[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.

                          ____________________