainder of the program, the nonpower program, plays an important and vital role in the lives of the citizens of the Tennessee Valley and the national economy.

TVA has the responsibility for 1,000 miles of navigable waterways, and of operating 52 dams and 14 navigation locks. It also manages 420,000 acres of public lands. If the Klug amendment were to be enacted, there are no provisions for any other entity taking over these responsibilities. Even if other agencies were to be instructed to take on the responsibilities for managing TVA property, there has been no allowance in any other budget to cover the additional costs.

The result would be 7 million people in the Tennessee Valley with no one responsible for flood control or navigation, and these are not insignificant elements of the TVA program.

In 1994 alone, TVA's flood control program prevented an estimated $1 billion in flood damages across the valley and saved Chattanooga twice from devastation by floodwaters. The navigation system moves 48 million tons of cargo annually. The Klug amendment makes no provision for how these important benefits of TVA will be replaced.

This bill already cuts TVA programs by nearly 30 percent. Let us not be penny-wise and pound-foolish by eliminating necessary functions without adequately considering the needs of the people who depend upon TVA for the same functions which are provided to the remainder of the Nation.

Vote ``no'' on the Klug amendment.

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].

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

Mr. Chairman, I am from the Third District of Tennessee, and, gratefully, have more TVA employees in my district than any other district in this Nation--6,000 TVA families live and work in my district. I will tell you from firsthand experience, Mr. Chairman, while it might surprise you, that the Tennessee Valley Authority is not perfect. Neither is the Pentagon perfect, neither are the Centers for Disease Control perfect, neither is the White House perfect, and neither is this institution perfect. But I have not seen any amendments to zero those core functions out.

This amendment does not say ``Let's find an area that can be restricted further and reduce it.'' It says zero. It says cut it off, cold. Let me tell Members this: TVA is much better off than it used to be, because the TVA Board is appointed by the President of the United States. The TVA Board has been run by the Democrats at times, it has been run by the Republicans at times. It survived a few years under the leadership of who they call ``Carvin' Marvin'' Runyon, who now runs the U.S. Post Office. I will tell the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], he would be one of your kind of guys, because he goes in there and cuts it to the bone. I told TVA at that time I thought it would be good for them to have the years under Marvin Runyon. I tell my friends at the post office the same thing. It is one of the best things that can happen to you. We experienced almost a 50-percent reduction in employment through the Tennessee Valley Authority.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is going in the right direction. There is one basic flaw to the Klug amendment to zero out TVA. That is the stewardship, the water management part, what keeps backyards from flooding all along this river system. There is no provision for the Army Corps of Engineers beginning October 1 of this year when this money runs out to take that function over. We have already gone through that part of this bill, this appropriations bill, and there is no addition to pick this function up. So the bill is fundamentally flawed.

As I said earlier on another amendment, I believe everyone must share in this patriotic challenge to balance the Federal budget. The TVA is no exception, and I told them that earlier when I got here, my friends at TVA, ``I am going to fight for you, but you are going to have to take some licks. You are going to have to do your share. You are going to have to show the country.'' So we reduced the budget in the appropriations process from $143 to $103 million, a substantial reduction. This is the TVA's share to this patriotic challenge.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to oppose the Klug amendment and support continued, but less, TVA funding.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make two points to respond to the articulate argument of the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp], in defense to TVA.

First and foremost, one of the programs we are talking about today is additional economic development money, aside from the water development projects the gentleman talks about. As he knows, and I know all too well, given the vote on the last amendment, the region in Tennessee finds itself not only available for the normal economic development money that a county in Wisconsin or a county in Ohio may be eligible for, but now for Appalachian Regional Commission money as well, and now finally Tennessee Valley Authority money.

So now we have got counties in this region of the country that are eligible for three times as much funding as your counties back in Ohio or mine in Wisconsin or those in Colorado or Minnesota, or whatever the case might be.

Second, I would have loved to have crafted an amendment much differently than the one we have in front of us, but the fundamental point is anybody in this institution understands you cannot legislate on an appropriations bill. So I would love to change the ground rules for TVA. I would love to have arguments about transferring this to the Corps of Engineers. I could not do it because the committee would have never let me do it.

But I think what we are faced with today is an amendment that fundamentally tries to send a message to TVA that says eventually we are going to get to a point where you are going to have just the kind of cuts we have had under the leadership of the gentleman from Indiana

[Mr. Myers] and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], but eventually TVA is going to have to cut its strings, and eventually, in one form or another, TVA is going to have to stand on its own, whether it privatizes or corporatizes or whatever the model is, because in 1995, the Federal Government should not be in the electric utility business.

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

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].

(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman evidences a basic misunderstanding here of what TVA is about. TVA stands on its own on its power production and the ratepayers who use the power in the Valley pay for that. You are not talking about the Federal Government being in the electric power business in 1995.

I, quite frankly, to some degree resent this attack on one area of the country, because I think that we are all one country. My friend from Chattanooga before me pointed out very well that there are some things good happening in the Tennessee Valley because of TVA.

We do not attack people because we do not have something that happens in Wisconsin or New Jersey. We do not have a lot of Coast Guard along the Tennessee River. We do not attack the the Coast Guard because they patrol in New Jersey and up in the Great Lakes.

I resent this attack on a small southern area of the country. But more than that, what the gentleman's amendment will fail to do and what he does not understand is this money that is appropriated to TVA is because TVA is the agency of choice to fulfill some of the safety measures that must be undertaken by either the Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, or others along 600-plus miles of the Tennessee River with dams and locks and those sorts of things.

That is the kind of money we are appropriating, because the TVA can do it efficiently, and it is the agency of choice in this regard. There is a fundamental difference here between power money, which is not involved, and safety money, which is.

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield].

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Klug amendment. Back in 1963, President Kennedy initiated a project of TVA called the Land Between the Lakes. And there were 2,500 families and children and mothers and fathers moved out of that property, not because they wanted to leave their farms, but because the Government instituted eminent domain authority and forcibly removed them from the property. So they left.

Under the Klug amendment today, they are going to zero fund this project, as well as others of TVA. This project has nothing to do with electric utilities or anything else, but it is one of the largest wildlife preserves in the United States.

Today at LBL you can find endangered red wolves, bald and golden eagles, coyotes, black vultures, redtail hawks, and there is no provision on what is going to happen to this land, 170,000 acres of it. There is a herd of buffalo on this property. Two million visitors a year visit this property, and they come from all over the United States.

When you make the argument that this is something different or the Federal Government should not be involved in it, we have national parks throughout this country that people visit all the time. This is 170,000 acres of wildlife preserve that this Government made a conscious decision that they wanted, and they moved 2,500 people off of the property, forced them off.

So I say that we are trying to redefine the role of Government, and we can do that, but we need some time. They are reducing the TVA budget this year by 28 percent, but we are not asking many agencies of Government to go to zero funding. We need time, and we can reach that time and make arrangements.

With that, I vigorously urge you to oppose the Klug amendment.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon].

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, in my brief 1\1/2\ minutes, let me try to clear up a couple of misunderstandings.

First of all, there has not been a penny of taxpayer Federal dollars going to the TVA power program since 1959. What little Federal money goes to the TVA goes to carry out Federal mandates. And these Federal dollars, as has been pointed out, have been cut by 28 percent already.

So let me point out what are these Federal mandates. Where are these Federal dollars going. TVA manages the Nation's fifth largest river system, using 48 dams to control flooding and maintain the navigability along 652 miles of the Tennessee River. TVA is responsible for keeping up with 250,000 acres of Federal land along with 11,000 miles of environmentally sensitive shoreline, and the Land Between the Lakes, which is a 170,000-acre national recreation area, which is the largest contiguous forest east of the Mississippi River.

{time} 1645

So to cut these funds any further does not cut the responsibilites, it just shifts it from one pocket to the other.

Mr. Chairman, I hope this has cleared up some misunderstandings, and I hope my colleagues will vote to only cut the TVA nonpower funds by 28 percent.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me, if I can, clarify somewhat the relationship between the Tennessee Valley. Authority and the Federal Government.

This is a General Accounting Office report, dated June 1995. The headline says, Tennessee Valley Authority, problems raise questions about long-term viability.

If I can, Mr. Chairman, let me read briefly:

``While no cash flow crisis exists today, GAO believes that TVA's financial condition threatens its long-term viability and places the Federal Government at risk.''

If there is no relationship between the TVA and the Federal Government, how can they possibly be at risk?

``Resolving TVA's financial problems will be costly

and require painful decisions.

``In other words,'' concludes this report, ``without the guarantee of the Federal Government, much of the financing of the Tennessee Valley Authority is the equivalent of a junk pile.''

That is not my conclusion, that is the conclusion of the U.S. Congress General Accounting Office.

So let us not for a minute pretend there are not any significant financial ties between the U.S. Government and its taxpayers and the Tennessee Valley Authority, because, as everybody in this Chamber understands who is now defending the project, TVA only exists because of $28 billion in taxpayer-financed subsidies.

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

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Let me say this. As has been pointed out by so many other speakers, TVA is already taking a 28-percent cut in the Federal appropriation. there are very few other agencies or departments in the Federal Government that are taking a hit or a cut of this size. And I yield to no one in my desire and determination to balance the Federal budget. But balancing the Federal budget and reducing Federal spending is one thing; totally eliminating the Federal appropriation is another thing, because very few people are trying, I think, to totally do away with the Federal Government. That is really based on what we are doing with regard to the TVA, if we eliminate this Federal apropriation.

Let me say this, I want to spend most of my time talking about the Federal role here because there is a very important Federal role. TVA is primarily or at least in large part a benefit to citizens all over this country. The people of the Tennessee Valley benefit to a certain extent, but people all over this country benefit from TVA's activities.

For instance, when the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers overflowed 2 years ago, TVA restrained the flow of the Tennessee River saving billions of dollars and an untold number of lives. In 1988, a drought stalled hundreds of barges, and TVA released water that helped keep the Mississippi flowing. The Mississippi, which flows from Minnesota down to New Orleans, again, saving millions, potentially even billions of dollars for shippers and for American consumers, American consumers who live all over the country.

In 1994, 34,000 barges traveled the waterways managed by TVA, 34,000 barges. These barges carried goods and products intended to be used all across the country. In addition, the cheap cost of this type of transportation helped keep prices low for American consumers in every State in this country.

A recent study by the Iowa Department of Transportation stated that it would take 58 tractor-trailers to carry what one barge carries. If TVA had not managed these waterways for the 34,000 barges which used them last year, we could have potentially had to have at least an additional 1.9 million tractor-trailers on our highways. By making these rivers navigable for barge transportation, TVA helps reduce air pollution, road damage and the potential for serious highway accidents.

The amendment would also reduce TVA's ability to manage 11,000 miles of shoreline for which it currently has responsibility. Supervision of this land is not only critical for flood control but also to industrial development, recreation, and wildlife management.

TVA operates 160 public recreation areas for boating, hunting, fishing, hiking, and camping. People from all over the United States visit and enjoy these facilities. Visitation to these recreational areas contributed $1.25 billion to the economy last year.

Thus, in many ways, Mr. Chairman, TVA is a major asset to this country, in many different ways.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and colleague the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.

(Mr. BEVILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and urge that Members vote against it.

I know my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin

[Mr. Klug], is like all of us, we are anxious to get the budget balanced and we are certainly well on our way to doing it. I do know that there is a little confusion about this.

As my colleagues know, the TVA is not something new. This was an act of Congress, recommended by President Roosevelt, and has been one of the most successful Federal programs that we have ever had in the Nation.

We are talking about a big part of seven States; we are talking about an installation that has over 40 dams along the Tennessee River and its tributaries. We are talking about closing down, privatizing. I notice the gentleman, the author of the amendment there, says, we need to privatize the TVA. We need to get the TVA out of the power business. And can you imagine that? Can you imagine if an amendment like this passed that cut the funding from this program, I will not attempt to talk about all the disasters it would create. Can you imagine the 170,000-acre park down there, without any doubt the biggest animal preserve in the continental United States just suddenly being closed; 2 million people no longer would have a park to go to and the biggest preserve would be closed down there, just automatically, no study, no nothing, no thought about it?

And think about what would happen to the $20 million a year payment that the TVA is paying every year to the U.S. Government. Is that the way you balance the budget? Cut off your income? That is $20 million coming in every year. It is a check. It is money. It is being brought to the U.S. Treasury.

Now, are we going to cut that off, privatize it? That word privatize amazes me, the way they throw it around here. The shoe shine boy even mentioned it the other day. He said, They are trying to privatize me. I hear that word coming in from every angle around here. It sounds like it is magic or something. But I cannot imagine having a complaint about a $20 million payment coming into our Federal Government. I do not know of any other program we have that does that.

If any of you know of it, I would like to know about it, because I have not heard it.

I think the gentleman's intentions are good, but to be exact, there are 48 dams there, 652 miles of the Tennessee River, and there is some thousands of tons, 48 million tons of cargo going down this Tennessee River, this part of the TVA system. We could just go on.

If you want to privatize TVA, let us get a bill and get a study made and see what ought to be done about it. I think they would recommend we forget about it.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, may I be advised how much time I have remaining?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] has 1 minute remaining, and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] has 4 minutes remaining.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 3 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], and 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer], and that they be permitted to control that time.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?

There was no objection.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to make two points. First, on the argument of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill] that somehow this idea of privatizing the TVA is absolute anathema and will mean the end of the world. May I again refer to the same GAO report on the financial viability of the Tennessee Valley Authority:

TVA's links to the Federal Government--

these links that do not exist which do exist, says the GAO--

and its high debt limits have enabled it to borrow the billions of dollars needed for its nuclear construction program. TVA's electricity rates and power production decisions are not subject to the same oversight that other utilities routinely face. Although protected from competition by legislation and its customers contracts in the short run, TVA will have to compete with other utilities in the long run. Because of heavy debt burden and resultant high financing costs, TVA lacks the flexibility to successfully compete in this environment.

May I suggest that if we do not figure a way to privatize the Tennessee Valley Authority, your taxpayers in Alabama and mine in Wisconsin will at some point have to eat $28 billion in TVA debt. I am not making that up. That is the conclusion of the General Accounting Office.

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

Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, let us not tell the TVA to quit sending that $20 million a year to the government. Let us agree on that.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, sending how much to the Federal Government? Twenty million?

Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,

$20 million a year paid in to the government. We are talking about balancing the budget.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I will make a deal with the gentleman. They can keep the $20 million and you let me keep the other $103 million that is part of the debate right now.

The second conclusion on the TVA, this was in the House budget resolution:

Eliminate Federal support for the Tennessee Valley Authority. In 1995, Congress appropriated $143 million for these activities. This proposal would end this annual subsidy for TVA.

I would like Members to listen very carefully to the last sentence here:

Other equally deserving regions of the country fund these activities either through higher rates for electric power, local tax revenues, or user fees.

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

Mr. KLUG. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the gentleman, he has been reading from a report by the GAO. But in a letter to Mr. Quillen, dated June 28, 1995, the GAO said this:

Dear Mr. Quillen, your staff asked us to clarify whether the scope of our current review of the Tennessee Valley Authority included work on TVA's nonpower programs. Our review focused on TVA's power program. It did not examine TVA's nonpower programs.

We are today discussing TVA's nonpower programs. We are not discussing TVA's power programs. That is the bulk of the TVA work, 98 percent of it. But the GAO report that the gentleman from Wisconsin has been reading from repeatedly today did not examine the nonpower programs that we are discussing here in this amendment today. So there is a pretty big distinction there that I think should be made clear to everyone who is listening.

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I think my colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan, is absolutely correct. But I brought this report out in order to counter arguments from a number of Members on his side who have been saying, There is no longer a Federal relationship because the power administration operates on its own and the only money the Federal Government is somehow tied to TVA for are these ancillary operations. All I was trying to do in raising this GAO report is to say, any suggestion that the Federal Government is not deeply intertwined in the financial longrun future of TVA is not correct.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, but the gentleman does understand though that the TVA power programs are self-supporting and that taxpayers in Wisconsin and other parts of the country are not subsidizing the power programs of the TVA?

Mr. KLUG. Correct, Mr. Chairman, in that they are not paying current payments, but not correct to the degree that they got subsidized loans initially not available to other parts of the country.

Mr. DUNCAN. Initially, many years ago.

Mr. KLUG. Many years ago, correct, but it is still subsidized.

Mr. DUNCAN. The gentleman does understand, as the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] pointed out a few minutes ago, that TVA power rates have not been subsidized since 1959, and then it was only to a very, very small extent.

{time} 1700

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary].

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary] is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I guess I am going to give a slightly different perspective. I am going to reiterate some of the points, but slightly different. I grew up in the very shadow of TVA. From my parents' home, the home I grew up in, you could actually see the TVA dam and the cooling tower sticking out from the trees. We actually had our best friends in the world work for TVA. Now their sons and daughters work for TVA.

TVA has been a lot of good things to the Tennessee Valley. It has been some bad things. It has provided jobs, flood control, electricity, and in doing so, provided a lot of economic development in a region that sorely needed it. However, I will go a little further than my other colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp], in saying that it is not perfect. It is a long ways from being perfect. In fact, in my opinion, it has been extremely wasteful and mismanaged over the many years in the power part of TVA, not the non-power part of TVA.

Of course, we pay for this in the Tennessee River Valley with higher rates. No taxpayers in Wisconsin or any other part of the country pay for this, but we, the ratepayers in the Tennessee River Valley, pay for this management.

The amendment of our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin, does nothing to alleviate these problems. His amendment seeks to zero out TVA's nonpower budget. In a way, I have no problem with this, in some ways. I have no problem with TVA taking a hit. I tell everybody who comes into my office, people who are very sincere about their programs. Some programs in Tennessee were in the southern region, and I say to them that they are going to have to take a hit, too. We all have to take a hit to balance this budget. I think TVA is taking a hit, 28 percent.

I have no problem with some Federal programs being zeroed out. I think there are some programs in the Federal Government that are absolutely worthless, and should be zeroed out. However, that is not the case in the TVA's nonpower budget. The TVA's non-power budget goes, to a large extent, for flood control, navigational management, ecological, and environmental stewardship. These things, once again, will have to be picked up by some other Federal agency. These will have to be picked up by some other Federal agency, Mr. Chairman, so this is not one of those Federal programs

that needs to be zeroed out.

If it is not picked up by some other Federal agency, the is only one other choice. Those of us in the Tennessee River Valley will be accepting mediocre and in some cases unsafe stewardship of our shoreline, of our flood control. I just do not think that is the right thing to do.

For all these reasons, I urge all my freshman colleagues to pay attention to these very big distinctions. All of us are budget hawks up here. Many of us in the freshman class ran on this, and this is what we are dedicated to. However, this is a big distinction in this particular case. I urge all my colleagues in the freshman class and otherwise to vote ``no'' on the Klug amendment.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to my colleagues that are both here on the floor and those that are in their offices listening to this debate. I want to say to my classmate, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], I applaud him for his consumption with the budget and keeping us on the edge of where we need to be. As we from districts that have irons in these budget fires, the gentleman squeezes this budget and some of us feel the pain from that, but he has made us realize that we have to accept some cuts, that we have to reanalyze some of our connections to the Federal Government, because we cannot keep spending money at the rate or at the level we have been spending money.

However, I also want to say to my classmate that he is consistent with regard to my region, the ARC amendment and how this TVA amendment, and the space station fight we go through annually. I want to echo some of the words of my colleagues from Tennessee and from Kentucky and the other regions that certainly have interests connected to this issue here. I want to remind my colleagues, we are taking a 28-percent cut here. We are talking about an agency that runs

dams, almost 50 dams in the TVA area. We are talking about an agency that is charged with obligations that it cannot meet if this irresponsible amendment passes here today.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not speak to other alternate ways for us to run those almost 50 dams. This amendment does not talk about the flood control issues that our region of the country would be saddled with. There are many troublesome reasons that we need to oppose this amendment. This amendment ensures that rural communities in the Tennessee Valley will lose access to a variety of information sources, including education, health care, and business opportunities.

Much like the speaker who just spoke from Tennessee, my region takes a cut, a significant cut. We have the environmental research center, a TVA project, that is located in my district. It bears the direct impact of this budget cut, this 28-percent cut here today. That is a very important program in my district that TVA has started, that has environmental impact. I think those of us from our region have taken our fair share of cuts. We only ask the Members not to go so far as to cut us off. We think we have been responsible in this effort. I urge Members to oppose this Klug amendment.

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

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding the additional time.

However, I would like to set the record straight. As chairman of the TVA Caucus, I am delighted to do that, and I think the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] should listen carefully. Under the bond covenants financing the power program, there is a provision that no income from ratepayers can be used to maintain the dams, to provide for flood control, to provide for navigation, and all the things that he lists here as stewardship, water and land, land between the Lakes, et cetera, which are a Federal obligation.

Those obligations are performed by the Corps of Engineers throughout the other regions of the United States. If he is successful, and I hope he is not, in his amendment there is no provision in the energy and water bill to increase the funding for the Corps of Engineers to take over this operation. I think what the gentleman is saying is something that is completely foreign to the facts.

Also, the intent of the TVA Act when it was created in 1933, was that the power rates--the income from the power production--was not to be used for flood control, was not to be used for navigation, was not to be used for the protection and the care of the lands bordering the Tennessee River and the dams that they have constructed, so what he is doing is cutting, absolutely cutting and making TVA an inoperative agency.

Therefore, I urge this body, each and every Member, to oppose his amendment, because he does not have the facts in this case. Mr. Chairman, I remember when TVA was created in 1933. I remember how the flooding drove people out of the area. The farmers could not farm. The floods took and washed their crops away. It was disastrous.

Then farsighted Members of this body created the Tennessee Valley Authority to control the flooding, to provide farmland for the farmers to use for this Nation to enjoy the fruits of their labor and the food to eat. It was created. Over the years some 48 dams have been constructed on the Tennessee Valley, in the Tennessee Valley program, along the Tennessee River. It is a power-producing area, and the Federal Government does not pay any of the power production costs. That is done under the bonding of TVA itself.

Mr. Chairman, I remember going over to the Secretary of the Treasury with Marvin Runyon when he was Chairman of the Board of TVA. We finally persuaded the Government to replenish and give us permission to pay the Government off with a private bond program. Finally, after several trips, we were successful in doing that, and TVA issued bonds and paid off the Federal Government, relieved them of that obligation.

Already in this bill $42 million has been cut, whittled away. I do not like that, but I am willing to accept it. However, certainly, we are not going to destroy the viability of TVA. There is no money in any other agency to take over these obligations. In Wisconsin there are 14 Corps of Engineers projects, spending some $15 million. I do not see any amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin to cut out the Corps of Engineers' projects in Wisconsin. That is what he is trying to do, to seven States in the Tennessee Valley area, to cut out and rape the TVA program. I think what is good for the goose is good for the gander. We should defeat his amendment. Defeat it we must, and defeat it we will.

The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.

The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. KLUG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 144, noes 284, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 492]

AYES--144

AllardAndrewsArcherArmeyBaker (CA)BaldacciBallengerBarciaBarrett (WI)BartonBassBilbrayBilirakisBluteBoehnerBonillaBonoBrownbackBurtonCampCanadyCastleChabotChristensenChryslerCobleCoburnCombestCooleyCoxCraneCunninghamDeLayDeutschDoyleDreierDunnEhlersEhrlichEnsignFawellFlanaganFoleyForbesFowlerFranks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrisaFunderburkGalleglyGanskeGibbonsGossGreenGreenwoodGundersonGutknechtHancockHarmanHastertHastings (WA)HayworthHefleyHergerHobsonHoekstraHornHunterInglisKasichKennedy (RI)KennellyKleczkaKlugLargentLaTouretteLazioLoBiondoLutherManzulloMartiniMcCarthyMcCollumMcHaleMcInnisMcIntoshMeehanMetcalfMeyersMiller (FL)MolinariMoorheadMyrickNealNethercuttNeumannNussleOrtonOwensOxleyParkerPaxonPetriPorterPortmanPryceRamstadReedRegulaRiversRoemerRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothRoukemaRoyceSalmonSanfordSaxtonScarboroughSchaeferSchumerSeastrandSensenbrennerShadeggShawShaysSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (WA)SolomonSouderStearnsStockmanTalentTateThornberryTiahrtTorkildsenTorricelliUptonWhiteZeliffZimmer

NOES--284

AbercrombieAckermanBachusBaeslerBaker (LA)BarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBatemanBecerraBeilensonBentsenBereuterBermanBevillBishopBlileyBoehlertBoniorBorskiBoucherBrewsterBrowderBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)Bryant (TN)Bryant (TX)BunnBunningBurrBuyerCallahanCalvertCardinChamblissChapmanChenowethClayClaytonClementClingerClyburnColemanCollins (GA)Collins (IL)Collins (MI)ConditConyersCostelloCoyneCramerCrapoCremeansCubinDannerDavisde la GarzaDealDeFazioDeLauroDellumsDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoolittleDornanDuncanDurbinEdwardsEmersonEngelEnglishEshooEvansEverettEwingFarrFattahFazioFields (LA)FilnerFlakeFogliettaFordFrank (MA)Franks (CT)FrostFurseGejdensonGekasGephardtGerenGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGrahamGutierrezHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamiltonHansenHastings (FL)HayesHeinemanHillearyHilliardHincheyHokeHoldenHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHutchinsonHydeIstookJackson-LeeJacobs JeffersonJohnson (CT)Johnson (SD)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamJohnstonJonesKanjorskiKapturKellyKennedy (MA)KildeeKimKingKingstonKlinkKnollenbergKolbeLaFalceLaHoodLantosLathamLaughlinLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LightfootLincolnLinderLipinskiLivingstonLofgrenLoweyLucasMaloneyMantonMarkeyMartinezMascaraMatsuiMcCreryMcDadeMcDermottMcHughMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeekMenendezMfumeMicaMiller (CA)MinetaMingeMinkMollohanMontgomeryMoranMorellaMurthaMyersNadlerNeyNorwoodOberstarObeyOlverOrtizPackardPallonePastorPayne (NJ)Payne (VA)PelosiPeterson (FL)Peterson (MN)PickettPomboPomeroyPoshardQuillenQuinnRadanovichRahallRangelRichardsonRiggsRobertsRogersRoseRoybal-AllardRushSaboSandersSawyerSchiffSchroederScottSerranoShusterSisiskySkaggsSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (TX)SpenceSprattStarkStenholmStokesStuddsStumpStupakTannerTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TejedaThomasThompsonThorntonThurmanTorresTownsTraficantTuckerVelazquezVentoViscloskyVolkmerVucanovichWaldholtzWalkerWalshWampWardWatersWatt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhitfieldWickerWilliamsWilsonWiseWolfWoolseyWydenWynnYatesYoung (AK)Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Fields (TX)FoxHefnerLongleyMoakleyReynolds

{time} 1731

The Clerk announced the following pair:

On this vote:

Mr. Longley for, with Mr. Moakley against.

Messrs. HOLDEN, VENTO, FATTAH, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. CRAPO, and Mrs. CHENOWETH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

Mr. COOLEY, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, and Mr. BONO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title IV?

The Clerk will designate title V.

The text of title V is as follows:

TITLE V

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Sec. 505 of Public Law 102-377, the Fiscal Year 1993 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, and section 208 of Public Law 99-349, the Urgent Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1986, are repealed.

Sec. 502. Sec. 510 of Public Law 101-514, the Fiscal Year 1991 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, is repealed.

Sec. 503. Without fiscal year limitation and notwithstanding section 502(b)(5) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended, or any other provision of law, a member of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board whose term has expired may continue to serve as a member of the Board until such member's successor has taken office.

Sec. 504. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is made known to the Federal entity or official to which the funds are made available that the program, project, or activity is not in compliance with any applicable Federal law relating to risk assessment, the protection of private property rights, or unfunded mandates.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title V?

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, if I could get the attention of the gentleman from Texas, the majority whip. I have just run across a flyer here on the floor that says that we are going to be in session tomorrow evening, and we are not going to adjourn by 6 o'clock. We are going to be out Friday, but also it says that we are going to be in Monday, and I have already scheduled something out in my district, so I will have to make changes this coming Monday, and votes will begin by 5 o'clock. Is that correct?

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, that is correct. I think the majority leader had every intention later on this evening to explain the new schedule.

Mr. VOLKMER. Tonight we go to about midnight?

Mr. DeLAY. I am advised that, yes, we intend to go to midnight tonight. We are going until we finish this bill for sure, and we are going tomorrow until we finish the Interior appropriations bill.

Mr. VOLKMER. The majority leader will come in and fully explain why on all of this?

Mr. DeLAY. I think the majority leader had the intention of explaining the schedule later on this afternoon and this evening as the schedule applies to tomorrow, I mean, and next week.

Mr. TRAFICANT. If the gentleman will yield, we will be discussing that later. I had a question: Many Members had scheduled that Monday. Is it possible to roll those votes until Tuesday?

Mr. DeLAY. Certainly we can take that under advisement, but I think Members need to, right now, plan on votes after 5 o'clock on Monday.

And if we can get a hold of some of the time on some of the amendments, maybe we can schedule the session a little earlier during the days of the week.

Mr. YATES. If the gentleman will yield, may I ask the majority whip a question? Would it be possible tonight, instead of going into the amendment process, to take the rule, then have general debate and stop after general debate and begin the bill tomorrow? That way many Members will be enabled to go home at a fairly reasonable hour, about 10 o'clock.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, to answer the distinguished ranking member of the interior appropriations bill, we, in looking at the amendments that have been published in the amendments, we understand that will be offered on the Interior bill and trying to extrapolate that over time of tonight and up through tomorrow, it looks that we have it pretty well scheduled to where we have to get into amendments in order to finish the Interior bill by tomorrow evening.

Mr. YATES. You may have to go to midnight tomorrow night as well, because, as I understand it, there are 71 amendments to the Interior bill.

Mr. DeLAY. Well, we understand that, and if we have to go to midnight tomorrow night to finish the Interior bill, we will just have to do that. We lost a lot of time last week and the early part of this week, and we have every intention of passing every appropriations bill before and honor the August 4 adjournment date.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. If the gentleman will yield, why do you not look into having us come in next week and the week after, just to try to come in at 9 o'clock on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and work until 9 o'clock, 12 hours a day? That gives Members a better time to plan, and it makes a lot of sense. I know that does not work very well around here. You ought

to look at it from 9 to 9 and do it Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, and it will certainly help Members.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, I think the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi has a very good point, and we just may very well have to do that. We may very well have to look at working the weekend of the 28th and the 29th, through the weekend, in order to finish these bills. We do not intend to take away the privilege of any Member to offer any amendment to strike on an appropriations bill, and we want to make sure every Member of the House has the opportunity to do that, and as we look at the number of amendments that are being filed, it is obvious to us that many Members are taking advantage of that, and we have to adjust the schedule accordingly.

Mr. TRAFICANT. I would hope that the Republican leadership would look at rolling those votes until Tuesday. If we have a schedule where we make plans, even at this critical time, we should try and look at that.

amendment offered by mr. traficant

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section:

Sec. 505. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds made available in this Act should be American-made.

(b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to such entity a notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the Congress.

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, this is an amendment that has been incorporated in all of the appropriations bills. It is the same amendment that has been approved on all others. It poses no controversy. It provides that we might even buy some American-made products and give a little notice encouraging same.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the author of the amendment, for yielding. This is an amendment that you have championed for a number of years, very successfully.

This committee has accepted it in the past, and the Republicans accept your amendment.

Mr. TRAFICANT. I thank the chairman. I support his bill.

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

Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. BEVILL. Mr. Chairman, I have no objections.

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

The amendment was agreed to.

amendment offered by mr. markey

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Markey: Page 29, after line 25, insert the following new section:

Sec. 505. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Energy Supply, Research and Development Activities'', and increasing the amount made available for ``Nuclear Waste Disposal fund'' and ``Nuclear Regulatory Commission--Salaries and Expenses''

(consisting of an increase of $200,000,000 and $11,000,000, respectively), by $211,000,000.

point of order

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly raise a point of order against the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to increase an appropriation not authorized by law and, therefore, is in violation of clause 2(a) of rule XXI. Although the original account funding from nuclear waste fund is unauthorized, it was permitted to remain pursuant to the provisions of the rule we are now considering that provided for consideration of this bill.

When an authorized appropriation is permitted to remain in a general appropriation bill, an amendment merely changing that amount is in order, but the rules of the House apply a merely perfecting standard to the items permitted to remain and do not allow insertion of a new paragraph not part of the original text permitted to remain, to change indirectly a figure permitted to remain. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts cannot be construed as merely perfecting, and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Chair rule the amendment out of order.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point of order?

Mr. MARKEY. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to be heard on the point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, on page 81 of the committee report, committee states itself quite clearly that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987 authorize a waste management system for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste from commercial and atomic energy defense activities.

These laws establish the nuclear waste disposal fund to finance disposal activities through the correction of fees from the owners and generators of nuclear waste. The committee recommends $226 million to be derived from the fund in fiscal year 1996, et cetera, et cetera.

Clearly, the underlying Nuclear Waste Policy Act has authorized, and the Waste Policy Act of 1987 have authorized the money. That is the platform legislation which we are using for discussion in this

debate, and any ruling to the contrary would negate the long historical legislative record in this area that clearly makes the amendment which I have before the House in order this evening.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Indiana wish to be heard?

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I do.

If the gentleman would go over to page 124, the committee has recognized those programs and agencies that are not authorized by law. You will find, pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law, and nuclear waste disposal fund is about the sixth one down.

Mr. Chairman, in title XLII, section 10222, paragraph (e), the administration of a waste fund, the last section, the Secretary may make expenditures from the waste fund subject to appropriations which shall remain available until expended. Appropriations shall be subject to triennial authorization, very clearly.

I insist on my point of order.

Mr. MARKEY. Clearly, there is an internal contradictory position which the committee has taken within its own document.

Page 81, they make it quite clear that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the Nuclear Waste Policy of 1982 and of 1987 each have authorized the waste management system, and then within their own document they negate that conclusion by the arbitrary statement that the nuclear waste disposal fund is not authorized. Clearly, there is right now an ongoing excavation at Yucca Mountain. Clearly, there is an ongoing collection of funds from all the nuclear electric utilities in the United States, and clearly the whole subject of this debate is premised upon the authorized 1982 and 1987 Nuclear Waste Policy Acts.

The statement by staff in a committee report later on that this is not, in fact, authorized only seeks to make possible the point of order which the gentleman is making right now, but clearly the earlier part of this legislation that is the committee report had to be stated this way in order for the committee to proceed at all.

{time} 1745

So, any ruling by the Chair, notwithstanding the objection by the gentleman from Indiana, has to reflect the actuality that this committee has stated clearly, that the legislation has been--that this has been authorized and, in fact, has been authorized going back to 1982, with continuing legislation in 1987, and the Chair in ruling, I think, should reflect the history of this entire area plus the very statement of the committee in their own document with regard to the authorizing of these funds.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, there has been long precedents in this House that conclusively establishes that the proponents of an amendment bear the burden of responsibility of establishing the appropriation added by the amendments is authorized in law. Nevertheless, I observe that the payments for the nuclear waste fund are subject to triannual, as we just cited in title XLII, authorization. Pursuant to the provision of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, such authorization has not been enacted since 1987, long past the established provisions of title XLII of the U.S. public health and welfare. It says they must be subject to a triannual

authorization.

I insist on my point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.

Mr. MARKEY. I wait for the Chair's ruling with great anticipation.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] makes the point of order that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts

[Mr. Markey] violates clause 2 of rule XXI by providing an unauthorized appropriation.

The amendment proposes to insert a new paragraph on page 29 in title V that will indirectly change figures in three earlier paragraphs in title III on pages 16, 18, and 26. It would reduce the amount provided for energy supply, research and development, and increase the amounts provided for nuclear waste disposal and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The increases proposed by the amendment are not authorized by law. The Chair notes that the amounts already carried in the bill for those objects are likewise unauthorized, as indicated on pages 124 and 125 of the committee report and the law cited by the gentleman from Indiana, 42 U.S.C. 10222(e). However, the unauthorized amounts in the bill were permitted to remain by House Resolution 171.

Where an unauthorized appropriation is permitted to remain in a general appropriation bill, an amendment directly changing that amount in that paragraph, and not adding legislative language or earmarking separate funds for another unauthorized purpose, is in order as merely perfecting. But an amendment adding a further unauthorized amount is not in order.

The precedents that admit a germane perfecting amendment to an unauthorized item permitted to remain--for example, Deschler's volume 8, chapter 26, section 3.38--deal with actual changes in a figure permitted to remain. They apply a merely perfecting standard in the strictest sense of that phrase. None involve the insertion of a new paragraph--not part of the text permitted to remain--to change indirectly a figure permitted to remain.

The amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts cannot be construed as merely perfecting under the precedents. Accordingly, the Chair sustains the point of order.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Committee?

The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 255, noes 167, not voting 12, as follows:

AYES--255

AllardArcherArmeyBachusBaker (CA)Baker (LA)BallengerBarrBarrett (NE)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBeilensonBereuterBilbrayBilirakisBlileyBluteBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBonoBrownbackBryant (TN)BunnBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCastleChabotChamblissChenowethChristensenChryslerClingerCobleCollins (GA)CombestCooleyCoxCraneCrapoCremeansCubinCunninghamDannerDavisde la GarzaDealDeLayDiaz-BalartDickeyDoolittleDornanDreierDuncanDunnEhlersEhrlichEmersonEnglishEnsignEverettEwingFawellFazioFields (TX)FlanaganFoleyForbesFowlerFranks (CT)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrisaFunderburkGalleglyGanskeGekasGephardtGerenGilchrestGillmorGilmanGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGreenwoodGundersonGutknechtHall (TX)HancockHansenHastertHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayesHayworthHefleyHeinemanHergerHillearyHobsonHoekstraHokeHornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJacobsJohnson (CT)Johnson, SamJohnstonJonesKasichKellyKennellyKimKingKingstonKlugKnollenbergKolbeLaHoodLargentLathamLaTouretteLaughlinLazioLeachLewis (CA)Lewis (KY)LightfootLinderLivingstonLoBiondoLucasManzulloMartiniMcCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMetcalfMeyersMfumeMicaMiller (FL)MolinariMontgomeryMoorheadMorellaMyersMyrickNethercuttNeumannNeyNorwoodNussleOxleyPackardParkerPaxonPetriPomboPorterPortmanPryceQuillenQuinnRadanovichRamstadRegulaRiggsRobertsRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRothRoukemaRoyceSalmonSanfordSaxtonScarboroughSchaeferSchiffSeastrandSensenbrennerShadeggShawShaysShusterSkaggsSkeenSkeltonSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SolomonSouderSpenceStearnsStenholmStockmanStumpTalentTannerTateTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)ThomasThornberryTiahrtTorkildsenUptonVolkmerVucanovichWaldholtzWalkerWalshWampWatts (OK)WaxmanWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerWilsonWolfYatesYoung (AK)Young (FL)ZeliffZimmer

NOES--167

AbercrombieAndrewsBaeslerBaldacciBarciaBarrett (WI)BecerraBentsenBermanBevillBishopBoniorBorskiBoucherBrewsterBrown (CA)Brown (FL)Brown (OH)Bryant (TX)CardinClayClaytonClementClyburnColemanCollins (IL)Collins (MI)ConditConyersCostelloCoyneCramerDeFazioDeLauroDellumsDeutschDicksDingellDixonDoggettDooleyDoyleDurbinEdwardsEngelEshooEvansFarrFattahFields (LA)FilnerFlakeFogliettaFordFrank (MA)FrostFurseGejdensonGibbonsGonzalezGreenGutierrezHall (OH)HamiltonHarmanHilliardHincheyHoldenJackson-LeeJohnson (SD)Johnson, E.B.KanjorskiKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KildeeKleczkaKlinkLaFalceLantosLevinLewis (GA)LincolnLipinskiLofgrenLoweyLutherMaloneyMantonMarkeyMascaraMatsuiMcCarthyMcDermottMcHaleMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeekMenendezMiller (CA)MinetaMingeMinkMollohanMoranMurthaNadlerNealOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOrtonOwensPallonePastorPayne (NJ)Payne (VA)PelosiPeterson (FL)Peterson (MN)PickettPomeroyPoshardRahallRangelReedRichardsonRiversRoemerRoseRoybal-AllardRushSaboSandersSawyerSchroederSchumerScottSerranoSisiskySlaughterSprattStarkStokesStuddsStupakTejedaThompsonThorntonThurmanTorresTorricelliTownsTraficantTuckerVelazquezVentoViscloskyWardWatersWatt (NC)WilliamsWiseWoolseyWydenWynn

NOT VOTING--12

AckermanBrowderChapmanCoburnFoxHefnerJeffersonKapturLongleyMartinezMoakleyReynolds

{time} 1811

Messrs. OWENS, KLECZKA, DURBIN, and BALDACCI changed their vote from

``aye'' to ``no.''

Messrs. FAZIO of California, DICKEY, HASTINGS of Florida, MFUME, and GORDON, and Mrs. KENNELLY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

amendment offered by mr. bereuter

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, preprinted, amendment No. 1.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Bereuter: At the end of the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the following new section:

Sec. 505. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to revise the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual when it is made known to the Federal entity or official to which the funds are made available that such revision provides for an increase in the springtime water release program during the spring heavy rainfall and snow melt period in States that have rivers draining into the Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam.

(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment which simply prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from revising the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual in such a way that it would increase the likelihood of springtime flooding.

Such a commonsense amendment is needed to ensure that the corps does not repeat its previous mistake--a proposal which would have devastated farms, businesses, landowners, and countless communities along the Missouri River.

Last year the corps issued its proposed changes to the Master Manual and made a colossal blunder by proposing to drastically increase the flow and water level of the Missouri River during the months of April, May, and June. These obviously are the very months when States such as Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri are already most vulnerable to flooding due to the mountain snow melt in the Rocky Mountain West and heavy spring rains swelling the immediate watersheds of the Missouri River tributaries in the four-State area.

It's bad enough that farmers and other landowners along the river have to contend with natural disasters. They shouldn't be forced to deal with the kind of man-made disasters which would have been caused by the corps' proposal. The floods of 1993 and the heavy rains this spring offer clear and convincing proof that the corps' recent proposal was seriously flawed.

At a series of two dozen hearings throughout the Missouri River basin region, many hundreds of participants expressed very strong, even vociferous and nearly unanimous opposition to a number of provisions in the corps' preferred alternative. One of the most detested provisions was the proposed increase in its so-called ``spring rise.''

Mr. Chairman, following this massive opposition to the proposed changes, the corps acknowledged the flaws in the original proposal and expressed a willingness to reevaluate the issue. Hopefully, the corps has gotten the message loud and clear and now understands the devastation which would be caused by the spring rise they originally envisioned. However, this Member believes this common sense amendment is needed to make absolutely certain that the corps does not repeat this mistake.

Mr. Chairman, I know a couple of my colleagues would also like to speak on this. I yield to a colleague and neighbor who has been working very diligently on this effort, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham].

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the Bereuter amendment and to commend my colleague and friend from Nebraska on offering this amendment.

The Bereuter amendment prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from spending any funds to implement changes in the corps' Missouri River Master Control Manual that would increase springtime water releases along the river or its tributaries.

I have been pleased to work with Mr. Bereuter and roughly two dozen colleagues who represent areas downstream on the Missouri or Lower Mississippi Rivers to oppose the so-called ``preferred alternative'' for river management.

This plan would have resulted in exactly the type of spring-time flooding increases the Bereuter amendment seeks to prevent.

These spring rises coupled with fall flow reductions would have been extremely damaging to my constituents, their land and our local economy.

Fortunately, the Army Corps' Omaha office, under the very able leadership of Cmdr. Mike Thuss, has come to the sensible conclusion that the ``preferred alternative'' is seriously flawed and a comprehensive revaluation of water control alternatives is needed.

I hope as this effort continues, all my colleagues who represent districts where river navigation and flood control are important will work with Mr. Bereuter, Ms. Danner of Missouri other Members and myself who are interested in this issue to ensure that the Federal Government's historic commitment to flood control and river navigation continues.

{time} 1815

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri

[Mr. Emerson].

(Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska for yielding to me, and I rise in very strong support of his amendment and commend him for his action here.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bereuter amendment to prohibit any of the bill's funds from being used to make any changes in the Corps of Engineers' Missouri River Master Manual for their plan to increase spring-time water release along the Missouri River and its tributaries. The so-called ``Preferred Alternative'' is being touted by the Corps of Engineers on behalf of recreational interests and radicals in the environmental community who want to shut our inland waterway system down and restore the breeding ground for the ever-elusive Pallid Sturgeon. Put simply, this plan is misguided and ill-conceived. It would have a devastating impact on agriculture, flood control, and navigation on most of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.

The Missouri and Mississippi inland waterway system is a major link for commerce and industry in order to move goods and services throughout America and around the globe. In fact the Missouri River alone is responsible for the shipment of 2.5 million tons of commercial cargo each year. In addition, as its largest tributary, the Missouri River provides 45 percent to 65 percent of the water that flows into the Mississippi River between St. Louis, MO and Cairo, IL--a stretch responsible for tons of cargo valued at $16 billion annually. More than 70 percent of the Nation's total grain exports are handled through Mississippi River port elevators and one half of the total grain exports eventually end up in New Orleans. The controversial plan that some political types would force the corps to foist on the public would significantly shorten the barge season in the fall when commerce and agriculture need water the most to carry their goods to market. It would put barge operators out of business and ruin river transportation. Quite clearly, agriculture and navigation are the targets here--clear them out and shut down the river.

Moreover, the plan proposes to raise the level of water on the Missouri in the springtime--a time of the year when the river is at its highest level. After the Midwest floods of 1993 environmental extremists made ridiculous assumptions that it was the levees that caused the flooding and that we couldn't build them back. Well, I submit to you that if this plan were to go into effect we won't need the levees because each spring the corps will release an extra 20,000 cubic feet per second of water during the flood-prone spring months and it will devastate communities protected along the river. All of this in the name of protecting water skiers and a fish.

Last, Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the Environmental Protection Agency--a Federal agency whose work I rarely extol on this floor--has studied the corps' plan. They claim, and I quote, ``the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers draft environmental impact statement for the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual is environmentally unsatisfactory . . . contains inadequate information . . . and is likely to result in little, if any, improvement to the Missouri River ecosystem, including habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species.''

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Bereuter amendment and preserve our navigation, our flood control, and inland waterway system as we know it.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri

[Mr. Volkmer].

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I, too, wish to commend the gentleman from Nebraska for this amendment.

As one who has suffered from the floods in the Missouri River Basin in the year of 1993 and again this spring, I realize that the master plan as originally drafted and if implemented by the corps would have meant the types of floods that we had in 1993 and again this spring in 1995 would have been almost an annual thing in the spring, with the spring rains and all the thaws up north and the release of the waters from the reservoirs in the north. It would have meant that we would have had an annual flood. And it does not make sense in order to do so.

It also would have meant that in the time frame of August through December, we would have such a low flow in the Missouri River that we would not have any ability to have barge transportation to move our agriculture products. It just did not make sense.

I want to commend the gentleman from Nebraska. We have been working together, those of us from the States of Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Illinois, and others, in order to make sure that this does not happen. The gentleman has a very good amendment. I urge the House to adopt the amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, my sister has been sandbagging in the gentleman's district the last 2 years and hopefully she will not have to do it the third year.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].

Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, my wife was sandbagging in 1993 in my home town of Lexington. I point out that my home is on the Missouri River and, throughout my lifetime, I have seen the problems of the rising of the spring floods. And I want to commend the gentleman for this amendment.

I also wish to point out that had the master manual plan gone into effect, it would have been devastating for all of us, particularly for agriculture in the State of Missouri.

The gentleman who has heard us in the Corps of Engineers, and I wish to pay tribute to him, Colonel Mike Thuss, has done a remarkable job of listening and hopefully his recommendations will be along the line that will be suitable for all of Missouri for agriculture and for those downstream people who depend so much upon the natural flow of this river.

I thank the gentleman, and I support the amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

(Mr. POMEROY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I recognize the legitimacy of the concern he seeks to address. Speaking from the upstream perspective on the Missouri River, there is a word of reservation I want to advance about dealing in an appropriations bill with the minutiae of the administrative branch, in this case the Corps of Engineers. The process has already worked as it should. The Corps of Engineers had extensive hearings on the spring rise proposal and received a ton of input, nearly all of it negative. They no longer have plans, as I understand it, to implement the spring rise proposal as initially advanced. They are back to the drawing board.

Therefore, this kind of restriction imposed without hearing in the appropriations process is, in my opinion, not necessary, although I do acknowledge the gentleman's concern and would note that my wife, in 1993, spent 3 weeks working in Iowa on the flooding there.

Mr. Chairman, from its origins in Montana to its end near St. Louis, the mighty Missouri River is managed and controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers. Five years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers began a review of its river management plan, commonly called the master manual. This was the first major review of the manual since it was implemented in 1960.

This fair and objective review process, now underway, has included Representatives of each of the States affected by the Missouri River and the master manual, including Mr. Bereuter. At this point, Congress should not alter this process within the energy and water appropriations bill.

Last month, the corps informed Members of Congress of preliminary draft recommendations for reviewing and updating the master manual. The corps has received thousands of comments on its initial draft recommendation and is specifically concerned with its draft proposal as it relates the spring rise. The corps is addressing the spring rise issue in a revised draft that will be released in 1997.

To be brief, the process is working as intended. The corps put forth a proposal that contained a number of flaws, including the spring rise. Now the corps is reexamining those issues to develop an alternative that will be acceptable to those affected by the spring rise and other Missouri River management concerns.

This Congress should not get involved with the specifics of the master manual. Instead, we should allow the process to proceed as it has with input from all interested and affected parties.

In fact, I do not necessarily oppose the intentions of my friend, Mr. Bereuter, in addressing his concerns of the spring rise. However, within the process of revising the master control manual we should not address specifics of revising the manual within this appropriations bill.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I would say that as the elected Representatives of the people, they expect us to take action when appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my neighbor, the gentlewoman from Missouri

[Ms. Danner].

Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague's amendment. Let me say, for those of us who represent areas that have been flooded, not only in 1993 but in the other serious flood in 1995, we know that we have issues that need to be addressed.

I believe that the gentleman's amendment does that. I am pleased to have been able to work with you during this period of time so that we could bring to the attention of the Corps of Engineers that there were some flaws in their proposal, flaws that needed to be corrected. I think that this will go a long way in that direction.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers].

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, we accept the gentleman's amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].

The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Pallone

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Pallone: Page 29, after line 25 insert the following new section:

Sec. 505. The amount otherwise provided in this Act for the following account is hereby reduced by the following amount:

(1) ``Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund'', aggregate amount,

$1,000.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana reserves a point of order.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is basically to reduce the amount of money that is set aside for interim storage of nuclear waste and essentially make the point that there is not enough funding for a permanent repository.

As the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, I believe we have a responsibility to both the taxpayers and the ratepayers of our county to ensure that we have a safe and environmentally sound permanent repository for our Nation's nuclear waste.

I also believe that we need to make good on the Federal Government's commitment to utilities to assume responsibility for this waste.

However, I do not think it is fair to anyone to sacrifice long-term disposal for short-term gain. In fact, in the course of two comprehensive hearings held by the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, it became abundantly clear that long-term storage was the priority for all interested parties. That is why I am concerned about the language that is in this bill that funds interim storage yet directs DOE to downgrade or terminate its activities at Yucca Mountain.

This language, in addition to being at odds with existing law, I believe, jeopardizes the important gains we've made in the last 2 years toward siting a permanent repository by focusing funding on an unauthorized interim storage facility. The amendment I am offering makes a token reduction in the waste disposal fund, which is necessary for the amendment to be in order, but my intent is to redirect the focus of the program back to

building a permanent waste repository.

I understand the desire to have interim storage, even though onsite storage is safe, and I am not opposed to the idea of interim storage. However, I believe the Federal Government has a moral and statutory responsibility to continue with site characterization work for a permanent repository.

My amendment would allow the Government to fulfill its responsibility to permanently dispose of nuclear waste by indicating the intent of Congress that funds appropriated in this bill for the DOE and NRC be used for site characterization of Yucca Mountain. This is the most responsible approach we can take at this time.

I don't think I have to remind my colleagues that what we are talking about here is ratepayer money. This program is wholly funded by monies paid in good faith by the users of nuclear power. In fact, nuclear utility customers have paid billions of dollars into the fund beyond what has been spent and they continue to pay more each year than we appropriate. So restoring proper direction to this program is, in effect, only an effort to make good on the agreement we made with the ratepayers. These ratepayers provide us with more than $600 million in funding for this program each year: It's only fair that we use that money for the purpose it was intended.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PALLONE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the committee is willing to accept the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gunderson

Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Gunderson: Page 29, after line 25, insert the following new section:

Sec. 505. None of the funds made available in this Act for the Army Corps of Engineers Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway System Navigation Study may be used to study any portion of the Upper Mississippi River located above Lock and Dam 14 at Moline, Illinois, and Bettendorf, Iowa, except that the limitation in this section shall not apply to the conducting of any system-wide environmental baseline study pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act.

Mr. GUNDERSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?

There was no objection.

(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana

[Mr. Myers].

Mr. MYERS of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin has explained his amendment to the committee. We accept the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].

The amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title V?

If not, the Clerk will read the last two lines of the bill.

The Clerk read as follows:

This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 1996''.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to the bill?

If not, under the rule, the Committee rises.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Oxley, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1905) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution No. 171, had directed him to report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.

Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.

The amendments were agreed to.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.

Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 400, nays 27, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 494]

YEAS--400

AbercrombieAckermanAllardAndrewsArcherArmeyBachusBaeslerBaker (CA)Baker (LA)BaldacciBallengerBarciaBarrBarrett (NE)Barrett (WI)BartlettBartonBassBatemanBentsenBereuterBermanBevillBilirakisBishopBlileyBluteBoehlertBoehnerBonillaBoniorBonoBorskiBoucherBrewsterBrown (FL)Brown (OH)BrownbackBryant (TN)Bryant (TX)BunnBunningBurrBurtonBuyerCallahanCalvertCampCanadyCardinCastleChabotChamblissChapmanChenowethChristensenChryslerClayClaytonClementClingerClyburnCobleCoburnColemanCollins (GA)Collins (IL)Collins (MI)CombestConditConyersCooleyCostelloCoxCoyneCramerCraneCrapoCremeansCubinCunninghamDannerDavisde la GarzaDealDeLauroDeLayDeutschDiaz-BalartDickeyDicksDixonDoggettDooleyDoolittleDornanDoyleDreierDuncanDunnDurbinEdwardsEhlersEhrlichEmersonEngelEnglishEnsignEshooEvansEverettEwingFarrFawellFazioFields (LA)Fields (TX)FlakeFlanaganFoleyForbesFordFowlerFranks (CT)Franks (NJ)FrelinghuysenFrisaFrostFunderburkGalleglyGanskeGejdensonGekasGephardtGerenGibbonsGilchrestGillmorGilmanGonzalezGoodlatteGoodlingGordonGossGrahamGreenGreenwoodGundersonGutierrezGutknechtHall (OH)Hall (TX)HamiltonHancockHansenHastings (FL)Hastings (WA)HayesHayworthHeinemanHergerHillearyHilliardHobsonHoekstraHokeHoldenHornHostettlerHoughtonHoyerHunterHutchinsonHydeInglisIstookJackson-LeeJeffersonJohnson (CT)Johnson (SD)Johnson, E. B.Johnson, SamJohnstonJonesKanjorskiKapturKasichKellyKennedy (MA)Kennedy (RI)KennellyKildeeKimKingKingstonKleczkaKlinkKlugKnollenbergKolbeLaFalceLaHoodLantosLargentLathamLaTouretteLaughlinLazioLeachLevinLewis (CA)Lewis (GA)Lewis (KY)LightfootLincolnLinderLipinskiLivingstonLoBiondoLofgrenLoweyLucasLutherMaloneyMantonManzulloMarkeyMartinezMartiniMascaraMatsuiMcCarthyMcCollumMcCreryMcDadeMcHaleMcHughMcInnisMcIntoshMcKeonMcKinneyMcNultyMeehanMeekMenendezMetcalfMeyersMfumeMicaMiller (CA)Miller (FL)MinetaMingeMinkMolinariMollohanMontgomeryMoorheadMoranMorellaMurthaMyersMyrickNealNethercuttNeumannNeyNorwoodNussleOberstarObeyOlverOrtizOrtonOxleyPackardPallonePastorPaxonPayne (NJ)Payne (VA)PelosiPeterson (FL)Peterson (MN)PetriPickettPomboPomeroyPorterPortmanPoshardPryceQuillenQuinnRadanovichRahallRamstadRangelRegulaRichardsonRiggsRiversRobertsRogersRohrabacherRos-LehtinenRoseRothRoukemaRoybal-AllardRoyceRushSaboSalmonSanfordSawyerSaxtonScarboroughSchaeferSchiffSchumerScottSeastrandSerranoShadeggShawShaysShusterSisiskySkaggsSkeenSkeltonSlaughterSmith (MI)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)Smith (WA)SolomonSouderSpenceSprattStarkStearnsStenholmStockmanStokesStuddsStumpStupakTalentTannerTateTauzinTaylor (MS)Taylor (NC)TejedaThomasThompsonThornberryThorntonThurmanTiahrtTorkildsenTorresTorricelliTownsTraficantTuckerUptonVelazquezViscloskyVolkmerVucanovichWaldholtzWalkerWalshWampWardWatt (NC)Watts (OK)WaxmanWeldon (FL)Weldon (PA)WellerWhiteWhitfieldWickerWilliamsWilsonWiseWolfWoolseyWydenWynnYatesYoung (AK)Young (FL)ZeliffZimmer

NAYS--27

BecerraBeilensonBilbrayBrown (CA)DeFazioDellumsDingellFattahFilnerFogliettaFrank (MA)FurseHarmanHefleyHincheyJacobsMcDermottNadlerOwensParkerReedRoemerSandersSchroederSensenbrennerVentoWaters

NOT VOTING--7

BrowderFoxHastertHefnerLongleyMoakleyReynolds

{time} 1847

Ms. LOFGREN, Mr. TUCKER, and Mr. PAYNE of New Jersey changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''

So the bill was passed.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 141, No. 112