[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 90 (Friday, June 25, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5084-H5119]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 694 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. 4614.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) as 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1032


                     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. 4614) making appropriations for energy and water development for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Upton (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, 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, this bill provides the annual funding for a wide range 
of Federal programs, including such diverse matters as flood control, 
navigation improvements, environmental restoration, nuclear waste 
disposal, advanced scientific research, maintenance of our nuclear 
stockpile, and nuclear nonproliferation. Total funding for the energy 
and water development in fiscal year 2005 is $27.988 billion. This 
funding amount represents an increase of $50 million over fiscal year 
2004 and $734 million over the President's budget request. The bill is 
right at our subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and provides adequate 
funds to meet the priority needs of the House.
  I believe we do some good things for the Nation in our bill. Members 
will not receive as many water earmarks as they might like, but we did 
take care of their top priorities. Instead of a steady regimen of pork, 
we try to put the corps back on a balanced diet. We hope that we can 
leave the corps civil works program in better shape than we found it, 
and I am confident the changes we make in this bill will have lasting 
positive effects. The same holds true for DOE.
  Lastly, I would like to thank all of the members of this subcommittee 
for their cooperation and especially thank my ranking member and 
partner, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). It has been a 
pleasure working with the gentleman and his staff on this bill, Dixon 
Butler and Peder Maarbjerg. I want also to thank the committee staff, 
Kevin Cook, Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, and Tracey LaTurner, as well 
as Kenny Kraft on my own staff. I also want to recognize our agency 
detailees, Tim Winchell and Jim Spratt. Their assistance was invaluable 
in putting this bill and report together. I think this is a good bill. 
We ought to pass it expeditiously.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to submit to the House for its 
consideration H.R. 4614, the 2005 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2005. The Appropriations Committee 
approved this bill unanimously on June 16th, and I believe it is a good 
bill that merits the support of the entire membership of the House.
  I want to thank all the members of the Energy and Water Development 
Subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the floor today. I 
especially want to thank my Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky of Indiana, 
for his extraordinary cooperation. This is truly a bipartisan bill--
that is not to say we agreed on every issue, but we did agree to work 
together in a professional manner to resolve our differences. I am 
proud of the product and equally proud of the process behind this bill. 
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 this bill forward in an expeditious manner.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide range of 
Federal programs, including such diverse matters as flood control, 
navigation improvements, environmental restoration, nuclear waste 
disposal, advanced scientific research, maintenance of our nuclear 
stockpile, and nuclear nonproliferation. Total funding for energy and 
water development in fiscal year 2005 is $27.988 billion. This funding 
amount represents an increase of $50 million over fiscal year 2004 and 
$734 million over the Presidents budget request. This bill is right at 
our subcommittee's 302(b) allocation, and provides adequate funds to 
meet the priority needs of the House.
  Title I of the bill provides funding for the Civil Works program of 
the Army Corps of Engineers, the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 
Action Program which is executed by the Corps, and the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The Committee 
recommends a total of $4.833 billion for Title I activities, $252 
million above the current year and $713 million above the budget 
request. That gives you an idea of how inadequate the budget request 
for the Corps really was. The Corps has been in an unhealthy situation 
the past couple of years because Congress has given them more work to 
do but not enough money to do it. This year, we were determined to 
correct that situation and put the Corps on the road to fiscal 
recovery. For a change, we have over-subscribed the Civil Works budget. 
We exercise restraint on the number of projects that we put on the 
Corps plate and we provide sufficient funds to get the work done. For 
the projects that we do fund in fiscal year 2005, we decided to 
concentrate on protecting existing water infrastructure and completing 
ongoing projects.
  This country has invested over $300 billion in current dollars in our 
existing water infrastructure, and this infrastructure provides over 
$38 billion in annual benefits to the economy. We can't afford to 
ignore the maintenance of this critical infrastructure. Imagine what 
would happen if we have to shut down part of our inland navigation 
system because one of the lock structures fails--the consequences to 
our economy would be enormous.
  Over recent years, we have created a huge backlog of work for the 
Corps. Existing projects take longer to complete and cost more. Let me 
give you just one example from my part of the country, the replacement 
of the McAlpine Lock on the Ohio River. Ideally, this lock replacement 
should take no more than 4 years to complete and should cost roughly 
$230 million. However, it will cost the taxpayer an additional 10 
percent for every year of additional delay on this project. We have to 
reverse that trend and finish what we started, and finish projects in a 
timely and cost-effective manner. We do not include any new project 
studies, new construction starts, or new project authorizations in our 
bill.
  We task the Corps to begin preparing 5-year budget plans, similar to 
what the Department of Defense prepares in its Future Years Defense 
Plans. This should provide some consistency and stability if Congress 
has a clear picture of the future Civil Works program. Also, the Office 
of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is now funded in 
our Energy and Water bill rather than in Defense appropriations.
  Title II of our bill provides $1.1 billion for the Department of 
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of $36 million 
above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and $46 million over 
the budget request. The Committee does not provide funding for the 
California Bay-Delta Restoration program in California pending the 
enactment of authorizing legislation, but includes funding for several 
authorized components of this program.

[[Page H5085]]

  The Department of Energy receives a total of $22.48 billion in our 
bill, an increase of $511 million over fiscal year 2004. As with the 
Corps, we task the Department of Energy to begin preparing 5-year 
budget plans, first for individual programs and then an integrated plan 
for the entire Department. This plan must include business plans for 
each of the DOE laboratories, so we understand the mission and resource 
needs of each laboratory.
  The Committee funds the Yucca Mountain repository at the 
Administration's net budget request of $131 million, and does not 
include the proposed authorization language to reclassify the fees paid 
into the Nuclear Waste Fund. As I have mentioned many times, OMB played 
Russian roulette when they assumed the House and Senate would pass the 
proposed reclassification language. By assuming the offset of $749 
million, OMB reduced the total request for discretionary spending by 
that amount. The House Budget Resolution reduced it even more. I don't 
like going forward with so little money for Yucca Mountain, but we are 
playing the hand that we were dealt. I remain supportive of the 
proposed reclassification language, and hope the efforts of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee to enact such legislation will be successful.
  For the Energy Supply account, which funds the Department's research 
on renewable energy, nuclear energy, and electricity transmission and 
distribution technologies, the Committee provides $817 million, an 
increase of $84 million over the current year by $18 million below the 
request. The Committee provides a modest increase of $51 million for 
the Office of Nuclear Energy, with a focus on improving the 
infrastructure at the Idaho National Laboratory. We reduced the funding 
for hydrogen research by $31 million below the request because the 
Department failed to comply with House and conference guidance 
regarding competition and cost sharing of hydrogen research.
  The Committee provides an increase of $168 million for the Office of 
Science to support research on an advanced leadership-class scientific 
computer and nanoscale science, and to increase the availability DOE 
user facilities to the scientific community.
  Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), is 
$9 billion, an increase of $372 million over fiscal year 2004 and a 
decrease of $22 million from the budget request. The Congress just 
received a plan that finally shows major reductions in our nuclear 
weapons stockpile. However, much of the DOE weapons complex is still 
sized to support a Cold War stockpile. The NNSA needs to take a ``time-
out'' on new initiatives until it completes a review of its weapons 
complex in relation to security needs, budget constraints, and this new 
stockpile plan.
  The Committee provides no funds for advanced concepts research, the 
robust nuclear earth penetrator study, the modern pit facility, and 
enhanced test readiness. Our bill does provide significant increases 
for weapons dismantlement, for consolidation of weapons-grade 
materials, and for security upgrades at several sites in the weapons 
complex. The Committee fully funds the National Ignition Facility (NIF) 
and directs the National Nuclear Security Administration to complete 
NIF by 2008 and conduct all necessary experimental work to support 
first ignition in 2010.
  For nuclear nonproliferation, the Committee provides the request of 
$1.35 billion. We reduce funding for the domestic MOX plant and spend 
the resources on other high-priority non-proliferation needs.
  The Committee provides the requested amount of $943 million for non-
defense environmental management, the same as the budget request. For 
defense environmental management activities, the Committee provides 
$6.9 billion, $301 million more than fiscal year 2004 and $65 million 
less than the budget request. The Committee does not provide the full 
request of $350 million for the Administration's high-level waste 
proposal for Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, and reduces the request 
by $77 million for two specific projects at the Savannah River Site. 
The Committee does not support partial solutions to the Waste 
Incidental to Reprocessing problem that do not address all of the 
affected States.
  Across the entire Department of Energy, the Committee fully funds the 
request of $1.4 billion for safeguards and security to protect 
sensitive materials, facilities, and information, and provide 
additional funds to address selected high-risk areas.
  Title IV of our bill provides $202 million for several Independent 
Agencies. The bill includes the requested funding for the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Board, the Delta Regional Authority, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission and its Inspector General, and the Nuclear Waste 
Technical Review Board. Reduced funding is provided for the Appalachian 
Regional Commission, and no funding for the Denali Commission or the 
Office of Inspector General for the Tennessee Valley Authority.
  I believe we do some good things for the Nation in our bill. Members 
won't receive as many water earmarks as they might like, but we did 
take care of their top priorities. Instead of a steady regimen of pork, 
we try to put the Corps back on a balanced diet. We hope that we can 
leave the Corps Civil Works program in better shape than we found it, 
and I am confident the changes we make in this bill will have lasting 
positive effects. The same holds true for DOE.
  Lastly, I would like to thank all of the Members of this Subcommittee 
for their cooperation, and especially thank my Ranking Member, Pete 
Visclosky. Pete, it has been a pleasure working with you and your 
minority staff, Dixon Butler and Peder Maarbjerg. I want to thank the 
Committee staff--Kevin Cook, Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, and Tracey 
LaTurner, as well as Kenny Kraft on my own staff. I also want to 
recognize our agency detailees, Tim Winchell and Jim Spratt. Their 
assistance was invaluable in putting this bill and report together.

[[Page H5086]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JN04.001



[[Page H5087]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JN04.002



[[Page H5088]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JN04.003



[[Page H5089]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I want to first of all congratulate the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hobson), as well, on a very well-crafted bill. I would start by 
thanking the chairman very much for his friendship as well as his 
fairness and discretion in his dedication to make sure that the right 
thing is done and that the agencies under our jurisdiction are made as 
efficient and as effective as possible.
  As the chairman noted, we have an excellent staff that works very, 
very well together and they have helped us craft a very good bill. I 
too want to enumerate them because they are all so very important to 
us: Tracey LaTurner; Tim Winchell; Jim Spratt; Kenny Kraft; Dennis 
Kern; Scott Burnison; Kevin Cook, whom, I might add, is a Cornell 
graduate and has replaced a Notre Dame graduate as clerk of the 
committee; Dixon Butler and Peder Maarbjerg.
  This is a very good bill. There are a lot of good things to recommend 
it to the membership.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Ohio, 
Chairman Hobson, for the courtesy shown to me and the Democratic staff 
by him and the majority staff of our Subcommittee. The positive 
environment and cooperation engendered makes work on this bill a joy 
and pleasure.
  I share with the Chairman the frustration that more cannot be done, 
particularly for the water and environmental infrastructure of our 
nation. The constraints imposed by the budget are very real. Our 
subcommittee mark increases funding for the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers above last year's level and well above the ridiculously low 
request of the President. That said, the level recommended for FY 2005 
is only 2.6% above that enacted by FY 2003; clearly this increase is 
below the level of inflation, so the buying power of the Corps-Civil 
Works budget is again below what it was two years ago.
  This bill puts a priority on completion of on-going construction 
projects and studies and maintenance of high priority existing 
infrastructure. It does not contain any new starts, and this should 
help to begin to clear the current backlog of projects and enable the 
accomplishment of these projects in less time--thereby reducing total 
project costs and accelerating the realization of benefits to our 
economy. However, current funding levels will not truly fix this 
problem. In my opinion, substantive increases to the budget of the 
Corps are needed--increases above the rate of inflation. A 
transformation in the way that water infrastructure and environmental 
restoration are supported through the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau 
of Reclamation will require a transforming rather than simply 
sustaining increase in the funds we provide. Without this, completion 
of construction and maintenance projects and studies will continue to 
take too long and major new projects will languish.
  There are those who have flirted with radical changes to our nation's 
approach to nuclear weapons--seeking to study new weapons for new 
missions and to develop a nuclear bunker buster. These same individuals 
have pushed to have this Nation prepare to resume underground nuclear 
testing within 18 months of a Presidential decision and to begin 
development of a major new facility to build plutonium pits--also 
referred to as nuclear triggers. All of these steps jeopardize our 
position in the world as advocates of restraint in the development of 
weapons of mass destruction. They all portend major increases in 
funding requirements. Today, conventional national defense and homeland 
security, including nuclear nonproliferation, are far better 
investments than enhancements to our nuclear deterrent. Under the 
leadership of Chairman Hobson, no funding is provided in the Energy and 
Water Development bill for any of these ill-considered policies.
  As many members realize, plutonium, highly enriched uranium and some 
highly radioactive products of nuclear fission in the hands of 
terrorists could pose major hazards to the United States and its 
allies. Accordingly, this bill fully funds the President's request of 
almost $1.35 billion for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation at DOE. Some 
elements of the DOE program are stalled while other opportunities have 
opened up to protect major quantities of fissionable material. 
Accordingly, I fully support the shifts in this bill of $177.25 million 
to priority targets for nonproliferation including: security of Russian 
Strategic Rocket Forces sites (+$32M), MegaPorts (+$30M), and efforts 
outside the Former Soviet Union (+$60M). Also, I am pleased to note 
that this year no reductions are taken to nuclear nonproliferation 
efforts due to uncosted prior year funds; this helps keep the pressure 
on to move aggressively to initiate new projects in Russia.
  Last year, in the first year that the gentleman from Ohio served as 
chairman of the subcommittee, the FY 2004 Energy and Water Development 
appropriation fenced some funds for advanced nuclear weapons concepts, 
specifying that $4 million could not be spent until the Administration 
provided a revised nuclear stockpile plan. Thanks to this action, the 
Departments of Defense and Energy have finally delivered a revised plan 
that details how the United States will achieve our treaty commitments 
to bring the number of deployed nuclear weapons down to the range of 
1,700 to 2,200 by the year 2012. The development of this plan is vital 
to our nation.
  Now, the spending plans of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration need to be brought into alignment with the revised 
nuclear stockpile plan. I am committed to working with the majority and 
DOE to bring this about. For FY 2005, the bill will fund the beginning 
of this process by providing support for an ongoing program of 
disassembly for nuclear weapons that are no longer needed. A smaller 
stockpile will be less expensive to maintain and certify while still 
providing a more-than-adequate nuclear deterrent.
  Experience shows that when the Department of Energy's labs are forced 
to compete with universities and other outside research groups, the 
country gets more for its money and the labs actually do better work. 
The Department has for some time asserted that open competition between 
its labs and external entities, such as universities, is not allowed 
under federal procurement law and regulations. I am particularly 
pleased that this year this bill instructs DOE to find a way to 
accomplish fully open competitions and to propose changes to law or 
regulation if any are needed. I note that DOE labs are already involved 
in space missions where traditionally competition for science 
investigations, including major research instruments, is open to NASA 
centers, DOE and other agency labs, universities ,and corporations, so 
DOE may find that this is easier than they have asserted in the past.
  As we in the Congress push the Administration to develop a five-year 
plan for DOE and business plans for each of its labs, we also should 
work to clarify the role of DOE in the life sciences. Our nation 
continues to make major investments in the National Institutes of 
Health, yet the DOE is seeking to develop major facilities to support 
research in protein synthesis and the control genes exert over 
processes in living cells. Many of these facilities involve the use of 
advanced physics techniques--a traditional strength of DOE. Does this 
traditional role in physics research mandate that DOE fund these 
facilities? Furthermore, does DOE's traditional role as the chief 
supporter of high energy physics mean that DOE should co-fund satellite 
missions in astronomy that are traditionally the responsibility of 
NASA? NSF supports astronomy of all kinds and has since its inception, 
yet it does not seek funding for satellite missions.
  This year, the bill again provides strong support to the Office of 
Science at DOE. This office is leading efforts to develop a U.S. 
supercomputer that will be the most capable in the world--a distinction 
currently held by the Japanese Earth Simulator. Last year, an extra $30 
million was provided to jump-start this effort. This year, the 
Department included this increase in its base budget, but this level of 
funding will not get the job done. So, again another increase of $30 
million is provided for this effort. DOE provides the science and 
industrial communities with powerful research tools. In the President's 
budget request, operating time on some of these user facilities would 
have been less than optimum. To get the most from our past investment 
in these facilities, funding levels are provided to increase the number 
of weeks they can operate in FY 2005. More support also is provided for 
nanoscale science and technology and maintenance of DOE science 
facilities around the nation.
  Long ago, our nation made a commitment to to use nuclear energy to 
power our submarines and aircraft carriers and to provide a significant 
amount of our commercial electricity generation. We have operated a 
nuclear weapons complex for about 60 years. The result is considerable 
amounts of high-level nuclear waste that is currently spread around our 
country. For our safety and that of coming generations, this waste 
needs proper, long-term burial. The Congress and the Executive have 
decided that this burial will be in Yucca Mountain on the edge of the 
Nevada Test Site.
  Funding for long-term disposal of high level nuclear waste in FY 2005 
should be $880 million, but OMB muddled the situation by needlessly 
proposing that the civilian support of $749 million be funded through a 
legislated reclassification of money paid into the nuclear waste fund 
and kept in the general treasury. This, along with the constraints of 
the budget, has left us unable to provide these funds in this bill. I 
find it hard to believe that a poorly timed proposal, which in no way 
affects the

[[Page H5090]]

actual deficit, will undermine a policy consensus carefully developed 
over decades, but that is where we are.
  So, I would say to my fellow members, the FY 2005 Energy and Water 
Development bill is a very good bill. It makes major progress on 
crucial issues. It provides for many activities that are critical to 
our nation and the world as well as to regions of our country and 
individual localities and member districts. I think it will give the 
House a strong position in our conference negotiations with the Senate. 
It does not fix all problems, but it provides for significant 
improvements. I strongly urge that it be passed by this House.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to first compliment 
Chairman Hobson for having done an outstanding job in preparing this 
bill along with his ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky). One can tell from the way the markups in the subcommittee 
and the full committee went that they obviously did their work very 
effectively and have produced a really good bill.
  I wanted to take just a couple of minutes to give the Members a bit 
of a status report on where we are with appropriations and what they 
can expect in the next couple of weeks. For example, from the time we 
received the President's budget request in February until we received 
the deeming resolution on the budget on May 19, the Committee on 
Appropriations and our 13 subcommittees held nearly 300 oversight 
hearings that were very lengthy and very thorough.
  Since May 19 when the budget was deemed, there have been 16 
legislative days. In those 16 legislative days, the committee marked up 
eight bills in subcommittee and seven bills in full committee. When we 
pass this bill today, we will have passed four bills in the House and 
sent them to the other body.
  When we reconvene the week after next, we will mark up two more bills 
in subcommittee, the District of Columbia and Military Construction 
bills. We will also consider Military Construction and Foreign 
Operations in the full committee. So we are preparing a queue of bills 
to move through the House. We expect to consider the Commerce-State-
Justice and the Legislative Branch appropriations bills in the House 
the very same week that we return and are doing the other markups. We 
also expect to appoint conferees on the Defense bill, which the House 
and Senate have passed. We are now preparing to go to conference on 
that bill. While the House is in the Fourth of July District Work 
Period, our staffs will be doing the preparation for the conference on 
the Defense bill. We plan to have that conference report completed and 
on the way to the President's desk before the August District Work 
Period begins.
  The Appropriations Committee will report all 13 bills from full 
committee before the beginning of the August District Work Period, and 
the House will probably complete work on as many as 11 of those bills. 
There are only 14 legislative days remaining before the summer recess 
in August, so we have to expedite the consideration of these bills. But 
the Appropriations Committee, once we had the deeming resolution on the 
budget, has been going full speed. We hope to pass this bill quickly 
today and be on our way.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, in May 2004 the General Accounting Office 
released a report entitled ``NRC Needs to More Aggressively and 
Comprehensively Resolve Issues Related to the Davis Besse Nuclear Power 
Plant's Shutdown.'' The report was requested by me, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), and Senator Voinovich. The scope of the report 
was to examine the failures of the NRC related to the recent troubles 
at the Davis Besse nuclear power plant.
  The report also examined options to improve the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's ability to effectively regulate. The report offers five 
important recommendations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that 
will greatly improve nuclear reactor safety. I would like to work with 
the chairman and the ranking member to include language in the 
conference report that directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to 
follow the recommendations found in the May 2004 General Accounting 
Office report.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's statement. I 
want to assure him that I will work with him to insert acceptable 
language into the Statement of Managers to accompany the conference 
report to encourage the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to address the 
recommendations found in the May 2004 General Accounting Office report.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for 
their assistance to resolve this matter.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the chairman of the 
subcommittee of the appropriations subcommittee in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for bringing a bill to 
the floor that is responsible and yet still attempts to address the 
many water-related infrastructure needs throughout the Nation. I am 
concerned, however, with the prohibition on any new starts in this 
bill, including new studies contained in title I of the bill. In the 
past 2 years, there has been severe flooding along the Wabash River in 
my congressional district. The Tippecanoe River and the Wabash River 
merge just above the greater Lafayette region. During the 2003 Labor 
Day weekend floods, more than 150 people were forced from their homes. 
During the more recent floods over the Memorial Day weekend, which were 
much more widespread, roads, culverts, bridges, and homes were 
significantly damaged.
  In both instances, the President declared the flooding a national 
disaster, making flood victims eligible for FEMA grants and loans. Thus 
far, over 240 families have applied for assistance after the 2004 
flooding. I had requested funding through the Army Corps of Engineers 
to assist in preparing a master plan for flood damage reduction and 
control associated with the Wabash River. This master plan would also 
help with economic redevelopment of the riverfront area of the greater 
Lafayette region affected by river flooding. Because of the new start 
prohibition, the funding is not included in this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the difficult budget pressures on the 
subcommittee, but I ask that the gentleman work with me to ensure that 
consideration is provided for this worthy endeavor in the future.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. The 
committee wrestled with the need to balance existing commitments of the 
Corps of Engineers with new projects such as the Wabash River study in 
Tippecanoe County. Unfortunately, we were not able to satisfy both 
demands.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), as well, for his dedication on trying to 
resolve this situation, helping his constituents, and also make note 
that he has also been in very close coordination with our office so 
that we can solve this problem. I do appreciate his very hard work on 
this.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding me this time. And I rise to thank the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Hobson) and the gentleman from

[[Page H5091]]

Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), ranking member, for their cooperation on the 
issue of the Delaware River deepening. We have many friendships in our 
Delaware River region. We have a friendly disagreement about what to do 
with this project. I believe this project is the wrong thing to do for 
the taxpayers. The GAO has told us that for every dollar that we invest 
as federal taxpayers, we would only get back 43 cents. I think the 
project is wrong for the environment.
  It will stir up potentially toxic substances on the bottom of the 
river and create an enormous disposal problem, and I think it is unfair 
the way the dredge spoils are going to be disposed.
  The committee has heard our concerns and placed into this bill a very 
minor amount of funds that permits us in the region to work out our 
differences. I continue to strongly oppose the project and want to 
thank the committee for its assistance in this matter. I also want to 
thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), who has been a 
strong and active voice against this project. He has stood firmly for 
the concerns of his constituents so they are not dumped on. He has been 
a very worthy ally, and I want the Record to reflect that I am very 
pleased with his assistance and very grateful for his assistance in 
this matter.
  I believe this is a wrongful use of federal taxpayers' funds. I 
appreciate the fact there was a need to put a very small amount in the 
bill to keep the discussion going, but I want to thank the committee.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Hobson) for agreeing to engage in a colloquy about the efforts by the 
Army Corps of Engineers to keep an invasive species of fish, the Asian 
Carp, from reaching the Great Lakes. Preying upon and competing with 
native species for food, living space, and spawning areas, these 
voracious fish grow to between 50 and 150 pounds, eat up to 40 percent 
of their body weight every day, and each female can carry up to a 
million eggs.
  If the Asian Carp reach Lake Michigan, they will devastate the 
ecosystem of the Great Lakes and endanger the multi-billion dollar 
commercial fishing industry.
  That is why the Army Corps of Engineers built on the Chicago Ship and 
Sanitary Canal an invisible, electronic fence that repulses fish. 
Becoming operational in April, 2002, and designed to function for only 
3 or 4 years, this demonstration barrier is fast approaching the end of 
its useful life. Only after the State of Illinois agreed to become the 
nonfederal sponsor was the Corps able to initiate the planning and 
construction of a permanent barrier. This permanent barrier is under 
construction right now.
  I wish I could say that these barriers are up and running and ready 
to halt the spread of the Asian Carp into Lake Michigan, but they are 
not. Why not? Because the Army Corps of Engineers lacks the necessary 
funding and authority. The Corps needs $500,000 to operate and maintain 
the original, temporary barrier until construction of the permanent 
barrier is complete and becomes fully operational. The Corps needs 
additional authority and $5.5 million to upgrade and make permanent the 
original temporary barrier to provide redundant protection and to 
continue repelling aquatic invasive species when the power fails or 
maintenance is needed.
  The Corps needs additional authority and $3.5 million to reimburse 
the State of Illinois and other interested parties that have or will 
contribute to this year's construction of the permanent barrier, which 
is arguably a national, if not international, project. The Corps needs 
another $500,000 to operate and maintain the permanent barrier so 
improvements can be made to the original, temporary barrier to make it 
permanent too.
  Finally, the Corps needs additional authority to operate and maintain 
at full federal expense both barriers as a system to maximize their 
effectiveness.
  Mr. Chairman, this additional authority and funding is urgently 
needed. Just last month the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spotted an 
Asian Carp in the Illinois River, just 21 miles away from the existing 
temporary barrier and 50 miles away from Lake Michigan. In 1 year 
alone, the Carp will travel the better part of 40 miles.
  I know that the chairman of the subcommittee represents part of a 
Great Lakes State. I hope that he shares my concern about the spread of 
this invasive species, and I hope he will do any and everything 
possible in conference to ensure that the Corps has the authority and 
the resources it needs to respond quickly to the threat of the fast-
approaching Asian Carp.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I do share the concerns of my colleague 
from Illinois. That is why I commit to her and the rest of our Great 
Lakes colleagues that I will work in conference, I am sure with my 
ranking member, to see that the Corps receives the funding and 
authority it needs to complete work on these barriers and have them up 
and running as soon as possible. I agree we need a permanent redundant 
protection against the spread of aquatic invasive species between the 
Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basins and the Federal Government 
should be responsible for the long-term operation and maintenance of 
this project of national and international significance.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his commitment, 
and I look forward to working with him to ensure that every precaution 
is taken to protect the Great Lakes from such a harmful species as the 
Asian Carp.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the ranking member and the 
chairman of the subcommittee for bringing this important legislation to 
the floor. And I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  First, let me say to my friend from Philadelphia that I understand 
his desire to have the Delaware River channel dredged for commerce 
reasons, particularly with the container ships getting larger, but as 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), who has been the leader on 
this issue for many years, has stated, it needs to be done in an 
economically sound and environmentally friendly manner.
  The proposal that is before us is, as the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews) has pointed out over the years, is not economically 
sound. The return to the taxpayers is not cost efficient. It does not 
make an awful lot of sense. The proposal also is not environmentally 
friendly. One of the proposals to take the dredged material out of the 
Delaware River and truck it or put it on rail and take it 100 miles 
northwest to my congressional district to the anthracite coal fields 
and dispose of it there.
  The Army Corps of Engineers should be sensitive to local concerns, 
whether that be in New Jersey or Delaware or the anthracite coal fields 
of Pennsylvania. And, quite frankly, the boroughs of Tamaqua and the 
boroughs of Coaldale in Schuylkill County do not want these dredged 
materials dumped in their backyard. They have been on record with that 
at their borough council meetings. They have gone to the State 
legislature. They have gone to the county commissioners.
  Also, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for this 
meager investment of $300,000. That, quite frankly, I believe, will 
stop this project and not allow it to go forward.
  So I again thank the chairman, I thank the ranking member, and I 
really want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for 
being the leader in this fight over the years.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) for his leadership on the committee and for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, in a few minutes, I am going to be offering a very 
important amendment to highlight an incredibly valuable program that 
affects the

[[Page H5092]]

Upper Mississippi River basin, the Environmental Management Program. It 
has been in existence since 1986. It deals with habitat restoration 
along the river, along with long-term resource monitoring so we can 
better manage the river basin and the ecosystem. I look forward to 
being able to continue the work on this important project with the 
chairman and the ranking member of the committee as we move to 
conference in dealing with the funding issue.
  But right now, Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize and draw attention 
in this Chamber to a very important and fun event that is going to 
occur in the Upper Mississippi River over the next week. It is the re-
creation of the Grand Excursion that occurred there 150 years ago. The 
Grand Excursion is regarded as one of the greatest promotional trips 
ever devised in our Nation's history, one that changed the face of the 
Upper Mississippi River forever. In 1854, the Chicago and Rock Island 
Railroad became the first railroad to reach the Mississippi River.
  To celebrate, the owners and contractors for the railroad proposed an 
excursion for a select group of stockholders, friends, and family. But 
word spread quickly about the occasion, resulting in a 1,200 person 
entourage traveling from Rock Island, Illinois, to what is now known as 
Minneapolis, Minnesota. It was the Grand Excursion of paddle boats up 
the Mississippi River.
  My district in Western Wisconsin has more miles along the Mississippi 
River than any other district and will play host to this excursion 
coming through our communities over the next week.
  According to the Chicago Tribune, the excursionists were considered 
``the most brilliant ever assembled in the West.'' Statesmen, 
historians, diplomats, poets, newspaper editors. As the media wrote 
home to their newspapers, word spread about the wonders of the Nation's 
``dark interior.''
  This event turned into an opportunity to show some of our Nation's 
most influential people the fantastic beauty, numerous resources, and 
the unlimited opportunities that the Mississippi River and the West 
could provide. The year after, steamboat traffic along the Upper 
Mississippi River doubled, flooding the region with new settlers. The 
Grand Excursion also brought millions of dollars of investment to the 
area and positioned the Upper Mississippi region as a dominant force in 
the development of the Nation in the 19th Century.
  The Grand Excursion of 2004 is an opportunity now to draw awareness 
from around the Nation and around the world about the recreational, the 
commercial, and the environmental opportunities that the Mississippi 
River and all its communities provide. In addition to the ``Grand 
Flotilla,'' the retracing of the Grand Excursion's journey by trains, 
paddlewheelers, and steamboats, over 50 communities along the 419 mile 
route will hold festivals and educational events to commemorate their 
150th anniversary. Those who are unable to participate firsthand in the 
celebrations will be able to experience the excitement through the 
dynamic Web site that has been created.
  I wish the participants of the Grand Excursion much fun and success 
in the upcoming week.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for yielding me this time.
  While we do not agree on the issue that I will be speaking on, he is 
a very good friend and a very good Member of Congress, and I appreciate 
his courtesy today.
  I would like to begin by thanking the Committee on Rules for not 
allowing language that would have allowed budget gimmicks to pay for 
the Yucca Mountain Project.
  I strongly oppose funding for the proposed Yucca Mountain Waste 
Repository. There is no single greater threat to the health and safety 
of Southern Nevada residents than the Bush administration's plan to 
dump high-level nuclear waste in the Silver State. The Nuclear Waste 
Technical Review Board, not a friend of the State of Nevada, has said 
that there is no question that canisters stored in Yucca Mountain will 
corrode, allowing deadly nuclear waste to escape and contaminate water 
supplies.
  Listen to the language of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. 
They said the canisters will leak and deposit thousands of tons of 
radioactivity into the groundwater at Yucca Mountain.
  Decades of scientific study have failed to answer even the most 
fundamental questions about Yucca Mountain's ability to withstand 
earthquakes, volcanic activity, and now perhaps more immediate 
coordinated terrorist assault.
  No plans have been put in place to address the risks that will be 
created by thousands of shipments of nuclear waste, traveling past 
schools, hospitals, churches, and through communities across 43 States 
in this country, across hundreds, literally hundreds, of congressional 
districts, to be buried in a hole in the Nevada desert. One terrorist 
strike or accident involving a load of high-level nuclear waste could 
seriously injure or kill those living nearby and cause millions of 
dollars of environmental damage.
  Who will pay for this damage? Who will pay for the loss of property? 
Who will pay for the environmental damage? Who will pay to clean up the 
spill? Who will pay for the loss of life?
  Fire and police departments are unequipped and untrained to deal with 
the hazards presented by nuclear waste, and no study has been completed 
to date on the vulnerability of shipments to a 9-11 terrorist-type 
attack.
  I would also remind my colleagues that despite the administration's 
approval of Yucca Mountain, a license to construct the repository has 
yet to be issued, and with close to 200 scientific and technical 
questions left unanswered, the project is in real danger of collapsing 
as a result of a long list of problems that have been identified and 
remain uncorrected.
  And if the Members want to have a chilling conversation, I invite 
them to speak to the representatives of the GAO, who did an exhaustive 
10-month study and determined that there are over 200 remaining 
scientific and technical problems to work out before this project can 
be approved.
  The State of Nevada has filed numerous lawsuits that are now pending 
in federal court which raise serious questions about the legality of 
DOE's design for the repository.

                              {time}  1100

  It is sloppy science. The State of Nevada would also like to recover 
the oversight funding stripped from the State of Nevada. So we do not 
even have the money to protect our own people.
  Rather than waste one more cent on this dangerous and ill-conceived 
project, it is time that we put the health and safety of all Americans 
above the profits of the nuclear industry. Transporting nuclear waste 
to Yucca Mountain will require decades of shipments that will leave our 
communities vulnerable to accident and will provide inviting targets 
for would-be terrorists.
  It is beyond comprehension that the Members of this body would accept 
this. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to reconsider their 
position and vote against this ridiculous, expensive, dangerous 
project.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Udall)
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding me time to discuss an issue of great importance to my 
constituents and to America's security. First, however, I want to offer 
my thanks to the chairman and the ranking member for their work and 
leadership on this bill.
  As many of my colleagues who have DOE facilities in their district 
know, there is a significant backlog of applications for employee 
security clearances, especially those known as Q clearances. Many 
qualified and capable trade workers are unable to start work on a 
timely basis or sometimes are not able to work for the national 
laboratories at all. That means the jobs important for our national 
security are not getting done. It also means that citizens living near 
the national laboratories are not afforded the economic opportunities 
that should be made available to them.
  Although I recognize the difficulties the investigative agencies face 
in processing security clearances in light of

[[Page H5093]]

September 11, the backlog has existed long since that tragic day, and 
this situation must be addressed.
  The DOE reports that Q clearance processes are taking at least twice 
as long as they should, and stories on the ground indicate that people 
are waiting over a year for a clearance that should be completed in no 
more than 75 days.
  I would like to clarify that the main reasons for the backlog exist 
not in DOE, but instead in the investigative agencies responsible for 
doing the background checks. Regardless, it impacts DOE directly, so 
Congress may choose to try to solve this problem through the energy and 
water spending bill. For example, perhaps we need to direct more funds 
towards programs such as the little known Accelerated Access 
Authorization Program, or the ``Triple-A P.'' This program offers 
qualified applicants the opportunity to get an interim Q clearance and 
get to work while their full clearance is being processed. This program 
demonstrates that there are innovative solutions out there. But 
obviously the small numbers of workers that are able to process this 
will only scratch the surface.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that the chairman and ranking member are willing 
to work with me to find solutions on this serious problem.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the vice chairman of our committee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman, and I appreciate very much his fielding it, for 
a clarification on some language in the report.
  Mr. Chairman, is it your understanding that the language under the 
fusion energy section of the report dealing with the additional funds 
for development of ``compact Stellarator Experiment'' should actually 
be ``experiments'' plural?
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for 
the clarification.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
and chairman for their work on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, let me raise an issue of concern for my constituents. I 
appreciate very much the funding for the Army Corps of Engineers, but 
let me express my disappointment that we have not been able to stretch 
the dollars to provide work on new projects. I am speaking particularly 
about Sims Bayou, Greens Bayou, White Oaks Bayou and Braes Bayou.
  More importantly, having worked on legislation dealing with inland 
flooding, I can tell you that we probably have now received more rain 
in this period of time in Houston and other regions than any other 
years. Flooding is a very serious issue in our community, and I would 
look forward to working with this appropriations subcommittee through 
conference to be able to provide some greater assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, might I also acknowledge my concern on the funding for 
nonproliferation in nuclear weapons. I wish we had been able to include 
more dollars in that area.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope to be able to work with this committee in its 
very fine work to increase the resources for these very important 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the chairman and ranking member 
of the Energy and Water Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee 
for their excellent work on crafting this bill. There are several 
elements of debate between the majority and the minority, and between 
the House and the administration, but in general it seems that fair 
compromises have been reached.
  The bill before us could have been improved by some incorporation of 
some of the good amendments offered by my colleagues from the minority 
side. Several of those were ruled out of order, but as we all know, 
when desired, points of order can be waived if true bipartisanship is 
desired by the majority. Those amendments could have made this Nation 
less dependent on foreign sources of fossile fuels, and could have 
improved fairness for consumers gouged by high energy costs. But there 
is much common ground reflected in the bill. I look forward to working 
with the chairman and the ranking member, to ensure that the funds 
provided in H.R. 4614 get to critical water supply and flood control 
programs in my district and around Texas.
  Such programs greatly enhance the lives and security of my 
constituents. I am pleased that the Appropriations Committee rejected 
the administration's proposal to cut water project construction by the 
Army Corps of Engineers, by eliminating $100 million and 41 current 
projects. I support the $4.8 billion provided for the Corps, 15 percent 
more than the President requested. This is a smart investment. I wish 
there could have been added funds for new projects. Obviously, the 
needs of this Nation change on a daily basis. Saying that this year, we 
will not start any new projects is a bit illogical. New projects are 
extremely efficient in job creation. There are many competitive 
projects across the Nation and in my district, which should have been 
provided for. However, at least this bill is not a step backward, like 
the administration requested. I commend the committee for their 
leadership on this issue.
  One portion of the bill I am concerned about is the underfunding of 
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), $21.5 million less 
than the president's request. I understand that some of this withheld 
money would have gone to the ``robust nuclear earth penetrator.'' I 
agree with the Committee that we need to think long and hard before we 
start creating new nuclear weapons, when we are pushing the rest of the 
world to put aside such implements of violence and destruction. We are 
being accused on every front of employing double standards: as we march 
to war and talk about peace in the Middle East; as we spurn our own 
neighbors in Cuba but ask people in the occupied territories or in 
Korea or in South Asia, to forgive and forget; as we talk about 
liberating people but allow tens of millions to die from HIV/AIDS in 
Africa. We do not need to further degrade our own standing as a beacon 
of liberty and justice by creating such violent and polluting weaponry 
now. So, I am glad that this bill does not provide for the nuclear 
earth penetrator. But, I hope we can all work together to ensure that 
other critical non-proliferation work done by the NNSA will be fully 
provided for in the years to come.
  Through my work on the Science Committee I have come to understand 
the amazing new technologies on the horizon that will decrease our 
reliance on foreign sources of fossil fuels, and help preserve our 
environment for generations to come. It is good to see that this bill 
has allotted $3.6 billion, 5 percent more than the administration 
requested, on Science programs. However, of the energy research out 
there, hydrogen fuels and fuel cells are some of the most promising 
areas that need to be developed. The Science Committee has encouraged 
strong support of these programs, and the administration also has 
recognized the value. But this appropriations bill provides for less 
than half of what the administration has requested for hydrogen 
technology research. I represent Houston, the energy capital of the 
world. I understand the needs of this Nation for ample and affordable 
energy. As gas prices are high, and we are realizing that we are buying 
too much from people we might rather not be so dependent on, it seems 
irresponsible to under-invest in these next-generation technologies. 
Perhaps this is something that can be re-visited in conference.
  Again I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on 
this bill. The lagging economy of the past 3 years, and huge deficits 
that have been created by our fiscal policies, have made budgets very 
tight. I wish this were not the case. But considering the box we are 
in, I believe our appropriators have done an admirable job here to fund 
important priorities and serve the Nation's energy and water needs.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and the 
chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to raise a concern and to support an amendment 
by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo). I am particularly 
concerned with recent developments in my home State of California, 
where consumers are being forced to repay over $270 million to Enron 
and other energy corporations amidst growing evidence of Enron and 
other energy companies' manipulative practices.
  The recent release of Enron tapes, where traders openly discuss a 
manipulation of California power markets to the tune of $1 million to 
$2 million a day, is unfair to all residents of California. Instead of 
FERC ordering refunds repaid by States, they should step in and 
investigate, so that western consumers may receive well-deserved 
refunds for poor service. FERC should also give the American people the 
right to view all documents related to energy market deception in 2000 
and 2001.
  Mr. Chairman, the administration continues to give billions of 
dollars in

[[Page H5094]]

tax breaks to special interest oil, gas and coal companies that are 
doing nothing to help lower fuel prices, instead of giving tax breaks, 
we need to provide everything possible to help consumers in our States 
and right the wrongs the energy crisis created. I am appalled and 
dismayed with the administration's coddling of special interests, while 
leaving taxpayers the task of having to foot the bills for years of 
wrongdoing by Enron and other corporations.
  The refunds my home State is forced to pay reward market manipulators 
for predatory pricing activities. As legislators we should punish, not 
reward, companies who have deceived our citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Eshoo amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding 
me time. I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Ohio (Chairman Hobson), the manager of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that the bill does not provide for any new 
investigations or other projects by the Corps of Engineers. However, as 
the chairman knows, last year's energy and water bill included $40,000 
for the Corps to proceed with a preliminary restoration plan for South 
Boulder Creek.
  After enactment of the appropriations bill, at the request and 
recommendation of the Corps, the project was moved from section 206 to 
programming as a General Investigation Study. The President's budget 
then proposed an additional $100,000 for this General Investigation 
Study. I regret that money for that purpose is not included in the bill 
because recent technical analysis shows that some 2,500 homes in the 
study area are subject to possible flood damage.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about how interruption of funding could 
affect this project and the people who live in the area.
  So, I would like to ask whether the chairman would be willing to work 
with me as the bill goes to conference to try to enable the Corps to do 
its work.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I will agree to work with the gentleman on 
this as the bill goes to conference, but I want to remind him, though I 
am sure this study deserves to proceed, the fact is that not all 
deserving new studies can go forward at the same time.
  It is one of the basic cornerstones of this bill that we tried to 
limit projects and studies until we finished some of the things we have 
already started. There has been a lot of criticism of the Corps that it 
does not get things done and costs get out of line. What we have tried 
to do is limit the new starts.
  But I want to assure the gentleman that should the door open and new 
studies in conference are available, we will take another look at the 
merits of the Boulder Creek study.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
chairman.
  I would like to ask the same question of the distinguished ranking 
member.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman I will join the 
chairman in reconsideration of this project if the opportunity presents 
itself.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed in my Republican 
colleagues on the Committee on Rules who did not allow the House to 
consider an effort to get refunds from Enron for our consumers. But, 
nonetheless, I want to rise to defend the Republican Vice President of 
the United States who this morning is taking some criticism and grief 
because he used some non-king's English on the floor of the Senate 
while discussing Halliburton.
  I wanted to put that in context, because, you know, that happens to 
people sometimes when they get angry. For instance, when my consumers 
open up their power billings in Snohomish County, Washington, and find 
out they have gone up 52 percent because Enron has stolen millions of 
dollars from them, sometimes they think, if not say, an expletive.
  Sometimes when people find out that millions of dollars were stolen 
from them, but FERC refused to lift a finger to help them get their 
money back, sometimes my constituents at least think for a moment of 
using something that is not in the dictionary.
  Sometimes when my constituents find out that this administration 
refused to lift a finger to help the West Coast as we were going down 
in flames, sometimes my constituents think about using language that is 
not acceptable in Sunday school.
  And sometimes when my constituents find out that when we went on a 
bipartisan basis to the vice president of the United States and begged 
him to help us solve this problem, because 32 percent of all the 
generating capacity was turned off at the moment that the stoplights 
were out in California, and he looked at us, and obviously someone was 
gaming the system, obviously the Enrons of the world were manipulating 
the system, obviously there were violations of Federal law, he looked 
at us and said, ``You know what your problem is? You just don't 
understand economics.''
  Well, we do understand economics. We just do not understand 
Enronomics, and we do not understand how this administration could turn 
its back on Americans.
  We should forgive the Vice President for his momentary lapse, but we 
should never forgive this administration for failing to stand up to 
Enron.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
to speak on this very important legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today with very great concern for the future of 
our beaches. Beach tourism contributes $260 billion to the United 
States economy every year. The administration's fiscal year 2005 
budget, unfortunately, cuts shore protection projects and studies by 
nearly 50 percent. Now, this includes canceling the Fire Island to 
Montauk Point Reformulation Study, a project that provides storm 
protection and beach erosion control along an 83-mile portion of Long 
Island's south shore.
  An estimated 11.3 million people visit Suffolk County's beaches every 
year. In Suffolk County alone, south shore beaches contribute $256 
million to the regional economy and thousands of jobs.
  The Fire Island to Montauk Point Study is over 4 decades old and $20 
million in the making. Completing this nearly completed study is a top 
concern for thousands of homeowners and beachgoers in my congressional 
district.
  This is like bringing the ball 99 yards downfield, putting it on the 
1 yard line, and walking away.
  The Army Corps of Engineers has recognized on Fire Island that it 
must work with different groups and associations, from homeowners' 
associations to environmental advocates. The Corps has utilized a 
process called project reformulation to build support among all 
agencies, governments and interest groups involved, and each of those 
groups recognizes that reaching an overall consensus is the best way to 
preserve this national treasure for future generations.
  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has agreed to work with the Senate 
Committee on Appropriations to ensure the continuation of the 
Reformulation Study.
  I want to express my very deep appreciation to the ranking member for 
his commitment to support the Fire Island to Montauk Point study in 
conference. As this legislation moves forward, I encourage all of my 
colleagues to continue working to protect our beaches and support a 
$260 billion contributor to our Nation's economy.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).

[[Page H5095]]

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, like many of my colleagues, I was 
disappointed that the Republican majority would not accept the Eshoo 
amendment to even be offered to the Members of the House as we had 
requested of the Committee on Rules. This will certainly come as a 
disappointment to Western families.
  As everyone knows, in the year 2000 and 2001, energy companies like 
Enron ruthlessly gouged Nevada, California, Washington and Oregon. Yet 
for too long, this administration and the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission tried to hide this reality from Congress and the public.
  In fact, energy Secretary Spencer Abraham dismissed the whole matter 
as a myth. Vice President Cheney met with all of us and said it is 
overzealous environmental laws that are causing this problem. He did 
not tell us that at the same time he was meeting with Enron officials 
in the capacity as chairman of his energy committee, and he would not 
tell us who else he met with, because now even the Supreme Court has 
allowed him to continue without disclosing that information for a 
while.
  Price gouging occurred in both 2000 and 2001. Yet FERC has said it 
only intends to grant refunds for gouging that occurred in October 2000 
and thereafter.
  The Eshoo amendment would have required FERC to issue refunds 
whenever the gouging occurred, whether the misconduct occurred before 
or after October 2000.
  This is only common sense. A law breaker is a law breaker regardless 
of when the law is broken, and the people who have lost their funds and 
demand a refund as a result of this manipulation are entitled to it.
  Without the Eshoo amendment, FERC will continue to settle cases 
behind closed doors for only pennies on the dollar. Without the Eshoo 
amendment, Western families stand to lose billions of dollars in 
legitimate refunds.
  However, today, the House is going to agree unanimously to a small 
part of the Eshoo amendment, and that is to require FERC to turn over 
and reveal the documents and other evidence that they have about the 
misdeeds of Enron and other energy companies.
  This is a positive step, but the real test will come to see whether 
the Republican majority will make sure that FERC now lives up to this 
directive. I am disappointed we did not go further. This is a small 
step forward, but the point that I want to underscore is that justice 
is not being done.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Ose) such time as he may consume.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), 
and I thank the chairman.
  I find it interesting to come to the floor today virtually 3 years on 
to discuss the issue of energy in California. Frankly, I have spent my 
entire chairmanship on the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural 
Resources and Regulatory Affairs dealing with energy issues, in 
particular the California issue.
  We have heard a lot of talk about certain companies manipulating 
market behavior, and the transcripts clearly indicate that that is the 
case. The question that we ought to ask is what were the precursor 
conditions that led to that. I think that is a fair question. I mean, 
instead of treating the symptoms, let us treat the root cause of the 
issue; and the fact of the matter is that for all the complaints that 
might be registered against the current administration, the same 
requests being registered with them were registered with the previous 
administration. And in accordance with the law, the previous 
administration said there is not a thing we could do.
  Go back and check the record. I encourage you to do that. Go back and 
see how many requests were made of the Clinton-Gore administration to 
intervene on this issue, and you will find that Clinton-Gore routinely 
and regularly said the law is very clear, and we cannot intervene. And 
the law has not changed. The law has not changed in terms of how FERC 
can intervene on these things. I think that is an important point to 
make. So if you are going to complain about how the law is interpreted, 
perhaps we ought to first look at the law itself and change that.
  Now, the second thing is that in California there is this interesting 
mix in terms of how the energy markets are regulated. And California 
being kind of like the big market in the entire United States, the 
consequences of how the market in California operates have 
ramifications for Oregon and Washington, Nevada and Arizona and the 
rest of the country.
  Well, in California the ability to build new plants or price the 
product is controlled by what is called the Public Utilities 
Commission, and in California at the very onset of this electricity 
crisis, a request was made of the Governor to ask the Public Utilities 
Commission to provide the investor-owned utilities, PG&E and Southern 
California Edison and Sempra in San Diego, the ability to forward 
contract for delivery of power.
  There is a letter on record sent from the assembly Republicans to the 
Governor asking him to exercise his authority over the PUC and get this 
forward contracting ability in place. And you know what the Governor 
did? The Governor never responded. He did nothing.
  The consequence of that is that the investor-owned utilities were 
left defenseless. Under a set of rules adopted unanimously by the 
California legislature, that effectively forced them into the day ahead 
of market. In other words, they had to go into the market no more than 
24 hours ahead of time and buy the power for their customers. Now, 
think about that. Do you buy your mortgage 24 hours ahead of the time 
when you occupy your house? No, you do not. Do you buy your gasoline or 
your food or your health care insurance, do you buy that 24 hours ahead 
of the time when you need it? No, you do not, because the price is not 
going to be very favorable. And yet the structure in which the 
California Public Utilities Commission set this up was such as to be 
self-defeating, and to now come forward 3 years on and complain about 
the circumstances that existed in California is somewhat interesting to 
me at best.
  Now, there is a demand and supply imbalance in California. The demand 
and supply imbalance in California has ramifications for the folks in 
Oregon and for the folks in Nevada and for the folks in Arizona and 
Washington, because the demand in California is so great that we will 
suck up every kilowatt of power that is anywhere in the market. We will 
not let our families and our factories go quiet or be without power, 
and the price will act accordingly.
  Now, there was a proposal that I put forward to allow FERC to 
immediately assess the impact of inappropriate behavior, rather than 
waiting for 60 days. I got no cosponsors from that side of the aisle 
for that. There is a proposal I put forward that eventually led FERC to 
a solution in terms of the pricing imbalance in California that allowed 
FERC to set overall prices in the marketplace at the last marginal 
pricing unit. I not only did not get any cosponsors from that side of 
the aisle; I got attacked from that side of the aisle. And now I find, 
interestingly enough, that is exactly the proposal my Democrat 
colleagues all are putting forward.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot solve these problems by snapping our fingers. 
These are not things that get solved 24 hours beforehand. We can no 
more solve this problem in 24 hours' time than we can reasonably expect 
investor-owned utilities in California or anywhere else to be able to 
meet their power demand in a 24-hour-ahead market. We cannot do it. We 
have to plan ahead.
  Now, to come out here 3 years on and beat your chests about the 
behavior of the current administration, which is exactly the same as 
the behavior of the previous administration that you all refused to 
hold accountable, I mean, that is just unacceptable. Now, you can go on 
and do it, but the facts of the matter speak very loudly.
  I invite you, and I have invited you, to look at the bills that I 
have put forward. I have been harangued by some of you; and upon 
examination, you have not even read the bills that I have put forward 
to try and solve this problem. I invite you to come help us. We are 
looking for partners to solve this thing.
  There are three legs to this solution. The first is the PUC, which 
has yet, has yet to adopt the regulation in allowing

[[Page H5096]]

investor-owned utilities to contract for forward delivery of power. 
That is the first leg. The second leg is to allow the construction of 
new facilities instead of defending these dinosaur facilities that are 
high-polluting, using coal, or oil, or diesel for power generation; the 
second leg of this is to allow new technology to come to the market. 
But you stand over there and you object to everything. You stand there 
like Horatio at the pass, and you will not let us into the Valley of 
Solutions.
  I ask you to stand next to us, not in front of us objecting or 
preventing us to move forward. I will tell my colleagues why. Because 
the facilities we can bring on line today with new technology, created 
in California, perfected in California will allow us to generate power 
with less adverse impact on the environment at lower price, at a higher 
efficiency. It is unfathomable to me, after 5\1/2\ years, the last 3\1/
2\ years of which I have been chairman of a subcommittee, to find that 
my friends who happen to live in California with me are only now coming 
to look at this solution. And the path of solution that they propose is 
to beat their chests, attacking an administration which did exactly the 
same thing as the previous one.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues in California to look at these 
solutions. We need to give these investor-owned utilities the ability 
to forward-contract for power. That is a huge step in the right 
direction. We need to create the new facilities that use natural gas 
and far less polluting carbon-based power sources to provide us the 
energy for our homes and our factories. We need to find a way where we 
can talk sensibly about a market-based solution.
  My Democrat colleagues cannot come down here and beat their chests in 
2004 because it is a Presidential election year and try and rewrite 
history. Governor Davis tried that, and now he is writing his memoirs. 
That is just the fact. I am not interested in you guys writing your 
memoirs. I am interested in you joining with us to find solutions. That 
is what this is all about.
  I am not going to be here a year from now. You all are going to have 
this in your lap, and you are going to have to deal with it. I am going 
to be out in California dealing with the consequences. But I ask you to 
please focus on solutions.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson), he 
has been a mentor of mine and he has done heavy lifting across this 
country on energy issues, and I thank him.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) has 2 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hobson) has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for 
yielding me this time.
  Since my friend from California would not yield any time, I just 
would like to set this down for the record. The amendment relative to 
the previous question this morning had solutions in it. We are now in 
the year 2004. We do not need any more debates about the markets. The 
energy companies have essentially signed confession slips on this. So 
let us not go back to 1999. We now have evidence.
  That is why we are saying the FERC should order refunds. The 
gentleman, by voting for the previous question, he turned down the 
solution of refunds. Let us make that very clear here this morning.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my opposition to the 
funding of the Yucca Mountain project in the Fiscal Year 2005 Energy 
and Water Appropriations Bill. As you know, the Yucca Mountain issue 
has for over two decades been of intense personal interest to me and my 
Nevada constituents.
  Currently, the Yucca Mountain project is being fought in the halls of 
justice, and no more tax dollars should be allocated to this project 
until the courts have provided their input which I believe will be 
favorable for Nevada. Furthermore, nearly 200 key scientific questions 
remain unanswered by the Department of Energy and the facility has yet 
to obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. At a time 
when the project is facing potentially insurmountable licensing 
obstacles, why would we want to spend another dime on this ill-thought 
plan?
  Any assessment of Yucca Mountain's suitability as the national 
nuclear waste repository must look at the feasibility of transporting 
waste to the site. Taking 70,000 metric tons of dangerous radioactive 
nuclear waste, removing it from reactor sites around the country, and 
putting it on trucks and trains and barges, and moving it through 
cities, towns and waterways across America is a disastrous scheme. This 
highly hazardous material will ultimately travel through 43 States and 
pass by more than 50 million Americans who live within 1 mile of the 
proposed transportation routes.
  As many of you are aware, a GAO report concluded that the risk of an 
accident during nuclear waste transport is low and that even if an 
accident or terrorist attack were to occur, the potential for 
widespread harm is low. However, the GAO characterizes irradiated 
nuclear fuel as ``one of the most hazardous materials made by man'' and 
recommends that shipments be minimized.
  Mr. Chairman, it's just not worth the risk to transport 70,000 metric 
tons of nuclear waste across our nation. Even with Yucca Mountain, 
there will continue to be nuclear waste stored at all operating reactor 
sites. All of this is completely unnecessary. Nuclear utilities can and 
do store waste safely on site at reactors. In fact, the very same 
storage technology that is planned to be used at Yucca Mountain is 
currently used at reactor sites around the country. No reactor in the 
United States has ever closed for lack of storage.
  As a legislator, like all of you, I need to be fully informed about 
the effects legislation and issues will have on my constituents. The 
multiple risks associated with transporting large volumes of nuclear 
waste over long distances to Nevada cannot be justified. You are being 
asked to risk the health and safety of your constituents for a scheme 
that will leave this country looking for another nuclear waste storage 
in the decades to come.
  At the end of the day, all Yucca Mountain will do is create one more 
large storage facility and millions of new security threats, one for 
every road, rail, and water mile this waste will travel along. On 
September 11, we witnessed the single-most horrific event in our 
nation's history. Instantly we became all too aware of our country's 
vulnerability to threats from outside our borders. Transporting tens of 
thousands of tons of nuclear waste across the country was not a good 
idea before September 11, and it's certainly not a good idea now. We 
had never thought of a fully fueled passenger plane as a weapon. Let's 
not make the same mistake with the trucks, trains, and barges that will 
be transporting nuclear waste.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 4614, the Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, which 
contains funding for four important dredging projects in my district.
  The maritime industry in Connecticut has enormous potential and these 
projects play pivotal roles in that industry.
  With these much-needed funds, the Army Corps of Engineers will be 
able to advance dredging projects in Bridgeport, Norwalk and Southport 
Harbors, as well as Mill River in Stamford, ensuring our ports remain 
viable for recreation and commerce.
  Long Island Sound is a valuable resource to our state both 
environmentally and economically--providing a watershed for 10 percent 
of the American population and contributing $6 billion annually to the 
regional economy--and it is critical we treat it well. Dredging is 
necessary to maintain the Sound's safe navigation and long-term 
viability and vitality.
  In Bridgeport, the funds will support efforts to find an 
environmentally sound disposal method for toxic sediment in Bridgeport 
Harbor. The harbor has not been dredged for 40 years due to 
contaminants in the dredged material that would be unsuitable for 
disposal in open water and the result is a shallow harbor, which 
restricts commercial viability.
  In Norwalk, the money will allow the Army Corps of Engineers to 
complete the necessary planning to begin dredging Norwalk Harbor. 
Norwalk Harbor Federal Navigation Project has not been maintained since 
1981. The channel's depths have become so low that the passage of 
commercial and recreational vessels is restricted to the point that 
public safety and the viability of water-dependent businesses have been 
adversely affected.
  The funding for Southport will be used to dredge Southport Harbor, 
which has long served as a center of boating activity in western Long 
Island Sound and as a vital centerpiece of a historic district included 
on the National Register of Historic Places. The Southport Harbor FNP 
has not been maintained since 1962 and consequently the navigability is 
restricted by shoaling in a number of locations.
  In Stamford, the funding will be used for a design project to address 
ecosystem restoration, sedimentation, and dredging issues at the Mill 
River. The Mill River ecosystem has been severely degraded by years of 
polluted urban runoff, thwarting public enjoyment of the resource and 
threatening its natural values. The funding will assist a multi-year 
effort to restore the shoreline and aquatic ecosystem of the

[[Page H5097]]

Mill River, acquire and preserve shoreline properties, reduce polluted 
urban runoff into the Long Island Sound, foster commercial and ferry 
navigation, and create public recreational facilities and other mixed-
used development.
  Bridgeport, Norwalk, Southport and Stamford desperately need this 
money to continue, or complete, essential dredging projects that will 
help alleviate the state's transportation issues while benefiting our 
state's economy and mitigating air pollution. I am grateful these 
critical funds are included in H.R. 4614 and am hopeful the House will 
approve the bill today.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address H.R. 4614, 
the FY05 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Although I am pleased 
that this legislation includes funding for a number of important water 
projects in my district, including the Blue River Channel, Blue River 
Basin, Swope Park Industrial Area, Brush Creek Basin, Seven River 
Levees, and the Missouri Riverfront Habitat Restoration, I continue to 
have serious concerns about the overall level of funding in this 
legislation.
  In particular, today's legislation provides only 3% more funding for 
critical energy and water projects than was provided in FY04. This is 
barely enough to account for the rate of inflation. Because of this 
shortage of funding, H.R. 4614 does not include any funding for new 
projects or studies, leaving us unprepared to properly respond to new 
flood control emergencies. In my own district, $100,000 is urgently 
needed to begin addressing critical flood and stormwater control issues 
surrounding the Little Blue River watershed in Jackson County, 
Missouri. Rapid growth in this area has created numerous flood control 
and storm drainage challenges for communities throughout my district. 
Left unaddressed, these flood threats could cost local communities and 
businesses millions of dollars. We need to act now to adequately 
investigate and plan for these developing challenges. Delaying action 
will only force more expensive intervention at a later date. I hope 
that Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky will work with our 
colleagues in the Senate to ensure that these issues and other emerging 
flood threats are properly addressed in Conference.
  This legislation also fails to address our renewable energy needs. 
The bill provides only $343 million for renewable energy programs, $31 
million less than the administration requested. During a time when 
energy prices are soaring, we must remain committed to investments in 
long term renewable energy alternatives. In my own district, we have 
had great success encouraging the use of biodiesel as an alternative to 
dirtier, non-renewable fuel sources. We need to continue our commitment 
to this important initiative.
  Finally, I am very concerned that this legislation fails to guarantee 
adequate funding for the Yucca Mountain Project. Specifically, I am 
alarmed that funding does not exist to ensure that all transportation 
routes to the mountain are as secure as possible. Missouri is a 
railroad and interstate hub. Given the likelihood that a majority of 
waste from east of the Mississippi River will be transported through 
Missouri, it is downright frightening to think of the consequences if 
we do not properly fund the secure transport of this waste. It is my 
understanding that the Office of Management and Budget has the ability 
to secure the additional funding for this project. I am hopeful that 
they will take on this responsibility or that additional funds will be 
found in Conference.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, it is with regret that I come to the floor 
today in opposition to this legislation--H.R. 4614, the Fiscal 2005 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Unfortunately, this bill Fails to 
adequately address America's future energy needs.
  I realize H.R. 4614 is about more than just energy, and it does 
contain some good provisions. There is funding for important flood 
control projects, scientific research, nuclear non-proliferation 
programs, and environmental cleanup.
  But this legislation falls well short in the realm of energy, 
especially in this time of tight energy supplies and volatile energy 
prices. The most glaring shortfall is that it provides only 14 percent 
of the amount requested for construction of the nuclear waste facility 
at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The administration has stated that the Yucca 
Mountain facility will need to have about $1.3 billion a year if it is 
to meet the 2010 deadline for opening. This bill appropriates only $131 
million for fiscal 2005.
  Yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, on which I sit, 
overwhelmingly approved legislation introduced by Chairman Joe Barton 
(H.R. 3981) that would dedicate the next 5 years of receipts in the 
Nuclear Waste Fund to the construction of the Yucca Mountain facility, 
keeping the project on schedule. The Barton bill would also ensure that 
the fund would be used only for Yucca Mountain and not diverted by 
appropriators for other purposes.
  Chairman Barton's legislation should have been attached to H.R. 4614. 
That was not permitted, and now this energy and water bill risks 
delaying the Yucca Mountain project--22 years after Congress first 
called for the creation of a single, secure repository for the Nation's 
spent nuclear fuel. Furthermore, it casts doubt on the growth of 
nuclear power, the cleanest, most abundant form of energy America has 
today.
  My state of Nebraska is home to two nuclear power plants that provide 
almost a third of the electricity produced in our state. To date, 
Nebraskans have paid more than $216 million into the Nuclear Waste 
Fund. Yet our public power utilities are being forced to build 
additional storage space for spent fuel because we are still without a 
national repository. In fairness to the ratepayers, we must keep the 
Yucca Mountain project on track for completion by 2010.
  The Yucca project is also essential to our security concerns. Today, 
50,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel are scattered across the country, at 
131 sites in 39 stated--including Nebraska. Oftentimes, these storage 
sites are near major cities and waterways.
  Billions of dollars from U.S. electric consumers have already been 
invested in Yucca Mountain. It is the most suitable location for this 
repository. And with today's tough environmental standards and surging 
demand for electric power, nuclear energy must continue to play a 
substantial role in the Nation's energy portfolio. The bill on the 
floor today fails to recognize this.
  I want to make it clear that I have objections to this bill beyond 
the funding for Yucca Mountain.
  Under H.R. 4614, renewable energy resources are shortchanged by $31.5 
million, about 9 percent less than the President's request. I am 
especially disappointed that the bill provides less than half of what 
the President wanted for hydrogen technology research, about $31 
million (48 percent) under the requested amount.
  Funding for hydropower is $1 million (20 percent) under the 
administration's request. And the measure provides $15.5 million (20 
percent) less than requested for the Office of Electricity Transmission 
and Distribution, the newest division of the Department of Energy, 
which is leading efforts nationwide to modernize and expand our 
electric delivery system.
  It seems the appropriators chose to ignore the energy challenge 
facing our Nation. Or maybe they simply forgot that America today 
imports 60 percent of its oil supply; that gasoline prices are hovering 
around $2; that natural gas supplies are at an all time low; and that 
just 10 months ago, the worst blackout in our history left a quarter of 
the country in the dark.
  Still, appropriators managed to spend $28 billion in this 
legislation--about $50 million more than the President's request. H.R. 
4614 is yet another example of what happens when the appropriators 
ignore their colleagues who sit on the authorizing committees, hold 
hearings, conduct oversight, and produce thoughtful legislation. In 
failing to address the Yucca Mountain issue today, appropriators have 
essentially overlooked the hard work of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Congress must address the Nation's outdated energy infrastructure. As 
a father of three young children and as a Member of this chamber who 
has long pushed for a modernized energy policy, I cannot in god 
conscience vote for this legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
legislation. Given difficult budget choices, and an egregious 
Administration budget proposal for the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
Chair and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee have done their best to 
craft a good bill.
  I am particularly pleased that this legislation adequately funds our 
country's national labs. In this time of budget cuts, we cannot forget 
that basic science is a building block for scientific innovation and 
economic growth in the information age. Under this budget, Brookhaven 
Lab, which is located in my district, will continue to make great 
contributions in the areas of nuclear physics, structural biology, 
environmental research and nonproliferation.
  This bill also adequately funds environmental cleanup efforts at the 
Lab vital to the health and safety of residents on the East End of Long 
Island. I am grateful to the Chair and Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee for attending to these vital needs.
  I am concerned, however, with one particular project in this bill of 
vital importance to the south shore of Long Island. The Fire Island to 
Montauk Point Reformulation study--which covers an 83 mile stretch of 
Southern Long Island--has been underway for decades at a cost of more 
than $20 million. Unfortunately, this bill contains no funding to 
continue this study.
  I understand, however, that the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee is 
committed to work with me and my Long Island colleagues in conference, 
to protect any funding included

[[Page H5098]]

in the Senate bill for this study. I look forward to the successful and 
timely completion of this project, and I again thank the Chair and 
Ranking Member for their cooperation and good work.
  Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky), the ranking minority member, for the leadership they 
have provided in putting together this legislation to fund important 
programs like the Army Corps of Engineers, Dallas Floodway Extension 
and for continued work on a study of flood control on the Upper 
Trinity.
  I support the fiscal year 2005 Energy and Water development 
appropriation measure.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1998, the voters of Dallas approved the largest bond 
issue in the City's history, $246 million, to make improvements to the 
Trinity River Corridor. There are many aspects to these projects, 
including transportation, recreation, and economic development. But at 
its heart, the Trinity River Corridor is about flood control. It is 
about protecting homes, businesses, people, and property. The flood 
control protection currently afforded to the City and its residents is 
simply no longer adequate.
  Urban development and growth patterns have occurred that require 
improvements and extensions to the existing flood control system. These 
improvements and extensions must be designed, engineered, and 
constructed in a manner that will not only improve flood control 
protection for the City and its residents, but will do so in a manner 
that is sensitive to our other needs.
  We must improve flood protection, but we need to be certain that such 
flood protection infrastructure also enhances our quality of life. The 
legislation before us includes funding to help assure that the quality 
of life of the people of Dallas, and our economic vitality, are indeed 
improved.
  This legislation includes $10 million for the construction of the 
Dallas Floodway Extension. This will consist of a chain of flood 
conveyance wetlands and a system of protective levees that will enhance 
the security of 12,500 structures in the Dallas area.
  While I recognize the difficult constraints the Committee worked 
under in developing this legislation, and appreciate the funding 
included, I also know it is imperative to the public health and safety 
of the people of Dallas that this project proceed as quickly as 
possible.
  With that in mind, I do wish to note that it will be my intent to try 
and secure a total of $20 million for this project; an amount 
consistent with the capability that the Corps has expressed for 2005.
  This legislation contains $1.3 million for continued work on a study 
of flood control on the Upper Trinity as well as additional flood 
control improvements to the existing Dallas Floodway. This is such an 
exciting project that should include the development of two flood 
conveyance lakes within the floodway, along with new wetlands, river 
meandering, and boardwalks that will serve to unite the City and bring 
families to the levees, which currently have the impact of, literally 
dividing our communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the bipartisan effort that went into the 
drafting of this legislation, commend that effort as a model for the 
way in which this Chamber ought to routinely work, and urge the support 
of all our colleagues for passage of H.R. 4614.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of this 
legislation, but as chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on 
Armed Services, I must express my concerns about some of the funding 
levels for important National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 
programs that are authorized within my subcommittee. The Fiscal Year 
2005 Energy and Water Appropriations bill provides no funds for the 
robust nuclear earth penetrator (RNEP), advanced concepts, modern pit 
facility, nor enhanced test readiness. The Fiscal Year 2005 National 
Defense Authorization bill, which passed this House overwhelmingly just 
weeks ago, fully funded the President's request for these important 
initiatives. Furthermore, this elimination of funding for these 
programs jeopardizes our country's ability to respond to future 
national security threats, as pointed out in the Statement of 
Administration Policy. I now include that complete Statement of 
Administration in this Record.
  Of particular concern to me is the $27.6 million authorized in the 
House-passed bill for RNEP would support the Air Force-led study 
concerning the feasibility of modifying an existing nuclear weapon to 
destroy what are known as hardened and deeply buried targets. It has 
long been recognized that these hardened targets are increasingly being 
used by potential adversaries to conceal and protect leadership, 
command and control, weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic 
missiles. I believe it is imperative that we finish this review as part 
of a larger effort to ensure that we further our technological edge.
  Critics of RNEP say that they are not convinced that this money will 
only fund a study. This simply is not the case. This funding does not 
authorize the production of any weapons. In fact, Section 3117 of 
Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 108-
136) clearly states and I quote, ``The Secretary of Energy may not 
commence the engineering development phase (phase 6.3) of the nuclear 
weapons development process, or any subsequent phase, of a Robust 
Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapon unless specifically authorized by 
Congress.''
  Opponents also point to the NNSA Future Years Security Plan inclusion 
of $484.7 million for RNEP in the future. This budget estimation is 
required by congressional direction, and represents a placeholder 
should Congress and the President decide to go any further than a 
study. Without the placeholders by both NNSA and the Department of 
Defense (DoD) in the out year budgets, if authorized, the start of the 
RNEP's next phase would be delayed until funding was appropriated. This 
would nullify the schedule and cost estimates and require the costing 
and schedule to be redone causing additional taxpayer cost. Moreover, 
by the statute cited earlier, these funds could not be used for 
anything other than basic research without subsequent approval by 
Congress.
  Although I plan to support this legislation, as chairman of the 
subcommittee of jurisdiction, I felt it necessary to set the record 
straight concerning this program, and I am hopeful that the House/
Senate conference will provide a reasonable level of funding for these 
programs.

                   Statement of Administration Policy

       The Administration supports House passage of the FY 2005 
     Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill.
       The President supports a discretionary spending total of 
     not more than $819 billion, in addition to the $2.5 billion 
     in advance appropriations for Project BioShield, consistent 
     with his FY 2005 Budget. The President's Budget 
     responsibility holds the growth in total discretionary 
     spending to less than four percent and the growth in non-
     security spending to less than one percent, while providing 
     the critical resources needed for our Nation's highest 
     priorities: fighting the War on Terror, strengthening our 
     homeland defenses, and sustaining the momentum of our 
     economic recovery.
       Consistent with the need for responsible spending 
     restraint, the Administration urges the Congress to fully 
     fund unavoidable obligations and not to include any emergency 
     funding, including contingent emergencies, unless mutually 
     agreed upon in advance by both the Congress and the 
     Administration. Within this context, the Administration urges 
     the House to fully fund Presidential priorities, such as the 
     Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, NV and the 
     Hydrogen Fuel initiative.
       The Administration is pleased that the Committee-reported 
     bill is consistent with the overall $819 billion 
     discretionary total and looks forward to working with the 
     House to address the following concerns.


                       administration priorities

       Nuclear Waste Repository. It is vital to secure nuclear 
     waste now scattered at 126 sites in 39 States in one 
     appropriate underground facility. Further delay increases the 
     costs and security risk of storing materials at these various 
     sites. Therefore, it is imperative that the Department of 
     Energy (DOE) have the necessary resources for licensing and 
     constructing the repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The 
     President's Budget contains a proposal to facilitate the 
     long-term financing for this project and the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee has reported a bill consistent with the 
     proposal. We strongly urge the House to adopt this financing 
     proposal and will continue to work with the Congress to 
     ensure its enactment.
       Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. The Administration strongly urges 
     the House to fund the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, 
     which will reduce the Nation's dependence on foreign oil and 
     provide cleaner air. The Committee's $31 million reduction 
     for fuel cell technologies should be restored by redirecting 
     funds from the Corps of Engineers, which is funded well above 
     the President's request.
       National Security. The Administration strongly opposes the 
     elimination of funding for the Advanced Concepts Initiative, 
     the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator study, and planning for 
     the Modern Pit Facility. These reductions, if sustained, 
     would diminish the Nation's ability to respond to future 
     national security threats. Once again, this reduction could 
     be restored by redirecting some of the funds from the Corps 
     of Engineers or DOE's nuclear energy research and development 
     program.


                  army corps of engineers--civil works

       The Administration commends the Committee for focusing the 
     Civil Works program on completing projects already under 
     construction and limiting new starts. These efforts are 
     consistent with the Administration's policy to reduce the 
     backlog of ongoing civil works construction projects. We urge 
     the House to eliminate funding and cancel balances for 
     projects that have low estimated economic or environmental 
     returns or

[[Page H5099]]

     that are outside the Corps main mission, as requested.
       We urge the House to restore funding that is necessary to 
     sustain operations on four nationally significant Corps 
     projects: $18 million for Columbia River fish recovery to 
     comply with a biological opinion pursuant to the Endangered 
     Species Act (ESA); $12 million to revitalize the side 
     channels of the Upper Mississippi River; $8 million for 
     Everglades Restoration; and $51 million to improve Missouri 
     River habitat and support continued operation of the river in 
     compliance with the ESA. We also request that the House 
     restore $10 million to the Regulatory Program to avoid delays 
     in the permitting process and ensure effective enforcement.


                          Department of Energy

       The Administration strongly opposes reductions to the 
     National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) 
     Nonproliferation programs to eliminate weapons-grade 
     plutonium production in Russia and to dispose of 68 metric 
     tons of surplus weapons-usable plutonium in the Russian 
     Federation and the United States. The proposed reductions 
     could delay the programs and escalate their costs, thereby 
     damaging critical components of the Nation's comprehensive 
     nonproliferation strategy.
       The Administration objects to the bill's reductions to 
     important nuclear stockpile stewardship programs, such as the 
     Life Extension Programs, Directed Stockpile Work, and the 
     science and engineering campaigns. Furthermore, the 
     Committee's restrictive funding controls for the complex 
     Inertial Confinement Fusion National Ignition Facility 
     program may prevent NNSA from achieving the milestones the 
     Congress has directed for the program.
       The Administration is concerned with the $76 million 
     reduction to the high-level waste proposal. The Defense 
     Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has recently communicated to 
     DOE its view that the safety consequences of delaying 
     radioactive waste disposition activities at the Savannah 
     River site are unacceptable. Moreover, the Administration and 
     the State of South Carolina have reached agreement on 
     radioactive waste disposal and underground storage tank 
     closure at DOE's Savannah River site. While we share the 
     Committee's preference for a legislative solution that 
     extends beyond the Savannah River site and are continuing to 
     pursue a consensus with all affected States on such 
     legislation, the funds are crucial to allowing the clean up 
     of the Savannah River tanks.
       The Administration rejects the Committee's suggestion to 
     reduce spending on the International Thermonuclear 
     Experimental Reactor in FY 2005, as well as its shift in 
     funding for the Gridwise and Gridworks programs from the 
     Office of Electric Transmission and Distribution (OETD) to 
     the Office of Energy Assurance. OETD was established to 
     provide a single, focused organization to strengthen Federal 
     leadership on electricity reliability.
       While we understand the need to restrain expenses for 
     departmental overhead, the funding reductions to the 
     Department Administration account in the House bill would 
     hinder the Secretary's ability to manage the Department.


           bureau of reclamation and the central utah project

       The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for 
     fully funding the Water 2025 Initiative and for directly 
     funding the Utah mitigation and conservation activities 
     through the Central Utah Project rather than indirectly 
     through the Western Area Power Administration. However, we 
     urge the House to include the Administration's proposal to 
     make a corresponding transfer of authority for project 
     mitigation from the Secretary of Energy to the Secretary of 
     the Interior.


                    tennessee valley authority (TVA)

       The Administration is disappointed that the Committee did 
     not provide, as the Subcommittee did, the requested 
     appropriation of $9 million for TVA's Office of Inspector 
     General (OIG) to be derived from the TVA Fund. This proposal 
     would allow the OIG to conduct its duties in a more 
     independent manner, similar to the Inspectors General of 
     other Federal agencies.


                        constitutional concerns

       Section 501 of the bill purports to limit the use of 
     appropriated funds by the Executive Branch in communicating 
     with the Congress. To the extent this provision would 
     preclude the President or his subordinates from initiating 
     communications with the Congress, it would interfere with the 
     Executive Branch's ability to influence congressional action 
     and would violate the Recommendations Clause of the 
     Constitution. The Administration urges the House to remove 
     this provision or amend it to allow normal and necessary 
     Executive Branch communications.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 
4614, the Fiscal Year 2005 Energy and Water Appropriation's bill.
  First, let me thank the distinguished Chairman of this Committee, 
Dave Hobson, for this work in crafting this legislation. He and ranking 
member Pete Visclosky have drafted an excellent bill that focuses on 
our national priorities.
  Mr. Chairman, our country continues to benefit from advances in 
science, technology and engineering. We've discovered the potential for 
fusion energy, advanced renewable energy, and improved energy 
efficiency. Through cutting research and the development of these 
programs at the U.S. Department of Energy, we are rapidly advancing our 
scientific knowledge.
  Mr. Chairman, I have long supported funding for renewable energy 
sources. The Committee's investment of $343 million in renewable energy 
resources will be integral to creating alternative energy solutions for 
our nation. The Department of Energy is pursuing other new technologies 
to meet future energy and environmental needs. These technologies will 
change how we use and produce energy. The DOE, with this Committee's 
support, is pursuing a path towards making affordable, safe zero 
emission fuel cell vehicles.
  I am pleased that year after year this Committee continues to 
recognize the incredible potential of fusion energy by providing a $12 
million dollar increase in funding for a total of $276 million in 
funding for the program--which will advance the vital work of the 
domestic fusion community to prosper at sites such as New Jersey's 
Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.
  The Committee also continues to address electricity reliability, of 
special importance to the East Coast with last summer's blackout. We've 
included funds for transmission reliability, research and development.
  Since 1775 when the Continental Congress authorized the first Chief 
Engineer--whose first task it was to build fortifications near Boston 
at Bunker Hill--the Army Corps of Engineers has grown to be the world's 
largest public engineering, design and construction management agency.
  The Army Corps keeps our waterways open for business, prevents our 
communities from flooding and our beaches from eroding.
  In New Jersey alone, the Army Corps budget helps keep the 127 miles 
of New Jersey coastline open to visitors from across the country. 
Serving as one of New Jersey's greatest attractions, our beaches 
generate over 30 billion dollars for our state's economy each year, 
while providing over 800,000 people with jobs.

  One of the most important Army Corps projects is the Port of New York 
and New Jersey Harbor Deepening. For the second year in a row, 
President Bush's budget message recognized the dredging of this port as 
a national priority and called for it to be one of five national 
navigational projects.
  It goes without saying that projects like the Port drive our national 
economy it is a national secret asset. As the largest port in the 
northeast and a leading job center for the New Jersey/New York 
Metropolitan area, we must continue to focus our efforts on deepening 
its major navigation channels so that the port is able to meet the 21st 
Century needs of our economy.
  The importance of the Army Corps budget is not limited to just 
navigational projects. 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 across northern New Jersey to develop long-term 
solutions to re-occurring floods. In New Jersey this means that 
projects like the Jackson Brook Flood Control project in my own 
district and the dredging of the Hudson Raritan Estuary Lower Passaic 
River Restoration, among several other critical local projects have the 
funding to remain on track.
  Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to 
support this important legislation.
   Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Energy 
and Water bill. I want to commend Chairman Hobson and the ranking 
member, Mr. Visclosky, for producing a bill that should enjoy the 
support of every single member of this chamber. I am impressed by the 
way in which Chairman Hobson and Mr. Visclosky worked together to 
produce the Energy and Water bill and you both should be congratulated 
for the bi-partisan way in which you wrote this bill.
   This bill is certainly a good bill for my home state of Idaho--and I 
want to thank the committee for that. But more importantly, this is a 
good bill for the nation as a whole. It addresses national and 
international needs by improving our nation's water infrastructure, 
expanding our efforts to produce more energy for a growing economy, and 
protecting nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists.
   I fully support the Subcommittee's efforts to demand some 
accountability from the DOE and the Russians regarding our efforts to 
help secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union.
  Spending money in Russia and the former Soviet Union to locate, 
identify and secure nuclear materials is clearly in our own national 
interest as well as the interests of the rest of the world. However, as 
I have repeatedly pointed out to Russian officials, I cannot explain to 
my constituents why we spend American taxpayers' money to secure 
nuclear materials in Russia while at the same time Russia is planning 
to cooperate with Iran in their

[[Page H5100]]

efforts to develop nuclear energy. In light of recent IAEA statements 
regarding the lack of openness regarding Iran's nuclear program--Russia 
must reexamine its position vis-a-vis Iran.
  I also strongly support the Subcommittee's continued efforts to limit 
activities associated with the development of a Robust Nuclear Earth 
Penetrator. Our nation clearly has many priorities regarding the 
management of our nuclear stockpile without adding new nuclear weapons 
to the list.
  Finally, this bill fully funds the Federal government's 
responsibility to cleanup nuclear sites across the nation--including in 
my home state of Idaho. The bill rejects the DOE's attempt to wall off 
hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup funding and provides 
sufficient direction to ensure the DOE keeps its commitments to States 
like Idaho and Washington.
  Mr. Chairman, I will enthusiastically vote in favor of the Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
  I would first like to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. 
Hobson, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky for their work in putting 
together Energy and Water Appropriations Bill.
  I also want to thank both of them for including $35 million in the 
bill to continue funding the Port of Oakland's 50-foot dredging project 
in my district in California.
  As the fourth largest container port in the country, the Port of 
Oakland serves as one of our premier international trade gateways to 
Asia and the Pacific Ocean.
  The 50 foot dredging project serves to underpin an $800 million 
expansion project funded by the Port that will improve the 
infrastructure at Oakland by expanding capacity and increasing 
efficiencies throughout the distribution chain.
  Current projections indicated that at the conclusion of the project 
an additional 8,800 jobs will be added, business revenue will increase 
by $1.9 billion, local tax revenues will go up by $55.5 million, and 
100% of the dredging materials will be reused for wetlands restoration, 
habit enhancement, and upland use within the San Francisco Bay Area.
  I'm glad that the Subcommittee understands the importance of this 
project, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Chairman and 
Ranking Member to complete it.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
work that Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky have done on 
this legislation. And as always, my colleague Congressman Chet Edwards 
from Texas has been a champion for the significant port, harbor, and 
flood control needs of the great state of Texas.
  The House Subcommittee on Energy and Water has done the best they 
could with the inadequate allocation for energy and water projects that 
they have been given. This bill provides $4.8 billion for the Corps--
$712 million (15%) more than requested and $252 million (5%) more than 
this year's level.
  Unfortunately the Administration does not often agree on the 
necessity of investing in water infrastructure.
  The Corps of Engineers' work keeping our ports and harbors expanding 
and maintained is absolutely essential to our national economy. When 
crafting the U.S. Constitution our founders recognized the necessity of 
functioning ports and waterways to interstate and international 
commerce, so they gave the federal government the responsibility for 
maintaining the navigable waters of the United States.
  Without the proper resources, we will fall behind this Constitutional 
responsibility.
  In particular, I wish to thank the Subcommittee of Energy and Water 
and its leadership for providing $24 million in construction general 
funding for the Houston-Galveston navigation channels and $14 million 
for operations and maintenance.
   We will try to increase those numbers in conference with the Senate, 
particularly the operations and maintenance account, which if left 
underfunded year after year will undermine the benefits of the 
investments we have made.
   I also wish to thank the Subcommittee for including $750,000 in 
construction general funding for Hunting Bayou and $340,000 in General 
Investigations funding for Greens Bayou.
   Both of these watersheds have experienced major flooding over the 
past years and are crying out for investment to protect the hundreds of 
thousands of residents and thousands of businesses in those areas.
   And finally, I want to note that while this bill does not yet 
provide general investigations funding to begin a study of a federal 
project for Halls Bayou, a tributary of Greens Bayou, that project is 
authorized as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990.
   Also, there is a section of the pending House Water Resources 
Development Act of 2004 (H.R. 2557) that would reclassify Halls Bayou 
as a section 211 reimbursement project under the Water Resources 
Development Act of 1996.
   Again, I thank the subcommittee, its leadership, and particularly 
Congressman Edwards of Texas for their fine work on this piece of 
legislation. I urge support of H.R. 4614.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, as the House passes the FY2005 Energy 
and Water Development appropriations bill today, I would like to draw 
attention to the Lewis & Clark Rural Water project. While Minnesota has 
thousands of lakes, southwest Minnesota, in my district, is described 
as the place the glaciers missed. In fact, Rock County the southwestern 
most county in Minnesota, it the only county in my home state that does 
not have a single lake.
  To deal with this problem, sixteen communities and five rural water 
systems joined together in 1990 to create the non-profit Lewis & Clark 
Rural Water System. This water system project, when completed, will 
cover an area of 5,000 square miles in southwest Minnesota, northwest 
Iowa, and southeast South Dakota. The twenty-one members of the Lewis & 
Clark Rural Water System serve a population of over 200,000 people.
  Construction on the Lewis & Clark Rural Water Project is underway and 
moving ahead. The groundbreaking and first official construction took 
place in August 2003. A large diameter casing and two wells have been 
installed and the first segment of pipe was installed on June 14, 2004. 
Another contract, for roughly $15 million, will be awarded in July. 
This contract, using funds appropriated in FY2004, will complete the 
Raw Water Pipeline, which will take the untreated water from the well 
fields to the water treatment plant.
  This important project will greatly improve quality of life and 
enhance economic opportunity in my district. Over 100 rural families in 
southwest Minnesota are on a waiting list to receive water from 
Lincoln-Pipestone Rural Water (L-PRWS), one of the members of Lewis & 
Clark. Until the Lewis & Clark project in this area is completed, there 
will not be enough water for these families.
  Economic development will be enhanced by allowing communities to 
provide additional water to expanding industries and value-added 
agriculture, thereby preserving jobs, as well as attracting new 
industries. One community in my district, Worthington, has actually had 
to turn away inquiries from companies considering locating their 
because of the lack of water. This is a serious problem and I applaud 
the dedication of those individuals who have worked long and hard to 
get this project going.
  In the 108th Congress I have made the Lewis & Clark project a 
priority of mine and submitted a request for $35 million dollars. 
Included in this appropriations bill is $17.5 million for the Lewis & 
Clark project. While this funding is less than the amount for which we 
had hoped, it is a good start, and I applaud the President for making 
this a priority in his budget request.
  Rural Minnesota, South Dakota, and Iowa need the Lewis & Clark Rural 
Water Project and I am excited construction has begun. For the sake of 
these communities I urge Congress to continue to make this project a 
priority.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, as a Representative of 
the Savannah River Site located in South Carolina's Third Congressional 
District, I rise today to voice my concerns regarding this bill. The 
Savannah River Site (SRS) is South Carolina's largest single site 
employer, employing approximately 13,500 workers from around the 
southeast region, and it serves a vital function to our nation's 
nuclear infrastructure. The Fiscal Year 2005 Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill in its current form potentially jeopardizes several 
programs at the SRS including the waste incidental to reprocessing, the 
Savannah River National Laboratory, the mixed-oxide fuel program, and 
the modern pit facility.
  While I strongly commend the Committee for preventing the DOE from 
setting aside funding for their High-level Waste Proposal pending the 
outcome of the waste incidental to reprocessing issue, I respectfully 
disagree with the Committee's position regarding resolution of that 
issue. Although efforts to agree in good faith on comprehensive 
legislation to uniformly resolve the issue failed between the DOE, 
Washington, Idaho, and South Carolina, other alternative solutions 
should be pursued. For example, state specific solutions should be 
supported so long as those states retain the authority to ensure the 
DOE takes into consideration the state's regulations upon 
implementation of its nuclear cleanup program.
  Moreover, failure to support agreements between each interested state 
and the DOE places increased risk to each site's surrounding 
communities and imposes greater costs to America's taxpayers. I fear 
the longer a delay occurs the longer period of time the residual waste 
will be left in its liquid form,

[[Page H5101]]

which poses a greater threat to the nearby rivers that may serve as a 
water source for surrounding communities. If single state agreements 
would allow sufficient environmental remediation method to proceed in a 
safe manner, it is unnecessary for our nation's taxpayers to incur 
additional costs to research and develop new, unproven cleanup methods. 
As a result, single state solutions, would preclude continued delay of 
processing waste stored at the affected sites, which would prevent 
undue additional risk and increased costs to cleanup the sites.
   I also respectfully disagree with the Committee's support for the 
DOE's decision that the Salt Waste Processing Facility and the Salt 
Waste Process Facility Alternative are prohibited by the Idaho District 
Court ruling regarding waste incidental to reprocessing. On the 
contrary, the objectives of these facilities are approximately a mirror 
image of the work being conducted at the Defense Waste Processing 
Facility, which has been processing nuclear waste for several years and 
continues to do so despite the outstanding waste incidental to 
reprocessing issue. By the Committee's zeroing out finding for these 
projects in FY05, the SRS community is greatly concerned with the 
future job outlook that these facilities are scheduled to provide in 
the near and long term.
   With respect to the Committee's position on the Savannah River 
National Laboratory, I understand the Committee's concern with the 
level of consultation provided by the DOE regarding the designation of 
the Savannah River National Laboratory. However, I am disappointed this 
bill fails to provide funding for one of nation's premier science labs. 
I believe now is the time for our nation to show its commitment to 
scientific research and development at our national labs to encourage 
young American professionals to enter a scientific field that is 
increasingly losing many of America's best scientists to retirement. 
Our national labs are a unique asset to our nation's scientific 
community and national security, and unfortunately, limiting the number 
of labs limits the opportunities we provide to America's scientific 
youth. As a result, I strongly support designation of the Savannah 
River Technology Center as our Nation's 13th national laboratory.
   In regards to the mixed-oxide fuel program, the United States and 
Russia need to continue to expedite negations over the program's 
liability provisions, and I appreciate the Committee's consideration to 
restore the program's funding cuts should an agreement be reached in 
2005.
   Finally, I respectfully disagree with the Committee's decision to 
zero out funding for the modern pit facility (MPF), and to prohibit 
site selection from occurring in FY05. The MPF is crucial to sustaining 
the integrity of the United States nuclear deterrent for the 
foreseeable future. After 1989, the United States became the only 
nuclear power without the ability to manufacture plutonium pits for its 
nuclear stockpile. Many of the weapons in our nuclear stockpile have 
outlived their intended design life, and while the integrity of these 
weapons is not currently in jeopardy, the potential risk for functional 
degradation of the plutonium pit is too great not to take action. 
Therefore, I fully support the Administration's efforts to develop 
advanced nuclear concepts like the MPF to mitigate against the risk of 
being unable to maintain our current nuclear deterrent.

  Furthermore, locating the MPF at the Savannah River site (SRS) is 
important for the country and the state of South Carolina. SRS is the 
most capable location for the mission because it has an excellent 
safety and security record, all necessary infrastructure requirements 
for any capacity size, and a proven and successful history of plutonium 
operations. As a result, locating the mission at SRS should save from 
$300 to over $500 million in taxpayer funds. Also, the mission is 
estimated to create 3,600 additional jobs in the private sector, which 
would partially offset SRS employment losses as it nuclear clean-up 
missions are completed. The SRS community has a long history of proudly 
serving our nation and fully supports the MPF. As a result, I am 
hopeful the Committee will remove its objections to site selection as 
it conferences with the Senate on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, while I support the interests of my Congressional 
district, I understand the enormous responsibility this Committee must 
endure as it considered appropriations legislation for our nation's 
energy programs. Although this bill does not fully provide the SRS 
community with the resources the Administration has requested, I do 
believe the Chairman and the Committee are steadfastly working in good 
faith to enhance our nation's energy programs, and I look forward to 
working with the Chairman on future issues related to the Savannah 
River Site and our nation.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
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. 4614

       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, 2005, 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 rivers and harbors, flood 
     control, shore protection, storm damage reduction, 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, $149,000,000, 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: Provided further, That in conducting the Southwest 
     Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 
     the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers, shall include an evaluation of flood damage 
     reduction measures that would otherwise be excluded from the 
     feasibility analysis based on policies regarding the 
     frequency of flooding, the drainage areas, and the amount of 
     runoff.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Tennessee 
rise?
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the 
paragraph.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, at the request of the gentleman from Alaska 
(Chairman Young) and on behalf of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure I rise to raise a point of order against page 2 line 23 
beginning with ``provided further'' through page 3 line 5.
  Let me say, first of all, that I want to commend the gentleman from 
Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Ranking Member 
Visclosky) who have done such an outstanding job on this legislation. 
But this provision, this particular provision, violates clause 2 of 
rule 21. It directs the Secretary of Army to include additional 
analysis in the southwest Valley Flood Damage Reduction Study and, 
therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in 
violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  In that case, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds this provision includes language imparting direction 
to the Secretary of the Army. The provision therefore constitutes 
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. The provision is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                          Construction General

       For expenses necessary for the prosecution of river and 
     harbor, flood control, shore protection, storm damage 
     reduction, and related projects authorized by law; and for 
     conducting detailed studies, and plans and specifications, of 
     such projects (including those for development with 
     participation or under consideration for participation by 
     States, local governments, or private groups) authorized or 
     made eligible for selection by law (but such detailed 
     studies, and plans and specifications, shall not constitute a 
     commitment of the Government to construction); 
     $1,876,680,000, 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 as authorized by Public

[[Page H5102]]

     Law 104-303; and of which such sums as are necessary pursuant 
     to Public Law 99-662 shall be derived from the Inland 
     Waterways Trust Fund for one-half of the costs of 
     construction and rehabilitation of inland waterways projects 
     (including the rehabilitation costs for Lock and Dam 11, 
     Mississippi River, Iowa; Lock and Dam 19, Mississippi River, 
     Iowa; Lock and Dam 24, Mississippi River, Illinois and 
     Missouri; and Lock and Dam 3, Mississippi River, Minnesota): 
     Provided, That using $10,000,000 of the funds appropriated 
     herein, the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief 
     of Engineers, is directed to continue construction of the 
     Dallas Floodway Extension, Texas, project, including the 
     Cadillac Heights feature, generally in accordance with the 
     Chief of Engineers report dated December 7, 1999: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of the Army is directed to accept 
     advance funds, pursuant to section 11 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1925, from the non-Federal sponsor of the Los Angeles 
     Harbor, California, project authorized by section 101(b)(5) 
     of Public Law 106-541: Provided further, 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 the Secretary of the Army, 
     acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to use 
     $6,000,000 of the funds appropriated herein to proceed with 
     planning, engineering, design or construction of the Grundy, 
     Buchanan County, and Dickenson County, Virginia, elements of 
     the Levisa and Tug Forks of the Big Sandy River and Upper 
     Cumberland River Project: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
     is directed to use funds appropriated for the navigation 
     project, Tampa Harbor, Florida, to carry out, as part of the 
     project, construction of passing lanes in an area 
     approximately 3.5 miles long, centered on Tampa Bay Cut B, if 
     the Secretary determines that such construction is 
     technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and cost 
     effective: Provided further, That using $500,000 of the funds 
     appropriated herein, the Secretary of the Army, acting 
     through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized and directed to 
     plan, design, and initiate reconstruction of the Cape 
     Girardeau, Missouri, project, originally authorized by the 
     Flood Control Act of 1950, at an estimated total cost of 
     $9,000,000, with cost sharing on the same basis as cost 
     sharing for the project as originally authorized, if the 
     Secretary determines that the reconstruction is technically 
     sound and environmentally acceptable: Provided further, That 
     the planned reconstruction shall be based on the most cost-
     effective engineering solution and shall require no further 
     economic justification: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is 
     directed to proceed without further delay with work on the 
     permanent bridge to replace Folsom Bridge Dam Road, Folsom, 
     California, as authorized by the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-137), and, of the 
     $8,000,000 available for the American River Watershed (Folsom 
     Dam Mini-Raise), California, project, up to $5,000,000 of 
     those funds be directed for the permanent bridge, with all 
     remaining devoted to the Mini-Raise.

  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, $325,000,000, 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 United States 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; $1,982,000,000, 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; of which such sums as become 
     available from the special account for the United States 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: Provided, That the Secretary of the Army, acting 
     through the Chief of Engineers, is directed to use funds 
     appropriated herein to rehabilitate the existing dredged 
     material disposal site for the project for navigation, Bodega 
     Bay Harbor, California, and to continue maintenance dredging 
     of the Federal channel: Provided further, That the Secretary 
     shall make suitable material excavated from the site as part 
     of the rehabilitation effort available to the non-Federal 
     sponsor, at no cost to the Federal Government, for use by the 
     non-Federal sponsor in the development of public facilities.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Norton

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Norton:
       Page 3, line 17, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $20,000,000) (reduced by 
     $20,000,000)''.

  (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses a crisis that 
affects Members of Congress and all who live and work here resulting 
from a public health advisory regarding lead in the drinking water in 
the Nation's Capitol.
  I am seeking to increase general project construction money in the 
amount of $20 million by increasing the amount of savings in slippage. 
The $20 million will help to address a federally created drinking water 
crisis caused by leaching from lead pipes installed by the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers more than 100 years ago amidst controversy that lead 
pipes were not safe even then.
  EPA standards for lead in the drinking water is 15 parts per billion, 
yet thousands of homes in this city have tested above this standard, 
hundreds above 300 parts per billion. The water crisis I am asking 
Congress to address, however, not only affects people who live here but 
200,000 Federal employees in the Capitol, the Supreme Court, the White 
House and Federal office buildings and millions of tourists from 
throughout the country and world who come here.
  Public health officials testified at a May 21 Committee on Government 
Reform hearing that lead contaminated drinking water is dangerous for 
everyone, but can be especially dangerous to fetuses and young children 
under the age of 6, hindering their brain development and lowering 
their IQs. Yet, pregnant women and young children drank the water here 
not knowing about dangerous levels of lead. At the hearing a mother, 
Katherine Funk, testified that she unknowingly drank lead contaminated 
water throughout her entire pregnancy.
  I support what we are spending to provide safe drinking water for the 
innocent people of Iraq. Today I am requesting a mere $20 million to 
begin the process here in the Nation's Capital. The $20 million will 
help replace lead lines. The lion's share is being borne locally, but 
some contribution from the Federal Government to reduce this crisis is 
particularly appropriate.
  The lead water crisis emanates from the decision of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers to build the District's water infrastructure system 
using lead pipes more than 100 years ago. And that was so controversial 
then. I will insert into the Record two articles from the Washington 
Post of 1893 and 1895 discussing the controversy. Also discussed there 
is the role that the Army Corps of Engineers played in constructing 
these pipes.
  The articles point out that the Army Corps knew of the health dangers 
of lead pipes that carried the District's drinking water but chose to 
use them anyway.
  The Federal Government's role in providing water here goes beyond the 
pipes to the treatment of water itself. The Army Corps also built and 
still runs the Washington aqueduct which treats the water supply for 
the district and parts of northern Virginia.
  The Committee on Government Reform hearing heard testimony from 
scientific experts that the switch in chemical treatment of the 
drinking water in 2000 at the aqueduct without

[[Page H5103]]

adequate testing is the likely cause of leaching of lead pipes into the 
drinking water.
  With the Corps embedded in the crisis through lead lines and faulty 
chemical treatment, the government should assume at least some share of 
the responsibility. The amount being requested here will not and is not 
intended to cover anything close to the cost of replacing these lines, 
but it will hasten the current replacement efforts being undertaken by 
the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority.
  I certainly ask that the Federal Government step up to its 
responsibility. The residents of the District of Columbia have more 
than stepped up to their responsibility. This was done well before 
there was any home rule when the residents could have and did have no 
affect upon it.
  The water I am talking about is the water that is on our rostrums 
every time we go to committee hearing. We should do something to 
protect ourselves, to protect Federal employees, and to protect the 
residents of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point, I will insert the two articles I 
previously referred to.

                [From the Washington Post, June 9, 1893]

                       Lead Pipes Unsatisfactory

       Capt. Powell, the Engineer Commissioner, has determined 
     that a substitute must be found for lead pipes which, 
     according to the present plumbing regulations, must be used 
     in providing a water service for residences. The general fear 
     that such pipes might cause lead poisoning under certain 
     conditions makes their general adoption in the District a 
     menace to the health of the people.
       It has been shown that the chemical character of Potomac 
     water causes such pipes to become coated on the inside with 
     an insulation of carbonate of lime, soda, and clay, held in 
     solution in the water. This coating, it has been argued, is a 
     sure protection from danger of lead poisoning, but the 
     engineer department has decided that it is too slight a 
     safeguard. It is probable that the city's supply of water 
     will be filtered at some future day, as sand filtration of 
     drinking water has been adopted in many large cities abroad 
     and is rapidly becoming popular.
       Just what effect the filtered water may have in the coating 
     of lead pipes has not been determined. The fact that iron 
     pipes become thickly rusted on the inside, which causes a 
     material loss of water pressure, makes their use 
     unsatisfactory. Yesterday Capt. Derby, in charge of the 
     division of water and sewers, examined the first substitute 
     for lead pipe that has been presented since the investigation 
     began. It was what is known as the improved Bower-Barff 
     process, being a steel pipe coated inside and out with black 
     oxide of iron. Capt. Derby reported it was ``worth 
     experimenting with,'' and tests of the pipe will be commenced 
     at once. Several other styles of pipe are to be examined.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 15, 1895]

                      Potomac Water and Lead Pipe

       A.W. Dow, inspector of asphalt and cements, yesterday made 
     his report to the Engineer Commissioner. In it he says 
     considerable change has been made in the past year in asphalt 
     pavement by the addition of a fine sand to a sand similar to 
     that formerly used. Under the present circumstances this is 
     the best that can be done. The only fine sand now available 
     is that dredged off the foot of Seventeenth Street.
       The inspector deals also with the public wells analyzed. 
     There were found to be 96 good ones, 41 suspicious, and 57 
     condemned.
       The most interesting part of the report deals with the 
     investigation of the action of Potomac water on lead pipe, to 
     determine if enough lead is dissolved by the water to be 
     injurious to public health. In order to have all conditions 
     corresponding as near as possible with those of actual 
     service, the inspector had one new forty foot lead service 
     pipe in Anacostia and fifty feet of new lead pipe attached to 
     the high service main at the U street pumphouse. From the 
     investigation the inspector concludes that the only great 
     source of danger is where the coating becomes detached by a 
     rapid flow of water after the pipe had remained unused for 
     some time. He will continue the investigation.

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I share my colleague's concern about the lead in parts 
of the D.C. water system. However, I have to point out that such work 
is really not in the Corps of Engineers bailiwick. They are not 
authorized and we do not include any new water project authorization in 
our bill at this time.
  I should also note that the Corps is probably not the best agency to 
conduct this kind of work. The Corps' role in the water system for the 
District of Columbia is limited to operating the water treatment plant. 
The Corps currently has no responsibility after the water leaves the 
plant for the water distribution and supply lines are a district 
responsibility and not that of the Corps.
  Therefore, regrettably, I mean this sincerely, I do not have any way 
to really take care of this right now. This is a problem that the 
District has. At some point we ought to find a solution to help the 
District solve this problem. I just do not have the tools at this time 
to do that. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) will be postponed.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, based on previous conversations and the agreement I had 
with the Chair and the ranking member of the committee, I was offering 
this amendment with the intent to ask unanimous consent to withdraw and 
continue working with them and with the conferees in regards to a very 
important program that affects the upper Mississippi river basin, the 
Environmental Management Program.
  It is an authorized program that first passed in 1986. It was 
reauthorized on a permanent basis in 1999. The authorization level has 
gone up to $33 million. My concern is that we have over the last few 
years been backtracking in regards to the funding of this important 
program.
  As co-chair of the bipartisan upper Mississippi river basin 
Congressional task force, I have worked with my colleagues from this 
five-State region to build consensus about how best to protect and 
restore the nationally significant and environmental treasures of the 
upper Mississippi River.
  I want to commend my colleagues who are here today, the gentlewoman 
from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) and my good friend, the gentleman from 
Missouri, Mr. Hulshof, for their strong support for the EMP program and 
the support we have had in the bipartisan Mississippi River Caucus.
  Earlier this year, 013 of us of the River Caucus wrote to the 
committee asking the committee to respect and appropriate funds for EMP 
at the President's budget request of $28 million. The committee, 
however, in this underlying report is only recommending $16 million.
  The fear is we are backsliding on current projects that are in the 
works that will delay the completion of these projects by years. It 
will delay the implementation of new identified habitat restoration 
projects along the upper Mississippi River, along with the crucial 
long-term resource monitoring and the data collection which helps us 
better manage this important national treasure that we have in middle 
America.
  The upper Mississippi and the entire Mississippi River basin area is 
North America's largest migratory route for waterfowl. It is the 
primary drinking source for 33 million Americans. It adds countless 
billions of dollars to our regional economy through industry and 
companies and farmers with the commercial navigation that is available 
along the Mississippi, not to mention a $6 billion tourism impact on 
the upper area and close to $2 billion recreation impact in the upper 
Mississippi River area.
  And we have always recognized the legislation that has preceded us 
today that this is a multi-use river system between commercial 
navigation, which has existed in the past since the 1930s when the lock 
and dam system was created to harness the power of the river, to the 
recreation and the tourist impact.
  The EMP program was established in the 1980s recognizing the need to 
maintain that important balance along the river between the 
infrastructure needs that are ongoing, but also the habitat restoration 
and long-term resource monitoring that the EMP program currently does. 
But, unfortunately, again, we have had backsliding over the last few 
years in regards to the commitment of the program.
  Fortunately, the administration sees it a little bit differently. 
Based on a

[[Page H5104]]

letter that I wrote to the administration requesting funding earlier 
this year, the President responded to my request by a letter dated 
April 20, and I quote, ``As you know, the President submitted his 2005 
budget on February 2004. I am pleased to say that the budget identifies 
EMP as one of the eight highest priority Army Corps of Engineer 
construction projects in the Nation and proposes $28 million in funding 
for it an increase of $9 million or 47 percent from the previous fiscal 
year.''
  The point is, this has received wide bipartisan support, support from 
the governors and the five States of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, 
Illinois, and Missouri, that have supported this project. Various 
groups that are concerned about river management issues are very 
supportive of the environmental management program. The Corps of 
Engineers has had a multiyear, multimillion dollar navigation study 
that they have initially released a preliminary report upon asking in 
part for $5.3 billion ecosystem management project to go along with a 
proposed lock and dam expansion project.
  In light of where we seem to be heading in regards to the river 
management issues, we would hope we could get more support for the 
funding of a program that has proven itself year in and year out with 
wide bipartisan support, with tangible results that we see along the 
upper Mississippi River, something that thousands of people will see in 
the coming week as the 1854 grand excursion is recreated with a grand 
flotilla going up the Mississippi and finally ending up, I believe, in 
the district of the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) for a 4th 
of July celebration.

                              {time}  1145

  The river has played an incredibly important role in the development 
of middle America, the Great Plains States, and the upper Midwest 
generally. From the exposure it received in 1854 with the Grand 
Excursion to the great American novels that Mark Twain wrote of two 
kids growing up on the Mississippi, Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, to the 
ongoing uses of the river, we believe we need to do a better job of 
funding the EMP; and hopefully with the leadership's cooperation, we 
can accomplish that in conference.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Chairman, I want to, first of all, say thank you to 
my friend for his kind words and the work that he has done on the upper 
Mississippi; and, two, the chairman of the subcommittee during general 
debate, the chairman talked about trying to find a balanced approach, 
and I applaud that; and I think the underlying bill does just that.
  We certainly appreciate trying to fund the critical programs through 
the upper Mississippi River basin. Despite, quite frankly, the recent 
core budgets that have made this task extremely challenging, it is 
critical that adequate funding be provided to support a multiple-use 
river, as the gentleman from Wisconsin spoke of.
  Whether it is the Environmental Management Plan that he spoke of to 
the navigation study and a comprehensive plan for flood control and 
floodplain management, the Mississippi River does, in fact, have 
diverse uses and, accordingly, diverse needs.
  Again, I applaud the chairman and the subcommittee who have worked 
with our office and our constituents to make a difference in the basin. 
In fact, I know that the chairman has logged thousands of miles 
personally to inspect and view many of the civil works projects around 
the country, and I would be remiss if I did not extend a personal 
invitation to the gentleman to come to Missouri and to see the upper 
Mississippi and especially the locks and dams as the previous chairman 
did some years ago.
  In fact, it was on that visit that we had a chance to view from the 
air some of the true benefits of the Environmental Management Plan 
specifically, and it really gave me a sense of a greater appreciation 
for what the Corps of Engineers was doing with the EMP. Already 
hundreds of acres of prime wetlands have been reclaimed, critical back 
waters have been restored, habitats are thriving. We are helping to 
promote flood control throughout the region, and we know too often, I 
think, the Corps of Engineers receives only barbs for its environmental 
record; but I think its successes in the EMP, which has really only 
been limited by funding issues, are indeed worthy of praise.
  So accordingly, I support the bipartisan efforts of the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), my friend, as well as the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hobson), to achieve this balanced approach to the management 
of one of our Nation's greatest natural resources, the mighty 
Mississippi.


 Withdrawal of Request for Recorded Vote on Amendment No. 4 Offered by 
                               Ms. Norton

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, after speaking with the distinguished 
chairman concerning matters involving lead in the water that are 
transpiring in the other body, I think a vote is unnecessary. I ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman withdraws her request. Accordingly, the 
noes have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill through 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 text of the remainder of the bill through title II is as follows:

                           Regulatory Program

       For expenses necessary for administration of laws 
     pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands, 
     $140,000,000, to remain available until expended.

            Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

       For expenses necessary to clean up contamination at sites 
     in the United States resulting from work performed as part of 
     the Nation's early atomic energy program, $190,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                            General Expenses

       For expenses necessary for general administration and 
     related civil works functions in the headquarters of the 
     United States Army Corps of Engineers, the offices of the 
     Division Engineers, the Humphreys Engineer Center Support 
     Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, the United 
     States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, and the 
     United States Army Corps of Engineers Finance Center, 
     $167,000,000, 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.

        Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)

       For expenses necessary for the Office of Assistant 
     Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), as authorized by 10 
     U.S.C. 3016(b)(3), $2,600,000.

                       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 (P.L. 64-291); section 11 of the River and 
     Harbor Act of 1925 (P.L. 68-585); the Civil Functions 
     Appropriations Act, 1936 (P.L. 75-208); section 215 of the 
     Flood Control, Act of 1968, as amended (P.L. 90-483); 
     sections 104, 203, and 204 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986, as amended (P.L. 99-662); section 206 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1992, as amended (P.L. 
     102-580); section 211 of the Water Resources Development Act 
     of 1996 (P.L. 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 shall be used to demonstrate or implement any plans 
     divesting or transferring any Civil Works missions, 
     functions, or responsibilities of the United States Army 
     Corps of Engineers to other government agencies without 
     specific direction in a subsequent Act of Congress.

[[Page H5105]]

       Sec. 104. 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.
       Sec. 105. Alamogordo, New Mexico. The project for flood 
     protection at Alamogordo, New Mexico, authorized by the Flood 
     Control Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-874), is modified to authorize 
     and direct the Secretary to construct a flood detention basin 
     to protect the north side of the City of Alamogordo, New 
     Mexico, from flooding. The flood detention basin shall be 
     constructed to provide protection from a 100-year flood 
     event. The project cost share for the flood detention basin 
     shall be consistent with section 103(a) of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986, notwithstanding section 
     202(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
       Sec. 106. Section 214(a) of Public Law 106-541 is amended 
     by striking ``2003'' and inserting ``2007''.
       Sec. 107. Flood Damage Reduction, Mill Creek, Cincinnati, 
     Ohio. The Secretary of the Army is directed to complete the 
     General Reevaluation Report on the Mill Creek, Ohio, project 
     not later than March 1, 2005, at 100 percent Federal cost. 
     The report shall provide plans for flood damage reduction 
     throughout the basin equivalent to and commensurate with that 
     afforded by the authorized, partially implemented, Mill 
     Creek, Ohio, Flood Damage Reduction Project, as authorized in 
     section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611).
       Sec. 108. The Secretary shall provide credit to the non-
     Federal sponsor for preconstruction engineering and design 
     work performed by the non-Federal sponsor for the 
     environmental dredging project at Ashtabula River, Ohio, 
     prior to execution of a Project Cooperation Agreement.
       Sec. 109. The Secretary of the Army, acting through the 
     Chief of Engineers, is directed to design the Central 
     Riverfront Park project on the Ohio Riverfront in Cincinnati, 
     Ohio, as described in the Central Riverfront Park Master Plan 
     performed by the City of Cincinnati, dated December 1999, and 
     the Section 905(b) analysis, performed by the Louisville 
     District of the Corps of Engineers, dated August 2002. The 
     cost of project work undertaken by the non-Federal interests, 
     including but not limited to prior and current planning and 
     design, shall be credited toward the non-Federal share of 
     design costs.
       Sec. 110. Amounts in the revolving fund may not be used for 
     the Dredge MCFARLAND overhaul, the replacement of the side-
     casting propulsion system of the Dredge MERRITT, the pontoon 
     pipeline replacement of the Dredge JADWIN, the bow discharge 
     replacement and repowering for the Dredge ESSAYONS, the 
     repowering of the Dredge YAQUINA, or the floating pipeline 
     replacement for the Dredge POTTER.

                                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, $48,009,000 to remain available until 
     expended, of which $15,469,000 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, $1,734,000, to remain available until expended.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

       The following appropriations shall be expended to execute 
     authorized functions of the 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, 
     $860,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $53,299,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper 
     Colorado River Basin Fund and $33,794,000 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 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 section 301 of Public Law 102-250, the Reclamation 
     States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991, as amended, is 
     amended further by inserting ``2004, and 2005'' in lieu of 
     ``and 2004''.

                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, $54,695,000, 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, 
     $58,153,000, 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.

                        Administrative Provision

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be 
     available for purchase of not to exceed 14 passenger motor 
     vehicles, of which 11 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 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.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there points of order against that portion of the 
bill?


                            Points of Order

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, once again, I will say that I certainly 
commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and his staff for the 
fine work they have done on this bill, but I do have six points of 
order that I am required to raise at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his points of order.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
105. This section violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing 
law and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill 
in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Hearing none, the Chair finds that this provision directly modifies 
an existing flood project. The provision, therefore, constitutes 
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is 
sustained. The provision is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
106. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing 
law and,

[[Page H5106]]

therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in 
violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be recognized on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this provision directly amends existing law. The 
provision, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 
of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. The provision is stricken 
from the bill.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
107. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It establishes a 
deadline for completing the general reevaluation report for the Mill 
Creek, Ohio, project and adds a planning requirement. This constitutes 
legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this provision includes language imparting 
direction to the Secretary of the Army. The provision, therefore, 
constitutes legislation under clause 2 of rule XXI. Therefore, the 
point of order is sustained. The provision is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
108. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It authorizes the 
Secretary to provide certain credit to the non-Federal sponsor for the 
project at Ashtabula River, Ohio. It, therefore, constitutes 
legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order? 
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds this provision includes language imparting direction 
to the Secretary of the Army. The provision, therefore, constitutes 
legislation in violation of clause 2, rule XXI. The point of order is 
sustained. The provision is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
109. This section violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It directs the Corps 
of Engineers to proceed to the design phase of the Central Riverfront 
Project on the Ohio riverfront in Cincinnati. This, therefore, 
constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House 
rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to address the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds this provision includes language imparting direction 
to the Secretary of the Army. The provision of the legislation is in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and 
the provision is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Finally, Mr. Chairman, once again, on behalf of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the gentleman from 
Alaska (Chairman Young), I raise a point of order against section 110. 
Mr. Chairman, this section violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It prohibits 
amounts in the Corps of Engineers revolving fund from being used for 
certain maintenance work on corps dredges. It limits the use of funds 
not made available in this bill and, therefore, constitutes legislating 
on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to address the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds this provision addresses funds and other acts. The 
provision, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2, 
rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. The provision is stricken 
from the bill.
  Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like today to rise in strong support for what 
the gentleman from Wisconsin was so eloquently up here speaking about 
before, the Environmental Management Program.
  This is a program that provides critical resources to keep the 
Mississippi River healthy and enjoyable for all of our citizens. The 
Mississippi River is a working river, and it is a river, which, when 
navigation takes place and projects by the Army Corps are put in effect 
for flood control projects, we quite often find ourselves with 
unintended consequences to the river's habitat.
  Without additional funding, the river habitat will continue to be 
lost and hundreds of species that depend upon the health of the river 
will struggle to survive, but it is not just fish and wildlife at 
stake. Millions of visitors spend annually billions of dollars on 
recreating along the Mississippi-Illinois rivers supporting thousands 
of jobs.
  The Mississippi River is also a source of drinking water for millions 
of Americans. The Environmental Management Program is the Nation's 
premier large-river monitoring and restoration program. It is a model 
for interagency and interstate cooperation on an equal system level 
national resources management.
  This is a very important management program; and as the committee 
moves forward, I would encourage it to look for any additional funding 
dollars.
  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 9 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only, and one ambulance, 
     $817,126,000, to remain available until expended.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Sanders:
       Page 19, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 23, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 24 minutes to be 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is recognized 
for 12 minutes.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Ranking Member 
Visclosky) for all of their hard work on this important legislation.
  The amendment that I am offering is cosponsored by the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals, in fact, with one of the 
important issues of our time, and that is, whether the United States 
Government will take the bold step to break our dependency on fossil 
fuels, break our dependency on nuclear power and move forward as 
aggressively as we can into the new world of safe, clean, cost-
effective, sustainable energy.
  The truth is that we have made some progress in recent years, but the 
truth also is that we have a long, long way to go; and this amendment 
will help us move in that direction.
  Mr. Chairman, specifically, the legislative intent of this amendment 
is to increase funding for renewable energy programs such as solar 
energy, wind, biomass, clean hydrogen, and geothermal by $30 million, 
to be offset by a decrease of $30 million in funding for the nuclear 
weapons advance simulation and computing program in the weapons 
activities budget. That offset, by the way, is a decrease of less than 
5 percent for this program and a tiny fraction of the $6.5 billion for 
weapons that are funded in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would bolster critical research and 
development so that we can deliver unlimited clean energy for 
generations to come. Improving the technology for sustainable energy is 
a huge step forward in protecting our environment,

[[Page H5107]]

improving our economy and making this world a safer place so that our 
foreign policy is not significantly dictated by energy needs.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is supported by every major 
environmental organization in the country, including the League of 
Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, American Rivers, U.S. PIRG and Public Citizen.
  Mr. Chairman, if one looks at the big picture, it is clear that we 
are on the cusp of a historic opportunity to move from finite polluting 
fossil fuels to abundant, nonpolluting, clean energy sources that can 
be developed, refined, and manufactured here in the United States of 
America, not in the Mideast. The potential for these technologies is 
without limits as long as we adequately fund the research and 
development now.
  The programs increased under this amendment, solar, wind, clean 
hydrogen, biomass and geothermal, offer our country a new path of 
abundant clean energy that will revolutionize our impact on this 
planet.

                              {time}  1200

  Passage of this amendment would send a message to the Nation that we 
are going to take the right path, that we are going to break from our 
destructive fossil fuel habits of the past and commit to a sane, clean, 
and cost effective energy future. When taken together, the funding for 
renewable energy sources in this bill falls $31.6 million below the 
President's own request. So this amendment for $30 million simply 
brings us up to what the President wants, which is, by no means, a 
radical concept.
  Certainly we can add a modest amount of money to research, develop, 
discriminate and disseminate these technologies, which will prevent 
smog, acid rain, and global climate change. Certainly we can redirect a 
mere $30 million in a bill of over $28 billion to R&D that promises to 
dramatically reduce lung damaging sulfur dioxide and neurotoxic mercury 
in the air we breathe and the water we drink.
  For those who might wonder whether we are already doing enough to 
support renewable energy, let me put our Government's support for 
different energy sources in historic perspective. From 1943 through 
1999, cumulative Federal Government subsidies to nuclear photovoltaic, 
solar thermal and wind electric generating technologies, excluding 
hydropower, totaled about $151 billion. The nuclear industry received 
$145 billion, or over 96 percent of the subsidies.
  Remarkably, even the alternative technology available today, which 
has been subsidized at a fraction of the amount we have historically 
thrown at nuclear power and fossil fuels, is competitive in the market 
and can eliminate substantial amounts of toxins from the air. If it is 
competitive in the marketplace today, let us think about what we can do 
if we adequately fund research.
  In solar, we are making significant progress, but we are not funding 
solar any more today than we did in 1993. In wind, we are making 
progress, making real efforts to lower the cost of generating 
electricity from wind, but we are not adequately funding wind. Biomass, 
in my State of Vermont, 23 schools are now heated with wood chips. We 
are making progress. But everybody understands we can do a lot more. 
Geothermal the same, hydrogen the same.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a modest amendment, but it is an important step 
forward in telling the world that we understand that a revolution can 
happen in breaking our dependency on fossil fuels, on nuclear power, 
and moving forward to clean, safe, sustainable energy.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher).
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I must rise reluctantly to oppose this 
amendment. As an energy consumer and a strong environmentalist, I fully 
support the increased development of renewable sources of energy. 
California, my State, has suffered tremendously in recent years from 
felonious manipulations, interruptions, and fluctuations in the energy 
market. Increasing the availability of renewable energy is absolutely 
necessary to achieving energy independence, and that is why this House 
should have passed a more balanced energy bill that makes the right 
investments in renewable energy and resources.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would take needed money 
away from the Advanced Simulation and Computing Initiative, better 
known as ASCI. ASCI is an essential component of our Nation's Stockpile 
Stewardship Program, which is designed to evaluate nuclear weapons so 
we do not have to return to nuclear testing. The ASCI program has 
developed some of the most powerful computers in the world to examine 
the aging of our nuclear stockpile. It has also led to breakthrough 
discoveries in science that have important civilian applications.
  The funding for ASCI in this bill is already $75 million below the 
level requested by the President. Mr. Chairman, while I strongly 
support increased development of renewable energy resources, I cannot 
do it at further expense of the ASCI program. So I urge my colleagues 
to oppose the Sanders amendment.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise to oppose the amendment to increase funding for the 
renewable energy program. Everything we did in the major renewable 
accounts, with the exception of the hydrogen program, which were 
reduced because the Department ignored congressional guidance on 
competition and cost sharing, is at or above the President's budget 
request.
  While I am supportive of the renewable energy programs, there are 
many other areas of the bill I would have included additional funds, if 
possible. However, the committee's allocation was tight and we had to 
make some tough decisions. I believe we wrote a fair and balanced bill, 
and the renewable energy programs did very well.
  I might point out that I have already taken a hard line in our 
committee with the nuclear weapons computer programs, and additional 
major reductions, I do not think, are helpful or necessary at this 
time. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I will close in a minute by saying that what we are talking about 
here is not a huge sum of money. It is $30 million. And one can always 
argue that where you take the money there is a reason for that money, 
and I respect that. But I think the evidence is overwhelming that we 
are on the cusp of major breakthroughs which can change our entire use 
of energy in this country and lead us and the entire world to move 
toward clean, sustainable energy and away from nuclear power, of which 
we do not know how to dispose of today, and away from fossil fuels, 
which are causing so many serious environmental problems.
  So this amendment is not just a $30 million amendment, but I think it 
is an indication of the sentiment of this Congress to tell the American 
people and the world that we are prepared to go forward in a bold new 
way with huge potential, and so I would urge support for this 
amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, before I speak in support of the Sanders 
amendment, I would like to applaud the Chairman, Ranking Member and all 
the members of the subcommittee for their wise decision to eliminate 
all funding for new nuclear weapons initiatives, including the nuclear 
bunker buster, mini-nukes, the Modern Pit Facility, and accelerated 
nuclear test readiness. The committee has taken a farsighted and 
courageous step toward nuclear sanity by eliminating funding for these 
wasteful, dangerous and entirely unnecessary programs, and this action 
will help restore America's nonproliferation credibility around the 
world.
  The Sanders amendment would inject some of that same farsightedness 
into our allocation of funding for energy research and development by 
increasing funding for solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen and geothermal 
renewable energy technology.
  President Bush's Fiscal Year 2005 budget request and this legislation 
take us backward, not forward, in our national investment in the clean, 
renewable technologies that will power us safely and reliably in the 
21st century. In this legislation, renewable energy research and 
development programs are either cut or flat funded from last year. Mr. 
Sanders' amendment would ensure that we increase funding for each of 
the renewable energy programs next year, not cut them.
  The amendment would shift $30 million from ``Advanced Simulation and 
Computing'' in the

[[Page H5108]]

nuclear weapons activities program to five renewable energy programs. 
This cut of $30 million represents less than a five percent of the 
total $633 million budget for advanced simulation and computing and 
would leave the program with almost twice as much funding as the total 
funding for solar and renewable energy research and development.
  Renewable energy is good for America. It creates jobs. It lowers 
electricity prices. It eliminates pollution and waste. It increases our 
national energy security. But the appropriation levels in front of us 
suggest that Congress does not consider renewable energy important. If 
my colleagues believe that renewable energy is important, I urge them 
to support the Sanders amendment so that funding for renewable energy 
programs can be increased, not cut, next year.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANDERS. 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 Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the remainder of 
the bill through page 42, line 6 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 remainder of the bill through page 42, line 6 is 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 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, $151,850,000, 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, as amended, and title X, subtitle A, of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 1992, $500,200,000, to be derived 
     from the Fund, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $100,614,000 shall be available in accordance with title X, 
     subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

                   Non-Defense Environmental Services

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary for non-defense 
     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, $291,296,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                                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 four passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, including one ambulance, 
     $3,599,964,000, to remain available until expended.

                      Departmental Administration

       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), $243,876,000, 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 $122,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2005 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 2005, and any related unappropriated receipt account 
     balances remaining from prior years' miscellaneous revenues, 
     so as to result in a final fiscal year 2005 appropriation 
     from the general fund estimated at not more than 
     $121,876,000.

                    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, $41,508,000, 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; and the purchase of 
     not to exceed 19 passenger motor vehicles, for replacement 
     only, including not to exceed two buses; $6,514,424,000 to 
     remain available until expended.

                    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, $1,348,647,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                             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, $807,900,000, 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), $356,200,000, to remain available until expended.

               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, 
     $5,930,837,000, 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 three ambulances for replacement only, $957,976,000, 
     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, and classified 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, $697,059,000, 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, $131,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                    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 2005, 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

[[Page H5109]]

     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, 
     $5,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That, notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to 
     $34,000,000 collected by the Southeastern Power 
     Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 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, $29,352,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That, notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 
     3302, up to $1,800,000 collected by the Southwestern Power 
     Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 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.

 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, $173,100,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $170,756,000 shall be derived from the 
     Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That, 
     notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to 
     $186,000,000 collected by the Western Area 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, 
     $2,827,000, 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), $210,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed 
     $210,000,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and 
     other services and collections in fiscal year 2005 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 2005 so 
     as to result in a final fiscal year 2005 appropriation from 
     the general fund estimated at not more than $0.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

       Sec. 301. (a)(1) None of the funds in this or any other 
     appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 or any previous 
     fiscal year may be used to make payments for a noncompetitive 
     management and operating contract unless the Secretary of 
     Energy has published in the Federal Register and submitted to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a written notification, with 
     respect to each such contract, of the Secretary's decision to 
     use competitive procedures for the award of the contract, or 
     to not renew the contract, when the term of the contract 
     expires.
       (2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to an extension for up to 
     two years of a noncompetitive management and operating 
     contract, if the extension is for purposes of allowing time 
     to award competitively a new contract, to provide continuity 
     of service between contracts, or to complete a contract that 
     will not be renewed.
       (b) In this section:
       (1) The term ``noncompetitive management and operating 
     contract'' means a contract that was awarded more than 50 
     years ago without competition for the management and 
     operation of Ames Laboratory, Argonne National Laboratory, 
     Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore 
     National Laboratory, and Los Alamos National Laboratory.
       (2) The term ``competitive procedures'' has the meaning 
     provided in section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403) and includes procedures described 
     in section 303 of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253) other than a procedure 
     that solicits a proposal from only one source.
       (c) For all management and operating contracts other than 
     those listed in subsection (b)(1), none of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act may be used to award a management 
     and operating contract, or award a significant extension or 
     expansion to an existing management and operating contract, 
     unless such contract is awarded using competitive procedures 
     or the Secretary of Energy grants, on a case-by-case basis, a 
     waiver to allow for such a deviation. The Secretary may not 
     delegate the authority to grant such a waiver. At least 60 
     days before a contract award for which the Secretary intends 
     to grant such a waiver, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate a report notifying the Committees of the 
     waiver and setting forth, in specificity, the substantive 
     reasons why the Secretary believes the requirement for 
     competition should be waived for this particular award.
       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 (P.L. 102-484; 42 U.S.C. 7274h).
       Sec. 303. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to augment the funds made available for obligation by 
     this Act or any other appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 
     or any previous fiscal year for severance payments and other 
     benefits and community assistance grants under section 3161 
     of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     1993 (P.L. 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 or other potential users, 
     or seeks input from universities or 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;

[[Page H5110]]

       (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 2005 until the enactment of the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005.
       Sec. 310. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005 or any previous 
     fiscal year may be used to select a site for a Modern Pit 
     Facility during fiscal year 2005.
       Sec. 311. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     fiscal year 2005 or any previous fiscal year may be used to 
     finance laboratory directed research and development 
     activities at Department of Energy laboratories on behalf of 
     other Federal agencies.
       Sec. 312. (a) 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 transfer, or retransfer, 
     whether directly or indirectly, of nuclear materials and 
     equipment or sensitive nuclear technology, including items 
     and assistance authorized by section 57 b. of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954 and regulated under part 810 of title 10, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, and nuclear-related items on the 
     Commerce Control List maintained under part 774 of title 15 
     of the Code of Federal Regulations, to any country whose 
     government has been identified by the Secretary of State as 
     engaged in state sponsorship of terrorist activities 
     (specifically including any country the government of which 
     has been determined by the Secretary of State under section 
     620A(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2371(a)), section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 
     1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)), or section 40(d) of the 
     Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780(d)) to have 
     repeatedly provided support for acts of international 
     terrorism).
       (b) This section shall not apply to exports, reexports, 
     transfers, or retransfers of radiation monitoring 
     technologies, surveillance equipment, seals, cameras, tamper-
     indication devices, nuclear detectors, monitoring systems, or 
     equipment necessary to safely store, transport, or remove 
     hazardous materials, whether such items, services, or 
     information are regulated by the Department of Energy, the 
     Department of Commerce, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
     except to the extent that such technologies, equipment, 
     seals, cameras, devices, detectors, or systems are available 
     for use in the design or construction of nuclear reactors or 
     nuclear weapons.
       (c) The President may waive the application of subsection 
     (a) to a country if the President determines and certifies to 
     Congress that the waiver will not result in any increased 
     risk that the country receiving the waiver will acquire 
     nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors, or any materials or 
     components of nuclear weapons and--
       (1) the government of such country has not within the 
     preceding 12-month period willfully aided or abetted the 
     international proliferation of nuclear explosive devices to 
     individuals or groups or willfully aided and abetted an 
     individual or groups in acquiring unsafeguarded nuclear 
     materials;
       (2) in the judgment of the President, the government of 
     such country has provided adequate, verifiable assurances 
     that it will cease its support for acts of international 
     terrorism;
       (3) the waiver of that subsection is in the vital national 
     security interest of the United States; or
       (4) such a waiver is essential to prevent or respond to a 
     serious radiological hazard in the country receiving the 
     waiver that may or does threaten public health and safety.
       (d) This section shall apply with respect to exports that 
     have been approved for transfer as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act but have not yet been transferred as of 
     that date.

                                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, 
     $38,500,000, 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, $20,268,000, 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, 
     $2,096,000, 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, $662,777,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of the amount 
     appropriated herein, $69,050,000 shall be derived from the 
     Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided further, That revenues from 
     licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and 
     collections estimated at $534,354,300 in fiscal year 2005 
     shall be retained and used for necessary salaries and 
     expenses in this account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of 
     revenues received during fiscal year 2005 so as to result in 
     a final fiscal year 2005 appropriation estimated at not more 
     than $128,422,700: Provided further, that none of the funds 
     made available in this Act or any other appropriations Act 
     for fiscal year 2005, or for any previous fiscal year, may be 
     used by the Commission to issue a license during fiscal year 
     2005 to construct or operate a new commercial nuclear power 
     plant in the United States.

                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, $7,518,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That revenues from licensing fees, 
     inspection services, and other services and collections 
     estimated at $6,766,200 in fiscal year 2005 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 
     2005 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2005 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $751,800.

                  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.


                             Point of Order

  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New Mexico will state her point of 
order.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, section 311 of the bill 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives prohibiting legislation on appropriation bills.
  Section 311 restricts funding in the bill for certain Department of 
Energy laboratory functions in fiscal year 2005 and any previous fiscal 
year. Because the language restricts funding not just for 2005 but for 
all previous years, it constitutes legislation on an appropriation 
bill. For that reason, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to speak to the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentlewoman from New Mexico makes a point of order that section 
311 addresses funds in other acts. The gentlewoman asserts that a valid 
reading of the section is to limit any funds

[[Page H5111]]

made available in any previous fiscal year.
  The Chair finds the language in this section ambiguous. The Chair 
would note that previous rulings cited in section 1052 of the House 
Rules and Manual allow the Chair to examine legislative history when 
attempting to resolve an ambiguity when ruling on a point of order.
  In this case, the Chair finds that the committee report to accompany 
this bill, on page 174, indicates that section 311 intends to limit 
funds in this or any other appropriation act. Also, as recorded in the 
note in Deschler's Precedence, volume 8, chapter 26, section 57.17, 
where the terms in a purported limitation are challenged because of 
their ambiguity, the burden is on the proponent to show that no 
legislation is found in the relevant language.
  In the opinion of the Chair, the committee has not met its burden and 
the section constitutes legislation. The point of order is sustained, 
and section 311 is stricken.
  Are there any other points of order?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hobson

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hobson:
       Page 35, insert the following new section after line 11:
       Sec. 311. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to finance laboratory directed research and 
     development activities at Department of Energy laboratories 
     on behalf of other Federal agencies.

  Mr. HOBSON (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 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask for approval of the 
amendment. This restores the language for one year in the bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the subcommittee is certainly within 
his rights to try to restrict language to one year, but I would point 
out that the intent of this section of legislation seriously undermines 
the ability of the laboratories to do their work. And while he may be 
able to do this in a narrow way, this is a very important piece of law, 
and from a policy point of view, very unwise.
  I look forward to working with him in conference on substantive 
matters related to this problem, but I will have to be voting against 
this amendment.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
the Eshoo, DeFazio, Inslee amendment, and I want to thank the committee 
for agreeing to accept that amendment later, and to thank the committee 
for their consideration of the economic development projects for 
shipping in the San Francisco Bay area.
  I rise in support of the amendment. Nearly four years ago, energy 
companies led by Enron purposefully manipulated consumer markets and 
ruthlessly price gouged California consumers. Recently publicized tapes 
and financial records from Enron's West Coast trading desk provide the 
proof. On the tapes, Enron traders can be heard bragging about how they 
were taking the California utilities--the ``grandmothers''--to the 
``tune of a million bucks or two a day.'' Just last week, the San 
Francisco Chronicle noted that the market manipulation and the Enron 
tapes are a ``display of arrogance and abuse that . . . argue 
powerfully for the need for government to maintain a level of oversight 
on energy markets.''
  California consumers have a right to recover the billions of energy 
overcharges that resulted from this widespread illegal behavior. Yet 
nearly 4 years after the fact, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC) has simply failed to deliver justice to California's energy 
consumers. Instead of providing timely refunds for the unreasonable 
rates California consumers were forced to pay, FERC has ignored court 
orders to give the parties representing the people of California the 
opportunity to gather new evidence concerning energy market 
manipulation during the summer of 2000. As a result, FERC has been able 
to minimize the amount that energy wholesalers and marketers will be 
required to pay back. Instead, FERC has initiated a slew of largely 
closed door investigations against individual generators. Settlements 
in these dockets represent only a fraction of the billions taken from 
California consumers and industry during the energy crisis.
  In Rules Committee, we offered an amendment to help move the process 
forward fairly by requiring the Commission to publicly disclose all the 
documents and evidence obtained in its legal proceedings; by allowing 
the states, like California, affected by market manipulation to fully 
participate in any and all settlement negotiations; and by adjusting 
the timeline for the investigation to adequately reflect the period of 
suspected criminal behavior. That amendment was ruled out of order.
  Mr. Chairman, it's time for the Bush Administration to stop dragging 
its heels and deliver real justice to the people of Calfornia--and all 
up and down the West coast--who were bilked by the bigwigs at Enron out 
of their hard earned paychecks.
  Since the broader amendment was not made in order, we are instead 
offering an amendment to ensure that none of the money appropriated 
under this act can be used to circumvent the court order to shine some 
sunlight into this process by making public the evidence attained 
through the investigations.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Eshoo

  Ms. ESHOO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Eshoo:
       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 to deny requests for the public release of documents 
     or evidence obtained through or in the Western Energy 
     Markets: Enron Investigation (Docket No. PA02-2), the 
     California Refund case (Docket No. EL00-95), the Anomalous 
     Bidding Investigation (Docket No. IN03-10), or the Physical 
     Withholding Investigation.

  Ms. ESHOO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes to be 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a very simple and clear amendment and it states that none of 
the funds made available in this act may be used to deny requests for 
the public release of documents or evidence obtained through or in the 
western energy markets.
  What brings this amendment, the intent of this amendment, and why we 
are making it, Mr. Chairman, is really very clear. There are mounds of 
evidence relative to the manipulation of energy and the energy markets 
in the Pacific Northwest and in California between 2000 and 2001. We 
need to secure what is there. There is so much evidence that is being 
withheld. That is why we bring this amendment forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), the very distinct minority leader of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman, 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for yielding me this 
time.
  I am pleased to rise in support of the Eshoo, DeFazio, Inslee 
amendment to the energy and water bill. Before I speak to it, though, I 
want to sing the praises of the very distinguished chairman of the 
committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), for the leadership 
that he brings to this committee and the understanding that he has of 
the issues before it. He is a long-standing and respected member of the 
Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the aisle. I thank him for 
his service and leadership.
  I also recognize the contribution to all of this and leadership of 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky),

[[Page H5112]]

the ranking member on the Democratic side of the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Water Development. I commend them both for this excellent product 
that they have brought to the floor today.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. Chairman, before I speak directly to the amendment on the floor, 
I want to put it in context. Last night, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo) went to the Committee on Rules to request a 
waiver to offer an amendment that would help Western families to get 
the refunds they deserve after they were ripped off by Enron and 
others.
  The Eshoo amendment as advanced last night would have also allowed 
States to participate in claims at FERC on behalf of consumers and 
provided more time for the public to file complaints. The amendment 
would have put this Congress on record recognizing the misconduct of 
Enron and other energy companies, and it would have required 
perspective to disclose the evidence of manipulation that it has 
accumulated over the past 4 years. It was a very wise amendment. It was 
exactly what the consumers of the Western States needed to remedy the 
energies against them.
  Unfortunately, and it is hard to understand why, the Committee on 
Rules, chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), did not 
allow the amendment to be offered today. We are told this is an open 
rule with open debate, but the Committee on Rules ruled against Western 
consumers when it did not allow the original Eshoo amendment to come to 
the floor. It did not give the consumers the measure they deserve.
  That is why I am very pleased that we were able at least to bring a 
partial amendment and that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), as I 
understand, will perhaps be accepting this amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). This much 
more limited amendment would ensure public access to documents on the 
2000 and 2001 electricity crisis in California and other western States 
held by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  This amendment is a crucial first step, not as good as what last 
night would have been, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo) last night, but it is a critical first step in 
bringing justice to consumers who were gouged by Enron and other energy 
companies; but it is not enough.
  Mr. Chairman, the constituents of those of us who represent the 
western States were victims of an enormous scam. Yes, the electricity 
deregulation signed by Republican Governor Pete Wilson was fatally 
flawed; but when the flaws became clear, when the electricity crisis 
began to spike, when the blackouts began to roll across California, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should have been our safety net. 
Instead, month after month as electricity prices went sky high, FERC 
refused to act.
  Time and time again, my Western colleagues, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), and so many others stood together 
to call on FERC and President Bush to stop the looting of the western 
States by rapacious energy companies. We wrote to FERC. We wrote to the 
FERC. We stood up in the Committee on Appropriations. We stood up on 
the floor of the House, but time and time again FERC failed to stop the 
rampant abuse of consumers by Enron and other energy companies.
  Finally, as Western consumers had lost billions of dollars and the 
worst of the damage was done, FERC stepped in and brought the Western 
electricity markets under control. We knew all along that Enron and the 
energy companies were gaming the system.
  The tapes, the now notorious tapes that every Member of this body has 
an obligation to observe, the tapes of the Enron traders confirm what 
we knew all along, that Enron and the other energy companies were 
laughing all the way to the bank as they stole from families and 
businesses of California.
  Enron and its kind lied, cheated and stole; and it is long past time 
for Enron to pay consumers and the States back, as the amendment of the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) that she offered last night, 
but was turned down by the Committee on Rules, would have required.
  Even after adoption of this amendment that we are considering today, 
settlements will still be made by FERC behind closed doors without 
representatives of the States present. We wish we were voting today on 
the original Eshoo amendment that we wanted so that the House could 
address the larger problems; but at least with the cooperation of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), we are taking this first step toward 
justice for consumers.
  I think that the handwriting was on the wall. I think it was a wise 
move by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), because I do not think he 
wanted to subject his Members to voting against this amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I will yield in a minute.
  We wish that we were voting today on the amendment that we wanted so 
that the House could address the larger problem, but at least we are 
taking this first step toward justice for consumers.
  Today the House has unanimously agreed that FERC release its evidence 
of corporate misconduct to the public. That is what the Committee on 
Rules should have allowed us to do in a broader way last night, but 
they rejected it. I call on the Republicans to join us in ensuring that 
FERC live up to this bipartisan decision and that it release this 
information.
  Mr. Chairman, I will yield a few seconds to the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding, and the 
only reason I am here is that I understand that my good friend from San 
Francisco, the distinguished minority leader, mentioned the fact that I 
am in California and the fact that I chair the House Committee on 
Rules.
  Let me just, in light of what was raised, explain, once again as I 
did during the debate on the rule, exactly what has taken place here.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman 
can get time from his distinguished chairman to go to that length.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to respond to the points that 
the minority raised.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I am sure his distinguished chairman will 
yield him time. My point is because the gentleman was not in the room 
and I want to reiterate it while he is in the room, I would have hoped 
he would have been here, because this is an issue of such major concern 
to our great State of California.
  What I said was that the consumers of California were rejected last 
night in the Committee on Rules, because the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules would not allow the Eshoo amendment, which would have been the 
right way to go in order to get refunds for California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PELOSI. I think that you are going to have to get time from your 
own chairman.
  Mr. DREIER. Well, I was happy to yield earlier to the gentlewoman 
when I controlled time in the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, for 10 seconds, and I yielded more time to 
you at this time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, no, I did not yield. I said when you 
yielded to me for 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, crimes were committed, and we are simply 
asking for restitution. At this point, 10 Enron executives have pled 
guilty, 19 others have been charged, and we are waiting for the charges 
against Ken Lay, the President's single greatest lifetime contributor, 
which have not yet come forward.
  During the crisis, Vice President Cheney said the basic problem in 
California was caused by Californians. He

[[Page H5113]]

basically said the ratepayers in Oregon, Washington, and Northern 
California were at fault. I was in a meeting where he said this was 
nothing but market forces at work. Of course it has now been proven 
that Enron manipulated the markets. They manipulated the markets on 473 
of 537 days of crisis. People in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest and 
California are paying a great amount more for their electricity today, 
generated by the same plants, by many of the same companies, 
transmitted over the same lines because of the market manipulation by 
Enron.
  Plain and simple, we want justice. Justice means we should have 
restitution. That is being denied by the Republican majority. It is 
being denied by the President's Republican-dominated Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission. It is being denied by the Republican-led 
Congress.
  But at least here with this amendment, what we will get is some of 
the information that our utilities could use that is being closely held 
by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the pretense that 
they might someday take some action with this to prove that the rates 
were not just and reasonable and to pursue civil remedies. If the Bush 
administration will not act in the public interest, will not protect 
consumers, if the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will not act in 
the public interest and protect consumers, then at least the consumers 
and their utilities can take action on behalf of themselves. But they 
need this information.
  This amendment will make that information available to the public. 
Some of it, I am sure, will be obscene and as appalling as the tapes we 
have had so far from Enron where they talk about putting it to the 
consumers day in and day out and laugh about it, but the acceptance of 
this amendment will move us down that path even if they will not take 
positive action to help people.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose).
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, we talked about this a little earlier today. I 
was listening to the minority leader's comments very carefully in my 
office, and I ran over here. I apologize for being a little short of 
breath.
  I just want to refresh everybody's memory about what happened in 2000 
and 2001 and to point out the empirical fact that there have been no 
statewide blackouts or brownouts in California since, frankly, the 
Republican-dominated FERC got put into place.
  First of all, the law was very clear. When the previous 
administration was in control, these same complaints were uttered, the 
same concerns were brought to the floor, and the same response was 
given by FERC down to the last period or punctuation mark. You got no 
more response from the FERC under Clinton-Gore than you are complaining 
about today. The reason is that the law is clear. If you are unhappy 
about that, change the law.
  The prohibition of funds that the gentlewoman is asking for here will 
not do one thing to create another megawatt of power for California. It 
will not do a single thing to help us replace the carbon-based, high-
polluting facilities that exist in California today with much more 
efficient and less adverse impact to the environment. It does not do a 
single thing to reduce the pricing that the California PUC board 
regulates which is dominated by appointees of former Governor Gray 
Davis. It does not do a single thing to solve the problem on forward 
contracting for investor-owned utilities.
  I repeat my invitation. I said Horatio earlier. I meant Hannibal. 
Rather than acting as Hannibal at the gates to the valley of solutions, 
stopping us from entering, come over and join us. Help us put in place 
the infrastructure and the technology that California is so good at 
creating. Help us put that in place to create the megawatts of power 
that our people need and our factories depend upon. Help us bring power 
to the peninsula of San Francisco which is probably one of the most 
difficult places to get power to in the entire United States. Help us 
eliminate the variability in power that Santa Clara depends upon. Help 
us bring power to our food processors up and down the State where 
agriculture remains the largest industry. Abandon this Hannibal at the 
gates concept and come over here and help us. Instead of haranguing us 
about past history and attempting to rewrite it, come over here and 
propose your solutions.
  This is not a witch-hunt. It should not be a witch-hunt. The response 
you are getting today is the same response you got under Clinton-Gore. 
The law is very clear about what FERC's prerogatives are. So come over 
here and help us find solutions. Help us create the technology and put 
it in place that allows us to create power at less adverse impact to 
our environment.
  I know you are environmentalists. I know you are, because I watch you 
very carefully. One of my models on environmental issues is the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), one of your fine, 
outstanding Members and one of your leaders. Help us put that 
technology in place and make California's environment even more 
suitable for our use. I know that PG&E is based in San Francisco. They 
have just gone through a horrendous bankruptcy. I know the gentlewoman 
as the minority leader is very curious about the outcome.
  I am trying to find solutions. We need to work together on this.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. OSE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for his 
comments, and I thank the gentleman for his work. But as the gentleman 
knows, we have been working on some of those solutions. As the 
gentleman knows, I have been involved in the plants in Yolo County and 
Solano County and Contra Costa County where we have brought on new 
generation, clean generation, site-based generation, replacing old, 
inefficient production of energy. We are working on a cable system now 
to go under the bay to put power from the East Bay into the South Bay, 
into San Francisco.

                              {time}  1230

  We are working on more efficient pipelines to move fuel around 
Northern California. So I mean I think clearly those are there.
  This amendment is a little different. This is about people who stole 
money. This is not about people who are building power plants. This is 
about people who took power out of service. Knowing that if they 
removed 1 or 2 percent of the power, they would drive up their revenues 
by hundreds of percent.
  Mr. OSE. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, 
who is a neighbor of mine, because all of those are good ideas. And to 
the extent that we have bad actors that have manipulated the system, we 
are going to get at it because the chairman is going to probably accept 
this amendment.
  But the point is that we cannot sit here flailing away at the past 
history. We have to come to a solution, and the solution is along the 
lines that you would otherwise advocate for and advocated for when 
President Clinton was here and Vice President Gore was here and 
advocated for when Governor Davis was in office and now that he is not 
and those people are gone, you are opposing them. We want to get at the 
bad actors. There are two or three who manipulated the market. There is 
no question about it. And they did it to the detriment of every single 
one of us who lives in California. Every single one of us.
  Whether one lives in San Francisco or Modesto or Santa Clara, every 
single one of us suffered from that. But I ask you to come over here 
and help us find solutions on a bipartisan manner, on a manner that 
does not attempt to rewrite history. History is history. It is gone. It 
is done. It is over. Clinton is gone. Davis is gone. There is no point 
in pointing the finger. We know what the facts are. Help us put in 
place the facilities that give us power with the least detriment to our 
environment, that give us power at the lowest price, that give our 
investor-owned utilities, who employ thousands of people up and down 
the State, who give our investor-owned utilities the opportunity to 
forward contract because if they had the opportunity to do that, to 
remove the uncertainty on supply, the very same thing that Governor 
Davis was asked to do, that the PUC was asked to do, that both declined 
to do, if we gave them that power, we would not have to

[[Page H5114]]

build new facilities. We would not have additional constraints on 
supply. We would not have prices going through the roof.
  I want to repeat my compliments to the gentleman from Ohio. I left 
one thing out earlier. Oftentimes he has been a gentle hand in my 
tenure here. Sometimes he has been a heavy hand. In every instance I 
have appreciated it.
  I thank the folks on the other side because we are in this together.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  (Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of Eshoo 
amendment given the fact that Enron has stolen more than $1 billion 
from Nevada's ratepayers by ruthlessly gouging our consumers and our 
utilities nearly went bankrupt, and that is why the Eshoo amendment is 
so important.
  The Western United States has suffered an artificial energy crisis 
created by Enron to rake in enormous profits. The company executives 
deliberately and maliciously manipulated the energy market. Enron stole 
more than $1 billion from Nevada's ratepayers by ruthlessly gouging 
consumers. This is just the tip of the iceberg. It is likely that Enron 
made more than $10 billion in profits by breaking the law.
  Not only did Enron's actions cost Nevada's families more than $1 
billion, our utilities nearly went bankrupt. We cannot allow this 
rampant corporate misconduct to continue. After years of asking for 
answers, people in my state are still waiting for this administration 
to take measures to correct this wrongdoing and hold Enron accountable.
  I urge you to support the Eshoo amendment and ensure that the Enrons 
of the world cannot collect another fraudulent dime from Nevadans.
  Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and 
I am prepared to accept the amendment.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Madam Chairman, blaming the Enron scandal on Bill 
Clinton, with all due respect, give us a break. The only malediction in 
this country you have not laid at the feet of Bill Clinton is Dick 
Cheney's vocabulary malfunction on the Senate floor, and I suppose that 
will be next.
  We listen to these tapes, and the Enron traders were scandalous 
scoundrels who were smart. Do my colleagues know what they said on 
these tapes? We cannot wait until George Bush is President because 
maybe then we will have Ken Lay as Secretary of Energy.
  They understood whose side their bread was buttered and they got what 
they wanted. They got an administration that sat on their hands while 
Enron got into our pockets to the tune of over $8 billion, and they did 
nothing. And now the Republican Party, and we very much appreciate the 
gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Hobson) agreeing to this small little 
amendment, but you are denying us the ability for this Chamber to do 
exactly what the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) says we should do: 
change the law, if that is necessary, to get refunds from Enron. You 
will not allow this Chamber to vote on that.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) comes here and says, If you 
do not like the law, change it, but we will not allow a vote to do it.
  Let me tell my colleagues why maybe that is necessary. We need one or 
two things to happen. The fact of the matter is we have written FERC. I 
have wrote and many other Members have written FERC saying that they 
have concluded there was a scandal, they have concluded there was 
theft, they have concluded there was manipulation, but they refuse to 
give us refunds. And what did Mr. Pat Wood write back and say to me? 
``Therefore, FDA Section 206 does not permit retroactive refund relief 
for rates covering periods prior to the refund effective date 
established on complaint or the initiation of Commission investigation, 
even if the Commission determines that such past rates were unjust or 
unreasonable.''
  It does not matter how many of these records we get. Your 
administration under George Bush and Dick Cheney, friends of Ken Lay, 
are not going to act. Your administration has said if we get a 
videotape of Ken Lay using all kinds of expletives to take money out of 
our pockets, you have decided you are not going to act. And that is 
wrong.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) says we cannot allow an 
amendment because this is an appropriation bill. My question is I would 
like to know the date the House of Representatives, which has now 
spurned two efforts to get relief from Enron, I want to know the date 
the House of Representatives is going to give Americans an opportunity 
to vote to get refunds on an Enron amendment.
  I am going to ask the gentleman a real question. What date is this 
House going to vote to do that?
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, obviously I cannot tell the gentleman 
exactly what date we are going to have a vote. I will tell the 
gentleman that we voted on H.R. 6.
  Mr. INSLEE. Madam Chairman, I reclaim my time. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) is incapable of giving us a date.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), 
if he would be so kind, if he is comfortable with this, in advising us 
in what situation he may allow to come to the floor of this House an 
amendment.
  Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  This has been a very interesting debate. I have regularly yielded, 
and I look forward to yielding to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee); gentlewoman from San Francisco, the minority leader; or anyone 
else who wants to talk about this issue because I think that a healthy 
exchange is important for us.
  I will say in response to the question posed by my friend from 
Washington that every single Member of this House is passionately 
committed to the goal of ensuring that consumers are not penalized and 
that they are successfully compensated for any wrong that has been 
inflicted on them. We all are very, very concerned about the fact that 
any individual whom we represent could possibly have been done in, and 
that is why we are in the midst of several very important things.
  Number one, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California is right 
now in the midst of a measure which is very important. They are 
considering exactly how to appropriately deal with this issue. FERC, 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, itself is closely looking at 
those horrible, horrible transcripts of the things that were said which 
were absolutely beyond the pale and absolutely reprehensible. No one of 
either political party is somehow sympathetic with hurting our 
constituents.
  So that is why to me it is absolutely outrageous for us to constantly 
be painted as somehow sympathetic with people like those involved in 
Enron.
  I do not want to spend time going into the list of campaign 
contributions and all of this sort of stuff that has gone on, but I 
recall that our friends on the other side of the aisle have received 
just as much, if not more, in campaign contributions from many of those 
who are in question. This is an issue, as the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Ose) has said, that we want to address in a bipartisan way.
  We last week passed H.R. 6, energy legislation, which also goes a 
long way towards trying to address this issue by enhancing the ability 
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to address this. When we 
yesterday had the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) testify before the Committee 
on Rules, I know my friend will remember what I said.
  I said please work to fashion this amendment so that it will comply 
within the rules of the House, so that the bipartisan request made by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky) protecting the legislation

[[Page H5115]]

itself but allowing for an open amendment process would be the way that 
we could go, and that is exactly what she has done. That is why the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) has stood here ready to accept the 
amendment. He is ready to accept the amendment which will help us 
address this issue.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, we made our presentation. The gentleman 
was complimentary of how the presentation was made and of the substance 
and the last thing he said was, I cannot support this amendment. That 
is what he said.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is not what I 
said. I am happy to yield again if the gentlewoman would like to 
challenge me on this.
  What I said was that the amendment as proposed did not comply with 
the rules of the House.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. ESHOO. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I asked that the Committee on Rules waive in order for the amendment 
to be accepted.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, that was the request 
that was made. And I will tell the gentlewoman the request that was 
made for the structure of the rule by the chairman of the subcommittee 
and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee was that we have an 
open amendment process and provide protection for those provisions that 
were reported out of the Committee on Appropriations, and that is 
exactly what we did.
  The bipartisan request for the structure of the rule is what we put 
together and what we reported out. It would have been extraordinary if 
we had, in fact, provided a waiver that would have allowed for this 
amendment. That was why I made the request of my friend, to fashion a 
rule so that we can address our shared concern to ensure that our 
constituents are correctly compensated and are not done in. And that 
is, I believe, exactly what has happened, along with passage of H.R. 6, 
our legislation, and the case that is underway before the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals.
  Madam Chairman, would anyone else like for me to yield to them? Would 
the minority leader like me to yield? Is there anyone else who would 
like me to answer questions? I am more than happy to.
  Mr. INSLEE. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Madam Chairman, I think I understand the nature of the 
gentleman's argument. But the problem that we have on this side is that 
not only have we offered an amendment in the appropriations process to 
allow refunds for Americans who have been gouged by Enron, but we also 
offered essentially the same amendment on the energy bill that was 
clearly germane to the issue, clearly would have been allowable, and 
under his leadership in the Committee on Rules, it was refused to be 
allowed under the energy bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will say that if 
one goes back and looks at legislation that we passed in this House, 
H.R. 6, it, in fact, takes very bold steps towards ensuring that our 
constituents are correctly compensated. And so we have done just that.
  Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me this time, and I 
know that I have nearly exhausted the time for this side.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, there is a simple fact here: crimes were 
committed. At this point, 10 Enron executives have gone to jail. They 
defrauded the ratepaying public, the businesses, the homeowners, the 
factories of the Western United States, and illegally extorted money 
from them by manipulating the market.
  Now, there is a lot of reconstructive history going on here today. 
The Clinton administration did impose price caps, actually. It was the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, led by Pat Wood of Texas, under 
the leadership of George Bush of Texas and Dick Cheney of Texas, now 
Wyoming, who refused to take any action, said that these were merely 
market forces at work. Dick Cheney said at a meeting that I was in that 
unless we built one 500-megawatt plant a week for the next 15 years, 
this would continue.
  Well, of course, he was pretty famously wrong. It was market 
manipulation. People have now gone to jail. We have crimes.
  But what we do not have is restitution. The law must be changed. Even 
if the Bush appointee leading the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
from Texas, wants to give refunds to ratepayers in the Western United 
States, he has said he does not have that authority.
  We have asked simply for a vote to give him that authority. We do not 
have to mandate. If he is going to do his job, just give him the 
authority and let him go to work and give that money back to the people 
in the Western United States. It was stolen from them.
  Earlier we talked about put this behind us. The gentleman talked 
about putting it behind us. It is history. Well, you really cannot put 
a crime behind you when you have not had restitution, and we have not 
had our restitution. In fact, we are still paying more for our 
electricity today, day in, day out.
  Nothing is more detrimental to the economic recovery of the Pacific 
Northwest than the fact that we are still paying more than we should 
for our electricity because it was stolen from us by the Enron 
Corporation, based in Texas, and no relief has been granted by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, led by Pat Wood of Texas, who was 
recommended for that job by Ken Lay of Enron, who still has not gone to 
jail and who was factually before this campaign the single largest 
lifetime contributor to George Bush, the President of the United 
States.
  This stinks.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Davis), for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
  (Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment, because I think it is appropriate to address the failure of 
FERC for adjusting reasonable rates within this energy bill.
  I support the Energy and Water Bill that is before us today because 
on balance there are a number of important programs that are supported.
  However, it is an energy bill, and it has failed to address a 
critical energy issue facing the western states.
  I support the amendment of my California colleague Ms. Eshoo.
  This bill should address the failure of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission [FERC] over the past four years to see that energy rates are 
``fair and just''; to review the evidence in the tapes which they have 
had in their possession to look for market manipulation; to hold 
meaningful, public hearings on the energy market gaming that occurred 
so widely in California and the West Coast beginning in the spring of 
2000; and to order the energy companies which committed massive fraud 
to refund the $9 billion that should be restored to California 
ratepayers in addition to refunds for manipulated rates in other 
states.
  You have heard how the recently revealed tapes of employees of the 
energy companies show that they intentionally, cynically, and 
repeatedly manipulated energy supplies in order to create exorbitant, 
unjustified profits for those companies.
  My district San Diego bore the brunt of the first tripling of energy 
bills. Not only the mythical Grandma Millie but many real people 
suffered: the elderly and frail on fixed incomes; small business owners 
whose product requires high levels of energy; museums, churches and 
temples, schools and universities, government offices; and every family 
struggling to meet its budget.
  Congress has an obligation to address this failure by FERC to take 
action. Potential court action is no excuse for Congressional inaction.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
make a closing statement.
  Madam Chairman, I thank all of my colleagues that have fought so hard 
and so courageously for 4 years.
  Madam Chairman, this is an issue about greed, greed gone absolutely

[[Page H5116]]

wild; and the victims of the greed, this insatiable greed for money, 
money, money, money, money, are the people of my State of California, 
the people of the State of Washington, the people of the State of 
Oregon, the people of the State of Nevada.
  I have heard some really outrageous things here today. You, my 
friends, have been given the power by the people of the United States 
of America to hold the majority here. For 4 years we have fought. Not 
one hearing was even granted in the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  We have presented solutions for restitution to our people, for 
refunds, and have been denied over and over and over again. So there 
has not only been an abuse of power by the power companies, but by the 
majority party in this House.
  Now we have come forward and requested last evening at the Committee 
on Rules that all points be waived in order to present an amendment for 
refunds. That was denied. Now the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) has 
allowed this limited amendment that we now have on the floor.
  Make no mistake, not one Republican from the State of California 
supported in 4 years a refund to our people. This legislation has been 
there. We have sent Dear Colleague letters. I will not yield, because I 
waited 4 years for this moment, and this is for our constituents. They 
have not used their power to bring about restitution to them.
  How much more evidence do you need? You have heard the tapes. It is 
not just about being upset about the evidence. It is up to us, those 
who have been vested with the power, to do something on behalf of the 
consumer. It is not enough to say our constituents have been hurt. Use 
the power. Use the power to override the power of the power companies 
that manipulated, that extracted, and then bragged about it.
  Shame on anyone that would not stand next to the grandmother that 
these people referred to and were so gleeful about picking her pockets. 
Shame on them. Shame on anyone that does not fight every day to make 
good for these people.
  These are the extraordinary, ordinary people of our country. That is 
who we stand next to. We invite you to finally do something, to take 
one tiny step, if you have it in you, to do that.
  The White House turned us down, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission turned us down, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce turned us down over and over and over again.
  So I say to those that stand next to the consumer, no matter how 
frustrating, no matter how dark it has been, let us do something about 
it. We have had the solution. We come forward now with a very small 
one.
  I thank everyone that has been part of the effort. You have been 
absolutely magnificent. And I am proud to serve with those that, even 
in the worst of times, sought to do something about it. It is what 
people sent us here for. Do not forget that. That is what our power is 
for. Not for Enron, not for Reliant, not for people that commit 
criminal activities against those that send us here to stand up for 
them.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for 
allowing this to be brought to the floor and debated.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hefley

  Mr. Hefley. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hefley:
       Page 38, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $28,500,000)''.

  Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment, which 
I am going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw, but I do want to make 
this point: this amendment would cut the line item for the Appalachian 
Regional Commission by $28.5 million. The amendment would leave $10 
million for termination of the program.
  Three weeks ago, we buried Ronald Reagan. Some of us were moved to 
reminisce about those days and the ideas that brought many of us here. 
Looking back, a lot of those ideas that made sense then still make 
sense today. And one of those ideas was getting rid of the Appalachian 
Regional Commission, and it still makes sense today.
  Now, first of all, I want to applaud the efforts of our chairman, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), in looking at this program critically 
and cutting a good deal out of this program. He is going in the right 
direction. Last year, he stated that if he had his way he would do away 
with the ARC; and, true to his word, he is doing what he can to 
eliminate it.
  This year, the bill recommends a $38.5 million appropriation for the 
commission, $27.5 million, or about 45 percent, less than the 
President's request. This is much less than just 5 to 10 years ago, 
when we spent upwards of $200 million on this program.
  So I am saying, let us go the rest of the way and eliminate this 
redundant program altogether.
  The ARC purports to provide guidance and financial assistance to 13 
Appalachian States to promote economic growth in the region. Let me 
read you those States and you see if by any reasonable definition this 
is Appalachia. Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New 
York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Virginia, and West Virginia.
  West Virginia was the cornerstone of the Appalachian Commission, and 
since the Appalachian Commission has been in existence, West Virginia 
has gone from 43rd in economic development to 49th. So it tells you the 
effectiveness of the Appalachian Commission.
  Until the past few years, the ARC was among our most expensive 
economic development programs, $282 million in 1995, just 10 years ago. 
Yet despite such spending, after 30 years of existence, there is no 
convincing evidence that the ARC has created new jobs or capital 
investment. Indeed, there is some evidence that this region is getting 
poorer relative to the rest of the country.
  It is time to try something different. There are other programs that 
do better what the ARC does less well: the Department of 
Transportation's highway program, a host of programs under the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  Further, each of the 13 States and within them many of the counties 
and municipalities within those States have economic development 
agencies that are better suited and better qualified to judge the needs 
of these areas than the ARC.
  As I said, it is time to phase out this program. But in deference to 
the excellent job that I think the chairman is doing, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) is headed in the right direction on this, I will 
ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.
  Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from the Colorado?
  Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, I would just like to state that I appreciate the amendment 
offered by my colleague from Colorado. I happen to agree with the 
gentleman about this agency. I think it is one of the biggest pork-
barrel projects we have here. When I was on the Committee on the Budget 
with John Kasich, we tried to do away with this.
  However, there are a lot of people that like to give their Governors 
the ability to do these pork-barrel projects; and, therefore, I do not 
think this amendment will pass, even though I would probably vote for 
it. So I appreciate the gentleman withdrawing his amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there further objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Colorado?
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, I 
appreciate the gentleman from Colorado agreeing

[[Page H5117]]

to withdraw his amendment. Of course, I would have spoken very 
vehemently in opposition to it.
  The gentleman has mentioned that my home State of West Virginia is 
not necessarily being improved by the ARC. I would submit those 
conditions from whatever report the gentleman is quoting are based on 
other conditions, other than what ARC has done for our region, because 
the Appalachian Regional Commission has dramatically improved life in 
Appalachia, and it has helped us get back on our feet in many depressed 
areas of this country.
  It is a program that works, it works from the grassroots up, not from 
the top down. So I would submit to the gentleman that the ARC is still 
vitally needed in many Appalachian poor rural parts of this Nation.
  My home State of West Virginia happens to be the only State that is 
totally within the 13-state ARC region, and we strongly support the 
program.
  Madam Chairman, I rise to protest the amendment to gut the 
Appalachian Regional Commission ARC, just as we prepare to cut the 
ribbon on a new wastewater treatment system for Baghdad paid for by the 
American people. The ARC provides vital infrastructure investments 
throughout Appalachia, a historically distressed area of the country 
that spans 13 states including all of West Virginia, my home state.
  In the 1960s, President Johnson carried out a promise to help raise 
the Appalachian region out of its crushing poverty when he formed the 
ARC. His efforts created a federal-state partnership that works with 
the people of Appalachia to create opportunities for self-sustaining 
economic development and improved quality of life.
  Today, the ARC plays an integral role in providing for development 
and jobs throughout 410 counties across a 200,000 square mile region. 
And, the Appalachian region is dramatically improved because of this 
effort.
  Madam 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:
  $1 million grant to the Wyoming County Commission and the eastern 
Wyoming Public Service District (PSD) for construction of a new water 
treatment plant that will allow the consolidation of seven local 
providers into a regional water system serving 1549 customers. Six area 
communities are currently served by small private water systems 
(originally built to serve coal camps) that chronically violate water 
quality standards.
  A $250,000 grant to West Virginia Citizens Conservation Corps, Inc. 
to the Twin Branch Recreation and Environmental Education Center near 
Davy, located on reclaimed mine lands, and with the purpose of 
developing a sustainable outdoor recreation center that would attract 
visitors to McDowell County. The complex will ultimately include 
trailheads on the Hatfield-McCoy trail system, campsites and cabins, a 
retreat center, and an environmental education center.
  Other recent ARC projects about which I have proudly spoken in the 
recent past include:
  A $100,000 grant to the Prichard, WV Public Service District 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.
  A $75,000 grant to the West Virginia Access Center for Higher 
Education in Bluefield, WV, 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 Wyoming County, Twin 
Branch, Prichard, Glen White, Julian, or Bluefield will claim that the 
ARC is somehow not worthwhile.
  However, Madam Chairman, Mr. Speaker, there remains more work to be 
done to fulfill the promise made. We're still struggling to get on our 
feet.
  But the amendment will undo all of those efforts. At a time when the 
Appalachian people need the sustained help to achieve their potential, 
this amendment would pull the rug out from underneath them.
  Madam Chairman, that's just wrong. It's crass, and it's craven.
  Madam Chairman, that great West Virginian, Senator Robert 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. Each of us recognizes the value of the Appalachian Regional 
Commission.
  I urge my colleagues recognize that value too.
  I urge my colleagues to remember the ARC is a worthwhile program that 
has benefited so many lives, and continues to do so.
  Vote against this amendment.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado.
  The ARC is a tremendous force for progress in the region I represent. 
Almost every water and wastewater project has an element of ARC funding 
at its core.
  The ARC has helped us build industrial parks, shell buildings and 
industrial access roads that have enabled broad economic growth.
  Community libraries, health care clinics and vital broadband 
deployment projects have been boosted in my region by the ARC.
  Studies have shown that every dollar expended by the ARC on an 
industry attracting infrastructure project stimulates $12 in private 
investment, creating jobs, improving the economy, and expanding 
revenues for local governments.
  The ARC has helped us tremendously, and we need its help in the 
future as much as in past years.
  I urge defeat of the amendment and full funding for the Appalachian 
Regional Commission.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado.
  Madam Chairman, the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) is a true 
American success story. Throughout its existence, it has consistently 
risen to the challenge of leveraging federal dollars in a prudent 
manner, providing a fair return, both socially and economically, for 
the Federal Government's investment.
  The Appalachian Regional Commission was created in 1965 to provide 
social and economic support to severely distressed counties in the 
Appalachian states stretching from New York to Mississippi. Its goal is 
to bring over 23 million citizens in 410 counties into America's 
economic mainstream.
  There is no doubt the public works and infrastructure projects 
supported by the ARC are having a very positive effect in meeting the 
challenges of the Appalachian region. Building on their successful 
strategy of a regional approach, the ARC encourages affected states to 
work cooperatively to address issues of economic distress particular to 
the Appalachian region.
  Very importantly, Madam Chairman, ARC programs do not duplicate other 
federal programs. ARC programs respond to locally identified needs and 
are extremely flexible in their ability to quickly respond to the 
unique problems of the Appalachian region.
  The ARC's record is truly impressive. Under its tenure, the number of 
distressed counties has been cut by more than half, from 223 in 1965 to 
91 in 2004. Furthermore, the poverty rate has been cut by more than 
half, from 31 percent to 13 percent. Infant mortality has dropped 
significantly, high school graduation rates now mirror those of the 
nation as a whole, and more than 800,000 Appalachian residents have 
access to clean water and sanitation facilities through ARC projects.
  In 2003, the ARC's ``smart business'' approach leveraged $185,905,000 
in other public funds, and over $464,107,000 in private funds.
  Much work still needs to be done. This region has been 
disproportionately hard hit by loss of jobs in the manufacturing 
sector. One out of every five jobs lost in manufacturing has been in 
Appalachia. In northern Appalachia, the steel industry has likewise 
suffered major job losses, while in central Appalachia the number of 
workers in the mining industry continues to fall. Unemployment rates 
stubbornly continue to exceed the national average, and the Appalachian 
region continues to suffer from disproportionately high rates of 
chronic disease such as cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes.
  Now is certainly not the time to short-change this Commission, which 
has a proven track record of effectiveness, and efficiency.
  Madam Chairman, as I recall the last attempt to dismantle the ARC 
through a reduction in funding was overwhelmingly rejected by this body 
by a vote of 328 to 97. I urge my colleagues to join me once again to 
reject, resoundly and overwhelmingly, this amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there further objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I move to strike 
the last word.

[[Page H5118]]

  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Act, H.R. 4614. I would, however, like to 
ask the distinguished chairman about language in the bill report that 
would require the Army Corps of Engineers to seek congressional 
approval whenever the Corps reprograms funds for major water 
development programs.

                              {time}  1300

  My district in Orange County, California, would be particularly 
affected by any changes to the reprogramming policy. In recent years, 
the Army Corps of Engineers reprogrammed between $10 million to $12 
million that Congress had originally appropriated to shore up flood 
protection along the Santa Ana River in my area.
  We are now in dire need of that money to continue building up our 
flood protection for the growing urban communities in Orange, 
Riverside, and San Bernardino counties.
  Without the successful completion of the project, the corps estimates 
that over 3.35 million people would be endangered and that it could 
probably destroy up to $15 billion in property value if we do not get 
that project completed.
  So I am asking the distinguished chairman, will the Army Corps 
continue to have the authority to ship money back to those ongoing 
projects from which it had previously borrowed? I understand there is 
report language directing the court to return funds to appropriated 
programs. I would like to know, would this apply to the Santa Ana River 
Mainstem project?
  Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her support 
and her inquiry.
  I would assure her that nothing in the bill or the report would 
prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from returning funds to donor 
projects. In fact, as the gentlewoman has observed, the bill report 
includes language that specifically instructs the corps to be as 
diligent in returning funds as it has been in reprogramming them. 
Again, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her inquiry and hope 
this clarification has worked to address her concerns.
  The ranking member and I have undertaken a very strong look at the 
reprogrammings in the Corps of Engineers, much more so than in past 
years, and we are making them report to us, and we are signing off on 
them, and we are watching these much more diligently than we had been 
in the past, and we think it will work out much better in the future.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I know that the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) as the other subcommittee had been 
able to tighten things up also, and I appreciate the new policy that 
the gentleman is trying to move forward. Again, I am just concerned, as 
this is a major project for almost 4 million people in that area, and 
we are at that point where we are really going to get a lot of it done, 
and we need those funds to be brought back in.
  Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I agree.


             Amendment Offered by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico

  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico:
       Page 21, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 23, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,0000''.

  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on 
this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes to 
be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  (Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, this amendment transfers 
$5 million from administrative accounts in the Department of Energy to 
two different programs in the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account. 
Those two programs do two things: first, accelerate the return of 
highly enriched uranium from Russian-built reactors abroad and 
transition those reactors to low-enriched uranium; and, secondly, 
convert other reactors to low-enriched uranium.
  All of us here understand the difficulty and the importance of 
nonproliferation efforts. One of the most successful efforts has been 
working with the Russians and with others to consolidate highly 
enriched uranium, because the material is the most difficult thing to 
get in order to build a nuclear weapon.
  In the House Committee on Armed Services we had discussions about 
whether these programs could be accelerated and how fast they could be 
accelerated. Unfortunately, we did not get answers to those questions 
before the Defense authorization bill passed this House, and we will 
have to address it in conference.
  Since this time, the administration has come forward with numbers and 
with a global threat initiative focusing, in particular, on 
consolidation of nuclear material. And the answer is, to accelerate 
this program significantly, they can do so with a very small amount of 
money, and that is the $5 million we are proposing to move.
  It takes that money from the administrative line in the Department. I 
would note that the Department administration has been increased by $28 
million over the previous year, and I think that a priority must be for 
this House to make very clear that we wish to accelerate the 
consolidation of highly enriched uranium around the world.
  I would also, Madam Chairman, like to express my concerns about other 
problems in the report language to this, that accompanies this bill. I 
intend to vote in favor of this bill. We cannot amend report language, 
because report language does not have the status of law. But when I 
vote ``yes,'' I am not voting ``yes'' on the report language. There are 
serious problems with the report language: inconsistencies in the 
report language with actually other elements of law. But the overall 
numbers in the bill will allow the Department of Energy to carry out 
its important work for the Nation, and the weapons program in 
particular is funded at $6.5 billion.
  I would particularly like to applaud the chairman on his increase in 
research in the Office of Science, and I would urge support of my 
amendment and the acceptance of the amendment so that we can accelerate 
the consolidation of this material elsewhere and accelerate the 
transitioning of reactors around the world from using highly enriched 
uranium which can be used in nuclear weapons to low-enriched uranium, 
which cannot.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have been very generous to a lot of the accounts in here. Some of 
the accounts we have taken money away from that are being stripped out 
here. I would oppose this amendment. Nonproliferation is very 
important. Over the years we have continued to fund nonproliferation, 
even sometimes when the accounts were carried very high. I think this 
amendment is not meritorious at this time; and, therefore, I oppose the 
amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairman, I simply want to rise to associate 
myself with the gentleman's remarks and the gentleman's objection. I do 
appreciate the intent, and I do want to work with the gentlewoman as we 
proceed at conference, but I am opposed to the amendment.

[[Page H5119]]

  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  It seems to me that this is a small price to pay to accelerate one of 
the most important programs for the country in order to fight the 
problem of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It is a very, 
very small amount of money. And if we weigh the importance of 
administration and the importance of rapidly accelerating one of the 
most important programs and consolidating weapons-grade uranium that 
was formerly in the former Soviet Union, I think there is no question 
about what our priorities as a Nation should be. It is a small amount 
of money; and, frankly, I am a little surprised that it was not just 
accepted by the committee.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Mrs. Wilson) will be postponed.
  Mr. HOBSON. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Biggert, Chairman pro tempore 
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. 
4614) making appropriations for energy and water development for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________