Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 90 (Friday, June 25, 2004)

[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.

____________________