[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 107 (Friday, July 18, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7114-H7147]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Thursday, July 17, 2003, and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House
in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 2754).
{time} 0912
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2754) making appropriations for energy and water development for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Isakson in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of the legislative
day Thursday, July 17, 2003, the bill is considered read for the first
time.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to submit to the House for
consideration the fiscal year 2004 energy and water development
appropriations act.
[[Page H7115]]
I want to first thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Visclosky), for working with me on this bill. I want to thank his
staff. I also want to thank my staff, who has worked very hard on this
bill. This is the first time I have actually done the full bill on the
floor, and I appreciate the tutorial from everybody on this bill.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the
ranking member on the full committee. I also particularly want to thank
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), my overall chairman, who has
worked with me on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I have a rather long speech here this morning to give;
but I am not going to give it, because I know a lot of Members want to
go home, so I am going to submit it for the Record.
Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to submit to the House for its
consideration the fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill. On Tuesday, July 15th, the Appropriations
Committee unanimously approved the bill, and I believe it merits the
support of the entire membership of the House. I want to thank all the
members of the subcommittee for their help in bringing the bill to the
floor today. I particularly want to thank Mr. Visclosky for his help
and cooperation. I also want to thank the Chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young, and the ranking minority member,
Mr. Obey for allowing us to move forward in such an expeditious manner.
Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide variety of
programs, which include such diverse matters as maintenance of the
Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, navigation improvements,
environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced scientific research, and
nuclear waste disposal.
Total spending in the fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water Development
Bill is $27,080,000, the same as the subcommittee's 302b allocation.
This is an increase of $942 million over fiscal year 2003 and $134
million over the President's budget request. The bill I present to the
House today is fiscally responsible, and meets the major needs of the
members of the House.
Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works programs of
the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Formerly Used Sites
Remedial Action Program. The Committee has recommended a total of $4.48
billion for Title I, $288 million above the budget request, but $156
million below the amount appropriated last year. The Committee
concentrated the limited resources it had for the Corps on ongoing
projects and did not include funds for new studies or construction
projects.
Mr. Chairman, even though we were able to provide an increase over
the budget request for the Corps of Engineers, I am very concerned that
we, and that includes the Congress and the Administration, are not
spending enough on our water resources infrastructure. This
infrastructure supports much of the Nation's commerce and provides a
physical safety net against natural disasters for many of our citizens.
The Administration's budget request underfunds most of the ongoing
Corps of Engineers construction projects. While we have added funds for
a number of those projects, those funds are not adequate to keep the
projects on their most efficient schedules. The result is higher costs
and a delay in receiving the benefits that the projects will provide. I
hope to begin an active dialog with the Administration in an attempt to
convince them of the need to increase funding to support the Civil
Works program of the Corps of Engineers.
One program of the Corps of Engineers which is of great interest to
me is the restoration of the Everglades, which is a partnership between
the Federal government and the State of Florida. In very simple terms,
the State is charged with cleaning up the water that enters the
Everglades, and the Federal government is responsible for fixing the
plumbing. We fully funded the Administration's request of $145 million
for activities related to restoration of the Everglades; however, I am
concerned that recent actions taken by the State may signify a
lessening of its resolve to live up to its part of the bargain. I have
written to the Governor and have spoken to him to let him know of my
concerns. Because of those concerns, we have included language in the
Bill that would deny the use of funds for Everglades restoration if
the State does not meet court ordered water quality standards. I intend
to monitor this situation very closely.
Funding for Title II of the bill, which includes the Central Utah
Project Completion Account and the programs of the Bureau of
Reclamation, is $947.9 million, $24.3 million below the amount
appropriated last year and $25.7 million above the budget request. The
Committee did not provide the $15 million requested by the
Administration for the CALFED Bay-Delta program. The authorization for
this program expired in fiscal year 2000 and it has not been
reauthorized.
Today funding for Title III, the Department of Energy is $22 billion,
$1.18 billion above fiscal year 2003 and $147 million below the budget
request.
Mr. Chairman, my top priority within the Department of Energy is
Yucca Mountain. It is essential that we have this repository ready to
accept spent nuclear fuel as soon as possible for two very important
reasons--energy security and homeland security. Nuclear energy
currently generates about 20 percent of the Nation's electricity
without emitting any greenhouse gases. That percentage could grow, but
it will not until there is a place for safe, long-term storage of the
waste that is generated. That place is Yucca Mountain. With regard to
homeland security, the events of September 11th have taught us that
spent nuclear fuel currently stored at reactor sites around the country
might not be as secure as we once thought. Therefore, we have included
an additional $174 million above the budget request for the Department
of Energy to begin work on a rail line in Nevada that, and this is
important, will avoid Las Vegas, on the national transportation system,
and on improved containers and early acceptance of spent fuel presently
stored at reactor sites. These items have not been addressed in the
past because the other body has routinely cut the President's budget,
and the Department has had to concentrate all its resources on the
license application it is scheduled to submit to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission in December of 2004. For fiscal year 2004, the other body
has recommended $425 million, $166 million below the budget request. We
also provide $30 million for impact assistance to the affected counties
in Nevada so the people there can see the economic advantage that the
repository will bring.
Another priority in this Bill is advanced scientific computing. By a
number of key measures of computing power, the United States is now in
second place behind Japan. For the sake of our scientific leadership,
for our national security, and for economic competitiveness, we cannot
afford to stay in second place. We have provided an additional $40
million for DOE's Advanced Scientific Computing Research program to
procure additional state-of-the-art computers in the near term and to
begin an interagency effort to develop a next-generation computer
architecture that will leapfrog ahead of current designs.
Mr. Chairman, another area of concern is the portion of the
Department of Energy's budget request that deals with the nuclear
weapons complex. The Department continues to ask Congress to fund a
Cold War nuclear arsenal, and the infrastructure necessary to maintain
that arsenal, even though we no longer face a Cold War adversary. As
President Bush said when he announced reductions to the nuclear
stockpile on November 13, 2001, ``The United States and Russia have
overcome the legacy of the Cold War.'' AT that time, he pledged that
the United States would reduce our stockpile to 1,700 to 2,200
operationally deployed warheads over ten years because, as he said,
``the current levels of our nuclear forces do not reflect today's
strategic realities.'' I couldn't agree more. We do not need thousands
of warheads to deter a nuclear attack anymore, but the Department of
Energy and the Department of Defense want Congress to continue to pay
for a Cold War stockpile. It is time the DOE and the DOD begin to
shrink the footprint of the nuclear weapons infrastructure to reflect
the President's decision to reduce our nuclear arsenal. DOD is
rethinking the kinds of forces it needs to respond to the threats of
the new century, and will go through another round of BRAC to bring
down its footprint. The National Nuclear Security Administration should
go through a similar process and take a hard look at its workforce and
facility needs for a smaller stockpile. Accordingly, we have not
approved all of the increase requested for weapons activities in fiscal
year 2004.
Mr. Chairman, in this Bill we have also attempted to send a signal
to the Department of Energy and the Russian government with regard to
the Nuclear Nonproliferation program. At the end of May of this year,
the Department had unobligated balances in this program of almost $600
million. That is money just sitting at DOE headquarters. In addition,
by this fiscal year, the Department estimates that it will have
uncosted balances of over $1.1 billion. I view this as poor management.
We are fully supportive of the nuclear nonproliferation mission, but we
have to question whether we are achieving the program goals when over a
billion dollars goes unspent. We need to figure out what is wrong and
fix it before this issue endangers support for the program.
Lastly, one of the key changes I want to make in the Department of
Energy is to change the culture about contract competition. There are a
number of DOE lab contracts that were initially awarded without
competition back during World War II and have never been competed
since. That has to change. I am firmly convinced of the benefits of
competition, and we have included language in the bill effectively
requiring the Secretary of Energy to compete all M&O contracts that
have not been
[[Page H7116]]
competitively awarded within the past 50 years.
Funding for Title IV, Independent Agencies, is $138.4 million, a
decrease of $68.2 million from last year and $9.5 million below the
budget request. We have funded the Appalachian Regional Commission at
the budget request level of $33,145,000. I realize that a number of
members are concerned about this level of funding, which is $37 million
below last year's level. However, our allocation did not permit us to
provide an increase above the budget request. The other body has
provided $ for the ARC and we can address this when the bill is in
conference.
Mr. Chairman, before I conclude I would also like to thank the staff
for their help in getting me up to speed on the complex issues we have
in this bill. The Subcommittee staff includes Bob Schmidt, Kevin Cook,
Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, Tracy LaTurner, and our detailee from the
Corps of Engineers, Robert Pace. I also want to thank Kenny Kraft of my
staff.
Mr. Chairman, I know that not everyone is happy with everything we
have done in this bill, but I think we have produced a fair and
balanced product and I hope the members will unanimously support what
we have done.
[[Page H7117]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY03.001
[[Page H7118]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY03.002
[[Page H7119]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY03.003
[[Page H7120]]
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my chairman very much. I, too, would begin by
thanking individuals; and I do want to thank members of the staff,
because we would not be here without this excellent product and their
help.
I do want to mention specifically Rob Pace, Leslie Phillips, Tracey
La Turner, Kenny Craft, Peder Maarbjerg, Scott Burnison, Dennis Kerns,
Kevin Cook, Rob Nabors, and Bob Schmidt. They have all worked very
diligently, very hard; and, again, we would not be here without their
very diligent and intelligent work.
Secondly, I must thank my chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hobson). While this is the first time he has brought an energy and
water bill to the floor, you would not know it from the work product. I
have had the pleasure of serving with a number of very distinguished,
wonderful gentlemen who have produced good work products. I must tell
you this now is the fifth energy and water bill I have managed for the
minority on the floor. It is by far the best bill we have ever brought
to the floor, and I would ask my colleagues to support it.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) has been eminently fair. He has
been trusting of the minority, he has been professional in all of his
dealings, he has been decisive in his decisions, and the Department of
Energy and other agencies within this bill will be better for his
actions. He is a friend, and he has made the last 6 months of working
on this bill fun. This is a good bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take about 5 minutes to make note of a couple
of things. As the House certainly knows, I have vigorously opposed a
number of appropriations bills that have come to the floor this year.
One is the labor-health-education bill, for instance; another will be
the transportation bill, which has not yet come to the floor, but which
has substantial problems. And there have been several others.
I have opposed them for two reasons. One reason is because the depth
of the tax cuts passed by this House has meant that we have starved
needed investment in areas like education, health, transportation, et
cetera.
The second reason that I have opposed some of those bills has been
because I think that they have been drafted as though an ideological
agenda was the most important consideration in putting them together.
I support this bill enthusiastically, because I think it departs from
the conditions that I have just described on those other bills in two
ways.
First of all, I think that the allocation to this subcommittee, while
it is certainly, in my view, skinny in several areas, the allocation
does not do as much damage to the programs under the jurisdiction of
this subcommittee as is done, for instance, when we starve education
and health care and worker protection programs, as we did in the labor-
health-education bill.
But, secondly, I support this bill because I appreciate the
craftsmanship behind it. This bill, in my view, has been put together
as a substantive, rather than a political, document. It is not driven,
in my view, by ideology. I think the Chair and the ranking member have
made decisions based on their individual independent judgments about
policy, and that is what we are supposed to do here. We are supposed to
be a legislative body, at least as much as we are a political body.
In many of the bills that have come before this House so far, we have
had political products. This is a legislative product; and I simply
want to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio for bringing it to the
floor, because this is the way this House ought to function.
So I believe in strong criticism when criticism is warranted, and I
believe in the opposite when the opposite is warranted; and I think
this is one such occasion.
As I have said, I do not agree with every judgment in this bill. In
fact, I strongly disagree with two. But that is all right, because I
think those differences were arrived at honestly on the basis of a
different view of policy. So we can have reasonable arguments about
that. I do not think the allocation has been crippling to the programs
under the jurisdiction of this committee, and I appreciate that it too.
So I, like the gentleman from Indiana, urge my colleagues to vote for
the bill. There is one amendment that I may vote for, but that aside,
regardless of the outcome of that amendment, I would urge Members to
give this bill the support that it deserves.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise briefly to compliment the
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson), along with his ranking member,
for doing a really fine job.
This bill could have used more money, but all of our 13 subcommittees
have marked up, and each one of them has said they could have used more
money. So I think we are probably on the right track. Nobody got too
much, and nobody got too little.
The good news is that this is a very good bill, it is very well
written and it is very fair. This is the eighth appropriations bill
that the House will have concluded its work on prior to the August
recess. All 13 subcommittees have marked up their bills. All but two of
the bills have been marked up in the full committee, and that will
happen next week, as well as the second supplemental request that we
received from the President.
So, all in all, once we were able to begin our work, the committee
has done an excellent job, and I commend all of the Members on both
sides of the aisle, the staff on both sides of the aisle, for working
in a very professional way.
I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), because he
has been a partner. Although we have had disagreements on occasion, he
has been exceptional to work with. Our cooperation could not be better.
Mr. Chairman, we have a good product here, and I hope that we can
move this bill along. Again, I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio
(Chairman Hobson) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Visclosky), for doing such a good job.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, would the chairman of the subcommittee engage in a
short colloquy with this Member?
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, first I might say this colloquy is a little
more structured than the one we had that everybody thought was a dog
and pony show in committee. We did not plan it there, but we have
decided to do it again.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman.
First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Hobson) for a very good, solid, comprehensive, evenhanded bill to
address our energy and infrastructure needs for fiscal year 2004.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, since September 11 the Federal Government
has undergone its most comprehensive reshuffling since World War II
with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. As such, we
have realized that a terrorist attack, nuclear or otherwise, could come
not from a foreign state, but from our own backyard, using
unconventional means to disrupt the lives of peaceful citizens.
Mr. Chairman, how many places in this country do we store spent
nuclear fuel, and where and how is this nuclear spent fuel being
stored?
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I
believe there are 103 nuclear power stations in
[[Page H7121]]
the United States. At those installations, less than half the spent
fuel is held within the reactor wall in giant water-cooled pools.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Over half the material is outside the
protection of the main building?
Mr. HOBSON. That is correct. The Federal Government signed an
agreement with the utility companies to dispose of this nuclear
material by 1998 at the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada.
Unfortunately, Yucca Mountain is not scheduled to open until 2010.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. So, as it stands, probably until 2010 this
highly radioactive material is sitting there exposed at most of the
power plants in the country, outside the nuclear reactor building,
waiting to be transported to Yucca Mountain. Is that correct?
Mr. HOBSON. Yes, that is true. What has happened is some of the
material has been transferred to concrete stationary casks after it has
been in the pool for the appropriate time, but this radioactive fuel
will have to be carefully removed and repackaged for shipment to Yucca
Mountain in a manner that is much safer and in a moveable container.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Given the volume of the material we are
dealing with and the volatility of that material and its being subject
to being attacked, is there a better way to address the issue of
storage between now and 2010 and then proper shipment to Yucca
Mountain?
Mr. HOBSON. In my opinion there is. This bill directs the Department
of Energy to determine the potential cost savings and threat level
reduction by placing spent fuel into a dual-use cask rather than
separate storage and transportation casks. By reducing both the
handling and exposure periods, we can substantially increase the safety
and security levels and prevent a possible or potential future accident
at the sites.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. When the gentleman talks about dual-use
casks, could the gentleman tell me what he means by that?
Mr. HOBSON. These are casks that, on the site, instead of putting
them into the concrete thin-barrier-walled facilities that they are in
now, they would go into a much higher, non-penetrable type of facility
container that would be manufactured and delivered to the site, and put
into that cask. That cask could then be put on a rail car in future
years and transferred out to Yucca Mountain and put directly into the
mountain, rather than the procedure they are talking about now of
taking those casks that they have got there now, which are concrete and
a very thin wall, taking those, putting them into another container,
then putting them on a rail car, taking them to Yucca Mountain, taking
them out again, putting them into another container there, and then
putting it in the ground.
This would, in my opinion, be a much more cost-effective way of
handling this waste and a much safer way of handling the waste in the
current situation.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. So the cask you are talking about would serve
two purposes, be dual use: one, it would safely protect the material
while we are waiting around for Yucca to be finished; and, two, you
would not need to change it into another container to ship it out
there.
Mr. HOBSON. That is correct. You would not have to do it again after
you got out there. You would not have to take it out, put it in another
container, and then put it underground.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. What I am most concerned about from my
perspective is the storage of material at the nuclear power plant
pending Yucca Mountain shipment, the years we are having that material
laying there exposed to perhaps an attack. By the way, each one of
these nuclear plants is within 20 miles of an airport.
Would these dual-use casks that the gentleman refers to, would they
be impervious to such an attack?
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the
word ``impervious'' is pretty difficult or a pretty high standard. I
think we would have to study it a little bit more, but I think they are
far more resilient to that type of attack or another type of attack
than where we are today, and we would be much safer.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. From my
perspective on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee
on Appropriations, I strongly support quickly moving toward these dual-
use, thick-walled containers which can be used for storage and
transportation to Yucca Mountain, and, in the meantime, give us maximum
protection from the attack on that material causing great possible
harm. This would reduce the potentially catastrophic effects of a
terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant.
I look forward to working with the chairman on this issue and
congratulate the gentleman on a great bill.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I agree with the
gentleman's comments.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to protest the drastic and
devastating cuts to the Appalachian Regional Commission (``ARC'') in
the House of Representatives' Energy and Water Appropriations bill, on
which we will vote today.
The ARC provides vital infrastructure investments in a historically
distressed area of the country that spans 13 states including all of
West Virginia, my home State.
The cuts in the Energy and Water Appropriations will slash the ARC
budget by over 50 percent from its fiscal year 2002 levels. The
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, of which I am a senior
member, had authorized $88 million for this vital program, but the bill
only provides for $33 million in ARC funding. Simply put, this bill
seeks to gut a worthwhile program upon which so many people across so
many states depend.
I understand that Senator Robert Byrd, that great West Virginian and
one of the most distinguished public servants in American history, has
managed to fund the ARC at its current level in the Senate's Energy and
Water Appropriations. His efforts are greatly appreciated, and I
applaud him both personally and professionally for what he has done for
the ARC and therefore for West Virginia. Were it not for Senator Byrd's
efforts, I would have to oppose the House Energy and Water
Appropriations bill outright.
In the 1960s, President Johnson carried out a promise to help raise
the Appalachian region out of its crushing poverty when he formed the
Appalachian Regional Commission. For over 30 years, the ARC has
provided for development and jobs throughout 410 counties across a
200,000 square mile region. Although the Appalachian region is
dramatically improved because of this effort, there remains more work
to be done to fulfill the promise made.
Mr. Chairman, some have questioned the value of the ARC. In
response, I would like to note a few examples of the good work the ARC
has done most recently in southern West Virginia:
The ARC provided the Prichard, WV Public Service District with a
$100,000 grant to construct a wastewater collection and treatment
system that will provide water to 225 customers and create 148 jobs in
Wayne County, WV.
A $1 million grant to the Glen White/Trap Hill Public Service
District in Raleigh County, WV, will fund construction of a three water
storage tanks and replace some existing water lines while extending
service to surrounding communities that had to rely on underground
wells.
In Boone County, WV, a $680,000 grant from the ARC is being used to
extend waterlines to Julian, WV.
The ARC also has provided the West Virginia Access Center for Higher
Education in Bluefield, WV, a $75,000 grant to help increase the number
of high school students who go on to attend college.
Now, I don't think the people who live in Prichard, Glen White,
Julian, and Bluefield will claim that the ARC has a questionable track
record.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Byrd is the sponsor of a Senate bill to
complete construction of the Appalachian Development Highway System. I
proudly note that I am the sponsor of the House version of the same
bill, H.R. 2381, which is cosponsored by my fellow West Virginian and
close friend, Alan Mollohan, and that stalwart ARC supporter from Ohio,
my friend Ted Strickland.
I urge my colleagues to remember the ARC as a worthwhile program
that has benefited many lives and continues to do so.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, which brings the
Houston Ship Channel project extremely close to completion and provides
critical flood relief for residents of the 29th District of Texas.
This bill provides $33.7 million for the Houston Ship Channel
deepening and widening project, which will allow our Nation's second
largest port to continue to grow and handle the heavy energy and
petrochemical traffic that is necessary for the smooth economic
functioning of our nation. The Port of Houston
[[Page H7122]]
is home to the single largest petrochemical complex in the country,
with a combined capacity to produce nearly 49 percent of the Nation's
petrochemical capacity.
By increasing the capability of the Ship Channel to handle newer,
larger tankers more safely, Congress will directly increase the energy
security of our nation at a time of tumultuous energy markets. If we
can obtain an additional $15 million as this legislation moves
forwards, the construction on the Ship Channel can be completed within
the fiscal year. The Ship Channel is one of the primary economic
engines in my District and throughout Texas, directly providing tens of
thousands of jobs in the greater Houston area and many more thousands
across the State.
For flood control, this legislation provides $1 million for flood
protection construction work along Hunting Bayou, an urban watershed in
East-Central Harris County. During Tropical Storm Allison, the most
expensive tropical storm in U.S. history, over 8,000 homes flooded in
the Hunting Bayou watershed, which is heavily residential and low to
moderate income.
When complete, the $180 million Hunting Bayou Federal Flood Control
Project will reduce the number of structures in the 100-year flood
plain in the watershed from 5,500 to 800, and the local sponsor is
projected to cover half of the total project cost.
The House Energy and Water Appropriations Act for FY 2004 also
provides $774,000 to complete the General Re-evaluation Review for
Greens Bayou, a highly populated, but economically disadvantaged
watershed in North Harris County. The lack of flood control protections
in this watershed leaves these residents and businesses unprotected and
resulted in the flooding of over 15,000 structures during Tropical
Storm Allison. The most major channel flooding during the event
occurred in the Greens watershed, and we need to get moving and start
moving dirt down there as soon as possible.
I offer my deep appreciation to Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member
Visclosky for their attention and dedication to these critical economic
development and flood protection projects for my constituents down in
Houston, TX. I hope to work with them as this legislation goes forward,
and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on H.R. 2754, the Energy
and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. This
bill, which provides important flood protection, water transportation,
energy, and irrigation services across the country is consistent with
the House-passed budget resolution and complies with the Congressional
Budget Act.
H.R. 2754 provides $27.080 billion in budget authority and $27.173
billion in outlays--increases over the previous year's funding levels
of $1.224 billion and $1.697 in BA and outlays respectively. This bill
exceeds the President's request by approximately $279 million. Over the
last 4 years, funding for this appropriations bill has increased at an
annual rate of 5.9 percent.
As chairman of the House Budget Committee, I am pleased to report
that the bill is consistent with the House Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget for fiscal year 2004--H. Con. Res. 95. H.R. 2754 also complies
with section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act. Section 302(f),
prohibits consideration of bills in excess of a subcommittee's 302(b)
allocation.
H.R. 2754 does not contain emergency-designated new BA. The bill does
include $80 million in rescissions of previously enacted BA with $4
million in related outlays.
In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2754 and yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of this
appropriations bill and also to highlight the need for increased
funding for basic science programs at the Department of Energy.
First, I would like to commend the chair and ranking member of the
subcommittee for substantial efforts to add funds in nearly every
category of basic energy research to the administration's budget
requests.
In particular, I commend the committee for committing $268.1 million
to fusion energy research; $10.8 million above the administration's
budget request and an 8 percent increase over fiscal year 2003
appropriated levels--$246.9 million.
The $10.8 million increase this committee worked hard to secure is
essential for allowing the United States to fulfill the President's
directive of reengaging in the international burning plasma experiment
(ITER) and to maintain a strong domestic fusion energy program.
The fusion energy program has made impressive--although generally
unrecognized--progress in the past years despite being severely under
funded. For example, the energy produced in fusion plasmas in large
experiments around the world has outpaced the rate of advance in
computer speed during the last 30 years. The people of New Jersey are
proud of our leadership role in this important field of science through
one of our Nation's premier research institutions, the Princeton Plasma
Physics Laboratory (PPPL).
However, substantial hurdles still must be addressed before fusion
energy will become a viable commercial energy source, and solving these
problems will take significant Federal support. It will be worth the
effort and expense. Knowing a great deal about the subject, I am
optimistic that the hurdles will be overcome and practical fusion
energy will become a reality.
Before coming to Congress, I was the associate director of the PPPL.
It is worth noting that during my tenure at the lab, the fusion energy
budget reached a high of $352 million. The committee should be
commended for taking a small step in reestablishing such funding
levels.
Despite these important incremental increases, I must emphasize that
our country's current investment in fusion energy science, and in basic
energy research in general, is not nearly sufficient to realize the
goal of a zero emissions energy economy, as outlined by Energy
Secretary Abraham in introducing DOE's budget request.
Achieving energy independence and a significant reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector will take a sustained
investment in basic sciences that could lead to clean alternative
energy sources.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the committee for making the best of an
inadequate budget request, and I urge this committee to continue this
trend toward increased support for our basic energy research programs
in years to come.
I also want to commend Mr. Hobson and the committee for reducing
funding for study of a new generation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear
weapons on the battlefield would be a nightmare, and reasonable
battlefield commanders say they would never want them. Nuclear ``bunker
buster'' bombs are flawed in concept and we should not be spending
money to pursue them.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Mr. Hobson and
Ranking Member Visclosky for offering a strong bill that ensures that
the United States continues to have a robust nuclear deterrent and the
infrastructure to support it.
As the former ranking member of the Armed Services panel to oversee
the National Nuclear Security Administration, I am especially pleased
that the committee report highlights the need for the NNSA to focus on
its primary mission of maintaining the viability of the existing
stockpile.
The committee's cuts in funding for new nuclear weapons and for the
robust nuclear earth penetrator are vital steps toward restoring U.S.
leadership in fighting the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.
Indeed, not only does the military not have any requirements for
these weapons, but developing them would send a strong signal to other
countries that the pursuit of nuclear weapons is legitimate and
necessary.
At a time when we are facing a changing security environment it would
seem prudent to strengthen the core missions of the nuclear
establishment such as our science based stockpile stewardship rather
than embark on potentially dangerous new missions that would have a
destabilizing effect.
In this regard, I am pleased to see full support for the National
Ignition Facility, a key Stockpile Stewardship Program facility which
is being build in my district.
Recently NIF brought the first four of its 192 beams online and has
demonstrated full power and full performance on those beams. Those four
beams now constitute the most powerful laser in the world.
NIF will begin to do experiments to provide data to the Stockpile
Stewardship Program this year--while it continues to commission
additional laser beams on the path to full facility operation in
FY2008.
A critical element of the committee's action is the support for
growth in the Experimental Support Technologies, which provide the
technologies to use NIF.
I also strongly urge the chairman to work with me and other members
of the Armed Services Committee to move forward on the work necessary
to refurbish the W-80. The W-80 fills a unique niche in our nuclear
deterrent.
The work called for in the budget request will lay the groundwork for
improving the safety, security and reliability of the W-80.
It is important that the budget request for the NNSA work on the W-80
be supported so that the production plant work can be effectively
managed.
Finally, I am concerned about the language in section 301 mandating
that the Department of Energy automatically compete labs that have been
managed by a particular contract for more than 50 years.
The decision to chose a given contractor to manage a particular
laboratory with its specific needs, is an exceedingly complex one,
involving all manner of judgments concerning the
[[Page H7123]]
relative value of factors such as the ability of a given contractor to
attract and retain the strong technical workforce required to focus on
issues of supreme national security importance to our country.
These issues deserves in-depth scrutiny and study, not an automatic
competition of the contract. Neither the Department of Defense, NSF or
NASA treats its contractors this way, and I am concerned that DOE would
be asked to do so.
On the water side, I understand the committee's rationale for not
including funding for the CALFED program.
The program must be authorized by Congress this year and I am working
with my colleagues from California to advance a comprehensive
reauthorization bill this year.
The federal government must be an active partner with California to
heal the Delta's ecosystem and prepare for the state's growing
population.
I appreciate the committee's hard work and urge a ``yes'' vote on the
bill.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member would like to commend the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the chairman of the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking
member of the subcommittee, for their exceptional work in bringing this
bill to the floor.
This Member recognizes that extremely tight budgetary constraints
made the job of the subcommittee much more difficult this year.
Therefore, the subcommittee is to be commended for its diligence in
creating such a fiscally responsible measure. In light of these
budgetary pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation
to the subcommittee and formally recognize that the Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 includes funding
for several water projects that are of great importance to Nebraska.
This Member greatly appreciates the $18 million funding level
provided for the four-State Missouri River Mitigation Project and hopes
that the final funding for FY2004 will be closer to the $22 million
included in the Administration's budget. The funding is needed to
restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the federally sponsored
channelization and stabilization projects of the Pick-Sloan era. The
islands, wetlands, and flat floodplains needed to support the wildlife
and waterfowl that once lived along the river are gone. An estimated
475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas have
been lost. Today's fishery resources are estimated to be only one-fifth
of those which existed in predevelopment days.
In addition, this measure provides additional funding for flood-
related projects of tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's
First Congressional District. Mr. Chairman, flooding in 1993
temporarily closed Interstate 80 and seriously threatened the Lincoln
municipal water system which is located along the Platte River near
Ashland, Nebraska. Therefore, this Member is extremely pleased that
H.R. 2754 continues funding in the amount of $191,000, the full amount
thought necessary, for the Lower Platte River and Tributaries Flood
Control Study. This study should help formulate and develop feasible
solutions which will alleviate future flood problems along the Lower
Platte River and tributaries.
This Member recognizes that this bill includes $546,000 for the Sand
Creek Watershed project in Saunders County, NE, and $318,000 for the
Western Sarpy-Clear Creek. However, this funding is to be used for
preconstruction engineering and design work. This Member believes that
it is very important that the final version of the FY2004 Energy and
Water Development appropriations legislation include funding for
construction of these projects.
Funding for the Sand Creek project is particularly urgent. There is
a cooperative effort in Nebraska between the State highway agency and
water development agencies which makes this project more cost-effective
and feasible. Specifically, the dam for this small reservoir is to be a
structure that the Nebraska Department of Roads would construct instead
of a bridge as part of the new State expressway in the immediate
vicinity of Wahoo, NE. Immediate funding would help ensure that this
cost-effective, coordinated effort could continue so that the
construction of the expressway will not be further delayed.
Mr. Chairman, this Member very much appreciates the report language
which ``directs the Secretary of the Army to work closely with the
local sponsor on the Sand Creek Environmental Restoration project,
accepting advance funds offered by the sponsor, and agreeing to credits
and reimbursements, as appropriate, for work done by the sponsor,
including work performed in connection with the design and construction
of seven upstream detention storage structures.''
Another project, the Western-Sarpy-Clear Creek Flood Reduction
Project is designed to provide protection to the city of Lincoln's
water supply, Interstate 80 and U.S. Highway 6, the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe railroad/Amtrak line, telecommunication lines and other public
facilities. The project completes and strengthens a levee system, most
of which is already in place, to channel water and ice downstream away
from the confluence of the Elkhorn and Platte Rivers, which is where
major flood problems begin.
On still another important project, this Member is pleased that $1.5
million in additional construction funding is included for the Antelope
Creek project in Lincoln, NE, and also hopes that this funding level
will be increased in the final version. The purpose of the project is
to implement solutions to multifaceted problems involving the flood
control and drainage problems in Antelope Creek as well as existing
transportation and safety problems all within the context of broad land
use issues. This Member continues to have a strong interest in the
project since he was responsible for stimulating the city of Lincoln,
the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, and the University
of Nebraska-Lincoln to work jointly and cooperatively with the Army
Corps of Engineers to identify an effective flood control system for
downtown Lincoln. The Antelope Creek Flood Control Project is a large
project and will have a number of phases of right-of-way acquisition
and construction.
Finally, this Member notes regrettably that the bill does not
include the usual $260,000 in funding requested for operations and
management related to the Missouri National Recreational River Project.
This project addresses a serious problem by protecting the river banks
from the extraordinary and excessive erosion rates caused by the
sporadic and varying releases from the Gavins Point Dam. These erosion
rates are a result of previous work on the river by the Federal
Government. This Member believes that the final venison of the
legislation should include this funding and would appreciate the
committee's assistance with the other body on this issue.
Again Mr. Chairman, this Member gratefully commends the
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the chairman of the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking
member of the subcommittee, for their support of projects which are
important to Nebraska and the First Congressional District, as well as
the people living in the Missouri River Basin in the four-state region.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to report
language regarding regional transmission organization, RTO, matters in
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, section of H.R. 2754,
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2004. The Committee's report expresses ``concerns'' regarding the
integration of various companies into a regional transmission
organization, RTO, pursuant to a specified FERC order. The language
also states that the Committee ``expects'' that the FERC will
``require'' certain parties to meet specified conditions ``before
proceeding'' with such integration. The language also warns that the
Committee ``may address'' this issue ``in more detail'' in the
conference, ``pending receipt'' of a status ``report'' from FERC on
this issue. Matters pertaining to the regulation of electric
transmission are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce. The Appropriations Committee has no
jurisdiction over such FERC activity and should, therefore, not address
this matter in conference. FERC should disregard the report language,
which has no legal force or effect.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, today I urge my colleagues to vote for the
Udall-Porter amendment. This amendment would strengthen the Department
of Energy's renewable energy research programs, and would work toward
decreasing our Nation's dependence of foreign sources for energy.
Renewable energy is vital to America's future. By boosting renewable
energy, we are working toward bringing down energy costs, creating a
consistent and reliable source of energy, improving other environment
and public health, increasing our role in the global renewable energy
market, and reducing our vulnerability to terrorism. Nuclear power, by
contrast, has left us buried under thousands of tons of radioactive
waste. The proposed Yucca Mountain repository, hundreds and thousands
of miles from reactor sites, has been marked to house this waste, but
transporting and storing nuclear waste creates potential targets for
terrorism, leaving our Nation at risk.
We need to invest more funds to help our Nation's renewable power
industry grow. This proposal would overcome many of the financial
hurdles encountered with renewable energy research. Geothermal energy,
a highly accessible form of renewable energy, has shown little growth
in the U.S. during the past decade compared to other nations. With more
[[Page H7124]]
funding, this could change--we could create a boom in the geothermal
energy industry. With the help of financing, just last year the solar
power business grew by 60 percent to $500 million. Wind plants in 27
States produced enough energy to serve more than 1.3 million
households.
The State of Nevada has been cited as a ``highly favorable'' State to
develop renewable energy. It is blessed with natural energy resources.
The numerous mountain ranges, bordered by underground faults, are
sources for geothermal energy. The Department of the Interior has
listed 10 sites in Nevada that could produce geothermal energy in the
next 2 years. Each of these sites is located near transportation lines,
which could transmit energy to other markets. Geothermal power provides
the Nation with about 17 percent of the renewable energy, but is less
than 0.75 percent of the Nation's total energy supply.
Solar energy generated from the sunlight of Southern Nevada, on a
100-square-mile grid alone, could supply enough electricity to power
the rest of the United States. Wind power has the potential to produce
twice as much electricity as nuclear energy. Currently, not even
counting solar power, Nevada could produce 27 percent more from
renewable resources. This energy could be exported to other States,
creating more jobs and economic benefit to Nevada.
Instead of investing funds into the Nuclear Waste Disposal Program,
we should be endowing the Renewable Energy Program with funding to
expand research and development. Money should be invested in cleaner
forms of energy, not problem-ridden projects like Yucca Mountain that
create potential risks to our communities. We must look ahead into the
future of energy. Renewable energy is beneficial for people and the
environment. With this I ask you to vote for the Udall-Porter
amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
and I ask unanimous consent to review and extend my remarks.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this year's Energy and Water
Appropriation's bill.
Before I run through the many reasons for my strong support of this
legislation, I would llke to thank and recognize the distinguished
Chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee,
Representative David Hobson, who has provided strong leadership and
direction, while putting together a responsible and bipartisan bill.
I would like to also thank ranking member Visclosky for his
bipartisan spirit in helping to put this bill together, and the Energy
and Water Subcommittee staff who all put in so much time and effort
meeting with each member.
For more than 170 years, the Federal Government has worked in
partnership with our States and local communities to provide solutions
to critical flooding, dredging, and environmental problems, as well as
beach and shore protection. This year is no exception. In fact, the
gentleman from Ohio has produced a bill that ensures our Nation's
continued commitment to work in partnership with our States and local
municipalities to address these vital needs. In my home State of New
Jersey, these projects have kept our Port of New York and New Jersey
open for business, and prepared us for a future with bigger ships, and
most importantly, keeping President Bush's commitment that our port
continue to serve our nation and our national security and economic
needs.
I would again like to thank the Chairman for his strong support for
dredging the New York/New Jersey Port.
In addition, this bill helps keep the 127 miles of New Jersey Beach
open to visitors from all over the country. As a direct result, over 30
billion dollars are infused into New Jersey's economy each summer, and
over 800,000 people are employed.
In an effort to protect New Jerseyans, their homes, and their
businesses from the destruction and devastation of flooding, this bill
also provides the framework and the funding to purchase wetlands for
natural storage areas, and to work with the local governments in
Morris, Somerset, and Essex Counties to develop long-term solutions to
these re-occurring floods.
This bill also funds the Department of Energy, where funding has been
focused on core programs, which can truly make a difference. I am quite
pleased that Chairman Hobson has made the Nuclear Waste Program one of
his highest energy priorities. The Chairman's mark provides a total of
$765 million for nuclear waste disposal, an increase of $174 million
over the budget request and $308 million more than fiscal year 2003.
These additional funds are provided to enable the Department to open
the Yucca Mountain repository on schedule in 2010, which will help
communities all around the country where nuclear waste is stored on a
``temporary'' basis.
I would again like to thank Chairman Hobson for supporting DOE's
Fusion Energy Sciences program with over 268 million dollars, nearly
$11 million over the President's budget. These are critical dollars
which will allow America to participate in the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, ITER, while simultaneously allowing
the domestic fusion community to prosper at places like New Jersey's
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, a Department of Energy laboratory.
Fusion energy is a future source of clean and limitless energy. More
importantly, this energy source will make us less dependent on foreign
oil and fossil fuels.
Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support
this bill.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the Advance Weapons
Concepts funding in this appropriations bill. While I was pleased to
see that the Energy and Water Appropriators chose to reduce funding for
the ``Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator,'' I am still concerned that this
bill provides $5 million for the weapon.
We live in an era when terrorism and national security concerns
dominate the political landscape, as well they should. No one is
arguing about the need to find new technologies with which our Nation
can combat deeply buried targets, particularly those held by
terrorists. Supporters of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, argue
that the current funding is strictly limited to weapons research and
development in Department of Energy labs.
This claim ignores the obvious end result of such funding--weapons
design does not occur in a vacuum. In order for our soldiers to use
nuclear weapons in combat, these weapons must first be physically
tested, most likely at the Nevada Test Site. The Federal Government's
poor record on weapons testing and containment of fallout is lengthy
and disappointing, at best.
I have already seen too many Americans succumb to then-unforeseen
consequences of nuclear weapons. The price of new usable nuclear
weaponry is too high for this great Nation, once again, and I reiterate
my opposition to the advance weapons concepts funding.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, due to a family emergency, I am unable to
be here today for the debate on the Energy and Water Appropriations
bill. I want to express my strong opposition to the language in the
bill regarding the Nuclear Waste Disposal Account.
The House Appropriations Committee on Energy and Water has allocated
a total of $765 million for FY 2004 for the Yucca Mountain Project and
nuclear waste disposal. This represents an increase of 67 percent above
current spending levels and $174 million more than the Energy
Department's request for FY 2004. Appropriating such a massive increase
in funds for a project that has yet to be licensed by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission is unconscionable.
I would like to bring to your attention several outstanding issues
that cloud the future of the problem-ridden Yucca Mountain Project.
Key scientific issues surrounding the Yucca Mountain project remain
unresolved. Sound science on the long-term viability of a deep geologic
burial site for 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste has yet to be
produced. The Department of Energy continues to struggle to address the
nearly 200 outstanding ``key technical issues'' concerning the
repository. Numerous scientific reports highlight the potential
shortcomings of the current plan, including a lack of comprehensive
performance tests on the man-made storage casks, the presence of
significant seismic activity at the proposed site, and incomplete data
on the effects of the waste on the surrounding communities.
Additionally, questions regarding the reliability of computer models in
evaluating risks posed by long-term waste storage at the Yucca site
remain unanswered.
Some have stated that only the people in Nevada have a problem with
Yucca Mountain. Proponents of the Yucca Mountain nuclear dump site
claim that it's needed to address security concerns at 131 nuclear
reactor sites. But this simply is not the case. Even if the Department
of Energy receives a license to construct the repository at Yucca
Mountain, operating nuclear reactors will always have nuclear waste on-
site. As long as a nuclear power plant is in operation, it will produce
hot, radioactive, spent nuclear fuel. The fuel must be cooled on-site
for 5 to 10 years before it can be moved. Therefore, even as older fuel
is shipped to a repository, huge amounts of nuclear waste will remain
at those 131 sites.
Shipping nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain will not make these reactors
any safer. On the contrary, it will create another potential terrorist
target in Nevada. In addition, it will also create thousands of mobile
targets traveling through 43 States and as many as 360
congressional districts for more than 30 years. However, if approved,
77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste would be transported from 131
sites across the United States through 43 states, and perhaps as many
as 360 Congressional districts, for the next 30 to 40 years, equaling a
total of over 100,000 shipments of
[[Page H7125]]
nuclear waste. Nuclear waste shipments will pass within miles of our
homes, schools, and hospitals. In fact, one-in-seven Americans, 38
million people, live within one mile of a proposed transportation
route. At every stage of transportation, from rail and truck transfers
to storage depots, to the actual repository, a devastating terrorist
attack could result in massive civilian casualties, severe economic
disruption, and long-lasting environmental contamination.
Finally, I would like to address the language in the report that
addresses ``early acceptance'' of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.
Sound science has not proven that Yucca Mountain is a safe repository
for nuclear waste storage. There have been promises made to Nevadans
that no waste would be shipped before it was proven to be safe. I would
urge the Department of Energy to ensure this is the case before there
is any discussion of early acceptance.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and urge my
colleagues to support it. Given our allocation, the Majority and
Minority have worked well together to fashion a workable measure. I
also want to compliment the Chairman on a job well-done.
I am particularly interested in this bill because of the funding it
provides to the Corps of Engineers for activities on our navigable
waterways. In our agriculture communities, the transportation provided
by these waterways is extremely important to cost-efficient and timely
grain shipments. That said, it is important for my constituents--
farmers and consumers alike--to have well-operated and well-maintained
waterway systems on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.
As part of our efforts to keep our waterways in good working order,
we have funded the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study. This study
is a comprehensive review of the needs of the Mississippi
transportation system and will provide us reliable data about the
efficiencies of this critical waterway.
We have also funded the Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan, an
initiative aimed at improving flood protection, mitigating flood
damage, and enhancing habitat management and erosion control.
Other Corps funding with respect to navigation that is important to
Iowa's farmers and grain shippers pertains to the operation and
maintenance of the dams and locks along the Mississippi and Missouri
Rivers. These activities are important because without proper operation
of these locks and dams, much of our food production system suffers
economically because of costly delays in the movement of grains and
other agricultural products.
Overall, though the Corps funding is less than I would like to see
it, I do believe that we have done a good job in dividing up the monies
so the Corps can do the things that it does best. For this reason and
others important to my State, I am going to support passage and I urge
my colleagues to do likewise.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my extreme opposition
to H.R. 2754, the FY 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations bill that
unfairly targets my home State of Nevada, a State with no nuclear
reactors, as the final destination for 77,000 tons of high-level
nuclear waste produced by the U.S. commercial nuclear utilities, most
of which are located in the East.
This bill tramples on decades of environmental policy, ignores public
health and safety, and exposes the American taxpayer to billions of
dollars in costs to solve the private industry's waste problem.
H.R. 2754 contains some features that serve the general food of the
United States, such as flood control and renewable energy research.
Unfortunately, they are dwarfed by the bill's massive funding for the
Yucca Mountain Nuclear storage facility.
This bill increases funding for the site by more than 29 percent,
even though it has yet to be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
At a time when our budget must meet the challenges of providing
economic growth and security against terror, I urge my colleagues to
reject this bill that over funds an unnecessary, unsafe, and unapproved
nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of the legislative day of
Thursday, July 17, 2003, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule and the amendment designated in the order of
the House of that day is adopted.
{time} 0930
During consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chair may
accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that
has been printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record.
Those amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2754
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2004, for energy and water development,
and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--Civil
The following appropriations shall be expended under the
direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of
the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the
Department of the Army pertaining to rivers and harbors,
flood control, shore protection, aquatic ecosystem
restoration, and related purposes.
General Investigations
For expenses necessary for the collection and study of
basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood
control, shore protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and
related projects, restudy of authorized projects,
miscellaneous investigations, and, when authorized by law,
surveys and detailed studies and plans and specifications of
projects prior to construction, $117,788,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That for the Ohio
Riverfront, Cincinnati, Ohio, project, the cost of planning
and design undertaken by non-Federal interests shall be
credited toward the non-Federal share of project design
costs.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
Page 2, line 18, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $17,788,000)''.
Page 5, line 15, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $17,788,000)''.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to offer this amendment
because I believe that the General Investigations Account is
overfunded. In fact, I believe the entire Corps budget is way
underfunded when we look at the real infrastructure needs of the United
States. I appreciate the fact that the committee and the House have
found $288 million more than the President proposed, but it is still
$156 million less than last year, and all across the country we have
locks and dams and jetties failing.
In particular, in my own district we have a dam at Fern Ridge which
is more than 50 years old which is on the verge of catastrophic
failure. The Corps has lowered the level of water behind the dam. They
say that at any moment they may have to dewater the reservoir. And when
the reservoir is dewatered, we lose both the extraordinary recreation
benefits of one of the most heavily recreated lakes in Oregon, the
revenues that flow from that recreation, but we also lose the flood
control. And just a few years ago this dam was vital when we had a wet
winter, and they are now predicting that we again are going to have a
wet winter. So if the dam just fails a little bit more, we are going to
lose all the flood control capability and all of the recreational
attributes, and the Corps of my region says they just will not have the
money until the year 2006 to fix this dam.
That is not acceptable. We cannot have dams that are failing and say,
come back in 3 years and, by the way, if they have a 100-year flood in
the interim, they are out of luck. We will have hundreds of millions of
downstream damage, and I guess then Federal flood insurance will pay
for it out of a different pocket than the pocket out of which we are
appropriating this bill.
So my intention in offering this amendment is not to criticize the
committee or the Corps or any of these budgets, but to raise the point
that the O&M Account, which goes to issues like the failing Fern Ridge
Dam, goes to the dredging of the small ports along the southern Oregon
coast, is woefully underfunded.
I also understand that a point of order may lie against this
amendment.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H7126]]
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentleman
yielding to me, and I want him to know that I am aware of the needs of
his district and many others around the country, frankly. In my
prepared remarks, which I did not give today, I list some problems. The
Operation and Maintenance backlog is nearly $1 billion and growing
every year, and I talk about that. I also talk about the fact that OMB
has got to work with us on a long-term basis because every year we go
on, this aging infrastructure, we need to make an investment, and I
want to make that investment.
And what I am going to try to do in this bill, and this is my first
time doing this, and I have a very able ranking member, when we sit
down with the other body in conference, I am going to try to increase
the money available for Operation and Maintenance, and I will try very
hard to get the OMB to work with us to be more realistic in the future
about this, because I do not think it is realistic. We need to help the
Corps of Engineers so that we do not make so many hard choices in
support of our economic, environmental and recreational infrastructure.
I want to assure the gentleman and everybody else in here we have got
a real problem here. This affects our economy. We have to maintain
these facilities and make sure they are up to date because it has a
detrimental effect on our economy and on our environment. And I would
appreciate if the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, but I want
him to know I am very sincere about trying to get this account up not
only now, but in the future.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his words, and I
thank him for his work on this and also his desire to increase the
funding. I share that. I intend to support the bill here today on the
floor because it does at least partially fund these needs, and I will
certainly support a bill that comes back from conference which does
better in these areas.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would to add my remarks to the
chairman's, and I pointed out in full committee when we marked this
bill up, and, again, it is not a failure of the subcommittee that the
high-priority Operation and Maintenance budget for the Corps during the
current fiscal year is $884 million behind. For this coming fiscal year
that is going to climb to $1 billion. Additionally, non-high-priority
Operation and Maintenance backlog is $1.9 billion and more clearly has
to be done, and we will do our best in conference.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank both the gentleman for their
efforts, and I will do all I can to support those enhancements.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Construction, General
For the prosecution of river and harbor, flood control,
shore protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related
projects authorized by law; and detailed studies, and plans
and specifications, of projects authorized or made eligible
for selection by law, $1,642,911,000, to remain available
until expended, of which such sums as are necessary to cover
the Federal share of construction costs for facilities under
the Dredged Material Disposal Facilities program shall be
derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; and of which
such sums as are necessary to cover one-half of the costs of
construction and rehabilitation of inland waterways projects
(including rehabilitation costs for the Lock and Dam 11,
Mississippi River, Iowa; Lock and Dam 24, Mississippi River,
Illinois and Missouri; and Lock and Dam 3, Mississippi River,
Minnesota, projects) shall be derived from the Inland
Waterways Trust Fund: Provided, That the Secretary of the
Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to
proceed with the construction of the New York and New Jersey
Harbor project, 50-foot deepening element, upon execution of
the Project Cooperation Agreement: Provided further, That no
funds made available under this Act or any other Act for any
fiscal year may be used by the Secretary of the Army to carry
out the construction of the Port Jersey element of the New
York and New Jersey Harbor or reimbursement to the Local
Sponsor for the construction of the Port Jersey element until
commitments for construction of container handling facilities
are obtained from the non-Federal sponsor for a second user
along the Port Jersey element: Provided further, That funds
appropriated in this Act for the preservation and restoration
of the Florida Everglades shall be made available for
expenditure unless (1) the Secretary of the Army, not later
than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
transmits to the State of Florida and the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
a report containing a finding and supporting materials
indicating that the waters entering the A.R.M. Loxahatchee
National Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National Park do not
meet the water quality requirements set forth in the Consent
Decree entered in United States v. South Florida Water
Management District, (2) The State fails to submit a
satisfactory plan to bring the waters into compliance with
the water quality requirements within 45 days of the date of
the report, (3) the Secretary transmits to the State and the
Committees a follow-up report containing a finding that the
State has not submitted such a plan, and (4) either the
Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
or the Senate issues a written notice disapproving of further
expenditure of the funds: Provided further, That the
Secretary of the Army shall provide the State of Florida with
notice and an opportunity to respond to any determination of
the Secretary under the preceding proviso before the
determination becomes final.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Andrews
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Andrews:
Page 3, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $7,700,000)''.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes with
the time to be equally divided between the proponent of the amendment
and a Member opposed.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the 10
minutes on the amendment with the permission to yield.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for agreeing to the
time limitation in the interest in getting all the Members home today.
I express my appreciation to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for
their support of this amendment.
I want to talk about why we are here and why I would urge Members to
support the amendment. This is a project about deepening the Delaware
River from its present 40-foot depth to a 45-foot depth. There has been
intense controversy about this issue for a very long time. In June
2002, the General Accounting Office at the request of Members of this
House and the other body released a study of this project which
concluded that contrary to the legal requirement that there be at least
a dollar of benefit for every dollar invested, that, in fact, in this
project there are only 49 cents of value for every dollar that is
invested. The GAO described the project as unsustainable under the
rules that govern the Army Corps of Engineers.
Late in 2002, the Army Corps of Engineers recalculated its assessment
of the project and not surprisingly concluded that the benefits did
outweigh the costs. We have looked very carefully at that reassessment
and commissioned an independent study by Dr. Sterns, who is the former
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civil Works of the Army, and his
conclusion I will read as follows: ``Considering that the Army Corps
has already spent more than $20 million studying this project and yet
many serious concerns remain, it is unlikely that any new deepening
project for the Delaware River of similar scope can ever be justified.
We recommend that Congress deauthorize the Main Channel Deepening
Project for the Delaware River rather than wasting any more taxpayer
funds to study an inherently flawed proposal.''
Responding to that conclusion, the administration in its budget
request
[[Page H7127]]
asked for $300,000 for this project, $300,000. The committee has
increased that amount to $8 million. The purpose of this amendment is
to reduce that appropriation from the $8 million submitted by the
committee to the $300,000 requested by the administration.
There are four reasons why Members should support this amendment. The
first is it is a waste of money. As the GAO concluded, for every dollar
that our constituents put into this project, we can expect only 50
cents' worth of return.
The second reason that Members should support this amendment is that
it is wholly consistent with the very desirable goal of protecting jobs
in the ports and, in fact, growing jobs at the ports. In our region
there is strong disagreement about the merits of this project, but
there is unanimity over the goal of expanding port development. With
the 40-foot channel, the port that is affected by this amendment has
experienced considerable growth in the last 10 years. For example,
since 1990 container traffic at the port of Philadelphia and Camden has
tripled with the 40-foot channel. It is estimated that the main source
of growth in global container trade will be the Panamax class ships.
That trade is expected to triple by the year 2010. Panamax class ships
as a rule require less than a 40-foot draft. So dredging this channel
to 45 feet is not necessary for growth of the port, and there is strong
feeling throughout the region that we can grow without that.
Third reason are environmental concerns. The Delaware Environmental
Department and the New Jersey Environmental Department have not issued
the permits that are necessary for this project to go forward. There
are substantial reasons for this. There are questions about the
stirring up of generations of chemicals and potential toxins that lie
in the river. There are questions about lack of compliance with the
Clean Air Act. There are questions about the effect of this project on
the salt line's progress north in the River and its effect on various
plant, aquatic, and obviously human life. Environmentally this project
is flawed. This is the reason why American rivers, Environmental
Defense, Friends of the Earth, the League of Conservation Voters, the
National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, and the U.S. Public
Interest Research Group support this amendment.
Fourth, and another important reason, is the lack of local support
for this amendment. We are being asked over the course of this project
to commit well in excess of $200 million from the Federal Treasury.
There is a requirement that well in excess of $100 million of local
match be generated from local sources. In this project the local source
is a port authority called the Delaware River Port Authority. The
Delaware River Port Authority is governed in such a way that there must
be agreement from the New Jersey commissioners on the one side of the
River and the Pennsylvania commissioners on the other side of the
river. There must be a majority of both sides before a decision can be
made.
I will be entering into the Record at an appropriate time a letter
from the vice chairman of the Port Authority, the leader of the New
Jersey delegation to the Port Authority, which includes the following
language: ``I will not support the Delaware River Deepening Project as
currently proposed. I intend to urge the New Jersey delegation to
reject any disbursement of Delaware River Port Authority funds for this
project as currently proposed. I believe that the project will pose a
serious environmental risk to the communities in South Jersey. Further,
critical questions relating to the economic benefit of this project
remain unanswered.'' It is signed by Jeffrey Nash, who is the vice
chairman of the Delaware Port Authority.
So, Mr. Chairman, there are four good reasons to vote yes on this
amendment. First of all, the project is a waste of money. Read the GAO
report. Second, it is not necessary to serve the very viable and
broadly held goal of developing jobs at the port. Third, there are
serious environmental questions, which is why groups like the League of
Conservation Voters support the amendment. And, finally, the local
match that is required to make this project go is in serious jeopardy
because the New Jersey commissioners who would be required to support
the local match have just gone on record as saying they will not.
Delaware River Port Authority,
Camden, NJ, July 17, 2003.
Hon. Robert Andrews,
U.S. Congress, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
[Re: Delaware River Deepening Project]
Dear Congressman Andrews: As the Vice Chairman of the
Delaware River Port Authority, heading the New Jersey State
Delegation to that Authority, I write to inform you that I
will not support the Delaware River Deepening Project as
currently proposed. I intend to urge the New Jersey
Delegation to reject any disbursement of Delaware River Port
Authority funds for this project as currently proposed. I
believe that the project will pose a serious environmental
risk to the communities in South Jersey. Further, critical
questions relating to the economic benefit of this project
remain unanswered.
As you have reported, we have a particular concern over the
disparate burden placed upon South Jersey by the Army Corp of
Engineers given their plan to dispose the majority of
potentially toxic spoils on unidentified sites. In addition
to our environmental and economic concerns, we vigorously
object to this dredge disposal plan and, therefore, cannot
offer our support for this project.
I understand that the Appropriations Committee in the House
of Representatives intends to appropriate 8 million dollars
toward this project despite President Bush's request to
essentially eliminate its funding. I also recognize that any
federal funding for this project is contingent upon a
propositional match by local governmental entities. I am
writing to notify you and fellow members of Congress that
Delaware River Port Authority funding is seriously in doubt
given New Jersey's concern as set forth herein.
Our goal is to pursue a Port Development Plan that
accentuates our assets: location, a superior work force, and
excellent intermodal facilities. We are confident that we
will protect the many jobs based at the port and add
considerably to the economic engine without the environmental
risk of the proposed dredging project.
The Delaware River Port Authority is committed to improve
the South Jersey and Philadelphia region by engaging in
economic development projects that hope to benefit the region
by creating new jobs, improving the quality of life of the
region, and revitalizing the local economy. Based upon
several studies including a report by the General Accounting
Office, I have concluded that this project does not meet with
our mission. I have based my determination on the fact that
this project poses significant environmental risk as well as
numerous quality of life issues to the community in our
region.
We look forward to working with our colleagues at the
Delaware River Port Authority, and in the port communities of
New Jersey and Pennsylvania, to develop a viable Port
Development Plan.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey L. Nash,
Vice Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I realize there is a very limited time here. I would like to
reiterate what the gentleman has stated and then make it plain. The
Delaware River basically serves three States in terms of what we would
do here in deepening that river, Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
{time} 0945
New Jersey is adamantly opposed to this. Delaware has serious
questions about it. We have just gotten all of our reviews in. We have
not even approved this yet. In fact, it is very doubtful if it is going
to be approved in the State of Delaware. It is almost certain that this
money cannot be spent in the course of this year. Pennsylvania has been
adamantly for this.
There are tremendous environmental questions that are being asked,
but there are also significant economic questions which are being
asked, such as who benefits from this and, in fact, whether there is a
cost benefit that is remotely close to what the Army Corps came up with
originally.
I think to appropriate this full amount is wrong. We are not asking
to close it out all together, but to reduce the amount of money that is
involved here so that we can continue the necessary process to see if
in another year we should be going forward with it.
But this, frankly, is just a waste of money. This is something
Congress should not be doing at this time in terms of putting
additional money in it. My judgment is that the amendment makes all the
sense in the world, and I strongly endorse it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H7128]]
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The deepening of the Delaware River is considered by many to be vital
to the future of commerce in the northeast. The Corps of Engineers
believes that it is an economically viable project. It was authorized
in 1992. They have already spent more than $17 million to date on its
study and design.
The ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and I
have been contacted by the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Honorable Ed
Rendell, who urged us to oppose any amendment to reduce the level of
funding for this project. His letter contains a long list of labor and
business interests who are in strong support of this project which he
calls ``essential to maintaining a competitive port.''
Therefore, I am opposed to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time
for his control to my ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky).
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman yielding me
his time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I too am opposed to the Andrews amendment. I have a great deal of
respect for the gentleman, but I disagree with him on the policy of
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Hoeffel).
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
There is nobody in this House I respect more than the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). But I disagree with him completely on his
amendment, and I rise in strong opposition.
The gentleman talks about four points. I would like to rebut them. He
says that the deepening of the channel for the Port of Philadelphia
from 40 feet to 45 feet would be a waste of money. That is not true.
The Army Corps of Engineers has studied this matter twice. The first
study said there would be $1.40 of benefit for every dollar of
investment to deepen the channel. That was challenged by the GAO, as
the gentleman has suggested. The Army Corps reanalyzed and came back
with an economic analysis of a benefit of $1.18 for every dollar of
investment. That is the current status. It is not a waste of money; it
will help the Port of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia region to
deepen the channel to 45 feet.
The second point is the gentleman suggested a 40-foot channel is
adequate and that we do not need to lower the channel, and he is simply
wrong. Big, modern ships cannot come to the Delaware River to the Port
of Philadelphia if it stays only at a 40-foot depth. It must be
deepened to 45 to stay competitive with all of the other ports up and
down the Mid-Atlantic. It is necessary to deepen the channel.
Thirdly, the gentleman suggested there is environmental damage by the
deepening. Well, that has been debunked and refuted by seven State and
Federal agencies that have found no adverse impact on the environment.
The Federal Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries
Service have all found no adverse environmental impact; and the
environmental agencies of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania have
found no adverse environmental impact.
The final point that the gentleman made is that there is a lack of
local support. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we will hear
from the gentleman from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady), there
is unanimous support from the governments, from the labor unions, from
the businesses. The only, only business opposed to deepening the
channel is the litering companies in the area that benefit from a
shallow channel so ships come off port, have to unload their material,
and smaller ships from the litering companies take it up the river.
Those are the people leading the opposition to this.
Philadelphia needs a deeper channel. It is good for the economy. We
have to do it to protect jobs. We have to do it to stay competitive. I
oppose the amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank my ranking member
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an economically strong Port of
Philadelphia. Through the efforts of our former colleague, Bob Borski,
Congress authorized the funding for this project in 1992.
Mr. Chairman, the Port of Philadelphia needs to go 45 feet because of
a trend towards bigger ships. We talk about waste. Deepening this
channel brings 45,000 direct jobs created by port traffic, and it will
be severely affected if this amendment goes through. I do not think
that that is waste.
Mr. Chairman, the Port of Philadelphia is also a strategic military
port. We have two large military transport ships ported in
Philadelphia. We have to guarantee clear access to the sea in case of a
national emergency. That is why 12,000 labor, business, and community
groups support it; and that is why our Governor, who also chairs the
Delaware Port Authority, which my colleague mentioned, he is the
chairman of that agency, also agrees and also sent a letter supporting
it.
Finally, the project is environmentally safe. EPA, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey approved it. Each
State environment protection agency in the region has approved it.
Each State environmental protection agency in the region has approved
it. The dredge material is considered safe and will be used for beach,
wetlands restoration, and filling abandoned mines in Pennsylvania.
Now, the gentleman in New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) is my dear friend and
there are two things that separate us, the Delaware River and whether
or not to dredge it or not. I do not stand here against the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) or the gentleman from Delaware (Mr.
Castle), but I do stand against their amendment.
Mr. Chairman, Congress rejected this amendment 3 years ago. We should
do the same today. I would like my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I do not have any other requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Let me just reiterate. We are all friends, we are neighbors; and, in
most cases, we are together on these various issues. But I must say
that it concerns me a great deal that there are two States out of three
which are affected here that are very much concerned about going ahead
with this project at this time. New Jersey is in adamant opposition to
it, has been from the beginning.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) has done a wonderful job
of requesting additional economic studies. GAO looked at this and found
that the cost ratios are not $1.18, but 49 to 50 cents on the dollar.
That is highly inefficient for going ahead with a project such as this.
We in Delaware have still not given approval to this, either for
economic or environmental reasons. There is a great deal of opposition
in Delaware as well. We do not have anyone other than the port of
Wilmington who believes that they may benefit from this. The oil
companies who are involved in this, and there are six of them, I
believe, along the Delaware River north of Delaware who would benefit
from it, have not been willing to show any evidence of expanding their
channels. If they do not do that, then it is of no advantage to them.
So perhaps the Port of Philadelphia would benefit, and maybe this will
go ahead.
All we are asking for, frankly, is time to see if it should go ahead,
and they have to work out a lot of problems between now and, say, a
year from now before that can happen.
But I would plead to the Members of Congress that the two States are
being rather adversely impacted that are raising serious questions
about this,
[[Page H7129]]
and I think that we should revert to the smaller amount of money which
is used to keep the studies going, but not to have the project go
ahead.
There is a lot more that could be said. We do not have the time to
say it all today, except to say there is a lot of economic speculation
about this, and we think it is wrong.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
We have great respect for our friends, but we have great respect for
the facts. The fact is that GAO had the last word. They say the project
is a waste of money. The fact is the environmental agencies of New
Jersey and Delaware have not permitted this. The fact is with respect
to the local match, the New Jersey people will not put up the match.
The project should not be funded. We respectfully ask everyone to vote
``yes'' on the amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Andrews'
Amendment.
The Delaware River Main Channel Deepening project is designed to keep
the Delaware River Ports competitive with other east coast ports, all
of which have dredged or are planning to dredge their channels deeper
than 40 feet. Major Shipping lines have informed the ports that their
next generation ships will require deeper channels. Unless these ports
can go to 45 feet they will be at a competitive disadvantage with their
sister ports for the expected growth of international trade.
In addition to the competitive advantage this project will provide
the region, it provides much needed jobs. Over 75,000 jobs are
attributable to the port industry in the Delaware Valley.
Moreover, the Delaware River Port has been designated as a military
strategic port. The Port of Philadelphia has been selected as a
Strategic Seaport for the Northeast Corridor of the United States.
Philadelphia's selection means the Department of Defense will
incorporate the use of the city's port facilities in its planning for
the movement of military cargoes in the event of major contingency
operations. Selection of the Pennsylvania port was made jointly by the
U.S. Maritime Administration, U.S. Army Forces Command, and the
Military Traffic Management Command after an assessment of many
Northeast Corridor ports. Philadelphia becomes the country's 14th
commercial Strategic Seaport. Designation as a Strategic Seaport
creates the potential for Department of Defense cargo shipments in
support of contingencies.
Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered of the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews)
will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries
Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and
Tennessee
For expenses necessary for the flood damage reduction
program for the Mississippi River alluvial valley below Cape
Girardeau, Missouri, as authorized by law, $301,054,000, to
remain available until expended.
Operation and Maintenance, General
For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and
care of existing river and harbor, flood and storm damage
reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related
projects; for providing security for infrastructure owned and
operated by, or on behalf of, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, including administrative buildings and facilities,
laboratories, and the Washington Aqueduct; for the
maintenance of harbor channels provided by a State,
municipality, or other public agency that serve essential
navigation needs of general commerce, where authorized by
law; and for surveys and charting of northern and
northwestern lakes and connecting waters, clearing and
straightening channels, and removal of obstructions to
navigation, $1,932,575,000, to remain available until
expended, of which such sums as become available in the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662
may be derived from that fund, and of which such sums as
become available from the special account for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers established by the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965, as amended (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)),
may be derived from that account for resource protection,
research, interpretation, and maintenance activities related
to resource protection in the areas at which outdoor
recreation is available; and of which such sums as become
available under section 217 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303, shall be used to
cover the cost of operation and maintenance of the dredged
material disposal facilities for which fees have been
collected.
Regulatory Program
For expenses necessary for administration of laws
pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands,
$144,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites
in the United States resulting from work performed as part of
the Nation's early atomic energy program, $140,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
For expenses necessary for emergency flood control,
response to hurricanes and other natural disasters, and
related activities, including the activities that the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers undertakes to ensure its readiness to
respond to such emergencies, $40,000,000 to remain available
until expended.
General Expenses
For expenses necessary for general administration and
related civil works functions in the headquarters of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the offices of the Division
Engineers, the Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity,
the Institute for Water Resources, the U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Finance Center, $164,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That no part of any other
appropriation provided in title I of this Act shall be
available to fund the activities of the Office of the Chief
of Engineers or the executive direction and management
activities of the division offices: Provided further, That
none of these funds shall be available to support an office
of congressional affairs within the executive office of the
Chief of Engineers.
Administrative Provisions
Appropriations in this title shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses (not to exceed
$5,000); and during the current fiscal year the Revolving
Fund, Corps of Engineers, shall be available for purchase
(not to exceed 100 for replacement only) and hire of
passenger motor vehicles.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
Sec. 101. Agreements proposed for execution by the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works or the United
States Army Corps of Engineers after the date of the
enactment of this Act pursuant to section 4 of the Rivers and
Harbor Act of 1915, Public Law 64-291; section 11 of the
River and Harbor Act of 1925, Public Law 68-585; the Civil
Functions Appropriations Act, 1936, Public Law 75-208;
section 215 of the Flood Control Act of 1968, as amended,
Public Law 90-483; sections 104, 203, and 204 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended, Public Law 99-
662; section 206 of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992, as amended, Public Law 102-580; section 211 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1996, Public Law 104-303;
and any other specific project authority, shall be limited to
credits and reimbursements per project not to exceed
$10,000,000 in each fiscal year, and total credits and
reimbursements for all applicable projects not to exceed
$50,000,000 in each fiscal year.
Sec. 102. None of the funds appropriated in this or any
other Act may be used by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers to support activities related to the proposed Ridge
Landfill in Tuscarawas County, Ohio.
Sec. 103. None of the funds appropriated in this or any
other Act may be used by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers to support activities related to the proposed
Indian Run Sanitary Landfill in Sandy Township, Stark County,
Ohio.
naming of lock and dam 3, allegheny river, pennsylvania
Sec. 104. (a) Designation.--Lock and dam numbered 3 on the
Allegheny River, Pennsylvania, shall be known and designated
as the ``C.W. Bill Young Lock and Dam''.
(b) Legal References.--A reference in any law, regulation,
document, record, map, or other paper of the United States to
the lock and dam referred to in subsection (a) shall be
deemed to be a reference to the ``C.W. `Bill' Young Lock and
Dam''.
Mr. HOBSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of title I be considered as read, printed in
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 5 minutes. I just want
[[Page H7130]]
to rise in support of this bill and to thank the gentleman from Ohio
(Chairman Hobson) for his efforts, particularly to strengthen the
Office of Science in the Department of Energy. This is a good bill.
There were some differences of opinion early on. We worked out those
differences of opinion in a responsible way.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. I just want to make two
points about it.
First, I want to thank Chairman Hobson for his efforts to strengthen
the Office of Science. This critical, but often overlooked Office, is a
critical supporter of research in the physical sciences. It also
supports crucial work related to genomics and homeland security. And it
runs laboratories that provide research tools for a wide range of
scientists throughout the country.
In this year's Energy bill, H.R. 6, the House, led by Representative
Biggert, who chairs our Science Committee's Energy Subcommittee,
authorized major increases for the Office of Science. This bill makes a
downpayment on those authorizations.
The bill also specifically recognizes the importance of the
administration's new, interagency supercomputing initiative. Our
committee held a hearing on the issue this week, and I look forward to
working with Chairman Hobson in this area that can have a major impact
on American competitiveness.
I also want to draw attention to section 301 of the bill, which
requires competition of laboratory contracts. While I disagree with
some of the details of the provision, I agree that we need to come up
with a competition policy that will provide predictability for the labs
and accountability from the labs. We must develop the tools to improve
laboratory management without causing undue disruption or imposing
excessive costs. In this too, I look forward to working with Chairman
Hobson.
Because section 301 constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill,
Chairman Hobson and I have exchanged letters describing our agreement
on how we will move forward on this section. I ask that they be placed
in the Record at this point.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC, July 17, 2003.
Hon. David Hobson,
Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thanks for meeting with me today to
discuss Section 301 of the Energy and Water Appropriations
bill for fiscal 2004 (H.R. 2754). As you acknowledged,
Section 301 constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill
and would normally be subject to a point of order.
In today's discussion, however, you agreed that you would
consult with the Science Committee throughout your conference
negotiations on Section 301 and that you would not make any
conference agreement on Section 301 that did not meet with
our approval. As a result of those commitments, I will not
object to the waiving of points of order against Section 301.
Like you, I believe the management of the Department of
Energy (DOE) laboratories is an important issue that requires
more attention from the Congress. As you know, the Science
Committee has held hearings on this complex issue. We look
forward to working with you to fashion a competition policy
that will provide greater accountability and more attentive
management without causing needless disruption of the
laboratories' scientific research or imposing unnecessary
additional costs.
Sincerely,
Sherwood Boehlert,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC, July 17, 2003.
Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,
Chairman, House Committee on Science, Rayburn Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Boehlert: Thank you for your letter of July
17, 2003, regarding the provisions of Section 301 of the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, 2004 (H.R.
2754). I understand this provision is legislating on an
appropriations bill, and am pleased that you will not object
to waiving of points of order against this bill.
I agree that we will consult with the Science Committee
throughout our conference negotiations on this particular
provision, and will work toward a conference agreement that
will satisfy our joint interests on contract competition.
I also agree to find a way to stagger the contract award
dates for the Argonne-East and Argonne-West contracts, so
that the University of Chicago does not have to compete for
both contracts simultaneously.
I look forward to working with you and your staff on this
important issue.
Sincerely,
David L. Hobson,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy
and Water Development.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project
Central Utah Project Completion Account
For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, $36,463,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $9,423,000 shall be deposited into
the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for
use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Commission.
In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying
out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the
Interior, $1,728,000, to remain available until expended.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Water and Related Resources
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For management, development, and restoration of water and
related natural resources and for related activities,
including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of
reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling
related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and
related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with,
State and local governments, Indian tribes, and others,
$817,913,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$57,330,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper
Colorado River Basin Fund and $33,570,000 shall be available
for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin Development
Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary may be
advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund; and of which not
more than $500,000 is for high priority projects which shall
be carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps, as authorized
by 16 U.S.C. 1706: Provided, That such transfers may be
increased or decreased within the overall appropriation under
this heading: Provided further, That of the total
appropriated, the amount for program activities that can be
financed by the Reclamation Fund or the Bureau of Reclamation
special fee account established by 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i) shall
be derived from that Fund or account: Provided further, That
funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 are available until
expended for the purposes for which contributed: Provided
further, That funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a shall be
credited to this account and are available until expended for
the same purposes as the sums appropriated under this
heading: Provided further, That funds available for
expenditure for the Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program
may be expended by the Bureau of Reclamation for site
remediation on a non-reimbursable basis: Provided further,
That $10,000,000 of the funds appropriated herein shall be
deposited in the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund
established by section 110 of division B, title I of Public
Law 106-554, as amended: Provided further, That section 301
of Public Law 102-250, Reclamation States Emergency Drought
Relief Act of 1991, as amended, is amended further by
inserting ``2003, and 2004'' in lieu of ``and 2003''.
Bureau of Reclamation Loan Program Account
For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the
program for direct loans and/or grants, $200,000, to remain
available until expended, of which the amount that can be
financed by the Reclamation Fund shall be derived from that
fund.
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund
For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, and habitat
restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $39,600,000, to be
derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d),
3404(c)(3), 3405(f), and 3406(c)(1) of Public Law 102-575, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau of
Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount
of the additional mitigation and restoration payments
authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available under this
heading may be used for the acquisition or leasing of water
for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed to
in-stream purposes by a court adopted decree or order.
POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION
For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and
related functions in the office of the Commissioner, the
Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau
of Reclamation, to remain available until expended,
$56,525,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be
nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That
no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be
available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and
administration expenses.
Working Capital Fund
(rescission)
From unobligated balances under this heading, $4,525,000
are rescinded.
Administrative Provision
Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be
available for purchase of not to exceed 14 passenger motor
vehicles, of which 12 are for replacement only.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Sec. 201. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may
[[Page H7131]]
be used to determine the final point of discharge for the
interceptor drain for the San Luis Unit until development by
the Secretary of the Interior and the State of California of
a plan, which shall conform to the water quality standards of
the State of California as approved by the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, to minimize any
detrimental effect of the San Luis drainage waters.
(b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program
and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program
shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as
reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully
repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program-Alternative
Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP-Alternative Repayment Plan''
described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report,
Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley
Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future
obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or
providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the
San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit
beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal
reclamation law.
Sec. 202. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act may be used to pay the
salaries and expenses of personnel to purchase or lease water
in the Middle Rio Grande or the Carlsbad Projects in New
Mexico unless said purchase or lease is in compliance with
the purchase requirements of section 202 of Public Law 106-
60.
Sec. 203. Subsection 206(b) of Public Law 101-514 is
amended as follows: In paragraph (1), strike ``, with annual
quantities delivered under these contracts to be determined
by the Secretary based upon the quantity of water actually
needed within the Sacramento County Water Agency service area
and San Juan Suburban Water District after considering
reasonable efforts to: (i) promote full utilization of
existing water entitlements within Sacramento County, (ii)
implement water conservation and metering programs within the
areas served by the contract, and (iii) implement programs to
maximize to the extent feasible conjunctive use of surface
water and groundwater''.
Sec. 204. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and
directed to amend the Central Valley Project water supply
contracts of the Sacramento County Water Agency and the San
Juan Suburban Water District by deleting a provision
requiring a determination of annual water needs included
pursuant to section 206 of Public Law 101-514.
LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN DEVELOPMENT
Sec. 205. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 403(f)
of the Colorado River Basin Project Act (43 U.S.C. 1543(f)),
no amount from the Lower Colorado River Basin Development
Fund shall be paid to the general fund of the Treasury until
each provision of the revised Stipulation Regarding a Stay
and for Ultimate Judgment Upon the Satisfaction of
Conditions, filed in United States district court, in Central
Arizona Water Conservation District v. United States (No. CIV
95-625-TUC-WDB (EHC), No. CIV 95-1720-OHX-EHC (Consolidated
Action)), and any amendment or revision thereof, is met.
(b) Payment to General Fund.--If any of the provisions of
the stipulation referred to in subsection (a) are not met by
the date that is ten years after the date of enactment of
this Act, payments to the general fund of the Treasury shall
resume in accordance with section 403(f) of the Colorado
River Basin Project Act (43 U.S.C. 1543(f)).
(c) Authorization.--Amounts in the Lower Colorado River
Basin Development Fund that but for this section would be
returned to the general fund of the Treasury shall not be
expended until further Act of Congress.
Sec. 206. The second paragraph under the heading
``Administrative Provisions'' in Public Law 102-377 (43
U.S.C. 377b) is amended by inserting ``, not to exceed
$5,000,000 for each causal event giving rise to a claim or
claims'' after ``activities of the Bureau of Reclamation''.
Mr. HOBSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of title II be considered as read, printed
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Energy Supply
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for energy supply activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion, and the purchase of not to exceed 12 passenger
motor vehicles for replacement only, including two buses;
$691,534,000, to remain available until expended.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the chairman of the subcommittee in a
colloquy regarding the early acceptance of spent nuclear fuel at Yucca
Mountain.
Mr. Chairman, this issue is of the utmost importance to me and, as my
colleagues know, each and every year that I have been a Representative
of the State of Nevada, for the last 7 years, I have adamantly fought
against the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. This is a
critical issue and vitally important to the rest of the Nevada
congressional delegation, as it is to our constituents.
While I could go on and speak for hours on the reasons why the
committee's unprecedented level of funding for Yucca Mountain nuclear
waste repository is an outrage to Nevadans, I choose rather to focus my
attention and my opinion on the most irresponsible and alarming of the
committee's report: the $4 million in taxpayer dollars to study early
acceptance or interim storage of high-level nuclear waste at Yucca
Mountain.
I clearly remember debating this interim issue of storage during the
105th Congress. I remain strongly opposed to the notion that storing
nuclear waste in a temporary facility on-site at Yucca Mountain is a
solution to a problem of nuclear waste.
I adamantly oppose the committee's opinion that transporting high-
level nuclear waste from over 100 power plants across this Nation
through our neighborhoods and in yet unproven dual-use casks will
further secure our Nation against the threat of terrorism.
The Energy Department's resources and taxpayer dollars could be far
better utilized in securing our Nation's high-level nuclear waste if
they were to spend this $4 million on bolstering security at the
existing storage facilities.
Mr. Chairman, before I go on, I would like to yield to my colleague
from the Third Congressional District of Nevada (Mr. Porter) for his
comments as well.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for
engaging in this colloquy today.
For the last 20 years, I have fought against the Yucca Mountain
project and believe to this day that the facility is a danger to the
people of Nevada and unnecessary for the people of the United States.
While Congress has authorized the Yucca Mountain site, we in Nevada
continue to use every avenue available to resist the establishment of
this facility. Interim storage of spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain,
which has not been approved by Congress, is intolerable to the people
of Nevada.
I appreciate the help of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), and I
appreciate the fact that he has agreed that the interim storage of
spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain is not the intent of his committee
or of this Congress, and that he will oppose any and all efforts to
include language recommending interim storage in any conference report
presented to this House.
{time} 1000
I would like to thank my colleagues from Nevada. I appreciate the
gentleman yielding me time.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the chairman of the subcommittee, for
his response to our colloquy.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Gibbons) and the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).
I understand the concerns of the Members from Nevada. We have tried
to do the right thing for Nevada in this bill by directing the
Secretary to select rail as the preferred mode of transportation within
Nevada and by directing the Secretary to select a rail route that
avoids Las Vegas. Further, we have restored the external oversight
funding for the State of Nevada and the affected counties, and we have
provided $30 million in impact assistance funding for the affected
Nevada counties.
Nevertheless, I understand the sensitivity on the issue of this early
acceptance. I commit that we will drop the report dealing with early
acceptance when we get to conference, and I will direct the Secretary
to apply the $4 million to improving the security of the containers
used to store spent fuel at reactor sites.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman for
[[Page H7132]]
his agreement to strike and remove the interim storage provisions
regarding this troubling language that is in the bill. I look forward
to working with him as does my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Porter), on ensuring our constituents of this point as well.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Udall of Colorado:
Page 17, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.
Page 19, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado (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
Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment
with my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter). I want to
thank the gentleman for working with me. I also want to thank my
colleague, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who cannot be
here today, for her support of this amendment.
The Udall-Porter amendment would add $30 million to a number of
renewable energy programs at the Department of Energy. The programs to
be increased, solar energy, wind energy, geothermal technology, biomass
and biofuels, Zero Energy Buildings, hydropower, and the Renewable
Energy Production Incentive were identified by my friends in the clean
energy community as programs particularly in need of additional
funding.
When taken together, these programs fall $33 million below fiscal
year 2003 levels. So the $30 million funding increase we are proposing
still falls short of fiscal year 2003 levels, so we consider this
amendment to be a modest one.
The $30 million increase for renewable energy programs would come
from funds for Yucca Mountain's nuclear waste disposal account. I want
to make clear that my aim in proposing this amendment is to restore
funds to critical clean energy programs, not to deprive Yucca Mountain
of funds it may need.
Indeed, I know that at least two of Yucca's programs, local impact
assistance and external oversight funds, are very important to Nevada's
communities. Our amendment does not seek to take funds from these
accounts. But the bill we are considering today includes $335 million
for the nuclear waste disposal account. This is fully $174 million over
the President's request. So the Udall-Porter amendment would still
leave the Yucca account at $144 million over the request.
Given the importance of the clean energy programs, particularly at a
time when we are all concerned about our energy security, I believe
that our amendment helps strike a greater balance in the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want this to be a negative debate. My goal is
to focus on the importance of developing a diverse and balanced long-
term energy policy, one that requires us to think beyond today's
gasoline prices and beyond next year's election. I want to talk about
the real crises that will develop 10 or 20 years from now when oil
prices will probably go up permanently as a result of increasing global
demand and passing the peak in global petroleum production.
We have not done enough to prepare for this eventuality, but
investing in clean energy programs is one way to start. DOE's renewable
energy programs are vital to our Nation's interest, helping to provide
strategies and tools to address the environmental challenges we will
face in the coming decades.
Investments in sustainable energy technologies meet multiple other
public policy objectives. Far from decreasing, U.S. dependence on
imported oil has increased to record levels over the last 25 years.
These programs are helping to reduce our reliance on oil imports,
thereby strengthening our national security and also creating hundreds
of new domestic businesses, supporting thousands of American jobs, and
opening new international markets. While these technologies have become
increasingly cost-competitive, the pace of their penetration into the
market will be determined largely by government support for future
research as well as by assistance in catalyzing public-private
partnerships.
Not only economic independence, but also environmental health and
lower energy costs are advanced by our investment in renewable energy.
But in order for these investments to pay off, we have got to have a
sustained commitment over the long term. It is time to recognize the
value of clean energy research to our communities and to our world and
to commit to sustaining our investment in clean energy for years to
come.
Our amendment does not do all that should be done, but it does
greatly improve the bill, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I should note finally our intention that funding for
these programs be allocated at levels described in tables that I will
provide here as a part of the Record. The table is as follows:
RENEWABLE ENERGY--2004 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY04 Udall-
Program FY03 FY04 Committee Porter
approp request mark Amdt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solar Energy:
Concentrating Solar Power.... 5.4 0 5.5 +4.1
Photovoltaics................ 76.5 76.7 71.2 +5.5
Zero Energy Buildings.......... 0 4.0 0 +4.0
Wind Energy.................... 44.0 41.6 41.6 +2.4
Hydropower..................... 5.3 7.5 5.4 +2.0
Geothermal Technology.......... 30.0 25.5 25.5 +5.0
Biomass/Biofuels............... 90.0 69.7 69.7 +6.0
REPI........................... 5.0 4.0 4.0 +1.0
----------------------------------------
Total.................... 256.2 229.0 222.9 30.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) continue to
reserve his point of order?
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I
think we provided very generous funding for renewable energy sources,
and I strongly object to any reductions in the funding for Yucca
Mountain repository.
Let me explain what our bill really does for renewable energy
resources. The enacted funding levels for renewable energy resources
for fiscal year 2003 was $419.5 million. The request for fiscal year
2004 was $444.2 million. However, subsequent to submission of the
budget request, the Secretary of Energy proposed transferring $73.6
million from renewable energy to a new Office for Electricity
Transmission and Distribution. The House recommendation for renewables
is $330.1 million, an apparent reduction of $89.3 million from the
current year. I say apparent because $73.6 million of this apparent
reduction represents the transfer to the new electricity office.
Therefore, the real reduction for renewable energy is only $16 million
compared to the current fiscal year.
Our fund funds the mainstream renewable programs for solar power,
wind power, biomass, and geothermal energy exactly at the requested
levels. We fund the International Renewable Energy Program, tribal
energy activities, and the Renewable Energy Production Incentives all
at the requested levels.
That sounds like renewable energy does pretty well in our bill, and
it does. We made a few specific funding reductions and with good
reason. The administration wanted to double the funding for hydrogen
from $39.7 million to $88 million. We cut that increase by $20 million,
partly because the Department has not convinced us that it can spend
that large of an increase constructively, and also because we learned
that the Department intended to keep much of that funding within the
national laboratories, rather than make it available competitively for
industry and university research.
We have eliminated the request for $15 million of the National
Climate Change Technology Initiative not because we opposed the
research on this important topic, but because we opposed the
Department's proposal to
[[Page H7133]]
pull funding from our bill and the Interior appropriations bill into a
single program. Such pooling is unwise and unnecessary.
The Department presently spends over $1.6 billion annually on climate
change research. Over $1.1 billion of that is in the energy and water
development bill. We do want the Department to seek out good technology
ideas from the private sector and universities, but it can certainly
accomplish that goal by simply making competitive awards of a greater
portion of the $1.6 billion available for climate change research.
We make several other minor reductions, but we also added $4.9
million to start construction of a new research facility at the
National Renewable Energy Laboratories. I think we treated the
renewable energy programs very fairly in the bill.
What I do not think is fair and sound policy is a proposal to cut
back funding for the Yucca Mountain repository. The majority of Members
of this Chamber voted last year to designate Yucca Mountain as the site
for the repository. I am sure the majority of Members of this Chamber
believe that the Department of Energy is now moving forward
aggressively to get the repository built and operational. I am here to
tell you that is not so. This program has been starved for funding
practically every year by the actions of the other body. The result of
these persistent funding cuts is that the Department has had to defer
much of the essential work that will be required to get this repository
open by 2010.
Let me tell you, 2010 is a pipe dream at the requested funding level.
It simply will not happen unless we provide more funding for these
essential tasks. Our bill provides $174 million for these tasks. In
particular, we provide $70 million so the Department can begin planning
for a rail line to Nevada. And we prohibit the Secretary from routing
this line close to Las Vegas, which has been used by everybody as a
political football.
We restore $9 million for funding for external oversight by the State
and affected counties, and we provide $30 million of impact assistance
to the affected Nevada counties. In total $129 million of these
additional funds are to be spent in Nevada for the citizens of Nevada.
It is hard to argue that this additional funding harms the State of
Nevada. It is an economic development tool whether Yucca Mountain opens
or never opens. It is a great economic tool for Nevada, and I cannot
understand why Nevada Members would stand up here and want to hurt the
economy of Nevada.
I also want to remind Members that many of you have operating
reactors, closed reactors and DOE clean-up sites in your district. I do
not believe you want this spent fuel and high-level waste to stay in
your districts indefinitely. Rate-payers in every State that uses
nuclear power have paid over $16 million into the nuclear waste fund.
It is time for the government to fulfill its statutory responsibilities
and deliver an operational repository by the end of the decade.
For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we cannot continue to
allow the opponents of the repository to continue to delay this vital
project. Therefore, I strongly oppose the amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would restore funding to critical
renewable energy research and development programs that have been cut
from other programs.
America's energy consumption is at an all-time high, and rising. In
order to address the imbalance between consumption and domestic
production, one part of the solution is to continue the advances in
research and development of renewable energy resources. In my home
State of Nevada, the sun shines more than 300 days out of a given year.
We are also blessed with an abundance in the amount of other renewable
resources, such as geothermal, wind, and biomass.
As a Congressman from Nevada, and representing the mightiest
renewable resource in the West, the Hoover Dam, Nevada can also boast
that we have one of the top research centers in the country for
renewable energy, the Desert Research Institute.
The people of Nevada have chosen not to have nuclear power and rely
instead on the natural treasures of our State. Unfortunately, Nevada
has been selected to become the country's nuclear waste dumping ground
at Yucca Mountain.
This amendment will benefit all Americans and my constituents by
moving funds from an unapproved, unnecessary, unsafe facility by
redirecting them to renewable energy research. I urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of this amendment and restore the funding for renewable
energy programs.
I would like to thank my colleagues from Nevada, especially the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who could not be here today. On
many occasions in politics we are on opposite sides of the fence;
however, when it comes to Yucca Mountain, we supercede politics, and I
commend her for her efforts on her fight against Yucca Mountain.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I would like to
commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) for putting an
emphasis on this issue. I would also like to thank the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for his work on this bill, and also both of
their staffs.
Let me say, Congress has been debating this issue for a number of
years, this whole issue of a waste repository, that, frankly, has taken
decades to get to this point. As the chairman pointed out, rather than
keeping spent nuclear fuel at on-site locations at 103 spots around the
country, sound science tells us that a geologic repository at a
central, safe and remote location is the way to go.
Now, this Congress has spoken not once, but three times, twice with
votes that were over 300. I think that is very telling. It is very
compelling that we should move forward, and there are no show-stoppers
on this location as being a problem for the safe repository, the safe
deposition of this spent fuel.
I commend the committee for the critical funds it put into their bill
for Yucca Mountain. This is a national priority. The money will ensure
the spent fuel currently kept on site in our Nation's communities, our
lake shores and the environment will be removed in a timely fashion.
{time} 1015
Some would suggest that a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain is
not a good idea and that we would be better off if we just left that
spent fuel on site. Such thinking cannot be, could not be more wrong;
and Congress has spoken not once but three times overwhelmingly to move
forward.
The fact is that the amount of space available for spent fuel storage
at these 103 commercial nuclear power plants in America is rapidly
shrinking, and when the on-site storage space run outs, it is gone.
There is nothing. We cannot build an annex. We cannot build a room, a
shack to put it in and it would be safe if we were to.
With all of the uncertainty in today's world, it is critical for us
to remove the spent fuel from those facilities and store it in a
central, safe, and remote location. As the chairman has said, even
leaving this spent fuel on site only escalates the security concerns
and, worse, the potential for mischief and terrorism.
Nuclear energy, which represents approximately 20 percent of the
Nation's energy supply, provides a viable, cost-efficient, and clean
alternative to fossil fuels. Nuclear power is a vital component in the
engine that drives the American economy. Funds contained in the program
will enable the Department of Energy to initiate repository operations
hopefully in the year 2010.
I again want to commend the chairman for making the nuclear waste
program a priority in the bill. He recognizes, as does the ranking
member, that it is a national priority; and I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations to applaud the
chairman for just an excellent work product in this bill and the
ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana
[[Page H7134]]
(Mr. Visclosky). They really have been aggressive, traveling, looking
at the problems, restructuring, reforming programs and really have done
their homework. So they deserve a lot of credit.
I also rise as the co-chairman of the Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Caucus with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) in
support of renewables and increased funding for renewables, energy
efficiency, and energy conservation. The dilemma we face, though, is
that in our attempt to increase the funding, the offset that the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) proposed, working with his friends
in Nevada, is the wrong way to go; and I say that because I believe
that nuclear power is green power, is clean power, and we absolutely
must solve the waste stream problem in order to clean up the air in
this country with new nuclear production. That is the truth. They know
it in Europe. They know it around the world; but in this country, some
of our friends in the environmental world believe that nuclear energy
is not clean energy and it is, but the waste stream is an issue.
We have got to get on with it. They are exactly right to be saying
the top priority in this bill is the Yucca Mountain repository. We
cannot cut that budget. I am sorry to our friends in Nevada. It is not
in our national interests to do that.
On the renewable front, I want more money. The chairman has pledged
to work with us through conference. I know that there are friends in
the Senate that will work with us on raising renewables at the
conference. I have every intention of advocating through the process as
a conferee for increased funding on renewables. I would like to get
that $16 million figure that the chairman referred to up to a level of
funding amount, even though, as he points out, we are at the
President's request on the key renewables of wind and solar and
biomass.
I do believe, though, that we can go further; and I want to do that.
We can do that. We could have done that today. We talked through the
night last night about ways to find the offset, but this is the wrong
way to go because of the offset from Yucca. All that does is hold up
our ability to clean up the air and to work out the waste stream with
nuclear energy in this country.
I come from the TVA region, and we have five nuclear reactors. They
are the most efficient, they are the cleanest, and they are the most
productive sources of energy we have in the TVA system. That is 8
million customers, nuclear; and we have worked the bugs out of those
reactors where they stay on line. They have a very high efficiency
rate, but we have to have a place to store that waste; and Yucca
Mountain is that option that has been chosen, and we must move forward.
I will be happy to yield to my friend from Colorado, who is my co-
chairman of the Renewable and Energy Efficiency Caucus, to talk about
how we can work together after this amendment is defeated today,
because it needs to be; and in the best interests of the bill and
moving the process forward, we are going to defeat this amendment, but
I would love to yield to my friend and engage in a little conversation
about how we can continue to work together this year because he and I
both know and believe that we must do more in this renewable front to
make our country independent and secure because energy independence in
this country is homeland security.
We have got to wean ourselves off of the reliance on Middle Eastern
oil, and that means advancing solar and wind and biomass and geothermal
and all of our renewable sources, and he is passionate about it and so
am I; but we have got to find a way to do it within the context of this
bill. We will work together through conference.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Tennessee for yielding, and I think the passion of my good friend from
Tennessee is self-evident here today; and I look forward to working
with him on this very important, crucial aspect of energy independence
and how we can create jobs, protect the environment, make ourselves
more secure in the long term.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, over half of this House
are members of the bipartisan caucus, and we want to continue to build
support for this most important national security issue of energy
independence through the advancement of renewables and energy
efficiency, energy conservation programs. I urge a ``no'' vote on this
amendment respectfully.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
First of all, I would just like to commend the chairman and the
ranking member for just an unbelievable job and to thank the terrific
staff that we have in this subcommittee. I am very proud to be a member
of this subcommittee and to have the opportunity to work with such
great people. It is really an honor.
There is no one in the House who is more concerned about renewable
energy than I am, and there are just a couple of points I think that we
should make here.
I am going to oppose the amendment for various reasons. I would
remind the House, last Monday afternoon when we were doing the
Agriculture appropriations bill on the floor here, we accepted an
amendment which put an additional $20 million into renewable energy
research. So combined with what the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Energy and Water Development has done, we are not starving renewable
energy at all; and, in fact, we will work in a bipartisan way to
increase funding when we get to conference for that.
Also, as a Member who serves on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security
on the Committee on Appropriations, I cannot emphasize enough to the
House how important the funding is that is in this bill that the
chairman has put in as far as nuclear energy, as far as the storage
issue for our national security. It is extraordinarily important that
we do not take money away from what the chairman has placed in this
account. It is a matter of national security. It is a matter of our
home security; and I would just implore all Members to encourage
renewable energy research, but do not take it out of this account. It
is absolutely critical that we maintain the level of funding we have,
and hopefully increase, because it is a critical issue.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition, and I rise in strong
opposition to the Udall-Porter amendment. The chairman, I think, has
stated the case very aptly. At the beginning of my remarks, I would
like to make three points, however.
I would note, as other speakers have done, the absence of the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) from the First Congressional
District of Nevada. Unfortunately, because of an illness in her family,
she was not able to be here. Despite my opposition to the Udall-Porter
amendment, I would note for the record her strong support of it, her
continual lobbying on behalf of the people of Nevada on this particular
issue.
I would like to make three points. The first is this is a matter of
consensus. The House has spoken on this issue. The House passed a Yucca
Mountain approval resolution in May of 2002 by a vote of 306 to 117.
The Senate passed the resolution by voice vote, and the President
signed it into law in July of last year.
Secondly, this is a matter of time, and time is of the essence. The
2010 target for opening a permanent repository is now 12 years later
than the deadline set on January 31, 1998, for DOE to begin taking
waste from nuclear plant sites.
Finally, this is a national security issue. There are over 100
operating reactors, 103, with closed sites that need to have their
waste removed. This is a national security issue. We need to have this
waste in one place, under guard and contained. I am strongly opposed to
the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, let me add my appreciation to both the chairman and the
ranking member for a bill that really encompasses many of the interests
of Americans from all of our regions, and I respect the disagreement of
both the
[[Page H7135]]
chairman and the ranking member on this particular amendment; but I
rise to support the amendment. I do want to also acknowledge the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who traveled a long journey
through the process of dealing with the Yucca Mountain issue, but I
think we should balance this amendment for its impact on Yucca Mountain
as much as its value to renewable energy.
I refer my colleagues back to the energy legislation, both the
legislation that was debated in 2001 and then the subsequent
legislation, where there was a great emphasis on renewable energy. It
is well known that I come from an oil-producing and gas-producing area.
That is Texas. I am a supporter of environmentally safe development of
our oil and gas reserves. In fact, I offered an amendment that was
accepted to provide for the enhanced development of energy resources in
the gulf as it has been done in an environmentally safe manner. There
are enormous resources there. The coastal areas are supportive of that
exploration, and we need more work by both the large corporations in
oil- and gas-producing and the domestic producers.
In this instance, I believe it is important for America to invest in
its renewable energy, and this amendment has that component to it; and
I think we should be focused on the value of solar energy and other
aspects of renewable energy. In fact, Texas Southern University, a
Historically Black College in my congressional district, is one of the
forerunners, if you will, of research into solar energy. This is a
viable, comparable, important aspect of our energy policy and our
energy resources for the future.
So this should not be only a pointed, if you will, emphasis on the
Yucca Mountain issue, though I would argue that those of us who made
arguments in opposition to it still maintain that we should find some
alternatives to the approach being utilized in the Yucca Mountain
effort; but this amendment, I believe, is an important amendment.
Let me simply say this with respect to the energy and water bill. I
am gratified that included in the bill there is a great emphasis, if
you will, on the Department of Energy resources and science programs.
As a member of the House Committee on Science, I support the $3.48
billion in those programs. Let me also say that I support the $4.48
billion for the Army Corps of Engineers and raise the issue that is of
serious note in my region and that is flooding.
I have worked to provide dollars for the SIMS Bioproject in the 18th
Congressional District and the White Oak Bioproject in the 18th
Congressional District and obviously need more assistance from the Army
Corps of Engineers, and I would recommend to this body that the Army
Corps of Engineers works more closely with the local officials to the
extent that when they are involved in projects, that when the local
officials or local entities are not involved in matching funds or not
involved in being as cooperative as they should be, that the Congress
should be made aware, the agency should make that known because then
our projects are delayed when they are funded through this bill because
of the lack of local cooperation.
So I am hoping to work more extensively with the Army Corps of
Engineers on local projects, particularly with flooding in the region I
come from in Houston, and particularly in the 18th Congressional
District.
Those narrow issues do not in any way undermine the importance of
this amendment that I rise to support, and hopefully my colleagues will
see the value in our investment in renewable energy resources; and as
well I will applaud my own constituents, Texas Southern University,
that has done great work under the leadership of our deceased professor
who had done such great work for this.
{time} 1030
I would argue this is a good amendment, a strong amendment, and I ask
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we all recognize the difficulties in dealing with
appropriations bills. The committee, under noble leadership, has done
an admirable job in dealing with priorities, but I think we ought to
support this amendment because it is a statement of intent by the U.S.
House of Representatives to, in fact, embrace the type of visionary
leadership that came from this podium right behind me on May 9, 1961.
As we all know, on May 9, 1961, President John F. Kennedy stood at
this well and challenged America to go to the moon and bring a man
safely back within the decade. And that is the type of visionary
leadership and over-the-horizon thinking that we now need in our energy
policy in the United States.
Many of us have been talking about the need for us to embrace a new
Apollo energy project to, in fact, establish very high bar goals for us
that, to date, we have not done; that we need to embrace a goal of
eliminating our addiction to Middle Eastern oil; that we need to
embrace a goal of significantly reducing our global climate change gas
emissions; and, most importantly, we need to embrace a goal of building
these new technologies here of hybrid cars and solar power and wind
power rather than giving those jobs to Denmark, Germany and Japan.
So I think we ought to pass this amendment as a statement of
congressional intent to move in that direction. And just to make a
suggestion to my colleagues as to why this is not pie in the sky, I
just want to share a picture of a home in Virginia. This is a picture
of the home of Alden and Carol Hathaway. They live in Hillsboro,
Virginia. It is a nice home. I have seen it. They built it for
$360,000, just a little more than a conventional home.
This is a comfortable home. It is nice looking, and it has net zero
energy usage off the grid. These folks, using existing technologies,
have a net zero use of energy that is not produced in their home. This
is technology that is on the very cusp of being market-based if we do a
little more work on solar, wind, and things like they have, which is an
in-ground heat pump. I just point this out because we are at a very
exciting moment in time where we can push these technologies over the
top because the prices are coming down so radically.
I want to mention the Yucca Mountain situation. I have been a
supporter of the effort to move forward in Yucca Mountain, and I
understand it is important to continue that funding stream, but I want
to confirm my understanding is the amount proposed by the Udall
amendment actually moves us a little closer to the number proposed by
the administration, which I would give some credence to in this
assessment.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado to elaborate on
that.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding, and I would just say to him that that is the case. The
President's proposal is about $174 million below what is proposed in
this legislation.
And I, too, do not want to interfere with the work that is going on
in Nevada when it comes to Yucca Mountain, but this would direct $30
million from the $174 million, more than the President recommended,
into this account, which would help us hurry the future, bend the
curve, and get us to the point where these technologies are available
to all Americans, thereby creating jobs, protecting the environment,
and, frankly, making us more secure on the international front.
Mr. INSLEE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
gentleman for his explanation, and I appreciate his leadership on that.
Mr. Chairman, I would note that we do have a problem with nuclear
waste, but we have a problem in not having a visionary energy policy. I
hope we can support the Udall amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Udall's
Amendment.
Last year I voted to endorse the Department of Energy and the
President's finding that Yucca Mountain is the best choice for a
national nuclear waste depository. Science and safety illustrate that
Yucca Mountain is in our Nation's interest. National security further
illustrates that Yucca Mountain is in our Nation's interest.
As such, Chairman Hobson has rightly made funding the Nuclear Waste
Program one of his highest energy priorities. The Chairman's mark
provides a total of $765 million for nuclear waste disposal, an
increase of $174 million over the budget request and $308 million more
than fiscal year 2003. These additional funds are provided to enable
the Department to open the Yucca Mountain repository
[[Page H7136]]
on schedule in 2010, with particular emphasis in developing a rail line
in Nevada that avoids the Las Vegas metropolitan area.
From a New Jersey perspective this site is long over due. We live in
the most densely populated state in the nation, with 49 percent of our
power generated by nuclear energy and for many years now, those wastes
have been stored on the grounds of our two nuclear reactor sites.
The time has come for the waste to be sent to a single national
repository as was promised in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and
for which New Jersey taxpayers have contributed millions of dollars in
their energy bills into the nuclear waste fund, specifically set up to
pay for the costs of characterizing and developing the Yucca Mountain
Site.
Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to
oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, last year I spoke in opposition to the
approval of Yucca Mountain as a site for the Nation's nuclear waste and
I rise again to urge support for the Porter-Udall amendment to reduce
funding for Yucca.
My home state, Utah, produces no nuclear waste. However, we are
engaged in our own battle against storing out of state nuclear waste at
a site called Skull Valley.
Our neighbor, the State of Nevada also produces no nuclear waste.
Yet, this Congress insists that Nevada should bear the responsibility
for housing thousands of tons of spent fuel. Not only is Nevada
expected to house this waste, but states like Utah are expected to
allow the transportation of these hazardous, life-threatening fuel rods
through our neighborhoods.
This great Nation depends on the concept of shared responsibility.
The transportation of this waste throughout the Nation is a huge risk
that has not been properly considered. In the event of an accident,
either at Yucca or on the way to Yucca, all of our fellow Americans
will be forced to live with the consequences. I urge my colleagues to
join me in opposing funding for Yucca Mountain and in supporting the
Porter-Udall amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall)
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Non-Defense Site Acceleration Completion
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for non-defense environmental
management site acceleration activities in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the acquisition or
condemnation of any real property or any facility or for
plant or facility acquisition, construction, or expansion,
$170,875,000, to remain available until expended.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
would like to engage the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson)
in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, water is a treasured resource everywhere in this
Nation. For my constituents, degraded water quality in the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta stemming from increased salinity is a growing
problem. The fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriation bill recognized
this growing problem by dedicating $2 million for planning studies to
enlarge the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. The omnibus bill also dedicated
Central Valley Project storage feasibility funding towards Sites
Reservoir, the Upper San Joaquin River and Shasta Dam in California.
All of this funding was the result of many years of debate and
compromise and serves as one strong step towards fixing California's
water supply problems, and I appreciate the help in this effort of the
gentleman from Ohio.
Today's appropriation bill thankfully continues this step, but a very
large piece of the puzzle is missing: Los Vaqueros funding. With the
fact that the Senate version of this bill contains $1 million in
funding for this important water quality mechanism, I would like to ask
the gentleman for his commitment in funding this important project in
the conference report.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to enter into a discussion
with the chairman of the Committee on Resources, and would tell him
that I understand the need for this important project, and I will
commit to my friend from California to do the best I can to secure
funding for this project in the conference.
Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
Chairman's hard work in helping to resolve California's water problems,
and I thank him for his tireless effort and his help on this issue.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill, to page 39 line 23, be considered as read, printed in the
Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 17, line 15, through page 39, line 23,
is as follows:
Non-Defense Environmental Services
For Department of Energy expenses necessary for non-defense
environmental services activities conducted as a result of
nuclear energy research and development activities that
indirectly support the accelerated cleanup and closure
mission at environmental management sites, as well as new
work scope transferred to the Environmental Management
program, including the purchase, construction, and
acquisition of plant and capital equipment and other
necessary expenses, $320,468,000, to remain available until
expended.
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund
For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment
facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial
actions, and other activities of title II of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 and title X, subtitle A, of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992, $392,002,000, to be derived from the
Fund, to remain available until expended, of which
$51,000,000 shall be available in accordance with title X,
subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Science
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for science activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or facility
or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or
expansion, and purchase of not to exceed 15 passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only, including not to exceed one
ambulance, $3,480,180,000, to remain available until
expended.
Nuclear Waste Disposal
For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the
purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the
acquisition of real property or facility construction or
expansion, $335,000,000, to remain available until expended
and to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That
of the funds made available in this Act, $70,000,000 shall be
used to initiate development of a rail line in the State of
Nevada, connecting the existing national rail network with
the repository site on the Nevada Test Site: Provided
further, That none of the funds provided in this or any other
appropriations Act may be used for the planning, design, or
development of the rail corridors that pass near the Las
Vegas Metropolitan Area, specifically the Valley Modified
Corridor and the Jean Corridor, and variations thereof, as
these corridors are delineated in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal
of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at
Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, dated February 2002:
Provided further, That $65,000,000 of the $70,000,000 made
available in this Act for Nevada rail transportation shall be
available only if the Secretary designates rail as the
preferred mode of transportation within Nevada and selects a
Nevada rail corridor within 60 days of enactment of this Act
and commences the necessary environmental and engineering
analysis to develop and issue a Record of Decision for a
specific rail alignment within the selected rail corridor by
June 30, 2005: Provided further, That not to exceed
$2,500,000 shall be provided to the State of Nevada solely
for expenditures, other than salaries and expenses of State
employees, to conduct scientific oversight responsibilities
and participate in licensing activities pursuant to the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-425), as
amended: Provided further, That not to exceed $6,500,000
shall be provided to affected units of local governments, as
defined in Public Law 97-425, to conduct appropriate
activities pursuant to the Act: Provided further, That the
distribution of funds to the State of Nevada and affected
units of local government shall be solely for activities
approved in advance by the Department of Energy: Provided
further, That the funds for the State of Nevada shall be made
available solely to the Nevada Division of Emergency
Management by direct payment and to affected
[[Page H7137]]
units of local government by direct payment: Provided
further, That within 90 days of the completion of each
Federal fiscal year, the Nevada Division of Emergency
Management, the Governor of the State of Nevada, and each
affected unit of local government receiving payments under
this section shall provide certification to the Department of
Energy that all funds expended from such payments have been
expended for activities authorized by Public Law 97-425 and
this Act. Failure to provide such certification shall cause
such entity to be prohibited from receiving any further
Federal funding provided for similar activities: Provided
further, That none of the funds herein appropriated may be:
(1) used directly or indirectly to influence legislative
action on any matter pending before Congress or a State
legislature or for lobbying activity as provided in 18 U.S.C.
1913; (2) used for litigation expenses; or (3) used to
support multi-State efforts or other coalition building
activities: Provided further, That all proceeds and
recoveries realized by the Secretary in carrying out
activities authorized by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982, as amended, including but not limited to, any proceeds
from the sale of assets shall be available without further
appropriation and shall remain available until expended.
Departmental Administration
(including transfer of funds)
For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy
necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and official reception and representation expenses
(not to exceed $35,000), $224,329,000, to remain available
until expended, plus such additional amounts as necessary to
cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for
others notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency
Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That such increases
in cost of work are offset by revenue increases of the same
or greater amount, to remain available until expended:
Provided further, That moneys received by the Department for
miscellaneous revenues estimated to total $123,000,000 in
fiscal year 2004 may be retained and used for operating
expenses within this account, and may remain available until
expended, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238,
notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by
the amount of miscellaneous revenues received during fiscal
year 2004, and any related unappropriated receipt account
balances remaining from prior years' miscellaneous revenues,
so as to result in a final fiscal year 2004 appropriation
from the General Fund estimated at not more than
$101,329,000.
Office of the Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended, $39,462,000, to remain
available until expended.
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Weapons Activities
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy
defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion; one fixed wing
aircraft for replacement only; and the purchase of not to
exceed six passenger motor vehicles, of which four shall be
for replacement only, including not to exceed two buses;
$6,117,609,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006.
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy
defense, defense nuclear nonproliferation activities, in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any
facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction,
or expansion, $1,280,195,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2006.
Naval Reactors
For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval
reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or
otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment,
facilities, and facility expansion, and the purchase of not
to exceed one bus; $768,400,000, to remain available until
expended.
Office of the Administrator
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Administrator
in the National Nuclear Security Administration, including
official reception and representation expenses (not to exceed
$12,000), $341,980,000, to remain available until September
30, 2006.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Site Acceleration Completion
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense site
acceleration completion activities in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the acquisition or
condemnation of any real property or any facility or for
plant or facility acquisition, construction, or expansion;
$5,758,278,000, to remain available until expended.
Defense Environmental Services
For Department of Energy expenses necessary for defense-
related environmental services activities that indirectly
support the accelerated cleanup and closure mission at
environmental management sites, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other necessary expenses, and the purchase of not to
exceed one ambulance for replacement only, $990,179,000, to
remain available until expended.
Other Defense Activities
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense, other
defense activities, in carrying out the purposes of the
Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $666,516,000, to
remain available until expended.
Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the
purposes of Public Law 97-425, as amended, including the
acquisition of real property or facility construction or
expansion, $430,000,000, to remain available until expended.
CERRO GRANDE FIRE ACTIVITIES
(rescission)
From unobligated balances under this heading, $75,000,000
are cancelled.
POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS
Bonneville Power Administration Fund
Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund,
established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $1,500. During fiscal year 2004, no new direct
loan obligations may be made.
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration
For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy, including transmission wheeling and ancillary
services, pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the
Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the
southeastern power area, $5,100,000, to remain available
until expended; in addition, notwithstanding the provisions
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $19,000,000 collected by the
Southeastern Power Administration pursuant to the Flood
Control Act to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses
shall be credited to this account as offsetting collections,
to remain available until expended for the sole purpose of
making purchase power and wheeling expenditures.
Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration
For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy, for construction and acquisition of transmission
lines, substations and appurtenant facilities, and for
administrative expenses, including official reception and
representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500 in
carrying out the provisions of section 5 of the Flood Control
Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southwestern
power area, $28,600,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That, notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C.
3302, up to $1,512,000 collected by the Southwestern Power
Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act to recover
purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to
this account as offsetting collections, to remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power
and wheeling expenditures; in addition, notwithstanding 31
U.S.C. 3302, beginning in fiscal year 2004 and thereafter,
such funds as are received by the Southwestern Power
Administration from any State, municipality, corporation,
association, firm, district, or individual as advance payment
for work that is associated with Southwestern's transmission
facilities, consistent with that authorized in section 5 of
the Flood Control Act, shall be credited to this account and
be available until expended.
Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration
For carrying out the functions authorized by title III,
section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7152), and other related activities including conservation
and renewable resources programs as authorized, including
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $1,500, $171,000,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $167,236,000 shall be derived from the
Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That
up to $166,000,000 collected by the Western Area
[[Page H7138]]
Power Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of
1944 and the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to recover
purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to
this account as offsetting collections, to remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power
and wheeling expenditures.
Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund
For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the
hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams,
$2,640,000, to remain available until expended, and to be
derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance
Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in
section 423 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act,
Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and
representation expenses (not to exceed $3,000), $192,000,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed
$192,000,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and
other services and collections in fiscal year 2004 shall be
retained and used for necessary expenses in this account, and
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
the sum herein appropriated from the General Fund shall be
reduced as revenues are received during fiscal year 2004 so
as to result in a final fiscal year 2004 appropriation from
the General Fund estimated at not more than $0.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Sec. 301. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
including section 303(c)(1) of title III of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C.
253(c)(3)), none of the funds in this or any other
appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 or any previous
fiscal year may be used to make payments for any management
and operating contract of the Department of Energy unless
that contract was awarded using competitive procedures within
the past fifty fiscal years or unless the Secretary of
Energy, not later than sixty days after the date of enactment
of this Act, publishes in the Federal Register and submits to
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a notification of intent to
use competitive procedures for the procurement of each
management and operating contract when the current term of
each such contract expires.
(b) The Secretary may not impose any conditions on the
competition of a management and operating contract that is
funded under this or any other appropriations Act that may
have the effect of biasing the competition in favor of the
incumbent contractor or otherwise providing for anything less
than full and open competition of such contracts.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ``management and
operating contract'' means a contract for the management and
operation of a Department of Energy laboratory, facility,
site, or plant as used in subpart 17.601 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation.
(d) For purposes of this section, the terms ``competitive
procedures'' and ``full and open competition'' have the
meanings provided in section 4 of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403).
(e) The provisions of subsection (a) in this section apply
to contracts awarded for a term of one year or more, not to
interim extensions of less than one year used to extend
contract performance until a long-term contract is placed or
to provide continuity of service between contracts.
Sec. 302. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to--
(1) develop or implement a workforce restructuring plan
that covers employees of the Department of Energy; or
(2) provide enhanced severance payments or other benefits
for employees of the Department of Energy, under section 3161
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1993 (Public Law 102-484; 42 U.S.C. 7274h).
Sec. 303. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to augment the $15,000,000 made available for obligation
by this Act for severance payments and other benefits and
community assistance grants under section 3161 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993
(Public Law 102-484; 42 U.S.C. 7274h) unless the Department
of Energy submits a reprogramming request subject to approval
by the appropriate congressional committees.
Sec. 304. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals (RFPs) for
a program if the program has not been funded by Congress.
(transfers of unexpended balances)
Sec. 305. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations
provided for activities in this Act may be transferred to
appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this title. Balances so transferred may be merged
with funds in the applicable established accounts and
thereafter may be accounted for as one fund for the same time
period as originally enacted.
Sec. 306. None of the funds in this or any other Act for
the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration may
be used to enter into any agreement to perform energy
efficiency services outside the legally defined Bonneville
service territory, with the exception of services provided
internationally, including services provided on a
reimbursable basis, unless the Administrator certifies in
advance that such services are not available from private
sector businesses.
Sec. 307. When the Department of Energy makes a user
facility available to universities and other potential users,
or seeks input from universities and other potential users
regarding significant characteristics or equipment in a user
facility or a proposed user facility, the Department shall
ensure broad public notice of such availability or such need
for input to universities and other potential users. When the
Department of Energy considers the participation of a
university or other potential user as a formal partner in the
establishment or operation of a user facility, the Department
shall employ full and open competition in selecting such a
partner. For purposes of this section, the term ``user
facility'' includes, but is not limited to: (1) a user
facility as described in section 2203(a)(2) of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13503(a)(2)); (2) a National
Nuclear Security Administration Defense Programs Technology
Deployment Center/User Facility; and (3) any other
Departmental facility designated by the Department as a user
facility.
Sec. 308. The Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration may authorize the manager of a
covered nuclear weapons research, development, testing or
production facility to engage in research, development, and
demonstration activities with respect to the engineering and
manufacturing capabilities at such facility in order to
maintain and enhance such capabilities at such facility:
Provided, That of the amount allocated to a covered nuclear
weapons facility each fiscal year from amounts available to
the Department of Energy for such fiscal year for national
security programs, not more than an amount equal to 2 percent
of such amount may be used for these activities: Provided
further, That for purposes of this section, the term
``covered nuclear weapons facility'' means the following:
(1) the Kansas City Plant, Kansas City, Missouri;
(2) the Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee;
(3) the Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas;
(4) the Savannah River Plant, South Carolina; and
(5) the Nevada Test Site.
Sec. 309. Funds appropriated by this or any other Act, or
made available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal
year 2004 until the enactment of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004.
Sec. 310. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law,
using funds appropriated in this title, the Secretary of
Energy shall proceed with planning and analyses for external
regulation of the Department's laboratories under the Office
of Science as directed in the report accompanying this bill.
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, for necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman
and the alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission, for
payment of the Federal share of the administrative expenses
of the Commission, including services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, and hire of passenger motor vehicles,
$33,145,000, to remain available until expended.
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, $19,559,000, to remain available until
expended.
Delta Regional Authority
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Delta Regional Authority and
to carry out its activities, as authorized by the Delta
Regional Authority Act of 2000, as amended, notwithstanding
sections 382C(b)(2), 382F(d), and 382M(b) of said Act,
$2,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
salaries and expenses
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 official representation expenses (not to exceed
$15,000), and purchase of promotional items for use in the
recruitment of individuals for employment, $618,800,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the amount
appropriated herein, $33,100,000 shall be derived from the
Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided further, That revenues from
licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and
collections estimated at $538,844,000 in fiscal year 2004
shall be retained and used for necessary salaries and
[[Page H7139]]
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 2004 so as to result in
a final fiscal year 2004 appropriation estimated at not more
than $79,956,000.
Office of Inspector General
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, $7,300,000, to remain available until September 30,
2005: Provided, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection
services, and other services and collections estimated at
$6,716,000 in fiscal year 2004 shall be retained and be
available until expended, for necessary salaries and expenses
in this account notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by
the amount of revenues received during fiscal year 2004 so as
to result in a final fiscal year 2004 appropriation estimated
at not more than $584,000.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section
5051, $3,177,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund,
and to remain available until expended.
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence
congressional action on any legislation or appropriation
matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to
Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913.
Sec. 502. (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.
(c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling
Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally
determined by a court or Federal agency that any person
intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America''
inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any
product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not
made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to
receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made
available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension,
and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400
through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act
or any other appropriation Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order?
Point of Order
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that section 310
of the bill violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of
Representatives prohibiting legislation on appropriation bills.
Section 310 extends requirements on the DOE that are inconsistent
with its authority to self-regulate its facilities and contractors for
nuclear safety and worker health and safety provided for in its organic
statutes. Section 310 requires the Secretary of Energy to fund
infrastructure improvements at nondefense science facilities to comply
with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Occupational Safety and
Health Administration regulations. This requires the Secretary to
implement infrastructure improvements not currently required by law.
The language in section 310 clearly constitutes legislation on an
appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House. I therefore insist on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the gentleman's
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that the section proposes explicitly to supersede
existing law. As such, it constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2(b) of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the provision is stricken.
Are there any amendments?
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, let me take this time to first thank and express my
appreciation on behalf of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to the
chairman of the subcommittee who brings this bill before us today and
to the ranking member from Indiana for the extraordinary cooperative
spirit in which this subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations
has worked with our authorizing committee, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, on so many issues of importance when it comes to funding the
energy programs of our country that are under our committee's
jurisdiction.
This is a great example of how the appropriators can and should work
with authorizing committees. We just saw a point of order that was
ruled by the chairman on behalf of our committee to strike language
that would have legislated on this appropriation bill. We have had many
discussions with the chairman and ranking member and our staffs over
the past few days, and have worked through the bill to both approve
those changes our committee agrees with the appropriators that should
be included in this appropriation bill, and to find the language, such
as the one we just objected to and might have been proposed authorizing
language on an appropriation bill. The spirit by which that has been
accomplished has been, I hope, an example for all the authorizing
committees and the appropriators.
I want to thank the chairman again personally for the way in which he
has approached us and asked us for these discussions and, in fact,
worked with the ranking member for us to reach these agreements and
these conclusions. I wish it was true of all the subcommittees of the
Committee on Appropriations. What occurred this week in another
appropriations matter, where legislation was added that was strictly
objected by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and which has now
produced a bill which will have very great difficulty moving through
this House, is a bad example of that kind of relationship.
All of the authorizing chairmen that I work with on the committees of
jurisdiction, who work very hard with the staffs, who are
extraordinarily competent in these areas, and the Members who spend all
their waking hours working in these committees in these specific
authorizing areas are offended when legislation comes on an
appropriation bill changing the policies or in some way affecting the
policies that we so carefully try to work out for the benefit of this
body, both on the Democratic and Republican side of the aisle. And when
we find we do not have the cooperation of an appropriating committee,
it really is disturbing.
This is a good example of how the process should work. I wanted to
come to the floor to thank the chairman and the ranking member for
showing, I hope, the other subcommittees of the Committee on
Appropriations how it should be done, how it ought to be done, and how
the relationship between authorizing and appropriating committees
should, in fact, be a strong and cooperative and workable one.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also say thank you to the
gentleman from Louisiana for his courtesies that he extended to us in
working out a couple of things we had. And I did not get a chance to,
but I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert),
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) of Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and
all the other chairmen we worked with to get this bill to the floor
today.
I think everybody has been very reasonable in working together,
because there were some jurisdictional things, but we all understood
what we were trying to do, and I very much appreciate the gentleman's
comments and the cooperation not only of the gentleman himself, but the
staffs of each of the Members I mentioned in working with our staff to
work this out.
Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman,
and he makes a good point. I should also say that I speak for the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), all of whom
were invited
[[Page H7140]]
into this process as authorizing chairmen to work with this Committee
on Appropriations.
And, again, all of us want to thank the gentleman for the way in
which he has approached the serious duties we have in authorizing the
programs that the gentleman so diligently worked to correctly
appropriate for. I thank the gentleman for that.
amendment offered by mr. tom davis of virginia
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia:
On page 38, line 20, strike all after ``502.'' through
``(c)'' on page 39, line 7.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia (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
Virginia?
There was no objection.
(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to
associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the amendment be adopted.
The Buy American Act applies to supplies costing more than $2,500 and
establishes a preference for domestic supplies that are manufactured in
the U.S. Generally, it applies to acquisitions below the $177,000 Trade
Agreements Act of 1979, TAA threshold.
Commercial firms are required to certify compliance with the Buy
American Act, potentially exposing them to civil false claims and other
sanctions, even if they have made a good faith effort to comply with
the Government-unique requirements. This creates significant financial
and legal burdens for industry, given that more and more information
technology and goods so critical for the Government's needs being
sourced in our global economy from around the world.
Some companies have responded to Buy American Act restrictions by
establishing costly, labor-intensive product tracking systems that are
not needed in their commercial business, to ensure that products being
sold to the Government meet the government-unique requirements. In a
few cases, companies have simply stopped selling certain products in
the federal marketplace, denying access to some of the latest, more
cost-effective products.
The Buy American Act imposes financial and legal burdens on the
taxpayers and the commercial companies that sell to the Government.
This restriction on the Government's ability to obtain needed
technology goods from the World market is a cold war anachronism. Given
our growing reliance on information technology and other advanced
products--and the current global nature of industry, the Government's
ability to get the goods it needs at reasonable prices will be crippled
by this restrictive provision.
Therefore, I ask support of my amendment.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and
advise the gentleman that we accept it.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico:
At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to release water from the San Juan Chama Project or
Middle Rio Grande Project for the purpose of complying with
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico (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 gentlewoman
from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to gentlewoman's
amendment. If she wishes to explain it briefly, that is fine.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank
the chairman for his acceptance of my amendment, but I would like to
briefly explain it.
Back in 1962, this Congress approved a water project in northern New
Mexico and southern Colorado that builds 26 miles of tunnels to take
water from the Colorado River system down for the city of Albuquerque,
which is south of this map, and it goes through these tunnels to Herron
Reservoir. Those water works started within the last month, and
Albuquerque has started taking that water out of the Rio Grande River
under multiple contracts with Federal agencies to get that water there.
Unfortunately, two judges in Denver, Colorado, recently came out with
an opinion that threatens to undo water all throughout the West, and
will mean that citizens in cities and counties throughout the country
can no longer plan for their water future. This $42 million project now
is threatened. It provides a third of the water for the city of Santa
Fe, almost all of the future water for the city of Albuquerque, and it
is not native water. This is not Rio Grande water. It is from Colorado,
and it was purchased by the people of New Mexico and brought here.
What this judge has decided is that they can order Federal agents who
run these dams to pour the water into the river and require it stay
there because there is a fish down at the bottom end of the river that
might need it.
{time} 1045
These are man-made structures. It is not water native to the Rio
Grande, and all this amendment says is that no funds can be used for
these Federal agents running these dams to take water that is not
theirs for the purpose of enforcing the Endangered Species Act.
We should not be ordering agencies to breach contracts on water
delivery that have existed for 40 years. These agencies have no water
rights. They did not buy this water. If the courts can order this, they
can order anybody who has bought a bottle of water at the Circle K or
at Sam's Club to walk down to any river in this country and pour it in
because that is exactly what this ruling in Denver has done.
We are supporting the restoration of the fish downstream, with
restoration of the channel, with breeding projects at the zoo, with
leasing of rights, but we cannot allow Federal judges to seize water
and overturn water law in the entire West.
This is an interim fix with bipartisan support. It is supported by
Bill Richardson, the Governor of New Mexico, by Senator Bingaman and
Senator Domenici, by New Mexico's Attorney General Patsy Madrid, by
Mayor Marty Chavez, Mayor Larry Delgado, both Democrats, mayors of the
city of Santa Fe and of Albuquerque, and broadly supported throughout
our community.
We have to protect water rights and protect the law that allows these
projects to be built in the first place.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment sponsor has good intentions. She wants to
protect the cities and protect the water supply for the cities of
Albuquerque and Santa Fe. I also share her concerns and wish it was
just as easy as offering an amendment to protect the water supply for
our cities. I am sad to say that this amendment does not solve the
problems we face in New Mexico and across the West on water. It is a
Band-Aid.
Representatives for the six tribes in the Middle Rio Grande have told
me this amendment will force them into a lawsuit. If the San Juan Chama
and Middle Rio Grande water is off the table, then tribal water is some
of the only water left in the river. The Department of Interior has
said they will take tribal waters to satisfy the ESA. Is the
gentlewoman prepared to settle the tribe's lawsuit in her amendment?
Settling one's lawsuit and creating another lawsuit does not seem to
me to be much of a solution. Legislatively distinguishing one lawsuit,
but creating another one does not seem like it is getting us to the
point we want to be at.
This amendment does not deal with the realities we face in the West
in terms of water. Our water resources are overallocated. The amendment
does not deal with that. We have an exploding population growth in New
Mexico, 20 percent over the last 10 years. Population is stretching our
water resources to the limits. We are in the
[[Page H7141]]
midst of a serious drought. Our water infrastructure is outmoded for
current needs. This amendment fails to deal with these realities and
many other crucial issues.
I am working on legislation which addresses these realities, and I
hope that the gentlewoman and other members of the New Mexico House
delegation will join me in this effort. We need legislation that sets
up incentives to conserve our water resources and develop collaborative
solutions at the local level. We need legislation which restores and
protects the Rio Grande River and the surrounding Bosque. We need to
encourage technological solutions for new sources of water, and we need
to harness technology to increase water efficiency.
This amendment accomplishes none of these important objectives, nor
does this amendment move us toward sustainable water practices.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hefley:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. Total appropriations made in this Act (other
than appropriations required to be made by a provision of
law) are hereby reduced by $272,110,000.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, once again I rise to offer an amendment to
cut the level of funding in this appropriations bill, to cut by it
approximately $272.1 million, or approximately 1 percent of the total
outlays of the bill. The reason it is structured a little differently
this time instead of 1 percent across-the-board cut, I do not want
there to be any mistake about it, that we mean that 1 percent has to
come out of every single program in this bill.
There are some wonderful programs in this bill the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hobson) has put together and funded. There are probably some
programs that the gentleman would agree need more money, and there may
be some programs that the gentleman would agree probably should go out
of existence because they are not working very well, so they should be
eliminated.
The way this is structured is if we cut these funds, it would be up
to the administration to decide where these cuts should go. I suppose
we will once again hear about the impact these cuts would have on
certain programs, but this amendment is particularly designed not to
bring that into play. It is possible that a 1 percent cut could impact
some of the small programs. That is why it is left up to the
administration to decide where it is to come from.
But let us look at what a 1 percent cut would mean to some of the
programs. In the $33.1 million line item for the Appalachian Regional
Commission, this would mean a cut, $331,000. I said thousand. That is
something we do not understand up here because we do not use that term.
We talk in millions and billions. It would be $331,000.
One businessman has said that a businessman who could not find a way
to save a penny out of a dollar should not be in business, and that is
what we are talking about with this amendment. We are talking about a
penny out of a dollar.
My reasons are simple. They are telling us this very week that next
year our deficit will be $475 billion. That is 4.2 percent of the
entire budget, and viewed in that light, the 1 percent cut that I am
talking about is probably not adequate.
As I said yesterday on a similar amendment, when I came to Congress,
we had a $200 billion deficit, and all of us, most of us, many of us,
were convinced that is something we absolutely had to come to erase, we
had to come to grips with. I am offering this amendment to say this
needs to be a priority again. We need to balance our budget. Good
things may fall by the wayside because a better value, that of
balancing the budget, comes into play.
We are looking at doubling the amount from when I came here, and we
do not seem to be worried about it at all. Given that context, I do not
think asking the administration to find a savings of 1 cent on a dollar
is too much to ask. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
I was the Speaker's delegate to the budget when we balanced the
budget. I am very aware of budget priorities. I am also an
appropriator.
I have great difficulty with everybody saying the administration's
decisions are right. We had a discussion earlier which I agreed with
that we have great infrastructure problems in this country that are not
being taken care of and will cost more money if we do not fix them in
the future.
It is very interesting to me that the gentleman picked the
Appalachian Regional Commission to mention, because if I had my way, I
would have zeroed it all out, but I cannot tell the Chairman how many
Members of Congress have come to me and complained to me about the fact
that I went with, not my wish, but I went with what the President and
the OMB, what their provision was in the bill. I cannot tell how many
Members have come and said, this is death. This is the end of the
world.
So $331,000 may not sound like much, but I can tell the Chairman that
to the Members that have all come to me, they want it increased
dramatically. They want me to double the money; and the Senate is at
about $71 million, which shows what I am up against when I go to
conference on this bill. Frankly, they are $220 million above this bill
when we go to deal with them, so I think we have been pretty good with
our 302(b) allocation.
I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to indicate my strong opposition to the
amendment offered. I think of all of the discrete decisions that have
been made on individual projects that were carefully considered, an
across-the-board cut is certainly not the way to approach the
legislative process, and I am strongly opposed to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley)
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
Page 39, after line 24, insert the following:
Sec. 504. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall revoke
the license to the Davis Besse nuclear power plant, in
accordance with the petition filed with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission under section 2.206 of title 10, Code
of Federal Regulations on February 3, 2003, March 27, 2003,
and July 7, 2003, (Accession No. ML030370067).
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) reserves a point
of order.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to revoke
the operating license of the Davis Besse nuclear power plant. I do so
because of the substantial safety issues at this reactor and the poor
response by the plant owner and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I offer this amendment to ensure the safety of the residents of the
10th Congressional District of Ohio who live less than 100 miles from
the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station. Due to its proximity to the
plant and the prevailing wind conditions, people and property within
the 10th Congressional District would be detrimentally affected if a
nuclear accident were to occur at the Davis Besse facility.
This amendment is not a permanent shutdown. It would merely require
the Davis Besse owners to reapply for a new license. This would force a
vastly improved assessment of the nuclear plant before it restarts. The
basic fact
[[Page H7142]]
is that Davis Besse came far too close to a serious loss of coolant
accident. The reactor core, the heart at the reactor, at the Davis
Besse nuclear plant, sits within a metal pot designed to withstand
pressures of up to 2,500 pounds per square inch.
The pot, called the reactor vessel, has carbon steel walls nearly 6
inches thick to provide the necessary strength. Because the water
cooling the reactor contains boric acid, which is highly corrosive to
carbon steel, the entire inner surface of the reactor vessel is covered
with 3/16-inch stainless steel protection. This is the first line of
defense to protect us from radiation.
I want to point to this picture here. Water routinely leaked onto the
reactor vessel's outer surface, and because the outer surface lacked a
protective steel coating, boric acid ate its way through the carbon
steel wall until it reached the back side of the inner liner. The
cavity was 7 inches long, 6 inches wide and 6 inches deep. High
pressure from the reactor vessel pushed the stainless steel outward
into the cavity formed by the boric acid.
{time} 1100
An engineering analysis by First Energy revealed that the bulging
stainless steel was beginning to crack. These cracks certainly suggest
that given enough time, the reactor wall would have ruptured. Any tear
or rupture in this wall would drain the reactor and require the
emergency backup safety systems to work properly to avoid a major
accident.
Experts have concluded that if the hole was not discovered, the
reactor would have ruptured in the next year of operation. In short, a
small leak in a critical area that began around 1996 came far too close
to creating a serious nuclear accident.
I want to point to another card here that illustrates what happened
when the NRC asked for information about what was going on at Davis-
Besse. First Energy, the company running this plant, removed the
photograph of the reactor head that was taken during April of 2000.
This is the photograph. This company removed this photograph from a
packet of information that was given to the NRC. Damage from the
corrosion is clearly indicated in the photograph. There is an evident
red river of boric acid flowing from the top of the reactor head. This
company removed this photograph from a file in order to cover up the
kind and extent of damage that was occurring.
A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled,
``Davis-Besse: The Reactor With a Hole in Its Head,'' documented the
potential failures of the safety systems that would have been necessary
if the steel liner had ruptured. The report concludes that the nuclear
industry backup safety systems fail all too often for the nuclear
industry to depend on them.
Last week, First Energy made public that an essential safety system
was inoperable since the plant began its operation in 1977. A valve
that needed to be open to supply cooling water to measure explosive
hydrogen in a loss-of-cooling accident has been closed for 25 years and
is now rusted shut. According to First Energy, a crack developed in a
control nozzle in 1990. By 1995, the crack grew all the way through the
nozzle. Boric acid from the water leaking through the crack began
attacking the reactor vessel head. By 1999, the reactor vessel head
corrosion was bad enough that iron oxide, rust particles, were being
detected in the containment atmosphere. Once it opened, the hole
widened by nearly 2 inches per year.
It is clear that First Energy and the NRC have failed my
constituents. Of course, complacency on the part of the plant's owner
and the NRC really caused the hole in the reactor head.
The following are examples of this complacency:
Workers did not discover the damage during visual inspections of the
reactor vessel head in 1998 and again in 2000. Boric acid crystals
coated the reactor vessel head masking the metal surface.
When problems with leaking CRDM flanges surfaced years ago, workers
at Davis-Besse proposed a modification that would enable better
inspections of the reactor vessel head. Management approved this
modification, but then deferred its implementation.
When boric acid crystals were repeatedly found coating the outer
surface of the reactor vessel head, workers at Davis-Besse merely tried
cleaning them away. The plant's design required all components coming
into contact with reactor water to be made of corrosion-resistant
materials or to be clad with a protective layer of stainless steel. The
outer surface of the reactor vessel head was neither corrosion-
resistant nor coated with stainless steel. Management tolerated a
degraded condition prohibited by the plant's design.
Armed with knowledge about leaking CRDM flanges at Davis-Besse
causing the outer surface of the reactor vessel to be coated with boric
acid crystals, about the high likelihood that one or more CRDM nozzles
would be cracked, and about elevated iron oxide levels within the
containment building, management lobbied the NRC in fall 2001 to allow
it to skip the reactor vessel head inspection mandated by the end of
the year.
There is also evidence of complacency by the NRC.
The NCR's Inspector General recently concluded:
During the review of the potentially hazardous condition at Davis-
Besse, the NRC staff considered the financial impact to the licensee of
an unscheduled plant shut down. The fact that FENOC sought and staff
allowed Davis-Besse to operate past December 31, 2001, without
performing inspections was driven in large part by a desire to lessen
the financial impact on FENOC that would result from an early shutdoen.
NRC appears to have informally established an unreasonably high
burden of requiring absolute proof of a safety problem, versus lack of
reasonable assurance of maintaining public health and safety, before it
will act to shut down a power plant. The staff articulated this
standard to OIG as a rationale for allowing Davis-Besse to operate
until February 16, 2002.
There is significant evidence that FirstEnergy falsely represented
the condition of the pressure vessel and associated piping in order to
avoid an NRC-ordered shutdown, and knowingly and recklessly exposed the
people of Ohio to a grave and preventable safety risk.
Unfortunately, the NRC has recently issued a draft decision to deny
my petition. They just don't get it. The NRC must place the safety of
people before the profits of the nuclear industry.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman withdraw this amendment?
I insist upon my point of order.
Mr. KUCINICH. The gentleman insisting upon the point of order, I will
withdraw the amendment using this opportunity to call this to the
attention of the public.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Manzullo
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec.____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used--
(1) to acquire manufactured articles, materials, or
supplies unless section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.
10a) is applied to the contract for such acquisition by
substituting ``at least 65 percent'' for ``substantially
all''; or
(2) to enter into a contract for the construction,
alteration, or repair of any public building or public work
unless section 3 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10b) is
applied to such contract by substituting ``at least 65
percent'' for ``substantially all''.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to make
the Army Corps of Engineers and parts of the Department of Energy and
Department of the Interior increase the American content of the parts
that they buy from 50 percent to 65 percent. These types of materials
are to be used in construction projects that are supplied right here in
America and there is no hardship in applying that higher standard. The
bulldozers, tractors, dredging equipment, pumps, drills, these items
are all made right here in America and, it helps out the struggling
manufacturing base.
The congressional district that I represent, the biggest city,
Rockford, is between 10.5 and 11 percent unemployment. We lost two
factories just this past week. It continues over and over again, the
erosion of our manufacturing base. Nationwide we are down to about 14.5
million manufacturing jobs. We are losing 57,000 manufacturing jobs
each month for the past 34 months.
[[Page H7143]]
What we are saying here is very simple. When using taxpayers'
dollars, use that money to buy products that are made in America, at
least up to the 65 percent, to help stabilize our manufacturing base
plus also to provide the jobs so people can pay the taxes in order to
keep those government agencies going.
Mr. Chairman, because of the rules, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with the chairman.
In 1999, the Army Corps of Engineers declared that the Cherry Creek
Reservoir was in need of a $100 million expansion. The need for the
expansion was based on whether projections forecasting not just one but
two 1,000-year storms hitting the arid front range of Colorado in a 2-
week period.
Not only would the expansion be expensive, it would also inundate
several neighborhoods and a high school. Given the questionable
assumptions that the proposal was based on, the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Hefley) and I have asked for and received limitation language in
the annual energy and water appropriations bill over the last two
cycles blocking the Corps of Engineers from moving forward until an
independent review of the dam's safety is completed.
Over the past year or so, a State and local task force has been
working with the National Weather Service and the Corps of Engineers
toward completion of an independent review of the underlying weather
models used by the corps and the long-term safety needs in the Cherry
Creek Basin. My understanding is that the group believes it will be
able to complete its work later this year. It is my sincere hope that
they will do so.
I understand that the bill does not specifically include any money
for the corps to move forward with a dam safety study at this time, and
I would ask the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee to work
with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and me to ensure that the
study will not move forward until such time as this independent peer
review panel has completed its work.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I agree with
the gentleman's comments and will try to work with him.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. ____. None of the funds made available in this Act
may, after December 31, 2003, be used by the Department of
Energy to dispose of any low-level radioactive waste in a
landfill that does not meet all requirements and standards
applicable to landfills containing hazardous waste under
Federal law, or under a State regulatory program authorized
by section 3006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6926), with respect to landfill lining, leachate collection
systems, and groundwater and soil column monitoring systems.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I bring this amendment to the House's
attention really to deal with a weakness in our existing laws regarding
the disposal of low-level nuclear waste. In the State of Washington,
the Department of Energy has plans to ship into the Hanford site tons
and tons of what is characterized as low-level nuclear waste for
disposal in unlined trenches. Unfortunately, because of existing law,
they may at the moment under RCRA statutes be allowed to do that. But
this is clearly something we need to resolve because current RCRA law
would not allow us to dispose of levels of Drano and paint cans, but
does allow us to dispose of low-level nuclear waste in unlined
trenches.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns of the gentleman
from Washington, and I agree that we should not be placing low-level
radioactive waste into unlined trenches; and it should not take the
Department of Energy several years to figure that out. I will work with
the gentleman and with the Assistant Secretary, Jesse Roberson, at DOE
to resolve this expeditiously. If we cannot get satisfaction from DOE,
then we will address this in conference, and our conference is a little
while off; but I do not disagree with the gentleman.
Mr. INSLEE. I thank the gentleman. I am very appreciative of his
interest in this. I do think we need to light a fire under this
process. I look forward to working with the gentleman in the conference
committee.
Mr. HOBSON. Make sure you keep poking at us as we get towards
conference.
Mr. INSLEE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, based on the statement of the gentleman, I withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
Page 39, after line 24, insert the following:
Sec. 504. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to issue any license, approval, or authorization for
the export or reexport, or the transfer or retransfer, either
directly or indirectly, the Democratic Peoples' Republic of
North Korea of--
(1) any special nuclear material or byproduct material;
(2) any nuclear production or utilization facilities; or
(3) any components, technologies, substances, technical
information, or related goods or services used (or which
could be used) in a nuclear production or utilization
facility; except that, this restriction shall not apply to
exports, reexports, transfers, or retransfers of radiation
monitoring technologies.
Mr. MARKEY (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
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment, and it is
based upon a very complex, controversial, but ultimately ineffective,
set of agreements which we reached with the North Korean Government
making a promise to that government that we in conjunction with our
allies would transfer two nuclear power plants to the Government of
North Korea if they agreed in turn to put their full nuclear program
under full scope safeguards. It has become clear through the Clinton
administration and through the Bush administration that Kim Jong-Il is
pathologically incapable of handling nuclear materials in a responsible
way, and retrospectively it is now quite clear that the nature of the
bargain that we made with Kim Jong-Il was fundamentally flawed.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman wants to explain his
amendment, but I am advised that the Committee on Energy and Commerce
has passed similar language to this about three times. If that is
correct, then I am willing to accept the amendment on its face. If
there is a problem, we will have to work it out in conference at some
point; but in an effort to expedite the process here on the floor, I am
willing to accept the amendment at this point if the ranking member has
no objection.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would have no objection.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much for his acceptance of the
amendment. And just so it is clear what it was that was just accepted,
it is basically saying that the United States writ large should not and
will not transfer any nuclear power plants or material or personnel
that could help them with nuclear power plants as part of any deal in
the future; that if they want electricity, that we will build coal-
fired plants for them, we will build natural-gas-fired plants for them,
but we are not going to transfer materials that could be used for a
nuclear weapons program to Kim Jong-Il in North Korea.
That is the essence of the amendment. It has passed the House floor
435-
[[Page H7144]]
0 during the Clinton administration and during the Bush administration,
but there are personnel inside of both administrations that continue to
believe that there is a way in which we can transfer nuclear materials
to the North Korean Government, and the Congress has said over and over
again it is not a good idea. I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio
accepting the amendment. I do want to work with him, as does the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), towards the goal of removing any
obstacles that might be created in the future.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The amendment was agreed to.
Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), and the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
{time} 1115
Amendment Offered by Mr. Andrews
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194,
noes 213, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 391]
AYES--194
Akin
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Burns
Burton (IN)
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Crane
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Delahunt
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dingell
Doggett
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Fletcher
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Goss
Graves
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McNulty
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pomeroy
Portman
Ramstad
Rangel
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stearns
Stenholm
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Watt
Wexler
Woolsey
NOES--213
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Baird
Ballance
Becerra
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capuano
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hill
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Manzullo
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Nethercutt
Ney
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--27
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Berman
Bonilla
Burgess
Carter
Cox
Davis (TN)
DeLay
Dreier
Ferguson
Gallegly
Gephardt
Granger
Janklow
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Millender-McDonald
Paul
Quinn
Reynolds
Ros-Lehtinen
Taylor (NC)
Walsh
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are reminded there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1137
Messrs. CROWLEY, McKEON, BALLANCE, Ms. LEE, and Messrs. PITTS,
ACKERMAN, JONES of North Carolina, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. TOWNS, and Mr.
MEEKS of New York changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BARRETT of South Carolina, MILLER of Florida, HERGER, BRADY
of Texas, ISRAEL, HUNTER, MARKEY, PAYNE, NEAL of Massachusetts, FORBES,
and CANNON 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. Udall of Colorado
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153,
noes 251, not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 392]
AYES--153
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Bell
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Bradley (NH)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clay
Conyers
Crowley
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
[[Page H7145]]
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Doggett
Ehlers
Emanuel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Filner
Foley
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hensarling
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Rahall
Rangel
Renzi
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--251
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Flake
Fletcher
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Rush
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--30
Ballenger
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Berman
Bonilla
Burgess
Carter
Davis (TN)
DeLay
Dreier
Ferguson
Gallegly
Gephardt
Granger
Harman
Janklow
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Lipinski
Millender-McDonald
Paul
Quinn
Reynolds
Ros-Lehtinen
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Walsh
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are reminded there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1146
Mr. CLYBURN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. SANDLIN, DOGGETT, and McDERMOTT changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Personal Explanation
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained
during rollcall vote Nos. 392 and 391. I would ask that the Record
reflect that had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall
vote No. 392 (Udall amendment) and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 391
(Andrews amendment).
{time} 1145
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hefley
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 82,
noes 327, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 393]
AYES--82
Akin
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Cannon
Capuano
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Collins
Cox
Crane
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hostettler
Hunter
Isakson
Jenkins
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Matheson
McCotter
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Norwood
Otter
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Porter
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Stearns
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Toomey
Wilson (SC)
NOES--327
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burns
Burr
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
[[Page H7146]]
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauscher
Tauzin
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--25
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Berman
Bonilla
Burgess
Carter
Davis (TN)
DeLay
Dreier
Ferguson
Gallegly
Gephardt
Granger
Janklow
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Millender-McDonald
Paul
Quinn
Reynolds
Ros-Lehtinen
Taylor (NC)
Walsh
Waxman
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1206
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2004''.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the order, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hastings of Washington) having assumed the chair, Mr. Isakson, 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.
2754) making appropriations for energy and water development for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, pursuant
to the previous order of the House of the legislative day of July 17,
2003, he reported the bill, as amended pursuant to that order, back to
the House with further sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of
the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from
the Committee of the Whole? 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.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hoyer
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. HOYER. I am at this time, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. HOYER moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 2754, to the
Committee on Appropriations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The vote on final passage will be a 5-minute
vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 99,
noes 310, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 394]
AYES--99
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Ballance
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hoeffel
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Miller, George
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pastor
Pelosi
Porter
Rangel
Rodriguez
Rothman
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
NOES--310
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matsui
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
[[Page H7147]]
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--25
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Berman
Bonilla
Burgess
Carter
Davis (TN)
DeLay
Dreier
Ferguson
Gallegly
Gephardt
Granger
Janklow
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Millender-McDonald
Paul
Quinn
Reynolds
Ros-Lehtinen
Taylor (NC)
Walsh
Waxman
Young (AK)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the
vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1248
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Messrs. BELL, HINCHEY, GREEN of Texas, REYES,
ORTIZ, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas and Mr. HONDA changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. DEUTSCH and Mr. ABERCROMBIE changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is
on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
This vote may be followed by a 5-minute vote on the motion to
instruct on H.R. 1308.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 377,
nays 26, not voting 32, as follows:
[Roll No. 395]
YEAS--377
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--26
Akin
Andrews
Capuano
Doggett
Feeney
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Gibbons
Hefley
Hensarling
Hostettler
Kind
Kucinich
Matheson
Meehan
Miller (FL)
Petri
Porter
Ramstad
Royce
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Stearns
Strickland
Tancredo
Toomey
NOT VOTING--32
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Berman
Boehner
Bonilla
Burgess
Carter
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dreier
Everett
Ferguson
Fletcher
Gallegly
Gephardt
Granger
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Millender-McDonald
Northup
Paul
Quinn
Reynolds
Ros-Lehtinen
Taylor (NC)
Velazquez
Walsh
Waxman
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1258
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________