Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 167 (Tuesday, November 18, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 167 (Tuesday, November 18, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H11396-H11405]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H11396]]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2754, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 444, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2754) making appropriations for
energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2004, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report
is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
November 7, 2003, at page H11010).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that has a conference agreement of $27.3
billion. This is a good bill. We worked very hard on it, and we have
had a very tough conference; and I hope everybody will vote for the
bill.
At this time I would like to make a few remarks concerning the
committee staff on both sides. We worked together very diligently to
prepare this bill and this conference report. I guess this is my second
time to conference the bill, but my first time to be involved in the
writing of the bill, which is a rather unusual circumstance.
During that period of time, and for the last number of years, our
clerk has had different people being the chairman. And I do not know
whether it is because I became the chairman that he is leaving or not.
He has had a different chairman about the last five times, and so I
said I was going to stay awhile, and then suddenly I heard he was going
to retire. So I hope it is not because of the conference we have had
that he is leaving, because he has done a great job. He has been 15
years here in this committee. He likes apparently the challenge of
breaking in a new chairman, but I am not sure that he likes the
continuation of that. But he will have to speak afterwards about that.
I really want to thank him because he has been a great help to me and
a great help to the staff as we have worked on this bill. He was dubbed
``Silent Bob'' in one of the reports that was out, I think it was in
one of what we call local political rags here around Washington. While
most people might say he is silent, I can tell you when he is in the
room and Silent Bob speaks, we all listen. He has done a great job for
this committee. He has been a great resource to me and to the committee
over these years.
So I want to thank him, and I hope he can go out and work on his golf
game because he tells me his game is about as bad as mine, and that is
really bad. So now he will have plenty of time to learn how to play
golf better and also to probably earn a lot more money, as he can come
back and lobby us about a lot of issues because he is a real authority,
especially on the water part of this bill.
So, again, thanks to you, Bob, for being the clerk for all these
years and for leading us during this period of time.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a document detailing the
specifics of this appropriation bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the
conference report on H.R. 2754, the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004.
We had a challenging conference with the Senate this year, but we
were able to resolve our differences and reach a fair compromise. Most
importantly, I believe we did the right thing for the Nation in this
conference report in a number of important areas, from rebuilding our
water infrastructure, to dealing with the disposal of spent nuclear
fuel, to advancing the frontiers of our scientific knowledge.
The total amount of funding included in the conference agreement is
$27.3 billion. This represents an increase of $1.1 billion over the
current fiscal year and approximately $380 million over the budget
request.
Title I of this conference report provides funding for the Civil
Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and for the Corps'
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. The conference
agreement provides the Corps with $4.6 billion, slightly below the
current year but nearly $400 million over the inadequate budget
request. The Administration does not seem to comprehend that
underfunding the Corps of Engineers ultimately costs the country more
in the long run, as projects that are strung out over multiple years
always cost more than they would if constructed on an efficient
schedule. I have already initiated a 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 in future fiscal
years.
In fiscal year 2004, we opted to focus our available resources on
completing ongoing projects, and therefore limited the number of new
starts in this conference agreement.
Funding for Title II of the bill, which includes the Central Utah
Project Completion Account and the programs of the Bureau of
Reclamation, is $986.5 million, $14 million above the amount
appropriated last year and $64 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.
Total funding for Title III, the Department of Energy is $22 billion,
$1.2 billion above fiscal year 2003 and $120 million below the budget
request.
In many ways, I am most proud of our accomplishments in this part of
the conference agreement. My top priority in the Energy and Water bill
this year was to provide sufficient funding for the Yucca Mountain
nuclear waste repository, and I believe we succeeded. This conference
agreement provides a total of $580 million for Yucca Mountain, only $11
million below the request but an increase of $123 million compared to
the current fiscal year. This project has been significantly
underfunded in prior years, and we are finally starting to reverse that
trend.
Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we keep the Department of Energy on
schedule to submit the repository license application late next year
and to begin repository operations in 2010. The Yucca Mountain
repository is essential for both energy security and homeland security.
We have provided the necessary funding in this conference agreement,
and I have the commitment of the Secretary of Energy to move forward
aggressively on the repository program during this coming fiscal year.
Another priority of mine, and of many other Members in this chamber,
is the subject of 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, of our
national security, and for economic competitiveness, we cannot afford
to stay in second place for very long. We have provided an additional
$30 million for the Department of Energy to procure additional state-
of-the-art computers in the near term and to begin an interagency
effort to develop next-generation computer architectures.
Another area where there is significant Member interest in this
conference agreement is the portion of DOE's budget that deals with
several new nuclear weapons initiatives proposed by the Administration.
I strongly believe that we need to take a hard look at our existing
Cold War nuclear arsenal before we start down the path of designing new
weapons and new weapons infrastructure. 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 the
next ten years. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for the Department
to Defense, and the Department of energy, to deliver a revised nuclear
stockpile plan that reflects the President's commitment of two years
ago. It is time for DOD and DOE to take a hard look at our nuclear
weapon stockpile and on the infrastructure we are maintaining to
support that stockpile.
Mr. Speaker, the funding provided in this conference agreement
maintains our strong support for DOE's nonproliferation programs in
Russia and other countries. This agreement also makes a key change in
DOE's contracting culture, as we require the competition of five
laboratory contracts that we awarded without competition back in the
1940s and have never been competed since. Most Members are shocked to
learn we have contracts that have never been competed in the past half
century. We are fixing that situation.
Funding for Title IV, Independent Agencies, is $229.3 million, an
increase of $22.6 million from last year and $81.4 million above the
budget request. We have funded the Appalachian Regional Commission at
$66 million, $33 million above the request, in recognition of the
strong interest in this chamber and in the Senate in the work of the
ARC.
I want to thank my Senate counterpart, Chairman Pete Domenici, and
his Ranking Minority Member, Senator Harry Reid, for their

[[Page H11397]]

hard work during this conference. They may view me as a relatively
junior Member by Senate standards, but rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that
I fought long and hard to defend the House priorities during this
conference. My Ranking Member, the Honorable Pete Visclosky, was at my
side during this process, and I truly value his support and advice.
Mr. Speaker, 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 Draft of my
staff, and Dixon Butler and Peder Maarbjerg of the minority staff.
I urge the unanimous support of the house for adoption of this
conference report. I would hope we could quickly conclude action on
this conference report so that we can get this bill to the White House
for signature.
I want to make special mention here today for ``Silent Bob'' Schmidt,
the subcommittee clerk on my bill this year.
Bob is leaving the Hill at the end of this week, and is going on to
greener pastures. I hate to say it, but his departure may be partly my
fault. He has the remarkable record of having clerked for five
different Chairmen, I believe, in the past five Congresses. He
apparently likes the challenge of breaking in new Chairmen, and I told
him I intend to be around for a while, so that may be why he's going. I
hope not.
I would like to congratulate Bob on his many years of service on the
Appropriations Committee, and for his former service for the Corps of
Engineers. Bob's knowledge of the agency programs in our bill, and of
the rules of the Committee and the house, have been invaluable during
my first year as Chairman on this subcommittee. I will miss his
experience and his company, and I know that the staff will, too.
I like to refer to Bob as ``silent Bob'' because he's not a real
talkative guy, so I am not sure that we'll notice when he is out of the
office, even when he is gone for good. He usually managed to speak up,
though, when anybody was about to make a mistake, which is one hallmark
of a very good Appropriations Clerk and I know we will all miss him
when it's time to get the work done. On behalf of those of us who have
worked closely with him, I want to wish him every success in his golf
game and whatever else he takes on in the future.

[[Page H11398]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO03.001

[[Page H11399]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18NO03.002

[[Page H11400]]

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

{time} 1445

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to as, I always do on
these occasions, thank the staff because in the end they are the ones
who have done the very hard work. I want to thank Kevin Cook, I want to
thank Scott Burnison, I want to thank Dennis Kern, Tracey La Turner,
Rob Pace, Kenny Kraft, Rob Nabors, Dixon Butler, Peder Maarbjerg,
Leslie Phillips, and I would also like to add my voice of thanks to Bob
Schmidt. Bob has done an incredible job as a staff member of the
Committee on Appropriations. As a former staffer myself, I truly
appreciate the work everyone has done on this bill, and in this case
particularly the work of Bob. It is no surprise to me the quality of
work he has done since he is a graduate of the University of the Notre
Dame.
The second set of thank you's goes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Chairman Hobson). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and I serve
together on the Subcommittee on Defense. As mentioned, this is his
first full round with the energy and water bill, and he has done an
exceptional job. He has been completely bipartisan. He has been a
gentleman. He has made decisions. Our Department of Energy and our
energy policy in the United States of America is better off because of
the work the gentleman has done on this bill.
I have now served with five chairmen; they have all been very able.
They have all done very good work; this is the best bill which has been
brought to the floor while I have been a ranking member.
Mr. Speaker, on the substance of the bill, I would want to simply say
that I think the committee has done a very good job on the nuclear
weapons program. On the issue of water infrastructure, we have done our
very best. We have added $377 million, and put back into the process 80
programs that were eliminated by the administration under budget
requests. Any failings here are not because of lack of effort by the
committee.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the staff that
worked to put this bill together, Bob Schmidt, Kevin Cook, Scott
Burnison, Dennis Kern, Tracey La Turner, Rob Pace, Kenny Kraft, Peder
Maarbjerg, Leslie Phillips, Rob Nabors, and Dixon Butler, all put in
countless hours to produce this fine product.
I would also like to thank my Chairman, Chairman Hobson, who guided
the House priorities through a very tough Conference, and led us to
produce a very good bill. He has been one of the best Chairmen I have
ever work with, and I look forward to working with him in future years.
Now, no bill is perfect Mr. Speaker, but this bill was a product of a
truly bipartisan effort. Mark Twain once said that ``Common Sense is
not that Common'' but this Conference Report advances some very common
sense ideas, and though I don't want to take up much time, I would be
remiss if I did not mention a few.
In the area of Nuclear Weapons, this Conference Report directs the
Dept. of Energy to focus on management of our aging weapons stockpile
before moving forward with new concepts and designs.
The Report fenced two-thirds of the money going to Advanced Concepts,
or weapons research, until DOE produces a Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
plan. This plan is needed to better deal with our aging war-heads and
to dispose of many of those systems. Due to advances in technology many
warheads are no longer practical or feasible with current Department of
Defense technology and strategies.
In addition, the Conference Report, funds the Modern Pit Facility
program and the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) or Bunker Buster
at, $10M and $7.5M respectively, half of the President's and Senate's
Requests in both cases. This is because we should not be looking
forward to new weapons until we have a solid plan for the weapons and
technology we already have.
Mr. Speaker, we should be especially wary of the nuclear waste stored
in many sites across this country in this unfortunate time of terrorist
threats. The compromise we came to with the other body, funded the
Yucca Mountain Repository at it's highest level ever, $580M, and fully
supports the submission of the December 2004 license application. I
appreciate the Chairman's leadership on this issue.
Finally, Mr. Speaker our funding for the Corps of Engineers was the
best that we could do within the money provided. Many important
projects could not be fully funded, completed, or started. This under-
funding was not the fault of the Chairman or this committee, which
funded the Corps approximately $377 million over the President's
Request and restored approximately 80 ongoing studies that the
Administration did not include in their budget. Unfortunately, this
Administration, and previous Administrations, in a bipartisan failure,
have not made the infrastructure of this country a priority.
Currently, the Corps O&M program reflects a high priority backlog of
$1 billion and an additional $1.9 billion in unfunded work. Though the
conference report added $29 million to the President's request, we are
still behind.
For on going construction, the backlog was $44 Billion for FY 2002
and $45 billion in FY 2003. The Conference Report added $372 million to
the President's request of $1.35 billion to help this situation; this
is just a drop in the bucket, and I suspect this backlog will continue
to grow in FY 2004.
We need to invest in our future, by creating jobs, advancing the
efficiency of commerce and transportation, while improving the
environmental outlook and quality of life for people in this country.
This can all be done through better investment in our domestic
infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill as well, and
want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson). During no time in
my 9 years here have I seen anyone grow as fast on the job in 10 and a
half months as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson). His first
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development meeting was coming in as
chairman, and in the last 10 and a half months, he has been all across
the country, studied these issues, consumed himself with it, and done
an outstanding job, in large part because of the bipartisan
cooperation. There is no doubt this is a bipartisan product, an
excellent work product.
I want to thank again those staff members already mentioned on our
side of the aisle, Bob Schmidt, Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, Kevin
Cook, Kenny Kraft, and Tracey LaTurner. They have done outstanding
work.
A couple of points I want to make, first as a representative of the
premier multipurpose laboratory in the United States, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, science is up. Our long-term investment in the
future of our country, the seed corn for the next generation, is up
above the President's request because the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman
Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) believe we must
invest for future generations, and this bill reflects that commitment
long term. It is very important. Plus, energy security; everybody has
talked for a long time about our need to solve the long-term waste
issue relative to our nuclear waste storage and whether we can ever go
back into the nuclear business. We are solving that problem by fully
funding and adequately funding Yucca Mountain, which we need to do.
This committee has moved on this.
We also have an accelerated cleanup program across the country now
because this Department of Energy, under Secretary Abraham's
leadership, rolled out an ambitious plan to clean these nuclear sites
up sooner rather than later and invest more in the short run to save
money in the long run. We are doing that at Oak Ridge, at Hanford,
Savannah River, and across the country. It is important that we do that
for the health and safety of our citizens, and this bill is an
excellent work product. I agree with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky) that this is the best energy and water bill that we have
offered in a number of years.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to funding for
the Yucca Mountain project in the energy and water appropriations
conference report which allocates $580 million for the Yucca Mountain
project and nuclear waste disposal. This is an increase of almost 30
percent above current spending levels. Appropriating such a significant
increase of funds for a project which is riddled with problems is
unconscionable.
I would like to bring to our attention numerous developments that
cloud the

[[Page H11401]]

future of the Yucca Mountain project. These issues raise major concerns
regarding the wisdom of continuing this dangerous folly. Proponents of
Yucca Mountain claim that a central site would reduce security concerns
at the Nation's 131 nuclear reactor sites. That is preposterous. Even
if Yucca Mountain opens, every nuclear reactor in operation will
continue to store nuclear waste on site. Instead of eliminating
potential terrorist targets, we will be creating a new target, this
time in the State of Nevada.
Nuclear waste shipped to Yucca Mountain will pass through 45 States
and the District of Columbia, traveling on roads and railroad tracks
located next to 50 million people over the course of the next 24 years.
Residents of cities such as Chicago, Atlanta, St. Louis, and Salt Lake
City could see multiple shipments of this deadly nuclear waste pass
through their backyards daily.
The United States Air Force has stated that the Yucca Mountain
repository will interfere with training at the Nellis Air Force Base.
This would negatively impact military preparedness at one of the
Nation's most important training facilities. It is almost unimaginable
that we would consider a plan that would limit the ability to train
America's combat pilots.
Just last month, the independent Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
found that the canisters that will store high-level waste at Yucca
Mountain are likely to corrode and leak, resulting in the release of
radioactive nuclear materials that will contaminate nearby water
supplies.
Instead of dumping money into the ill-conceived Yucca Mountain
project, we should invest in the development of clean energy sources,
such as renewable energy. By boosting renewable energy, we are working
to bring down energy costs, create a consistent and reliable source of
energy, improve the environment and public health, and reduce our
vulnerability to terrorists around the world.
We must look far ahead when considering the future of energy. That
future is in reliable, renewable energy, not nuclear power. I urge my
colleagues to consider the consequences of this project. This Congress
will rue the day it got into bed with the nuclear industry. The people
of the State of Nevada already do.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a member of the Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this
conference report and want to commend the chairman and his staff on
very, very fine work. I particularly thank them for their willingness
to work with those of us from Appalachian districts for funding for the
Appalachian Regional Commission. That is a part of America that is very
rural, it is a part of America that is struggling economically, and
with the tremendous loss of manufacturing jobs recently, it is an
agency that we believe needed to be funded. We are also pleased that he
helped us put language in the bill that said those who receive this
funding will be accountable publicly. We want to make sure that these
agencies serve us, and that they are open. The language requires that
their budgets, their minutes, their audited statements and public
meetings be open to the press and public. We thank them for that.
I also commend the committee on authorizing $2.15 billion for
hydrogen fuel cells. It is a program I have supported for years. I
commend the committee on authorizing $200 million for clean cities. I
represent State College, Pennsylvania, which is the first bus system
that will be all natural gas, and are now working toward becoming
hydrogen, and are leading the way. I thank the committee for the $100
million for increased hydropower which is important. We have a lot of
dams in this country which have not been harnessed and hydropower which
has not been adequately utilized, and I want to particularly thank the
committee for its dramatic increase for LIHEAP from $2 billion to $3.4
billion. With the high cost of natural gas and fuel oil this year, home
heating is going to be a problem in cold parts of this country, and
this program will be vital. I also was delighted at the $1.8 million
clean coal power spending; and I want to thank the chairman and those
who worked with him on Yucca Mountain. I know it is a controversial
issue, but it needed legislative leadership and the gentleman from Ohio
(Chairman Hobson) provided that. I thank him for his work.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Matheson).
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to two
provisions in this energy and water conference report. First, this bill
provides $7.5 million for study of a new-generation, earth-penetrating
nuclear warhead and $6 million for research on advanced nuclear weapons
concepts such as low-yield mini nukes. Supporters of these new nuclear
weapons argue the current funding is limited to weapons research and
development in DOE labs, but this argument ignores the obvious end
results of these studies, and that is that they will have to be tested.
These weapons will be tested most likely at the Nevada test site. That
will once again expose Utah and the rest of this Nation to fallout from
those tests.
High-yield weapons present an additional problem, unacceptable
amounts of fallout would endanger U.S. troops approaching the target to
confirm the weapons' success. No one is going to argue about pursuing
new technologies to address the threats posed by terrorists hiding in
hardened or deeply-buried sites, but we should ask and answer this
question about whether nuclear weapons, regardless of yield, can even
get the job done.
I oppose this bill that would once again move toward exposing Utahans
to nuclear testing in Nevada. That brings me to a second point I also
raise in opposition to the bill, and that is there is a provision that
would reclassify radioactive waste from two Department of Energy sites
as a type of waste that can be shipped to commercial facility. This
language was included in the conference report without the knowledge of
States like Utah that had commercial facilities where the DOE has
suggested shipping such highly-concentrated radioactive waste. This
waste has much higher radioactive levels than other radioactive waste
that commercial facilities are currently regulated to accept under this
classification.
This is unacceptable to Utah, and I am fundamentally opposed to
language that makes Utah into a dumping ground not only for waste from
Ohio and New York, but waste from other east coast States as well. Some
Members argue this waste is not that bad. Mr. Speaker, if the waste is
not that bad, then Ohio and New York should not be in such a rush to
get rid of it.
Utah has a history on this issue, a history of being downwinders. My
family comes from southern Utah. I would not put Utah into a back seat
to anyone when it comes to their patriotism and commitment to this
country, but we need to make sure when we move ahead and potentially
expose our citizens to radiation, that we make sure we make these
decisions in the clear light of day, and we look out for the health and
safety of all Americans.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, but I have
some concerns. There are 60 separate authorizations in this bill; 10
were cleared through my committee. The remaining came from the other
body. What bothers me is we have sent over to the other body a WRDA
bill that they should be acting on. When we have that many projects in
an appropriations bill without having to go through the due process,
including my committee, I think it is inappropriate.
I have worked with the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee.
My staff has worked with them, and we worked through what the House
projects should be and they were cleared. But now we see a small WRDA
bill. When the conference report was filed, I was a little shocked. In
fact, it has two projects in this bill which were not asked for by
either the House or Senate. Two projects were inserted by the Corps
itself. I think this is a bad way to legislate.
The bill overall is a good bill, but what we ought to be doing is
passing a

[[Page H11402]]

WRDA bill out of the other body and getting that done because this
Nation needs a sound policy. This Nation needs restoration, it needs a
sound project list to conclude.
The chairman and the ranking member did an outstanding job, but I
hope this body keeps insisting to Members of the other body, two of
them from each State, urge them to pass that piece of legislation that
covers the whole Nation and not do it piecemeal, because it weakens the
process and makes it difficult to do what we should be doing. I ask
Members as we approach next year, we urge that body to act responsibly.

{time} 1500

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman is reminded not to
urge action in the other body.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the chairman at all. As a matter
of fact, the chairman, I, and the ranking member tried when we passed
this bill in the House to not put any authorizing language in this bill
that was not approved by the chairman when it left here. In our
discussions with the other body, they have a different procedure. We
had certain things that we had to take the way the procedures works.
I would suggest that we do need to pass a water bill, and I think my
ranking member agrees with me on that. We want to work with the
gentleman from Alaska in every way we can. There are two large things
that were approved over here that I think substantially hurt that, but
they were requests from the Senate which I think the gentleman is aware
of which we passed by the committee.
But again just generally I want to say, not only generally but
specifically, I totally agree with the fact that we should pass a water
bill as expeditiously as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would just for a moment agree with both of my chairs and refer to
my opening remarks where, despite our best efforts, we are also on the
appropriations side underfunding these programs. I would agree with the
chairman of the authorizing committee that I would hope the other body
acts sooner rather than later.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), my
partner in this. This is the first time we have done this bill
together. He and his staff have been absolutely marvelous to work with.
We have tried to expose to each other all of our problems. If we would
have had more money, we could have helped more people. That is our
goal, with the very delicate infrastructure that we have in this
country; but we just did not have enough money to do that.
In closing, I would like once again to say that I appreciate the
clerkship of Bob Schmidt and all of the staff, but especially Bob. In
the time I have worked with him, he has been an invaluable resource. We
are going to miss him a lot.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 2754, the
Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report.
However, I am concerned about one provision which was added to the
statement of managers concerning the Bonneville Power Administration.
Incorrect language was added stating ``the conferees are aware of the
Department of the Treasury's concerns relating to Bonneville Power
Administration's financial accounting practices and expect Bonneville
to rectify the situation as soon as is possible.'' The Department of
the Treasury has not expressed concerns relating to BPA's accounting
practices. In fact, a letter from Treasury Acting Under Secretary for
Domestic Finance, Brian Roseboro, to Stephen Wright confirms that no
concerns about BPA's accounting practices exist. The letter, dated
November 18, 2003, states:

Dear Mr. Wright: The Department of the Treasury received
the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2754 and reviewed the
sentence on page 171 that reads, ``The conferees are aware of
the Department of the Treasury's concerns relating to
Bonneville Power Administration's financial accounting
practices and expects Bonneville to rectify the situation as
soon as is possible.'' The Department of the Treasury has not
expressed any concern about the financial accounting
practices of Bonneville either privately or publicly. Please
let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Brian C.
Roseboro, Acting Under Secretary for Domestic Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the Record to reflect the fact that this sentence
added to the Conference Report is incorrect, and the letter from Under
Secretary Roseboro corrects the Record.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Hobson and
Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard work in producing an Energy and
Water Appropriations bill that funds a number of important programs
This legislation includes significant increases over the President's
request for Basic Energy Research and for Energy Supply programs.
Sadly, this bill also marks a watershed in U.S. nuclear policy that
will have dire consequences for us and for our children. Indeed, by
funding research on adapting nuclear weapons for new uses against hard
and deeply buried targets and funding work on new low yield nukes,
Congress has given its stamp of approval to a persistent effort by this
administration to put the United States back in the business of making
nuclear weapons.
The funding of these two initiatives has been the culmination of the
work of nuclear hawks in the administration who had produced a Nuclear
Posture Review in December of 2001 that places a strong emphasis on the
use of nuclear weapons for both offensive and defensive purposes and a
misguided National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction in
December 2002 that outlines new scenarios when the United States would
consider using nuclear weapons.
The development not only marks a new chapter in American national
security policy that directly invites a nuclear arms race with any
power that wishes to compete, but also a shameful moment for Congress
when elected officials have been too willing to embrace a new weapons
program without challenging what have been very lightweight
justifications.
Mr. Speaker, nuclear weapons will remain a crucial part of America's
arsenal for the foreseeable future. They provide a hedge against
potentially hostile nuclear powers and underpin security commitments to
our allies. But today, the United States is addressing the threat of
weapons of mass destruction from Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan and
a growing list of counties.
The Director of the CIA, George Tenet, warned last February that the
``desire for nuclear weapons is on the upsurge ``among small
countries'' and that ``we have entered a new world of proliferation.''
Even Russia, our former Cold War rival whom we fought in a conflict
that almost brought the world to the brink of annihilation, on noting
the administration's current intent to pursue a new generation of
nuclear weapons, has responded by making plans to strengthen its
nuclear deterrent by modernizing delivery vehicles and keeping a number
of heavy ballistic missiles previously slated for dismantlement.
Instead of working to build an equitable global regime that actively
devalues nuclear weapons and creates incentives for their elimination,
the administration would rather develop new battlefield nuclear
capabilities, leading us into a world where nuclear weapons are seen as
legitimate alternatives for all nations and the taboo on their use is
severely eroded.
The administration's intent to develop a new generation of nuclear
weapons of any size makes a mockery of the President's claim that the
Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) he signed with Russian
President Putin marked the true end of the Cold War.
Indeed, if you combine the repeal of the ban on development of low
yield nuclear weapons contained in the Defense Authorization Bill with
the funding of these same weapons in this bill and the flexibility in
the SORT which allows both Russia and the United States too keep all
their weapons rather than dismantle them, we actually have the makings
of a nuclear arms buildup in this country for the first time since the
end of the Cold War.
While this bill cuts funds in half for the Robust Earth Penetrator
and ties $4 million of the $6 million requested for advanced concepts
to an important reporting requirement, there is no such thing as
opening Pandora's box part way.
With this bill, the United States has crossed a major threshold and
entered a new nuclear era.
By approving the administration's request for plans to develop a new
generation of nuclear weapons, Congress has failed the American people
by adopting policies that potentially make the United States less
secure.
The justifications the administration offered for its nuclear
agenda--the need to maintain the knowledge of our nuclear designers and
the need to strengthen our nulcear deterrent by developing more usable
nuclear weapons--were paper thin.

[[Page H11403]]

The first justification deserves little comment. The argument that
Congress needs to create a jobs program for scientists to help hone
their skills doesn't hold water.
Second, the proposition that nuclear weapons can somehow be
engineered to be smarter and cause less collateral damage is simply
false.
Nuclear weapons will never surgically destroy hardened targets.
They offer no guarantee of destroying chemical and biological agents
without releasing them into the atmosphere.
Detonated in an urban area, even a 1-kiloton nuclear bomb with a
yield much lower than the nuclear warheads under consideration for an
RNEP would kill tens of thousands of civilians and hinder friendly
troops.
Our warfighters do not have a military requirement for new nuclear
weapons, and we have not exhausted research on conventional
alternatives.
I am deeply concerned that by preaching the rhetoric of disarmament
and nonproliferation, and on the other hand, developing a new
generation of weapons of mass destruction, we are making the world a
more dangerous place. Perhaps the most alarming thing this Congress has
done is to trivialize nuclear weapons and their destructive power.
The prohibition on low yield weapons not only was necessary, it
reinforced the notion that nuclear weapons should always be considered
the most destructive weapons known to man.
By lifting the ban on research and funding their development in this
bill, it is much easier to believe that they are just like any other
usable weapons system, rather than a horrific weapon of last resort.
The American people are poorly served when the executive branch does
not engage them on policies that may have catastrophic consequences for
them in the future and when their elected officials are reluctant to
ask the hard questions or thoroughly review the administration's
national security propositions.
I am going to vote for this bill because it contains a number of
important provisions for our economy.
It will be up to this Congress and subsequent Congresses however, to
ensure that the administration's quest for new and more usable nuclear
capabilities does not take us closer to the day when we decide to use
them again.
We did not heed the protests of the current mayor of the city of
Hiroshima who wrote the President on the anniversary of the bombing of
his city this summer that ``this clear indication that the United
States intends to develop small nuclear weapons raises the horrifying
specter that nuclear weapons will actually be used'' and represents a
``frontal attack on the process of nuclear disarmament.''
If today we are unwilling to listen to those who have the only
experience of the consequences of nuclear war, I hope that in the very
near future we can at least start giving proper attention to this
development in future hearings and debates.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the fiscal year
2004 energy and water appropriations conference report, which funds
several projects of great interest to my constituents in Southern
California.
The New River has been described as the ``world's most polluted
river.'' The river flows from Mexico, north across the U.S. border, and
through my district in Imperial County, California. Due to grossly
inadequate sewage treatment and solid waste facilities in Mexico, raw
sewage, industrial waste, and garbage are constantly released into the
New River.
The New River is extremely polluted, foamy, and foul-smelling. The
river significantly violates water quality standards, and plants and
animals cannot survive in much of it. The New River continues to
threaten the health of residents of my district and of undocumented
immigrants who use the waterway to cross the international border.
A coalition of citizen groups and government agencies in my district,
including the Calexico New River Committee, has developed a feasible
plan that will significantly improve the quality of water flowing
through the community. The project involves building wastewater
infrastructure to improve water quality in the vicinity of the city of
Calexico on the southern portion of the New River in Imperial County by
installing project headworks and encasing the New River, and
constructing a disinfecting facility and wastewater polishing system as
the river emerges from its encasement.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, which provides funding for the Nation's
energy and water-related projects, would continue environmental
restoration efforts on the New River. This is an extremely important
first step in the process of enhancing the water quality of the
southern portion of the New River, enriching life in the community, and
making a healthier home for fish and wildlife.
Better quality water flowing along the New River would also mean
improved water quality in the Salton Sea. The Salton Sea is the largest
inland water body in California, and one of the largest salt lakes in
the world. The Salton Sea is an important habitat for Federal and State
listed endangered species, as well as other migrating and resident bird
species, a reservoir for agricultural drainage, a center for
recreation, and a wetland ecosystem.
But it is quickly becoming too saline to continue supporting
wildlife, and a recent rural-to-urban water transfer may shrink the
shoreline. This bill would provide funding for the Salton Sea Research
project for efforts to continue study of the alternatives for
restoration of the Sea.
Water that eventually drains into the Salton Sea comes from the
Colorado River, and is delivered to farmers and residents in my
community by the All American Canal. This bill provides funding to
construct small regulating reservoirs on the canal, which will vastly
improve operating efficiencies. The reservoirs would provide storage
for water that is unavoidably delivered from the lower Colorado River
in excess of what is immediately needed by users, thereby improving
water conservation efforts.
Finally, water in the Colorado River is threatened by a uranium mine
tailings pile sitting only 700 feet from the River near Moab, Utah. The
tailings, which sit in an unlined pond and seep into the ground water,
are radioactive and contain high concentrations of toxic metals left by
the leaching process used to separate uranium from ore. The tailings
are leaking radioactive material into the Colorado River at levels
1,300 times above the allowed limit. This bill provides funding to
accelerate remediation of this site, and would ensure that residents of
my community, other Colorado River water users, and the environment
receive the long-term protection so desperately needed.
For the sake of my constituents at the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as
residents of the West, I urge my colleagues to support the conference
report.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member supports the FY2004 Energy and
Water Development appropriations conference report and urges his
colleagues to vote for it. 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
conference report 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 conference report 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. 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 pre-development days.
In 1986, the Congress authorized over $50 million to fund the
Missouri River Mitigation Project to restore fish and wildlife habitat
lost due to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan
plan.
Also, this measure provides additional funding for flood-related
projects of tremendous importance to residents of Nebraska's First
Congressional District. Mr. Speaker, 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 this
conference report continues funding in the amount of $191,000 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 project. This funding is to be used for pre-
construction engineering and design work. This Member is also very
pleased that the conference report includes construction funds for
several Nebraska projects including $500,000 for Sand Creek, $500,000
for Western Sarpy-Clear Creek, $1.5 million for Antelope Creek,

[[Page H11404]]

and $1 million for Missouri National Recreational River.
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
coordinated effort could continue.
This Member 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.''
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.
The purpose of the Antelope Creek project is to implement solutions
to multi-faceted 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.
This Member appreciates the $500,000 included in the conference
report for research in Nebraska on improved soybean oil for biodiesel
fuel. Biodielsel use is growing rapidly, and an improved oil from
soybeans developed for Nebraska growers can open new markets for
soybean growers, while contributing to a cleaner environment and
reducing our Nation's dependence on non-renewable energy sources.
Replacing petroleum-based diesel fuel with biodiesel produced from
soybean and other vegetable oils can help make the Nation more self-
sufficient in energy and reduce air pollution, including emission of
``greenhouse gases'' contributing to global warming. Biodiesel holds
significant potential for expanding markets for soybean growers and
processors.
Finally, this Member also is pleased that the conference report
includes $1 million in funds from the Drought Emergency Assistance
Program for emergency assistance in Nebraska.
Again Mr. Speaker, this Member 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 to the people
living in the Missouri River Basin.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations conference report,
which brings the Houston Ship Channel project extremely close to
completion and provides critical flood relief for residents of the 29th
District of Texas.
It was flooding down in Texas yesterday, and this bill is urgently
needed down in my hometown of Houston. This bill provides $35.5 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 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. We need to obtain an
additional $12 million in reprogramming funding next year as the
construction on the ship channel nears completion.
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 $750,000 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.
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 that event
occurred in the Greens watershed, and we need to get moving and start
moving dirt down there as soon as possible. This bayou came very close
to topping its banks just yesterday.
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. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2754,
the Energy and Water Appropriations conference report for fiscal year
2004. Let me first thank Chairman Hobson for his strong leadership of
our subcommittee's work and to Ranking Member Pete Visclosky for his
bipartisan approach to this conference report. And my thanks to the
subcommittee staff for their tireless efforts to put this conference
report together.
While public attention is rightly focused on the war on terrorism
abroad, our committee continues to do its part to protect our nation's
security at home. The issue of energy security is now clearly before
us--our energy facilities and networks must be safe and secure. And we
must also continue the critical work of the Department of Energy to do
the research and development on domestic sources of energy, reducing
the demand of foreign oil imports and to find better ways to protect
our nuclear stockpile.
I applaud the chairman for providing $82 million for the new Office
of Electric Transmission and Distribution (OETD), which is $5 million
over the requested amount. The Office of Electric Transmission &
Distribution is a new DOE program office formed to help ensure a robust
and reliable U.S. transmission grid for the 21st century. I am pleased
our subcommittee has provided DOE with the funding needed to lead a
national effort to help modernize and expand America's electric
delivery system to better ensure economic and national security.
Further, it is important to note the conferees added the $5 million
over the requested amount to allow the Department of Energy to complete
its investigation into the causes of the August 14th, 2003 blackout,
which highly affected thousands of people in my region of the country.
It is important DOE conduct an extensive investigation to get to the
bottom of what caused or contributed to the outage so we can take
proper steps to ensure such failures are never repeated in the future.

Chairman Hobson has produced a conference report that continues the
Federal commitment to work in partnership with our states and local
communities to address such vital needs as flood control, shore
protection, environmental restoration and improving our Nation's
waterways. By doing so, we are helping to meet critical economic,
environmental and public safety needs in virtually every state in the
country.
I want to especially thank Chairman Hobson for his support of top
priorities in my home state of New Jersey. Keeping our port open for
business is critical to our regional economy and the 229,000 thousand
jobs related to port activity in New Jersey and New York. Protecting
and restoring our 127 miles of shoreline is vital $30 billion dollar
tourism industry. And, this bill continues to work to protect New
Jersey's communities from natural disasters such as flooding and
continues New Jersey's special role to provide for a future energy
source that is clean and unlimited: that is the work of the Princeton
Plasma Physics Laboratory.
Finally, I want to take a moment of my time to thank the Army Corps
of Engineers for their efforts to improve the quality of life that the
American people have at home as well as for the Iraqi people abroad.
Today, well over 300 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers military and civilian
employees are in Iraq assisting the people in many areas. The Corps
also provides daily assistance to the reconstruction effort with
technical advice for the International Aid Developments program of
reconstructing water and sanitation facilities; public facilities, such
as hospitals and schools; roads, bridges and

[[Page H11405]]

railroads; and airport and seaport rehabilitation. Of vital importance
is the Corp's work with the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.
State Department, and U.S. engineering societies that help Iraqi
engineers gain knowledge lost during the last 30 years.
Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this conference report and urge
my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Conference
Report on H.R. 2754, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act for fiscal year 2004. As this Congress is well aware, my district
of Sacramento, CA, is the most at-risk river city in the Nation.
Situated at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers,
Sacramento has narrowly escaped certain disaster twice over the last
two decades. My number one priority as a Member of this body has always
been to put an end to this grave public safety risk and to provide my
constituents with the flood protection they both need and deserve. I am
happy to say this bill will do just that. In fact, in the eyes of
Sacramento, the passage of this bill is an historic moment.
A major flood along the American River would cripple this economy,
causing between $7 and $16 billion in direct property damages and
likely result in significant loss of life. The Sacramento floodplain is
home to half-a-million people, 5,000 businesses providing 200,000 jobs,
160,000 homes, 1,300 government facilities including the State Capital,
over 100 schools, six major hospitals, 26 nursing homes, three major
freeways systems, and a regional economy that supports over one million
people.
For almost as long as Sacramento has been at risk of a catastrophic
flood, there has been a dispute over how to resolve the issue. Earlier
this year, my colleague John Doolittle and I reached an agreement that
moves forward the two most pressing issues for Northern California:
flood control and water supply. This bill contains that agreement and
successfully addresses both of those issues for the indefinite future.
I would like to take a moment and recognize the tremendous efforts
that have made this possible. Without the leadership of Chairman Hobson
and Ranking Member Visclosky of the Energy and Water Appropriations
Subcommittee and Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Sacramento would still be
fighting for incremental flood control projects. Their recognition of
Sacramento's dire flood control situation advanced this solution. On
behalf of my constituents, thank you.
More specifically, this bill provides for the construction of the
Folsom Dam Mini-Raise. This is the crowning project in a series of
vital flood control improvements and surpasses the region's long held
goal of reaching 200-year level protection. By raising the existing
Folsom Dam seven feet, Sacramento's flood control system will be able
to weather a storm 50 percent larger than anything in the recorded
history of the watershed. In addition, the project provides a new
permanent bridge to replace the Folsom Dam Road, which was closed in
February due to security concerns, and for ecosystem restoration on the
lower American River. Congressional approval of the Mini-Raise benefits
the entire Sacramento region, by addressing not only the area's flood
control needs, but also ecosystem restoration, transportation issues
and Homeland Security needs.
I am grateful for the continued Federal assistance that Sacramento
has received throughout the years to bring us to this moment. That
commitment is evident in this bill and will ensure that those living
and working in the region will be kept out of harm's way.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
will be postponed.

____________________