Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1476) to settle certain Miccosukee Indian land takings claims within the State of Florida.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1476, the bill just debated.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I include the following two letters for the Record: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Region, Austin Reclamation Office, Austin, TX, April 10, 1997. Mr. John Williams, P.E. General Manager, Canadian River Municipal Water Authority, Sanford, TX. Subject: Use of Project Conveyance Facilities--Canadian River Project, Texas. Dear Mr. Williams: This is in reference to our letter dated February 21, 1997, concerning the augmentation of existing Canadian River Project (Project) water supplies with groundwater from wells located east of the Project. As explained in the letter, our preliminary evaluation indicated the lack of general authority to allow the use of reclamation project facilities for storing or conveying non-project water, and that such use of project facilities would require new or amendatory legislation. A more comprehensive review of Reclamation laws has revealed existing statutes which provide sufficient authority to allow the incorporation of the proposed ground water project's facilities and water into the Canadian River Project. This can be accomplished administratively without further legislative action, but would require review, approval and compliance under existing processes and regulatory laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act. If you would like to pursue the option outlined above, we recommend that a meeting be scheduled to discuss the administrative process required for incorporating the ground water project into existing facilities. If you have any questions, or need any additional information, please contact me or Mike Martin of this office at telephone No. (512) 916-5641. Sincerely, Elizabeth Cordova-Harrison, Area Manager.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time at this point, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time until the time on the other side is yielded back.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it is helpful for someone who has been involved in this project from the beginning to give a brief review of some of the difficulties that has made this legislation necessary. As a matter of fact, there have been 88 changes to the project over time, none of which have caused any sort of question to arise from the Bureau of Reclamation as for the authority to tie in privately financed changes into the existing project. And this project itself has been on the drawing books for at least 5 years. The Bureau knew about it every step of the way, and yet not until February of this year did they raise any questions about it. I will make part of the Record some of the letters that the Municipal Water Authority has received from the Bureau questioning whether the Bureau has even the authority to allow this project to go forward. As a matter of fact, I will quote briefly from a February 21, 1997, letter signed by Mrs. Elizabeth Cordova-Harrison, area manager, that says: The implementation of the current proposal to convey groundwater via the pipeline project would require new or amendatory legislative authority. Of course, then they study it a little bit more; and on April 1997 they write back, I will put the full letter in the Record, but basically they believe, well, maybe we find that we do have the authority after all. The point of that is that there is at least some question, at least with some people in the Bureau, about whether there is the legislative authority to allow this privately financed, independently-obtained groundwater supply and mix it with the current supplies. H.R. 2007 has been amended. It requires an environmental review. That environmental review is going to be paid for by the water district itself, not by the Federal Government. We have bent over backward to make sure that all of the provisions of this measure are consistent with the intent of this Congress, but also that there are not unnecessary bureaucratic delays because of some confusion as far as the legislative authority by the Bureau of Reclamation. That is why this legislation exists. We have worked in a bipartisan way with Members on the other side of the aisle to come up with this language, and I believe it makes a lot of sense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 2007. This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to allow the use of the Bureau of Reclamation facilities in Texas for the transport of water from the proposed Canadian River conjunctive use ground-water project to municipalities receiving water from the existing reclamation project. This additional water is needed because the yield of the Reclamation's Canadian River project is less than originally anticipated and because of ongoing water quality problems associated with the Federal project. The Canadian River Municipal Water Authority has a proposal to construct this ground-water project in order to supplement project water supplies with better quality ground water. The proposed ground- water project will not require Federal funding. It would be interconnected with the existing Canadian River project facilities in order for the ground water to be mixed with project water and distributed throughout the existing conveyance system. This legislation is needed because questions have been raised about the authority of the Bureau of Reclamation to allow the interconnection of the non-Federal ground-water project with the Federal Canadian River project facilities. This bill will also ensure that the environmental review of the interconnection facilities is completed in a timely manner. H.R. 2007 further stipulates that all of the costs for construction, operation, and maintenance of the ground-water project are the responsibility of the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority. This bill goes a long way to resolving at no cost to the Federal Government the water quality and water supply issues facing 11 cities in the High Plains area of Texas, including Lubbock and Amarillo. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. FARR of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2007) to amend the Act that authorized the Canadian River reclamation project, Texas, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow use of the project distribution system to transport water from sources other that the project, as amended.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2007, the bill just considered.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 695.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Achieving a balanced budget has been a major priority of mine since I first ran for Congress. I am very pleased that today we will vote on a measure that will balance the budget for the first time in 28 years. In addition to balancing the budget, important headway is made with this legislation in several areas. The Medicare Trust Fund is preserved to the year 2007. The package contains structural reforms and expands choices for seniors. The bill includes preventive care benefits for mammographies, pap smears, diabetes, prostate, and colorectal cancer screening, vaccines and others. Tough, new antifraud measures will increase accountability through stiff penalties for those in violation of the law. Medical Savings Accounts [MSA's] will allow tax-free annual contributions to an individually controlled account and can be used to pay for qualified medical expenses. The project will cover 390,000 seniors and would be combined with a high-deductible insurance policy to provide protection against catastrophic injuries or illnesses. This bill also increases the freedom and options available to beneficiaries. Patients will finally be allowed to privately pay for services not offered by Medicare. Additionally, Medicare can no longer restrict providers' advice to beneficiaries about medical care or treatment. Beneficiaries will also be given a voice via a new toll-free number to report fraud and billing irregularities directly to the inspector general of Health and Human Services. While I am in support of the provisions that will preserve Medicare to the year 2007, I also understand the need for continued reform. With this legislation, a National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare will address Medicare's long-term solvency crisis and make recommendations to Congress on how to preserve the Medicare Program. In addition to the Medicare provisions, the Medicaid portion of the bill projects savings of $13 billion over 5 years and increases State flexibility, allowing States to provide more cost-effective medical coverage for low-income persons. The legislation also reforms the disproportionate share hospital [DSH] payments through a revised formula designed to protect States from excessive reductions. There are many positive provisions in this bill in addition to the ones I have mentioned. However, there are also a variety of provisions that I do not support. For example, I do not support increasing taxes and do not believe this increase is the appropriate forum to deal with the question of tobacco. I also have concerns about the children's health provisions. While I definitely want to see every child receive necessary medical attention, I do not believe that the Federal Government can or should replace parents in caring for children. I am also disappointed States like Texas will not be permitted to use nongovernmental personnel in the determination of eligibility for certain benefits. As this Congress strives to achieve a fiscally responsible government, programs like the Texas Integrated Enrollment System need to be given every opportunity to run as efficiently and effectively as possible. In this bill, there is good and bad legislation. Ultimately, the good outweighs the bad. For the first time in 28 years, Congress will bring some fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget. Additionally, preserving the Medicare Trust Fund is critical to seniors and action is necessary immediately. For these primary reasons, I support the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I voted for the Rohrabacher amendment to the foreign affairs authorization bill a week or so ago. I think it is appropriate to use foreign aid as a carrot to try to get Russia to do what we want them to do. But the most important thing Members have to know about this amendment is it is not foreign aid. It is spending that is in our best national security interests. It is not a gift. It is money spent that will reduce the threat of nuclear weapons which could be used against us. As the gentleman has already let us know, it has been used to eliminate missiles and silos and bombers and submarines aimed against us. It is being used to tighten security on nuclear warheads which could be used against us. It tightens security on nuclear materials which could be sent to other countries, which could also be used against us. It is used to help make sure the expertise on how to build these nuclear weapons is not spread throughout the world and could be used against us. Now, which of those things is not in the national security interests of the United States? This money is spent for us, and it does not matter where else Russia sends missiles, this money is still spent for us. It is cheaper and wiser to spend money now to prevent nuclear materials from spreading throughout the world and to keep them out of the hands of terrorists and rogue nations than to deal with the consequences after they already get them. Of course there is no guarantee the Russians are not going to waste some of the money. Of course there is no guarantee they are not going to modernize their submarines at the same time, but there is a guarantee that if we do not do everything we possibly can now to contain the nuclear weapons and the nuclear materials that one day we will regret it. I think this is a big mistake to cut off the money that needs to be done to do that, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to focus my time on a part of the budget that is not all that big in terms of its relative size, but it is very big in terms of what we believe in and what we stand for and what we want to encourage in this country. The budget agreement with the President and this budget includes some relief on death taxes, otherwise known as inheritance, or estate taxes. Benjamin Franklin said that nothing is certain but death and taxes, and as tough as each of these things are when they come, to have them to come together at the same time is virtually unbearable. Farmers, ranchers, small business folks of all varieties in my area have felt the sting and effects of this tax, but the truth is the consequences affect all of us. I want to make three key points on why it is so important to do something in this area of death taxes. No. 1 is that of all of the money coming to the Federal Government, only about 1 percent comes in the form of estate or death taxes. It is about $15 billion a year. Yet Congress has received testimony that administration and litigation costs eat up more than half of that amount, so that it is a very expensive and very cumbersome tax for the Government to administer. However, one member of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors has found that it costs taxpayers as much to comply with this tax as all of the money that they pay in in the form of tax. Now, if we have a tax that it costs as much to comply with as the tax itself, something needs to be reevaluated. Second, this tax is a drag on the economy. Professor Wagner's study has found that, if we abolish the inheritance tax altogether, that within 8 years we will have created 250,000 new jobs; we will have added $80 billion to the gross domestic product, and we will have increased the amount of capital by about $640 billion. That is money that can go to create jobs and expand the economy and improve the standard of living for everyone. There have been other studies that have reached other conclusions. But the bottom line is our society is spending a tremendous amount of money just trying to avoid these taxes, and if people did not have to play these games, it would be good for everybody. In other countries they have already reached this conclusion. Mexico, Canada, and Australia have no death taxes. As a matter of fact, only Japan has a higher rate of taxes once you die than the United States. I think it is as important as anything, however, in looking at this part of the budget agreement, that it goes against the American dream. What we want to encourage people to do is to work hard, to save, to build up something so that we can have something to pass along to our children and hopefully they can have a better quality of life to pass along to their children. It is human nature for us to work and build and create something and to leave it to our children for a better future, and we should want to encourage that. But instead, this tax works to discourage savings. What it encourages is immediate gratification. That is not in the long-term best interests of this country, and it is not what we want to encourage as a government. If we look at the numbers, 60 percent of family-owned businesses already do not make it to the second generation; 87 percent do not make it to the third generation. If we look at the numbers for minority- owned small businesses, it affects them particularly hard. So the bottom line is that, rather than encourage more opportunities, which is what we want to do to have a better standard of living for all of our people, this tax punishes those things that create those opportunities to begin with. It goes in exactly the wrong direction, and all of us are affected by it in one way or another. This budget agreement is not the complete answer. It does not go as far as I would like it to go. When the tax bill comes up from Ways and Means, it will not go as far as I would hope we could go; but it is a small step in the right direction. And it is a small step in the right direction that has big consequences for all of us and says a lot about where we want to go as a society and what we want to encourage in this country. So among the many positive things in this budget agreement, it will do something for the first time in a long time on death taxes, and I think that is a significant factor that we should all be encouraged by.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Michigan for taking out this time and for all of those who are contributing to it. Today I am glad to join others of my colleagues in honoring J.L. Cullen for her outstanding service to our country and her commitment, really, to the best ideals of this country. J.L. came to Washington from her home State of Mississippi and of course wound up in positions of significant responsibility here in the Committee on Rules and in the White House under President Reagan at the Office of Management and Budget, and it was during that time that my wife and I both had the opportunity to first meet J.L. My wife Sally and I both came to Washington in the early 1980's and had the opportunity to work as staffers first up on the Hill and then later in the administration, and we were both new to Washington and were both very impressed by J.L.'s energy and her legislative knowledge and her commitment to good, sound public policy. But for me, the thing that impressed me the most was that no matter how busy she was, and in those early Reagan years everybody was very busy, particularly J.L., in trying to implement the economic program of the Reagan administration, but no matter how busy she was, she always took time to say hello and offer some advice or encouragement to a young staffer who was wet behind the ears and really did not know very much about what was going on up here. Our colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, J.C. Watts, often likes to say that character is what you do when nobody else is looking, and I think it says something about J.L.'s character the way she treated everyone no matter how busy she was and no matter how experienced some of us were. And as my colleagues know, this is a city where people are often in a big hurry, but J.L.'s southern warmth and hospitality have always stayed with her and have always been a key part of her success. And I say that with all due respect to my colleague from Michigan, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and others. But that, as our colleague from California was talking about, that was a key part of why I think she has been so successful here. J.L. is a terrific example of someone who has worked very hard in her jobs, throwing everything she had into it, but also doing so with a sense of humor and good grace. And if there is anything we need more of around here, it is that sense of humor and good grace that enable us all to work together. As a matter of fact, I think it is her sense of humor, her ability to laugh during intense negotiation or a close vote, that helps explain as much as anything why those of us who have worked with her in the past and know her think so highly of her and have such a special appreciation of her. It turns out last year J.L. happened to be traveling outside the country and some constituents of mine, who were close personal friends from my hometown, just happened to run into her. And even in that brief encounter, outside the borders of this country, they were struck by her charm, her intelligence, and her zest for life. It transcends, of course, all barriers. J.L. has faced more than her share of life's challenges, and as she battles cancer with all the determination that she brought to a number of legislative battles around this place, I want to take time to offer her our prayers of strength. I am honored to be able to express my thanks for the battles that J.L. has fought, often behind the scenes, often late at night, but all to make our country a better place. She is someone that we can all learn from, particularly her sense of humor and good grace, and I appreciate again the chance to say a few words about her in the time that our friend has taken to honor her.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, there are lots of Americans who work hard every day to make ends meet and spend their weekends with their kids or work in the yard who are searching for a little bit of common sense to come into government programs. I do not know if there is a clearer example of where a dose of common sense is needed than in this bill. There are levees that need to be fixed. Many of them will not be fixed without this bill, at least not fixed in time to stop the devastation. If they are not fixed, then not only are people's homes destroyed or lives lost, but the habitat is also destroyed of the animals and plants that we are trying to protect. The base bill, I think, is the least that we can do that will make a difference in people's lives. If we wait under the Boehlert amendment until the water comes rolling down the canyon, it is too late at that point to do anything to save them. It makes sense to maintain the levees to prevent the flooding, to begin with, rather than wait until it gets into that situation and then try to run in and come to the rescue. This is a dose of common sense, and it is the least that we can do to save this badly flawed legislation.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4168, which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreements with private parties for the recovery and disposal of helium on Federal lands. As we all know, the House approved similar legislation earlier this year with the passage of H.R. 3008. H.R. 4168 is the same bill as H.R. 3008 with one exception--it includes a provision directing the National Academy of Science to study and report on whether such disposal of helium reserves will have a substantial adverse effect on the scientific, technical, biomedical, or national interests of the United States. While I agree in principle with the goal of this provision and, in fact, have my own concerns about the effect selling the Federal helium reserves will have on the private market and our national security, I think the legislation in which it is included is fundamentally flawed and should be defeated. Even if one believes that the Federal Government ought to get out of the helium business, this is the wrong way to do it. In many areas over the past few months and years, this Congress and, to a lesser extent, the administration through its Reinventing Government efforts, have tried to get the Government out of certain activities. In doing so, they have both tried to turn those activities over to the private sector. Unfortunately, H.R. 4168 would create a situation in which privatization is not a feasible economic alternative. This bill effectively prevents an individual or company from buying the Government assets and operating the helium refinery which the Government has operated all these years. As a result, what could have been a revenue generator for the Federal Government will actually continue to drain treasury coffers for the benefit of those companies already involved in the business of helium sales. I would remind my colleagues that while NASA currently requires several railroad cars of helium for each shuttle launch, it can only take it in gaseous form. No private company can supply it in gaseous form. Consequently, if H.R. 4168 passes, we're going to have to spend a lot of money to modify facilities to accept the helium as a liquid and then convert it to a gas. Common sense would be to allow a private company to buy the refinery and some helium from the stockpile to supply NASA and others. Unfortunately, this cannot happen under this bill. I have had several people from my district express an interest in either buying the refinery and some helium and trying to operate the plant, or buying some of the helium and building a new, modern refinery that is much smaller. But there is no realistic opportunity of either of those things happening because of the formula used by this bill to sell helium. Virtually everyone agrees that we have more helium in the ground than we need. This bill requires the excess helium to be sold according to a formula that is designed to pay back the debt and interest that one part of the Government owes another part of the Government. The difficulty is that none of the helium will be sold because the formula prices it far higher than the market price. As a matter of fact, this bill will price crude helium about $8 to $13 million cubic feet more than the current market price. Mr. Cox may say there is no specific language which prohibits sales from the stockpile, but when it is priced 25 to 48 percent above the market price, I doubt there will be much sold. So not only can we not privatize the helium operation, but the taxpayers will not see the deficit go down because none of the helium will be sold. The substitute which I offered in the House Resources Committee would still get the Government out of the helium business. But it would also allow some helium to be sold according to the market price at the time it was sold, as long as it did not disrupt the market. It would have also canceled the debt, which consists mainly of compound interest which one part of the Government owes another part of the Government. And it would have delayed closure of the plant for 3 years, not 18 months, which would have provided additional time not only for NASA to transition to private sources of helium, but for the plant's workers to transition to new jobs and careers. This plan was similar to the proposal suggested by the Clinton administration, and makes a lot more sense than the proposal we are considering today. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if we're serious about doing this the right way or just interested in a press release. I don't know if the President was serious about doing this the right way when he mentioned helium in his State of the Union speech in 1995. But I do know that there is a right way and a wrong way to end this Federal program, and this bill is the wrong way. The House registered its clear opposition to continued Federal funding of the helium program when it approved H.R. 3008 by a vote of 411-10 on April 30 of this year. I do not plan to request a vote on H.R. 4168. But I do urge my colleagues to remember that in considering the future of other programs, we ought to strive to make the Federal Government not just smaller--but smarter, as well. This bill is not a smart way to reform the helium program, and for that reason, I oppose it.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to briefly address section 302 of H.R. 3816, the Energy and Water Development Conference Report for Fiscal Year 1997. Section 302 pertains to section 3140 of the 1997 Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 3230, which I had introduced in the National Security Committee and which has been approved by both theHouse and Senate. Section 3140 addresses an issue of critical importance to our national security--the management of the Nation's nuclear weapons complex and, specifically, whether a management structure which was designed 45 years ago is able to meet the challenges we face today. Numerous studies completed over the past several years have revealed that it is not. As far back as 1981, in a report revealingly entitled ``A New Headquarters/Field Structure Could Provide a Better Framework for Improving Department of Energy Operations,'' the General Accounting Office was recommending that changes needed to be made to the basic management structure at DOE. More recently, in August 1993, the GAO issued a detailed criticism of past management practices in the Department entitled ``Management Problems Require a Long-Term Commitment to Change.'' The report lauded recent initiatives by the DOE over the previous year, but noted that strong leadership was needed to build an effective management structure for the future. The report noted communication problems and a weak work force with limited technical and administrative skills. Overall, GAO concluded, ``DOE has significant management problems, as reported by many oversight groups and acknowledged by agency leadership.'' As examples, the report cited a number of telling observations and conclusions, including: According to over 90 percent of the 114 senior DOE managers we interviewed, organizational lines of authority need to be clarified * * * . Many of DOE's senior managers told GAO that ``fiefdoms'' throughout the field structure hampered their operations. Management of the nuclear weapons complex and the national laboratory system * * * is today in disarray * * * its management is under severe stress. GAO believes that having field units report directly to senior officials at headquarters who are responsible for a program is a promising strategy. We have supported stronger headquarters-to-field-program accountability in DOE, and having field offices report directly to program assistant secretaries is a way to establish accountability. [Our goal] is to establish a more direct line of command between headquarters and field program personnel. Overall reporting between field offices and headquarters must be established and understood. And direction and guidance on program matters and oversight from headquarters offices needs to be clarified, coordinated, and integrated if the [O'Leary reporting scheme] or any other scheme is to work effectively. The GAO followed its August 1993 report with another in February 1994 in which it once again found that, ``DOE's management of the laboratories is highly fragmented, lacking both a strategic focus and consistency across program lines.'' Two years later, and 2 years after the most recent reforms by the current Secretary were put in place, the GAO released another report which uncovered still more problems. In this report, entitled ``Department of Energy, A Framework for Restructuring DOE and Its Missions,'' the GAO found that: ``Attempts to establish direct accountability among program offices at headquarters, administrative units, field offices, and the national laboratories have been especially difficult. Reporting relationships changed often and sometimes have been confusing.'' But GAO is not the only one who has been critical of DOE's management structure over the past several years. In 1989, in a report to the Secretary of Energy, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Safety recommended that the Secretary: ``streamline management to make responsibilities clear, that you put knowledgeable people in line positions of responsibility, and that you give them authority. This is important for assurance of nuclear safety. Solving the DOE's problems will require upper management and operating personnel to work together closely and effectively. This will not be possible if the staff must work through buffers of people who are not technically competent.'' The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board--whose members are appointed by the President--has echoed these concerns. In March of 1996, one of its members, John W. Crawford, issued a report titled ``Assessment Concerning Safety at Defense Nuclear Facilities: The DOE Technical Personnel Problem.'' The report contained a number of conclusions regarding DOE management and internal efforts to fix the problems, including: Field organizations have had a long history of relative independence from subordination to Headquarters; thus these differences are likely to be difficult to resolve. A recent effort to do so was led by an action group of senior Headquarters and field managers under the aegis of the Strategic Alignment Implementation Group. The results of the deliberations by the action group were reported to the Associate Deputy Secretary for Field Management in a memorandum dated June 22, 1995, from the Manager Richland Operations Office. The document states that ``The Strategic Alignment Team identified the need for clarity in roles, responsibilities, authority, and accountability between Headquarters [and] the operations offices * * * to improve coordination and eliminate duplication of work.'' It offered a plan for doing so. However, the plan was submitted in draft form and, as far as the Board has been made aware, no action has been taken on it. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has recommended a strengthened and streamlined managerial approach and clear lines of authority and control. The DNFSB acknowledges that years of doing things a certain way and bureaucratic inertia has made reform next to impossible. It is because of these studies that section 3140 was included as part of the 1997 Defense Authorization Act. The section would accomplish three main objectives aimed at streamlining the DOE management structure and addressing the concerns raised in these numerous reports. These objectives include: Establishing a clear and streamlined reporting channel between the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs and the area offices of the four production sites, three labs and the Nevada test site. The direct reporting channel applies only to site operations matters within the context of the site's security function. Site operations matters are defined to include budget, personnel and procurement matters. Requiring the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress on how to further reorganize field activities and management of the national security functions of the Department of Energy. The plan must identify all significant functions presently performed by the operations offices relating to any of the facilities and laboratories covered by this section and which of these functions could be performed: (1) by the area offices of the Department of Energy located at the facilities and laboratories; or (2) by the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Defense Programs. The plan must also recommend and address other internal streamlining and reorganization initiatives that the Department of Energy could pursue. Establishing a Defense Programs Management Council to advise the Secretary on policy matters, operational concerns, strategic planning, and development of priorities relating to the Department's national security functions. The Council shall be composed of the directors of the four production sites, the three labs, and the Nevada test site and shall report directly to the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs. The Council shall be operated and staffed by the Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs through resources available to the Office of the Secretary of Energy. Section 3140 would apply to the following facilities and laboratories of the Department of Energy: the Kansas City plant, Kansas City, MO, the Pantex plant, Amarillo, TX; the Y-12 plant, Oak Ridge, TN, the Savannah River site, Aiken, SC; the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM; the Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM; the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA; the Nevada test site, Nevada. The provision in this appropriation bill pertains to section 3140 requires that the Secretary of Energy ``develop a plan to reorganize the field activities and management of the national security functions of the Department of Energy.'' I have been assured by officials within the Department of Energy that they recognize the seriousness of the problem, and they will conduct a serious study in response to this provision and that they will take action. Therefore, I support the conference report. I will, however, closely follow the actions of the DOE to ensure that the safety of workers and civilians are protected, that taxpayer dollars are used wisely and efficiently, and that the security of the country is protected.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute 10 outstanding young women who have each been honored with the Girl Scout Gold Award by the Texas Plains Girl Scout Council in Amarillo, TX. Each is being honored for earning the highest achievement award in Girl Scouting. The Girl Scout award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in areas of leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. The award can be earned by girls age 14-17, or in grades 9-12. Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., an organization serving 2.5 million girls, has awarded more than 20,000 Gold Awards to senior Girl Scouts since the inception of the program in 1980. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must earn four interest project patches, the Career Exploration Pin, the senior Girl Scout Leadership Award, and the senior Girl Scout Challenge, as well as design and implement a Girl Scout Gold Award project. A plan for fulfilling these requirements is created by the senior Girl Scout and is carried out through close cooperation between the girl and an adult Girl Scout volunteer. As members of the Texas Plains Girl Scout Council, these senior Girl Scouts began working toward their Girl Scout Gold Award over 2 years ago. Each completed projects in an area which made a positive and significant impact in their community. These outstanding young women reached this achievement through many hours of dedication and commitment. Angie Davenport and Angie Turpen of Lefors, TX designed and carried out a project to prevent crime and vandalism by organizing neighborhood watch groups. Jennifer Ellis of Amarillo, TX took it upon herself to create a program for young girls to better understand the needs of the disabled. Janel Kirby of Amarillo, TX created a project that involved making identification labels for each registered member of the Texas Plains Girl Scout Council to be used when they travel. Christy O'Dell of Amarillo, TX designed a project with a two fold purpose. She helped to provide residents of a retirement center the chance to hear musical presentations in the convenience of their community, and also allow the performers a chance to hone their skills. Amanda Peters of Amarillo, TX used her knowledge of computers to organize and design a library for her local church. Penelope Schuster of Amarillo, TX organized a clothing drive to aid local charities in providing clothing for economically disadvantaged women applying for jobs. Jennifer Walton of Amarillo, TX heightened awareness of national women's history through a rally at her school, which included special speakers and presentations. Jenny Whisenhunt of Amarillo, TX created a project to recognize senior citizens at a banquet, giving the senior citizens a forum in which to share their life experiences with family and friends. Jessica Nichols of Amarillo, TX organized a book drive to create a library at her local church. Each of these senior Girl Scouts deserve public recognition for their efforts to serve the community and the country.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to thank the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle], for their help on this measure. As many of my colleagues know, we have had some severe drought conditions in the State of Texas and this bill helps to provide some relief to two areas that are particularly affected. I also want to express my appreciation to the work of my colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Ortiz]. He has been working on these issues for some time and I am certainly grateful for his willingness to work together to solve some very real problems that both of us have in our regions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3910 is a bill that addresses some serious water problems in Texas. I will leave it to my colleague from Texas to discuss the portion of the bill that particularly affects the Corpus Christi area, but I know that that part of the State still suffers from the effects of drought and has a critical need to develop another water supply. This bill will help them do that. The bill also allows the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority to develop alternative water supplies. This bill does not reduce the amount of money that the Canadian water authority owes to the Federal Government in the way of repaying the debt for construction of the dam for Lake Meredith, but it does postpone for 3 years our requirement to make payments and that deferment for the 3-year period allows the water authority to develop a field of water wells and construct an aqueduct that will get new well water to a location where it can be mixed with the water from Lake Meredith. That lake is the primary source of drinking water for more than 500,000 people in my area. It has not produced the amount of water expected and the severe drought earlier this year certainly caused additional problems. But the quality of the drinking water is also a problem. The water from Lake Meredith does not meet the drinking water standards recommended by either the EPA or the Texas Department of Health. Only by mixing the lake water with well water is it really fit to drink. This bill will allow that mixing which is required to be made by freeing up some funds to be used for the other project. The bill also reimburses the water authority for land which was transferred to the National Park Service several years ago. Every one, including the Bureau of Reclamation agrees that compensation is due for the loss of control of that land by the water authority. This was approximately 6 years ago when 43,000 acres was transferred from the water authority to create a national recreation area. This bill reimburses the acquisition costs which were way back in the early 1960's and relocations costs without any adjustment for inflation so that it is a truly minimal level of $4 million. Mr. Speaker, of course, this bill does not offset all the problems that have been experienced because of the drought and other things; but it helps, and it does so in a fiscally responsible way. I urge my colleagues to approve it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3910) to provide emergency drought relief to the city of Corpus Christi, TX, and the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority, TX, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3910, the bill just passed.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight one part of this bill that deals with nuclear weapons. As far as the eye can see, our country will continue to rely on nuclear weapons for our security, and yet we face some very daunting challenges. Our weapons and facilities are getting older, and we have decided not to engage in nuclear testing. We are going to have to have first-rate facilities, first-rate people and an efficient management structure to get through this time. This bill advances all three. It is particularly important that we have clear lines of authority and clear lines of responsibility between each facility in the nuclear weapons complex and the headquarters in Washington without a lot of mid-level management getting in the way. There have been a number of outside organizations and internal reviews that have called for exactly this kind of reform, and yet this bill is the first time that it has actually taken place. Each facility will report directly to Washington and will be a part of a management council. This is a safety issue for the country, it is a good and efficient Government issue, and it is also a preparedness issue, and it is just one of the many ways that this bill helps make the country safer.