[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 70 (Tuesday, May 24, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3853-H3879]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 291 and rule
[[Page H3854]]
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2419.
{time} 1830
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 further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Goodlatte in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, all
time for general debate had expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the amendment reported
therewith is adopted and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as
original text for the purpose of further amendment.
No further amendment to the bill, as amended, may be offered except:
Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations
or their designees for the purpose of debate;
Amendments printed in the Record and numbered 1, 2 and 5;
The amendment printed in the Record and numbered 3, which shall be
debatable for 24 minutes;
The amendment printed in the Record and numbered 4, which shall be
debatable for 30 minutes;
An amendment by Mr. Sanders regarding funding for Energy Smart
schools;
An amendment by Mrs. Biggert regarding Laboratory-Directed Research
and Development;
An amendment by Mr. Markey regarding funding for interim storage and
reprocessing;
An amendment by Mr. Markey regarding security assessments;
An amendment by Mr. Tiahrt regarding promulgation of regulations
affecting competitiveness;
An amendment by Mr. Boehlert regarding contribution of funds to ITER;
An amendment by Mr. Jones of North Carolina regarding funding for
operation and maintenance of the Corps of Engineers.
Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in the
request or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed in the
Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject
to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development and Related Agencies each may offer one pro forma
amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question.
Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for
10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title I be
considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any
point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The text of title I is as follows:
H.R. 2419
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, 2006, for energy and water development
and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
CORPS OF ENGINEERS--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 and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem
restoration, and related purposes.
General Investigations
For expenses necessary for the collection and study of
basic information pertaining to river and harbor, flood and
storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and
related projects, restudy of authorized projects,
miscellaneous investigations, and, when authorized by law,
surveys and detailed studies and plans and specifications of
projects prior to construction, $100,000,000 to remain
available until expended: Provided, That, except as provided
in section 101 of this Act, the amounts made available under
this paragraph shall be expended as authorized in law for the
projects and activities specified in the report accompanying
this Act.
Construction
For expenses necessary for the construction of river and
harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem
restoration, and related projects authorized by law; for
conducting detailed studies, and plans and specifications, of
such projects (including those involving 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); and for the
benefit of federally listed species to address the effects of
civil works projects owned or operated by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, $1,763,000,000, 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 Law 104-303; and of which $182,668,000, pursuant to
Public Law 99-662, shall be derived from the Inland Waterways
Trust Fund, to cover one-half of the costs of construction
and rehabilitation of inland waterways projects; and of which
$4,000,000 shall be exclusively for projects and activities
authorized under section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of
1960; and of which $500,000 shall be exclusively for projects
and activities authorized under section 111 of the River and
Harbor Act of 1968; and of which $1,000,000 shall be
exclusively for projects and activities authorized under
section 103 of the River and Harbor Act of 1962; and of which
$25,000,000 shall be exclusively available for projects and
activities authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control
Act of 1948; and of which $8,000,000 shall be exclusively for
projects and activities authorized under section 14 of the
Flood Control Act of 1946; and of which $400,000 shall be
exclusively for projects and activities authorized under
section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954; and of which
$17,400,000 shall be exclusively for projects and activities
authorized under section 1135 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986; and of which $18,000,000 shall be
exclusively for projects and activities authorized under
section 206 of the Water Resources Act of 1996; and of which
$4,000,000 shall be exclusively for projects and activities
authorized under section 204 of the Water Resources Act of
1992: Provided, That, except as provided in section 101 of
this Act, the amounts made available under this paragraph
shall be expended as authorized in law for the projects and
activities specified in the report accompanying this Act.
In addition, $137,000,000 shall be available for projects
and activities authorized under 16 U.S.C. 410-r-8 and section
601 of Public Law 106-541.
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, $290,000,000 to
remain available until expended, of which such sums as are
necessary to cover the Federal share of operation and
maintenance costs for inland harbors shall be derived from
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund: Provided, That, except as
provided in section 101 of this Act, amounts made available
under this paragraph shall be expended as authorized in law
for the projects and activities specified in the report
accompanying this Act.
Operation and Maintenance
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 authorized by law; for the benefit of federally
listed species to address the effects of civil works projects
owned or operated by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (the ``Corps''); for providing security for
infrastructure owned and operated by, or on behalf of, the
Corps, 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, $2,000,000,000 to remain available until
expended, of which such sums to cover the Federal share of
operation and maintenance costs for coastal harbors and
channels, and inland harbors shall be derived from 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 Corps 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
[[Page H3855]]
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, except as provided in section 101 of this Act, the
amounts made available under this paragraph shall be expended
as authorized in law for the projects and activities
specified in the report accompanying this Act.
Regulatory Program
For expenses necessary for administration of laws
pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands,
$160,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites
in the United States resulting from work performed as part of
the Nation's early atomic energy program, $140,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
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,
$152,021,000 to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no part of any other appropriation provided in this Act
shall be available to fund the civil works activities of the
Office of the Chief of Engineers or the civil works executive
direction and management activities of the division offices.
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), $4,000,000.
Administrative Provision
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. (a) None of the funds provided in title I of this
Act shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or
activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project,
or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this
Act;
(4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a
specific program, project, or activity by this Act;
(5) increases funds for any program, project, or activity
by more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
(6) reduces funds for any program, project, or activity by
more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less.
(b) Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any project or
activity authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control
Act of 1948, section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946,
section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954, section 107 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1960, section 103 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1962, section 111 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1968, section 1135 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986, section 206 of the Water Resources Act of 1996,
or section 204 of the Water Resources Act of 1992.
Sec. 102. None of the funds appropriated in this 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 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. 104. In overseeing the use of continuing and multiyear
contracts for water resources projects, the Secretary of the
Army shall take all necessary steps in fiscal year 2006 and
thereafter to ensure that the Corps limits the duration of
each multiyear contract to the term needed to achieve a
substantial reduction of costs on the margin; and limits the
amount of work performed each year on each project to the
funding provided for that project during the fiscal year.
Sec. 105. After February 6, 2006, none of the funds made
available in title I of this Act may be used to award any
continuing contract or to make modifications to any existing
continuing contract that obligates the United States
Government during fiscal year 2007 to make payment under such
contract for any project that is proposed for deferral or
suspension in fiscal year 2007 in the materials prepared by
the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) for that
fiscal year pursuant to provisions of chapter 11 of title 31,
United States Code.
Sec. 106. None of the funds made available in title I of
this Act may be used to award any continuing contract or to
make modifications to any existing continuing contract that
reserves an amount for a project in excess of the amount
appropriated for such project pursuant to this Act.
Sec. 107. None of the funds in title I of this Act shall be
available for the rehabilitation and lead and asbestos
abatement of the dredge McFarland: Provided, That amounts
provided in title I of this Act are hereby reduced by
$18,630,000.
Sec. 108. None of the funds in this Act may be expended by
the Secretary of the Army to construct the Port Jersey
element of the New York and New Jersey Harbor or to reimburse
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.
Point of Order
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against Section
104.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, 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?
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The
provision is stricken from the bill.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concern about what may
be the unintended consequences of some of the General Provisions
applicable to the Corps of Engineers in this FY 2006 Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill. I appreciate that Chairman Hobson and
Ranking Member Visclosky have faced a difficult task in trying to meet
the nation's water resources needs in a time of constrained budgets. I
also know that the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee has had
some concerns about how the Corps of Engineers is managing the civil
works program, particularly as it relates to reprogramming funds and to
the use of contracts for work that is completed over several fiscal
years--called continuing contracts.
However, I am concerned that the legislation before the House today
will make it even more difficult to meet important navigation, flood
control, and environmental restoration needs all over the country. The
Corps' civil works budget request is based on the best information the
Corps has at the time the request is made. However, circumstances can
change over the course of a year. Severe weather may increase operation
and maintenance costs. Major construction projects may get delayed for
technical reasons. For these reasons, the Corps has traditionally
attempted to maximize the benefits to the nation with the available
funds by reprogramming money to best meet current needs and conditions.
I agree that the Corps should get Congressional concurrence before
moving around funds that have been earmarked in the report of the
Appropriations Committee. I also agree that the Corps needs to track
and report these reprogramming decisions, so the impact on current and
future budgets is transparent. However, H.R. 2419 goes far beyond
tracking and transparency and places severe restrictions on
reprogramming--which could have adverse consequences for projects all
over the country.
For example, if we need to conduct emergency maintenance at
Chickamauga Lock in fiscal year 2006, to address the concrete growth
there, and the cost is more than $2 million above the amount earmarked
for operation and maintenance of that lock, the Corps will not be able
to reprogram funds to carry out that work. I don't think that is the
Committee's intent. H.R. 2419 also tries to place limits on the Corps'
use of continuing contracts to carry out civil works projects. In a
minute, I will make a point of order to remove section 104 from the
bill. The Corps has had authority to enter into continuing contracts
since 1922, at the discretion of the Secretary. In the Water Resources
Development Act of 1999, Congress removed the Secretary's discretion
and required the Corps to begin each project for which funds were
provided in an Appropriations Act, using a continuing contract if the
Act did not provide full funding. Congress made this change in law to
prevent the prior Administration from imposing a full funding policy on
the Corps.
If Corps projects had to be fully funded, the Corps would be able to
undertake very few projects each year. Under a full funding policy,
most appropriated funds would simply sit in the Treasury, waiting for
years to be expended, while other critical navigation, flood control
and environmental restoration needs go unmet.
I understand that H.R. 2419 does not completely eliminate the use of
continuing contracts, but the limits it proposes may be ill-advised. I
am told that section 105 of the bill represents an attempt to ensure
that funding is
[[Page H3856]]
requested each year for projects carried out using a continuing
contract. However, the language that is before the House today gives
Congressional priorities less favorable treatment than Administration
requests. Under section 105 of the bill, if a member is successful in
obtaining funding for a Congressionally-added project in the FY 2006
Energy and Water Appropriations Act, but does not receive full funding
for the project, the Corps has three alternatives to carry out the
project: (1) Hope to get a continuing contract awarded before February
6, 2006 (which will be difficult given the complexity of the Federal
Acquisition Regulations); (2) Award a single year contract for only one
increment of the project (resulting in increased costs); or (3) Wait
until fiscal year 2008 to award a continuing contract for the project
(delaying construction of the project).
In contrast, Administration priorities may be carried out using
continuing contracts. Finally, I want to applaud the Committee's effort
to improve the quality of the information in the budget documents
submitted by the Corps to Congress each fiscal year. In fact, I believe
that if the Corps provides Congress with budget documents that are
transparent about the funding needs of all ongoing projects, the
Appropriations Committee will have sufficient information to address
its concerns regarding both the use of continuing contracts and
reprogramming.
This information will make it unnecessary to place further
restrictions on the Corps' ability to manage the civil works program.
The importance of the civil works program of the Army Corps of
Engineers to our nation's economic security cannot be overstated. I
look forward to continuing to work with the Committee to ensure that
the Corps is able to continue to carry out its mission.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT
Central Utah Project Completion Account
For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, $32,614,000, to remain available
until expended, of which $946,000 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, $1,736,000, to remain available until expended.
Bureau of Reclamation
Water and Related Resources
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For management, development, and restoration of water and
related natural resources and for related activities,
including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of
reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling
related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and
related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with,
State and local governments, Indian tribes, and others,
$832,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$55,544,000 shall be available for transfer to the Upper
Colorado River Basin Fund and $21,998,000 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; of which not more
than $500,000 is for high priority projects which shall be
carried out by the Youth Conservation Corps, as authorized by
16 U.S.C. 1706: Provided, That such transfers may be
increased or decreased within the overall appropriation under
this heading: Provided further, That of the total
appropriated, the amount for program activities that can be
financed by the Reclamation Fund or the Bureau of Reclamation
special fee account established by 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i) shall
be derived from that Fund or account: Provided further, That
funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 are available until
expended for the purposes for which contributed: Provided
further, That funds advanced under 43 U.S.C. 397a shall be
credited to this account and are available until expended for
the same purposes as the sums appropriated under this
heading: Provided further, That funds available for
expenditure for the Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program
may be expended by the Bureau of Reclamation for site
remediation on a non-reimbursable basis.
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, $52,219,000, 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.
California Bay-Delta Restoration
(including transfer of funds)
For carrying out activities authorized by the Calfed Bay
Delta Authorization Act, consistent with plans to be approved
by the Secretary of the Interior, $35,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which such amounts as may be
necessary to carry out such activities may be transferred to
appropriate accounts of other participating Federal agencies
to carry out authorized purposes: Provided, That funds
appropriated herein may be used for the Federal share of the
costs of CALFED Program management: Provided further, That
the use of any funds provided to the California Bay-Delta
Authority for program-wide management and oversight
activities shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary
of the Interior: Provided further, That CALFED implementation
shall be carried out in a balanced manner with clear
performance measures demonstrating concurrent progress in
achieving the goals and objectives of the Program.
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,
$57,917,000, 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.
Sec. 203. (a) Section 1(a) of the Lower Colorado Water
Supply Act (Public Law 99-655) is amended by adding at the
end the following: ``The Secretary is authorized to enter
into an agreement or agreements with the city of Needles or
the Imperial Irrigation District for the design and
construction of the remaining stages of the Lower Colorado
Water Supply Project on or after November 1, 2004, and the
Secretary shall ensure that any such agreement or agreements
include provisions setting forth (1) the responsibilities of
the parties to the agreement for design and construction; (2)
the locations of the remaining wells, discharge pipelines,
and power transmission lines; (3) the remaining design
capacity of up to 5,000 acre-feet per year which is the
authorized capacity less the design capacity of the first
stage constructed; (4) the procedures and requirements for
approval and acceptance by the Secretary of the remaining
stages, including approval of the quality of construction,
measures to protect the public health and safety, and
procedures for protection of such stages; (5) the rights,
responsibilities, and liabilities of each party to the
agreement; and (6) the term of the agreement.''.
(b) Section 2(b) of the Lower Colorado Water Supply Act
(Public Law 99-655) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``Subject to the demand of such users along or
adjacent to the Colorado River for Project water, the
Secretary is further authorized to contract with additional
persons or entities who hold Boulder Canyon Project Act
section 5 contracts for municipal and industrial uses within
the State of California for the use or benefit of Project
water under such
[[Page H3857]]
terms as the Secretary determines will benefit the interest
of Project users along the Colorado River.''.
Mr. HOBSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that title II be considered as read, printed in the Record and
open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE III
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Energy Supply and Conservation
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for energy supply and energy
conservation 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, $1,762,888,000, to
remain available until expended.
Clean Coal Technology
(deferral)
Of the funds made available under this heading for
obligation in prior years, $257,000,000 shall not be
available until October 1, 2006: Provided, That funds made
available in previous appropriations Acts shall be made
available for any ongoing project regardless of the separate
request for proposal under which the project was selected.
Fossil Energy Research and Development
For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy
research and development activities, under the authority of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91),
including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible
and equitable interests in any real property or any facility
or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, the hire
of passenger motor vehicles, the hire, maintenance, and
operation of aircraft, the purchase, repair, and cleaning of
uniforms, the reimbursement to the General Services
Administration for security guard services, and for
conducting inquiries, technological investigations and
research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and
disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social
and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603),
$502,467,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$18,000,000 is to continue a multi-year project coordinated
with the private sector for FutureGen, without regard to the
terms and conditions applicable to clean coal technological
projects: Provided, That the initial planning and research
stages of the FutureGen project shall include a matching
requirement from non-Federal sources of at least 20 percent
of the costs: Provided further, That any demonstration
component of such project shall require a matching
requirement from non-Federal sources of at least 50 percent
of the costs of the component: Provided further, That of the
amounts provided, $50,000,000 is available, after
coordination with the private sector, for a request for
proposals for a Clean Coal Power Initiative providing for
competitively-awarded research, development, and
demonstration projects to reduce the barriers to continued
and expanded coal use: Provided further, That no project may
be selected for which sufficient funding is not available to
provide for the total project: Provided further, That funds
shall be expended in accordance with the provisions governing
the use of funds contained under the heading ``Clean Coal
Technology'' in 42 U.S.C. 5903d as well as those contained
under the heading ``Clean Coal Technology'' in prior
appropriations: Provided further, That the Department may
include provisions for repayment of Government contributions
to individual projects in an amount up to the Government
contribution to the project on terms and conditions that are
acceptable to the Department including repayments from sale
and licensing of technologies from both domestic and foreign
transactions: Provided further, That such repayments shall be
retained by the Department for future coal-related research,
development and demonstration projects: Provided further,
That any technology selected under this program shall be
considered a Clean Coal Technology, and any project selected
under this program shall be considered a Clean Coal
Technology Project, for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. 7651n, and
chapters 51, 52, and 60 of title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations: Provided further, That no part of the sum herein
made available shall be used for the field testing of nuclear
explosives in the recovery of oil and gas: Provided further,
That up to 4 percent of program direction funds available to
the National Energy Technology Laboratory may be used to
support Department of Energy activites not included in this
account: Provided further, That the Secretary of Energy is
authorized to accept fees and contributions from public and
private sources, to be deposited in a contributed funds
account, and prosecute projects using such fees and
contributions in cooperation with other Federal, State, or
private agencies or concerns: Provided further, That revenues
and other moneys received by or for the account of the
Department of Energy or otherwise generated by sale of
products in connection with projects of the Department
appropriated under the Fossil Energy Research and Development
account may be retained by the Secretary of Energy, to be
available until expended, and used only for plant
construction, operation, costs, and payments to cost-sharing
entities as provided in appropriate cost-sharing contracts or
agreements.
Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves
For expenses necessary to carry out naval petroleum and oil
shale reserve activities, including the hire of passenger
motor vehicles, $18,500,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, unobligated funds remaining from prior years shall be
available for all naval petroleum and oil shale reserve
activities.
Elk Hills School Lands Fund
For necessary expenses in fulfilling installment payments
under the Settlement Agreement entered into by the United
States and the State of California on October 11, 1996, as
authorized by section 3415 of Public Law 104-106,
$48,000,000, for payment to the State of California for the
State Teachers' Retirement Fund, of which $46,000,000 will be
derived from the Elk Hills School Lands Fund.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve
For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve
facility development and operations and program management
activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), including the
hire of passenger motor vehicles, the hire, maintenance, and
operation of aircraft, the purchase, repair, and cleaning of
uniforms, the reimbursement to the General Services
Administration for security guard services, $166,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
Energy Information Administration
For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Energy Information Administration, $86,426,000, to remain
available until expended.
Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for non-defense environmental
cleanup 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 six passenger motor vehicles, of which five
shall be for replacement only, $319,934,000, to remain
available until expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman from Vermont submit his amendment?
The Clerk does not seem to have it. Is there objection to returning to
that point in the reading?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
Page 19, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 27, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank my colleagues for allowing
me to offer the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. The legislative intent
of this amendment is to increase the funding for the EnergySmart
Schools Program administered by the Department of Energy by $1,000,000,
offset by a reduction in administrative expenses for the Department of
Energy's public affairs department. It is the intent of this amendment
that the increased funds for the EnergySmart Schools program will be
directly administered and the grants be directly made by the DOE's
National Renewable Energy Laboratory and that they will not go through
a third part. I am aware that the public affairs department of the DOE
has received an increase of $1,000,000 above Fiscal Year 2005 funding
and it is the intent of this amendment to return the funding for the
public affairs department to the Fiscal Year 2005 level.
Mr. Chairman, our Nation's school systems are in crisis. Their
budgets are threadbare and most can barely pay their teachers a living
wage. To make matters worse, America's school buildings are aging--the
average age is 42 years--and the vast majority could greatly benefit
from energy-saving improvements. Unfortunately, school administrators
are often hard-pressed to allocate any of their limited funds toward
improving the energy efficiency of their buildings and systems, even
when it is clear that such improvements would save them substantial
sums of money that could
[[Page H3858]]
help pay their teachers of the future. Fortunately, the Department of
Energy has an energy conservation program to help these schools do just
that: to implement energy-saving strategies that save money, help
children learn about energy and create improved teaching and learning
environments.
The Department of Energy's EnergySmart Schools Program--an integral
and active part of the Rebuild America program--is committed to
building a nation of schools that are smart about every aspect of
energy. The program provides information on energy efficient solutions
for school bus transportation, conducting successful building projects
and teaching about energy, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. It
also works with school districts to introduce energy-saving
improvements to the physical environment, enabling many schools to
leverage their energy savings to pay for needed improvements, and it
takes a proactive role in promoting and supporting energy education in
our schools.
Often, this enables school districts to save big on utility bills and
maintenance costs, in turn freeing up funds to pay for books, computers
and teachers, and improve indoor air quality and comfort. According to
the Department of Energy, nationally, K-12 schools spend more than $6
billion a year on energy and at least 25 percent of that could be saved
through smarter energy management, meaning energy improvements could
cut the Nation's school bill by $1.5 billion each year. As an added
benefit, many of the same improvements that help to lower a school's
energy consumption also serve to improve the classroom environment,
removing noisy, inefficient heating and cooling systems, inadequate
lights, and ventilation systems that don't restrict indoor
contaminants.
In short, Mr. Chairman, the EnergySmart Schools program helps our
Nation's schools to implement energy-saving strategies that save money,
help children learn about energy and create improved teaching and
learning environments. My amendment would add $1,000,000 to support
this excellent program--offset by a reduction in administrative
expenses for the Department of Energy's public affairs department.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, if we do not have to engage in any further
debate, I support the gentleman and am prepared to accept the
amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend very
much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I understand there is a provision in the
report accompanying this bill regarding employees of DOE contractors
who are on detail in the Washington, D.C., area.
Mr. HOBSON. That is correct.
Mr. DICKS. The provision applies to those who are on detail from
their home laboratory location. Is that not the intent of this section?
Mr. HOBSON. That is correct.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should agree that provisions
should not apply to scientists who are located here in the Washington,
D.C., area and who have never been on detail from their home
laboratory; that is, they have lived here for the duration of their
employment without ever having been located at the home lab. In
addition, they have not incurred additional transportation and housing
costs associated with detailees for temporary assignments in the
Washington, D.C., area.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is my
understanding.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, would
the gentleman agree that staff affiliated with the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, located at the Joint Global Change Research
Institute, who were never detailed to Washington, D.C., should be
excluded from the list of contractor detailees referenced in this
report?
Mr. HOBSON. I agree.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, the State of Idaho
has an agreement with the United States Department of Energy,
enforceable by the courts, that prohibits commercial spent nuclear fuel
from coming into the Idaho National Laboratory for storage.
Would the language contained within the report in any way change the
existing law or alter the provisions of the State of Idaho's agreement
with the Department of Energy?
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, no, it would not.
Mr. OTTER. I thank the gentleman very much for that clarification.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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, $591,498,000, to be derived
from the Fund, to remain available until expended, of which
$20,000,000 shall be available in accordance with title X,
subtitle A, of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
Science
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for science activities in
carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition or condemnation of any real property or facility
or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or
expansion, and purchase of not to exceed forty-seven
passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, including not
to exceed one ambulance and two buses, $3,666,055,000, to
remain available until expended.
Nuclear Waste Disposal
For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the
purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law
97-425, as amended (the ``Act''), including the acquisition
of real property or facility construction or expansion,
$310,000,000, to remain available until expended and to be
derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That of the
funds made available in this Act for Nuclear Waste Disposal,
$3,500,000 shall be provided to the State of Nevada solely
for expenditures, other than salaries and expenses of State
employees, to conduct scientific oversight responsibilities
and participate in licensing activities pursuant to the Act:
Provided further, That $7,000,000 shall be provided to
affected units of local governments, as defined in the Act,
to conduct appropriate activities and participate in
licensing activities: Provided further, That the distribution
of the funds as determined by the units of local government
shall be approved by the Department of Energy: Provided
further, That the funds for the State of Nevada shall be made
available solely to the Nevada Division of Emergency
Management by direct payment and units of local government by
direct payment: Provided further, That within 90 days of the
completion of each Federal fiscal year, the Nevada Division
of Emergency Management and the Governor of the State of
Nevada and each local entity shall provide certification to
the Department of Energy that all funds expended from such
payments have been expended for activities authorized by the
Act and this Act: Provided further, That failure to provide
such certification shall cause such entity to be prohibited
from any further funding provided for similar activities:
Provided further, That none of the funds herein appropriated
may be: (1) used directly or indirectly to influence
legislative action on any matter pending before Congress or a
State legislature or for lobbying activity as provided in 18
U.S.C. 1913; (2) used for litigation expenses; or (3) used to
support multi-State efforts or other coalition building
activities inconsistent with the restrictions contained in
this Act: Provided further, That all proceeds and recoveries
realized by the Secretary in carrying out activities
authorized by the Act, including but not limited to, any
proceeds from the sale of assets, shall be available without
further appropriation and shall remain available until
expended.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to consideration of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey)?
Hearing none, the Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
Page 19, line 5, insert ``(reduced by $5,500,000)
(increased by $8,500,000) (increased by $3,500,000)
(increased by $3,500,000)'' after ``$1,762,888,000''.
Page 25, line 12, insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)'' after
``$310,000,000''.
[[Page H3859]]
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment which the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Holt), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and I are offering
would take $15.5 million from the Committee on Appropriations, which
was added on to the President's request for reprocessing and nuclear
waste management, and reallocate these funds to programs that would
improve energy efficiency.
We are offering this amendment today because we believe that now is
the time to undo a policy first adopted back in the 1970s which
discourages reprocessing of commercial spent fuel. We believe that
nonproliferation risks associated with reprocessing are too great, that
reprocessing is not economical and the additional funds recommended for
reprocessing would be better spent on improving our Nation's energy
efficiency.
First, reprocessing presents grave proliferation risks. President
Ford first put this ban on reprocessing in place. It gives us the high
moral ground as we look at the North Koreans and Iranians to tell them
not to do it. It only makes sense.
Secondly, reprocessing is not economical. It would only be economical
if, in fact, there was not a glut of uranium, which is what it is that
we have in the world today.
Third, reprocessing is not safe. Twenty tons of highly radioactive
material leaked from a broken pipe at a nuclear reprocessing plant in
the United Kingdom in April of this year. This area is going to remain
closed for a long, long time.
Fifth, the $15.5 million appropriated for reprocessing and interim
storage would be better spent on energy efficiency priorities. It would
be better to just use it to work smarter and not harder. The more
efficient that we make our society is the absolute fastest way in order
to guarantee that we would make ourselves less dependent upon imported
oil, not moving along the route that this $15.5 million appropriation
would move it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Markey amendment, which would cut funding for a program that ultimately
could solve our nuclear waste problem.
I am proud to say that I represent Argonne National Laboratory, which
has been working for years on reprocessing and recycling technologies
that will allow us to do something with spent nuclear fuel besides bury
it in a mountain. If you think of nuclear fuel like a log, we currently
burn only 3 percent of that log at both ends and then pull it out of
the fire to bury it. The bulk of what we call nuclear waste is actually
nuclear fuel, which still contains over 90 percent of its original
energy content.
{time} 1845
Does that make sense? No, but that is our current policy, and it is
just plain wasteful.
Instead, scientists have developed ways to reprocess and recycle
today's waste and turn it back into fuel. There are many advantages to
these technologies which have names like UREX+ and pyroprocessing.
They are proliferation-resistant, unlike other, older technologies
already in use throughout the world, including places like France,
England, and Russia. They reduce the volume of our nuclear waste so
much so that we will not need to build another Yucca Mountain. They
also reduce the toxicity, the heat and radioactivity, of the waste so
that it will not have to be stored for 10,000 years, but rather for
only 300 years. That is still a long time, but we can design with
certainty a repository that will last 300 years and one that can meet
necessary radiation standards.
At the end of March, I visited reprocessing facilities in France with
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson). The French have embraced
reprocessing as a way to reduce the volume of the waste by a factor of
four and safely store it until they decide exactly how to recycle it.
That is good for the French, but we can do better. The French are
using a technology that is between 20 and 30 years old and produces
pure plutonium as a by-product. The process and technologies this bill
supports today are cutting edge and could reduce the volume of our
waste by a factor of 60, are proliferation-resistant, and almost
eliminate the long-term radiotoxicity and heat problems associated with
our current spent fuel.
Unfortunately, the Markey amendment would have us forgo the benefits
of this research.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, could you tell us how much time is
remaining on either side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) each have 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, again, this is a huge moment. This is a decision to
reverse a policy which is 30 years old. It has gone through Presidents,
Democrat and Republican, going back to Gerald Ford, which essentially
says to the North Koreans, to the Iranians, to every other country in
the world, we are not going to reprocess our civilian-spent fuel; you
should not do it either. You should stay away from it. This is too
dangerous.
We otherwise will wind up preaching temperance from a bar stool. We
will be in a situation where we will be reprocessing civilian-spent
fuel into plutonium, and we will be trying to tell the rest of the
world that they should not do it. It would be like your father telling
you that you should not smoke with a pack of Camels in his hand. It
just does not work. You have to have some standard as a Nation on a
policy as important as the reprocessing of plutonium in order to take
that position and be a leader worldwide.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do not support the gentleman's amendment transferring all of the
funds proposed for our spent fuel recycling initiative.
Our bill, and the administration's budget request, includes $750
million for the Advanced Fuel Recycle Initiative under the Office of
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. Among other activities, this
program funds research into advanced reprocessing technologies that can
avoid some of the shortcomings of existing technologies.
Specifically, there are new reprocessing technologies that have the
potential to minimize the waste streams of radioactive waste products
and also minimize and eliminate the presence of separated plutonium.
This country would be foolish to ignore the potential benefits of new
technologies.
Our bill adds $5 million to this research and directs the Secretary
to make recommendations by fiscal year 2007 on advanced reprocessing
technologies suitable for implementation in the United States. We also
direct that the Secretary establish a competitive process for selecting
one or more sites for integrated spent fuel recycling facilities.
After running through a nuclear reactor, spent nuclear fuel still
contains 97 percent of its energy value, yet we continue to plan to
bury the spent fuel underground rather than recycle it, as other
countries do very successfully. The current Yucca Mountain repository
will be full to its authorized capacity by the year 2010. If we do not
look to recycle our spent fuel, then DOE should start tomorrow to
expand Yucca Mountain repository or select a second site. In the near
term, we direct the Secretary to begin moving spent fuel away from
reactive sites and into interim storage at one or more DOE sites. I
believe it is essential that the government demonstrate that it will
comply with the requirement to begin accepting spent fuel from the
reactor sites and begin to move it on the path to disposal in the
repository.
I strongly oppose living in the past. We have to move to the future.
We
[[Page H3860]]
have to get back into this business. This is safe, this is responsible,
and it is the way this country should move forward and not live in the
past. Use new technology.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ 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, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) has addressed the serious ramifications of abandoning this
bipartisan policy regarding reprocessing; but there is another evil
that this amendment will fix, and that is an evil that, again, trying
to go back to America's commitment not to do interim storage, that we
made on a bipartisan basis back in 1990. We made a very conscious,
bipartisan decision not to try to stick these communities with the
misnomer of interim storage.
Interim storage of radioactive waste in America is sort of like the
interim pyramids of Egypt: they tend to stay around a long time. There
is nothing interim about this effort to put this in the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation, a place where we had 450 million gallons of radioactive
waste already leaking with a plume potentially heading to the Columbia
River. It is now the largest cleanup site, one of, if not the, in
America, and yet we intend to put more radioactive waste if this
amendment is not adopted potentially at Hanford.
Why would we do this? This is sort of like coal is to New Castle when
you send radioactive material to Hanford, which is the very place we
are trying to clean up. This is the last place we ought to be sticking
these repositories, not the first place.
I have to object to this being done in report language with no
hearings, with no chance for the public to have input into this major
decision of our nuclear policy. This is a distortion of how we have
tried to make bipartisan policy about these very sensitive issues, and
this is why we need to pass this amendment. By the way, this is not
just Hanford. It is going to be driving by your neighborhoods on its
way to these three interim sites.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to a central, fundamental question
which this Congress is going to decide this evening. The Senate
yesterday resolved something they called the nuclear option. This is
the real nuclear option. This is the nuclear option which the rest of
the world is going to look at: are we going back to nuclear
reprocessing? Are we going to become the leader in a technology which
we are telling the rest of the world we do not believe they should
have, especially since we do not even need it?
So this question of nuclear weapons in the world, nuclear
proliferation, this issue is a central issue in determining whether or
not we are going to be the leader or we are going to be spreading these
technologies across the planet. Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment.
The amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and I are offering would take
the $15.5 million that the Appropriations Committee added onto the
President's request for the reprocessing and nuclear waste management
and reallocate these funds to programs that would improve energy
efficiency.
We are offering this amendment today because we believe that now is
not the time to undo a policy first adopted back in 1970s which
discourages reprocessing of commercial spent fuel. We believe that
nonproliferation risks associated with reprocessing are too great, that
reprocessing is not economical, and that the additional funds
recommended for reprocessing would be better spent on improving our
nation's energy efficiency.
Reprocessing represents grave proliferation risks. Just look at North
Korea. It has been reprocessing spent fuel from its reactors to use in
nuclear bombs. In response, President Bush has asked the Nuclear
Suppliers Group to limit access to reprocessing technology, arguing
that:
This step will prevent new states from developing the means
to produce fissile material for nuclear bombs.
How are we going to credibly ask the rest of the world to support us
when we tell North Korea, Iran or any other nation that they cannot
have the full fuel cycle and they can't engage in reprocessing, when we
are preparing to do the same thing right here in America? It just won't
fly.
You cannot preach nuclear temperance from a barstool. That is why
President Gerald Ford called for an end to commercial reprocessing back
in 1976, and why no President since then has successfully revived
reprocessing.
Reprocessing also is not economical. A MIT study puts the cost of
reprocessing at four times that of a once-through nuclear power. The
current price of concentrated uranium ``yellowcake'' in the spot market
is about $53.00 per kilogram. For reprocessing to be economical, there
must be a sustained 8-fold increase in the long-term price of uranium.
But the world is faced with a uranium glut. In addition, building a
reprocessing plant would be enormously expensive. Consider Japan's
nearly completed Rokkasho reprocessing plant--20 years in the making.
Just building it cost on the order of $20 billion. But the total cost
of Rokkasho when you factor in the full life-cycle costs--including
construction, operation and decommissioning costs--is estimated to be
$166 billion. Uranium costs would have to soar to 20 times what they
are today for this to be economically viable.
In France, Cadarache's ATPu MOX plant has ceased commercial activity
because it is not economical, but it plans to fabricate test MOX
assemblies to send here. In Russia, they too have closed their
reprocessing plant, RT-1, and still have not opened its successor, RT-
2. The record is becoming clearer, reprocessing is not economical. Why
would we think that the U.S. is immune from the fundamental laws of
economics?
Reprocessing will not alleviate the nuclear waste problem. Talk to
the folks at Savannah River where over 30 million gallons of high-level
were left behind from reprocessing.
Under this bill, Savannah River may be targeted again for interim
storage for spent fuel, awaiting reprocessing. So might Hanford and
Idaho. In fact the bill report targets all DOE sites, federally owned
sites, non-federal fuel storage facilities, and even closed military
sites.
The Appropriations Committee Report (page 124) calls for DOE to
provide ``an implementation plan for such early acceptance of
commercial spent fuel, transportation to a DOE site, and centralized
interim storage at one or more DOE sites.'' If appropriate DOE sites
can't be found, the Report recommends that the nuclear waste be stored
at ``other federally-owned sites, closed military bases, and non-
federal fuel storage facilities.'' The Report calls for DOE to prepare
a plan for centralized interim storage within 120 days of enactment of
the bill, and states its belief that DOE ``already has authority for
these actions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.''
So, if you just had a military base in your district closed by the
BRAC, you might be a candidate to get a nuclear waste dump. Talk about
adding insult to injury. Reprocessing sites will become defacto nuclear
waste dumps. The spent nuclear fuel cannot even be handled to be
reprocessed for 5 to 15 years--it is so radioactive. And what will
happen to all this waste when the hard reality of the disastrous
economics combined with the fact that our government deep in deficit
cannot afford to subsidize this anymore?
Reprocessing is not safe. Twenty tons of highly radioactive material
leaked from a broken pipe at a Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in
the United Kingdom in April of this year. The affected area of the
Sellafield plant will remain closed for months as officials devise a
way of cleaning up the mess. Special robots may have to be built to
clean up the waste as the area is too radioactive for people to enter.
Senior officials at the UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which
owns the Sellafield reprocessing are pushing to close the plant
altogether, arguing that it is more cost-effective to close the plant
now rather than repair the problems only to decommission the plant as
planned in 2012.
The MIT Study said this about safety:
We are concerned about the safety of reprocessing plants,
because of the large radioactive material inventories, and
because the record of accidents, such as waste tank explosion
at Chelyabinsk in the FSU [Russia], the Hanford waste tank
leakages in the United States and the discharges to the
environment at the Sellafield plant in the United Kingdom.
The $15.5 million appropriated for reprocessing and interim storage
would be better spent on energy efficiency priorities. Under the
Markey-Holt amendment, the $15.5 million added to the bill by the
Committee for reprocessing and interim storage of nuclear waste would
be transferred over to three under-funded domestic energy supply
priority programs, as follows:
$8.5 million would be added for Industrial Technologies (which was
cut by $16.5 million from current levels). Despite the fact that
manufacturing makes up 35 percent of the nation's energy use, this bill
would cut the industrial energy efficiency program to help
manufacturers deal with high energy costs and develop
[[Page H3861]]
innovative technologies from $93 million in FY 2004 to $76 million in
FY 2005, and now the House proposes $58 million in FY 2006. We are
heading in the wrong direction. We are trying to maintain manufacturing
jobs. We need to cut energy use and improve technology, since we can't
cut wages to equate to China and India. This is a national security
issue. Do we want to vacate the field in the key areas of steel,
plastics, aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass and metal
casting? We need domestic production and this program helps make our
domestic industries more energy efficient.
$3.5 million would be added for State Energy Program Grants (which
was cut $3.8 million from current levels). A recent study by Oak Ridge
National Laboratories concluded that for every federal dollar in the
State Energy Program: (1) $7.22 in annual energy cost savings are
produced; (2) $11.29 in leveraged funds are provided from the states
and private sector in 18 different project areas; (3) over $333 million
is saved through annual cost savings (the appropriation is only $44
million in FY 2005); (4) 48 million source BTUs are saved--or 8 million
barrels of oil; (5) 826,049 metric tons of carbon are saved; (6) 135.8
metric tons of volatile organic compounds are reduced; (7) 6,211 metric
tons of NOX are reduced; and (8) 8,491 metric tons of
SOX are reduced.
$3.5 million would be added for the Distributed Energy and
Electricity Reliability Program (which was cut by $4.8 million from
current levels). This program is aimed at developing the ``next
generation'' of clean, efficient, reliable, and affordable distributed
energy technologies that make use of combined heat and power systems.
The Department of Energy has established a goal of increasing installed
combined heat and power systems from 66 Gigawatts in 2000 to 92
Gigawatts by 2010. As of 2004, this program is well on track, with 81
Gigawatts of installed power. However, much of the remaining potential
for CHP systems is in small scale systems that are below 20 megawatts
and employ micro-turbines, fuel cells and other technologies. This
program needs full funding to continue delivering the benefits of
increased reliability, security, efficiency and lower emissions to the
U.S. economy.
Let me reiterate that my transfer amendment would still leave both
reprocessing and nuclear waste disposal fully-funded at the levels
requested in the President's budget, but would only reallocate money
added by the Appropriations Committee. In addition, the Congressional
Budget Office informs me that ``This amendment has no effect on budget
authority and would reduce outlays by $1 million for FY 2006.''
Under the Markey-Holt amendment, we transfer these funds to energy
efficiency programs that will provide our nation with a much better
value for the dollar than the incremental investment in a nuclear
reprocessing technology that is expensive, that poses serious nuclear
nonproliferation risks, and which threatens to create new nuclear waste
dumps at sites around the country.
I urge you to vote ``yes'' on the Markey-Holt-Inslee amendment.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think I need to respond to a couple of comments that were made.
First of all, we did not say to put anything in the interim; we said it
is a site that should be looked at with all of the other sites. Second
of all, this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, and I might
suggest that if you look around the world, about the only place in the
world who has nuclear power that is not reprocessing is us. Everybody
else, the French, the Japanese, they are building a plant; the Brits
have a plant. Everybody else in the world has stepped up and said, we
are going to take care of this waste; we are not going to just bury it
in the ground, and we are going to keep using it over and over again.
I think it is time for us to look at this policy and change this old,
old policy, especially if we have new technology that does not leave us
with the type of nuclear weapons-grade plutonium left over, and that is
what we believe we are developing.
So I think this is a responsible part of the bill and we should move
forward and vote the amendment down.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the only question I have, is the chairman
saying that this report language has the force of law? It is advisory
only; is that not correct?
Mr. HOBSON. That is correct.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Markey's
amendment.
As a Member from Nevada, I am vehemently opposed to the Yucca
Mountain Project for numerous reasons. The transportation of thousands
of tons of nuclear waste, which will pass within miles of our homes,
schools and hospitals, is one of the primary reasons I object to this
plan. Nuclear waste transportation, whether destined for Yucca Mountain
or an interim site, is an invitation to terrorists looking to wreak
havoc and cause devastation in the United States.
The Chairman of the Subcommittee has made clear that interim storage
will not divert him from avidly pursuing completion of the Yucca
Mountain Repository.
With my ``yes'' vote, I am standing firmly against transporting
nuclear waste through our communities and against interim storage in
Nevada or anywhere else. The only workable solution we have at this
time is to leave the waste on-site where it will be safe for the next
100 years.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with my colleagues,
Representatives Edward Markey and Jay Inslee, in offering an amendment
to H.R. 2419. Our amendment eliminates funding for the new Spent Fuel
Recycling Initiative, and redirects this $15.5 million to energy
research.
The legislation we are debating today directs the Department of
Energy to conduct a new Spent Fuel Recycling Initiative, putting the
United States on the path to reprocessing of spent nuclear reactor
fuel. This new Initiative was not included in the President's budget
request, and is over and above the existing research program on nuclear
fuel reprocessing. It is a radical measure that moves the United States
from research to actually undertaking nuclear fuel reprocessing. The
Initiative has two linked elements: moving existing spent nuclear fuel
away from commercial reactor sites to centralized interim storage, and
initiating a reprocessing program for this fuel.
Reprocessing creates a plutonium-based of fuel for nuclear reactors
that is easier to use in nuclear weapons. The United States is
currently working to prevent other countries from reprocessing nuclear
fuel, because a country that is reprocessing nuclear fuel can easily
divert this material to make nuclear weapons.
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel would be a major departure for U.S.
nuclear policy, and could set back our efforts to stop nuclear
proliferation around the world. If the U.S. Congress votes to initiate
a reprocessing program, U.S. nuclear proliferation policy will be
directly contradicted.
Such a step must not be taken lightly, with no hearings, no
authorizing legislation, no public input, no analysis of the
implications for nuclear proliferation, not even an analysis of the
cost to taxpayers. We must not proceed with such a major step without
all members having sufficient time and information to consider what
they are voting for.
The Markey-Holt-Inslee amendment leaves intact the President's
request to increase to $70 million the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative,
which includes research on nuclear fuel reprocessing technologies. Our
amendment removes the new, additional $15.5 million Initiative to
consolidate and reprocess spent fuel.
The Markey-Holt-Inslee amendment redirects the $15.5 million to three
important and successful energy research programs, all of which have
less funding in H.R. 2419 compared to fiscal year 2005 appropriations:
$8.5 million to the Industrial Technologies Program, which shares the
cost of research with industry to make U.S. industry more energy
efficient;
$3.5 million to the Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability
Program, which funds research and development for smarter, more
flexible, and more efficient electricity generation through the
development of distributed energy generation and combined heat and
power technologies; and
$3.5 million for State Energy Program grants, a program that for
every federal dollar has produced over $7 of annual energy savings.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the Markey Amendment
to H.R. 2419, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. This amendment would cut $5.5
million from nuclear reprocessing and $10 million from nuclear waste
disposal to facilitate interim storage of nuclear waste. Mr. Chairman,
the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization Subcommittee of which I
chair is currently investigating the alleged falsification of documents
and computer models at the Yucca Mountain site.
What my investigation has uncovered so far is deeply disturbing and
could very well lead to compromising the validity of the entire site.
If that is the case, then interim storage will be necessary. As opposed
to waiting for that date, it is important that we act proactively and
begin the process to identify these interim sites across the United
States.
While I find it troubling that the Committee has decided to
appropriate over $600 million for Yucca Mountain, I am encouraged that
[[Page H3862]]
they have recognized the need for legislative language citing the need
for interim storage for the reasons that my Subcommittee has already
uncovered.
I may also take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to publicly acknowledge my
opposition to Yucca Mountain and my support for any site, interim or
permanent, outside of my district and the State of Nevada.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Departmental Administration
(including transfer of funds)
For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy
necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and official reception and representation expenses
not to exceed $35,000, $253,909,000, to remain available
until expended, plus such additional amounts as necessary to
cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for
others notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency
Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That such increases
in cost of work are offset by revenue increases of the same
or greater amount, to remain available until expended:
Provided further, That moneys received by the Department for
miscellaneous revenues estimated to total $123,000,000 in
fiscal year 2006 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 2006, and any related unappropriated receipt account
balances remaining from prior years' miscellaneous revenues,
so as to result in a final fiscal year 2006 appropriation
from the general fund estimated at not more than
$130,909,000.
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, $43,000,000, to remain
available until expended.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I have at the desk an amendment, a proposed amendment
that I intended to offer, but that I will not offer as a result of the
ensuing colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I have filed an amendment for myself and the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett) that states that none of the funds
made available in this act may be used in contravention of the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act of 1982. The committee report directs the Secretary to
begin accepting commercial spent fuel for interim storage at one or
more DOE sites within fiscal year 2006. The gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Barrett) and I are concerned that the interim storage
facilities called for in the report could divert funds from a nuclear
waste fund and further impede completion of the repository at Yucca
Mountain.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I intend for Yucca
Mountain to be fully funded, and our bill does just that. As a matter
of fact, I have gone head to head with the Senate since I have been the
chairman of this subcommittee to ensure that the nuclear waste disposal
program receives as close to the budget request as possible.
The gentleman is absolutely right that the ratepayers are not getting
what they paid for because DOE has not fulfilled its statutory and
contractual obligation to accept spent fuel for disposal. I have
ratepayers in my own State who also have not received value for what
they have paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
We are not intending, and I want to be very pointed about this, we
are not intending to divert or diminish attention to Yucca Mountain.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, can
DOE conduct such interim storage consistent with the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act? What force does the committee report have when it comes to
modifying existing law?
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, we provided our guidance only in report
language and direct the Secretary to provide Congress with legislative
language if he determines that changes to the authorizing statutes are
necessary.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the clarification
and the explanation.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
National Nuclear Security Administration
Weapons Activities
(including transfer of funds)
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 40 passenger motor vehicles, for replacement
only, including not to exceed two buses; $6,181,121,000, to
remain available until expended.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Mack) for the
purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage the esteemed chairman
in a colloquy concerning language and funding for Florida's red tide
research problem.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, my district in southwest Florida
experienced a harmful red tide outburst off the coast which caused
harmful effects that were felt by people, animals, and the environment
that make up our precious ecosystem and economy.
Hundreds of people endured respiratory ills, including sneezing,
coughing, and other effects that are damaging to one's health.
Moreover, the Florida manatee, an endangered species that everyone
seeks to protect from far less harmful events, saw a gigantic spike in
their death rate. This year, in the entire State of Florida, we have
seen 29 manatees die due to boating accidents. However, from this red
tide bloom, which only lasted a couple of months and was confined only
to southwest Florida, we have a confirmed count of 46 manatee deaths.
What is more, thousands of people, some from this very room, come to
southwest Florida each year to vacation on our beaches and to swim in
our waters.
{time} 1900
This scourge of red tide not only has a hazardous environmental
effect, but also drives away tourists who undoubtedly do not want to
spend their time coping with the effects of the red tide.
Thankfully, with the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio, the
Energy and Water Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations saw
fit to include funding for red tide research in last year's
appropriations bill. Unfortunately, the lion's share of that money
never made it down to the numerous research organizations that conduct
expert analysis and tests on ways to help mitigate the effects of this
damaging event in nature.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for coming
forth with this. I understand that red tide blooms are harmful, and a
scientific approach, we need to learn more about these ocean events
that are an appropriate use of research and development funds. In fact,
I was personally involved last Congress in securing the funding that we
talked about so we can learn ways to fight red tide.
Funds in excess of the budget requests have been provided for worthy
research and development activity such as this. And I would hope, since
I my grandchildren are residents of Florida, I hope we can get on and
get rid of red tide one of these days, and especially as I get older.
It affects older
[[Page H3863]]
people and I visit there, so I want to get rid of it too.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his
remarks and his leadership in this notable cause.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the ranking member?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Ruppersberger) for purposes of colloquy with the Chair.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I applaud this bill for maintaining
the research funding for the Corps of Engineers' aquatic herbicide
treatment of invasive weed species that have such impacts on our lakes
and rivers, impairing agriculture, recreation and transportation. I
believe that the Corps and the Tennessee Valley Authority, in
considering methods of aquatic weed eradication, should give preference
to EPA-registered and -approved safe chemical treatment options,
including reduced-risk pesticides as designated in the Food Quality
Protection Act.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I agree that the development of safe
chemical treatment options may provide the Corps and the Tennessee
Valley Authority with alternatives to many of the conventional methods
of control that often have unintended consequences.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that having a range of
treatment options from which to choose and doing so in the most
environmentally sensitive way is desirable
Mr. HOBSON. I agree.
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
intended to offer a couple of amendments tonight before the unanimous
consent request was entered into.
I have complained for a long time around here that we are funding too
many earmarks, the Republicans and Democrats. In this bill there are a
couple hundred million worth of earmarks, Member projects that Members,
we always complain that the President does not have line item veto
authority. I would be satisfied if Congress had it.
Under an open rule, I cannot come to the floor and target individual
earmarks because they are in the committee report. For the first time
in this bill we have actually referenced a committee report and
instructed Federal agencies to spend the money, yet individual Members
cannot go in and strike earmarks from the bill. That is simply wrong.
We are going the exact opposite direction of where we ought to go.
Members projects ought to be put into the bill. If we are proud
enough to request money, you know, $500,000 for the St. Croix River in
Wisconsin to relocate endangered mussels, then we ought to be proud
enough to come to the floor and defend that earmark; otherwise, we are
not good stewards of the taxpayers' money.
So I would just rise to say we need to change this process. We are
going in the wrong direction. Either we are going to instruct the
Federal agencies to spend it and come to the floor and defend it, or we
are not. We cannot have it both ways.
And I would yield back to the chairman to ask which direction we are
going here.
Mr. HOBSON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me suggest a couple
of things to the gentleman if I might.
First of all, if you look at this bill, for the first time in the
last couple of years there have been no new starts in this bill going
out of the House. And I have limited the number. Even when we have
gotten done with the bill, I think we only did five new starts last
year.
We are trying to get control of this. We have even looked at,
sometimes the administration has had new starts and we have taken them
out. We have tried to limit the number of earmarks. The number of
earmarks for Members' projects this year is down substantially over
past years. Frankly, the administration did a better job this year of
addressing some of the concerns of Members and of the overall program.
I think the gentleman would also be pleased to note that in this
bill, for the first time, we are requiring a 5-year development plan
for the Corps of Engineers, for example, and the Department of Energy.
In that process, when we get that, similar to what we did in the
military construction when I chaired that committee, we will, over a
period of time, begin to get control of the situation, so that if they
do not fit within the 5-year plan, then these projects are not going to
be in there.
But we do not have that plan in place today. We are trying to make it
in place. And I think it is going to make for better, more responsible
use of taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I think that the best
way is to include it in the bill. If we are proud enough of our
earmark, then we ought to come in and defend it on the House floor.
Otherwise, we cannot simply refer and force the Federal agencies to
spend the money without giving individual Members the opportunity to
challenge an earmark on the floor of the House.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about a
matter of great concern to me and many of my constituents.
The Los Alamos National Laboratory in my district, and is one of the
largest employers in the State. Two years ago the Secretary of Energy
determined that after more than 60 years of management by the
University of California, the contract for the management and
operations of Los Alamos National Laboratory would be open to
competition.
We are all aware that there have been problems concerning the
security of classified materials handled at the lab and questions about
safety practices. It is important to note, however, that statistically
the incidences of injury and illness at Los Alamos are well within the
range of comparable DOE facilities and major chemical and manufacturing
industrial complexes.
Still, I have consistently supported the competition in the hopes
that the best management team wins so that the scientists and employees
at Los Alamos can continue to contribute to our national security and
conduct world-class, strategic science.
Last Thursday, the National Nuclear Security Administration released
the final request for proposals, or RFP, for the management and
operating contract of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. In December,
the NNSA released a draft of this RFP. What concerns me is that these
documents were substantially different in two very fundamental ways.
First, the draft RFP did not indicate a requirement for the
establishment of a separate, dedicated corporate entity. The final RFP
does, but this requirement was not included in the draft RFP. The
public was never given the opportunity to comment on it.
While that structure may have emerged from the competition as the
best design for the management of LANL, we will never know. By
mandating a specific corporate structure from the outset, the NNSA has
eliminated the proposition of an entirely different and perhaps more
creative and effective management structure. That appears, to me, to
severely constrain rather than promote true competition.
Secondly, the NNSA has taken the surprising step of dictating that
the new management entity must establish a stand-alone pension plan,
one that would serve the employees of Los Alamos only. Again, that
requirement was not included in the draft RFP, so the public never had
the opportunity to comment on it. The potential changes to the pension
plan, under a change of management, have been of utmost concern for the
vast majority of lab employees who have contacted me concerning the
competition.
Currently, the employees of Los Alamos benefit greatly from being
included in the University of California retirement plan, which covers
more
[[Page H3864]]
than 170,000 employees. The major organizations that have expressed the
intent to bid for the Los Alamos contract already employ in excess of
100,000 people. Obviously, a pension plan designed to cover that many
employees generates significant leveraging power.
The Los Alamos National Laboratory alone currently employs only 8,000
people directly. There is no way that a stand-alone pension plan
designed to serve only 8,000 employees could offer benefits as great as
the one that serves 5, 10, or in the case of the University of
California retirement plan, 17 times that many. Should not the decision
for how to best manage a financial matter as significant as that of a
pension plan be left to the discretion of the new managing entity?
Furthermore, approximately 60 days ago, the NNSA completed the
competition for the management of Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory. The University of California, which has managed Lawrence
Berkeley for 74 years, was awarded the contract. As such, Lawrence
Berkeley will continue to be managed as a nonprofit entity and its
3,800 employees will continue to be included in the generous pension
plan offered by the University of California.
The design of the final RFP for the management of Los Alamos National
Laboratory ensures that a noncorporate management structure cannot even
be considered in the competition. That is the type of management
structure that has very successfully served Lawrence Berkeley for 74
years and Los Alamos for 62 years, and it is not even on the table.
In conclusion, while I strongly support this competition, I do not
see how it is in the best interest of this country that a competition
for the management and operation of a national security complex as
important as Los Alamos has been so greatly narrowed.
And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of title III 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 title III is as follows:
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, $1,500,959,000, 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, $799,500,000, 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, $366,869,000, to remain available until expended.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
Defense Environmental Cleanup
For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense
environmental cleanup 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, $6,468,336,000, 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, and the purchase of not to exceed ten passenger
motor vehicles for replacement only, including not to exceed
two buses; $702,498,000, 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, $351,447,000, 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 2006, no new direct
loan obligations may be made.
Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration
For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of electric power and
energy, including transmission wheeling and ancillary
services pursuant to section 5 of the Flood Control Act of
1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southeastern power
area, $5,600,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to
$32,713,000 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 section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16
U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southwestern power
administration, $31,401,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up
to $1,235,000 collected by the Southwestern Power
Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act to recover
purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be credited to
this account as offsetting collections, to remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of making purchase power
and wheeling expenditures.
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; $226,992,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $222,830,000 shall be derived from the
Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That
of the amount herein appropriated, $6,000,000 shall be
available until expended on a nonreimbursable basis to the
Western Area Power Administration for Topock-Davis-Mead
Transmission Line Upgrades: Provided further, That
notwithstanding the provision of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to
$148,500,000 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,
$2,692,000, 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, $220,400,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed
$220,400,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and
other services and collections in fiscal year 2006 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 2006 so
as to result in a final fiscal year 2006 appropriation from
the general fund estimated at not more than $0.
[[Page H3865]]
GENERAL PROVISIONS
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Sec. 301. (a)(1) None of the funds in this or any other
appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006 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
2 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 (Public Law 102-484; 42 U.S.C. 7274h).
Sec. 303. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to augment the funds made available for obligation by
this Act for severance payments and other benefits and
community assistance grants under section 3161 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993
(Public Law 102-484; 42 U.S.C. 7274h) unless the Department
of Energy submits a reprogramming request to 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;
(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 2006 until the enactment of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 310. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to select a site for the Modern Pit Facility during
fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 311. None of the funds made available in title III of
this Act shall be for the Department of Energy national
laboratories and production plants for Laboratory Directed
Research and Development (LDRD), Plant Directed Research and
Development (PDRD), and Site Directed Research and
Development (SDRD) activities in excess of $250,000,000.
Sec. 312. None of the funds made available in title III of
this Act shall be for Department of Energy Laboratory
Directed Research and Development (LDRD), Plant Directed
Research and Development (PDRD), and Site Directed Research
and Development (SDRD) activities for project costs incurred
as Indirect Costs by Major Facility Operating Contractors.
Sec. 313. None of the funds made available in title III of
this Act may be used to finance laboratory directed research
and development activities at Department of Energy
laboratories on behalf of other Federal agencies.
Sec. 314. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Energy under this Act shall be used to
implement or finance authorized price support or loan
guarantee programs unless specific provision is made for such
programs in an appropriations Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Biggert
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Biggert:
Page 40, line 20, through 41, line 9, strike sections 311
and 312.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert.)
(Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would strike from the bill two provisions that would
limit the amount of money available for a very important activity at
our national laboratories, laboratory-directed research and
development, or LDRD, as it is known.
I first want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Energy and
Water Subcommittee for his willingness to work with me on this issue.
While I have agreed to withdraw the amendment if the chairman agrees to
work with me in the future on refining the execution of the LDRD
efforts, I want to take this opportunity to address the merits of LDRD.
As the Chair of the Science Subcommittee on Energy, I am a strong
supporter of LDRD. In my experience, LDRD has been well managed, is
important for both scientific discovery and scientific recruiting, and
has a record of producing interesting and innovative ideas.
[[Page H3866]]
The history of science abounds with examples of discoveries that came
about while a scientist was attempting to answer a totally different
question. LDRD provides funds to laboratory directors to pursue new
ideas and give scientists the resources to go where the discoveries
lead them.
So what are some of these new ideas that have emerged from LDRD work?
Well, what has LDRD done for us? To cite just two examples, LDRD
projects led to a discovery that allows geologists to model ore
deposits in three dimensions. This model is now also being used to
assess and plan the remediation of chemical and radioactive waste at
DOD sites.
One LDRD project set out to reduce the size of a device that produces
concentrated neutron beams for use in the biological and material
science. After 9/11, scientists realized such a compact neutron source
might be the only practical means of probing large freight containers
for highly dangerous nuclear material and other contraband.
These examples show that in DOE's core missions in energy, in
security and in science, LDRD is making important contributions.
In short, LDRD projects represent cutting-edge science, are well
managed, are essential to recruiting, and perhaps most importantly,
produce results for the American people. It is for these reasons, Mr.
Chairman, that I am concerned about efforts to overly constrain LDRD at
the Nation's scientific laboratories.
Will the chairman engage me in a brief colloquy?
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. I would be happy to.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, will you pledge to work with me to
improve and refine these programs in a way that preserves the valuable
contributions that LDRD makes to the science in this country?
Mr. HOBSON. I appreciate the concerns that you have expressed and,
frankly, it would be my pleasure to work with you going forward to
perfect these provisions as we move into conference.
{time} 1915
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the chairman and I look forward to working with
the chairman. I thank him for his cooperation.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) for
purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address the
inadequacy of funds appropriated for the construction and repair of our
lock and dam system.
First, I would like to commend the chairman and the ranking member
for their work on the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations
bill. Their efficient and bipartisan work is commendable.
This bill is a significant step in the right direction. However, the
funding levels to maintain our working waterways remain insufficient.
Freight transportation on our Nation's waterways is essential to the
health of our economy. In 2003 the total waterborne commerce in the
United States accounted for more than 2.3 trillion short tons. This
system is the fundamental backbone of our energy industry and waterways
carry 20 percent of America's coal, enough to produce 10 percent of all
electricity used in the United States annually.
Almost one-third of the total tonnage transported over water is
petroleum and petro-chemical products.
A functioning waterway network is also essential to our farmers.
Sixty percent of all U.S. grain exports travel our inland waterways,
and their ability to use our waterways is an essential component for
the price competitiveness for our farmers in the international market.
The waterway transportation industry is a cost-effective and
environmentally friendly component of our inter-modal freight system. A
single towboat can move the same amount of cargo as 180 rail cars or
1,440 trucks. One does not require an environmental science degree to
understand the pollution impact benefit of numbers like that.
The lock and dam systems are the keys to the viability of our
waterway network. The infrastructure on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers
is well beyond its design life. This network is hindered by
deterioration, unreliability, and inefficiency. Waterway transportation
is paralyzed when locks fail or are closed.
Repeated congressional neglect of sufficient funding levels in the
operations and maintenance, general investigations and construction
accounts has resulted in exponential increases in unscheduled lock
closures. Since 1991 we have experienced a 110 percent increase in
closure hours. The closure of a single lock creates a ripple effect
that affects the entire system. Over the last 2 years, closures on the
Ohio River have cost the Nation's economy incalculable millions of
dollars.
Last year the Corps of Engineers was forced to close the McAlpine
Lock and Dam. During that 2-week period, traffic on the Ohio River was
effectively halted. The closure was announced roughly 2 months ahead of
time. In anticipation of the closure, a West Virginia aluminum company
whose supply was dependent on the river network began laying-off
employees.
The most recent closure of the Greenup Lock and Dam cost waterways
operators $12 million in lost business. Utility companies incurred $15
million in costs to make last-minute alternate arrangements to keep
power plants online. I assure my colleagues that the closure cost our
economy significantly more than $27 million.
I am pleased that this appropriations bill provides full and
efficient funding for the McAlpine Lock and Dam project in fiscal year
2006. The fiscal year 2005 Energy and Water Appropriations bill does
not include any funding for the Greenup Lock and Dam. The Water
Resources Development Act of 2000 authorized the Greenup Lock and Dam
project. The Greenup Lock and Dam is approaching the same level of
disrepair I described with respect to the McAlpine Lock and Dam.
73.7 million tons of commerce worth almost $9.6 billion transited the
Greenup Lock in 2001. Sixty-two percent of that tonnage was coal. By
2010, the annual tonnage is expected to exceed 91 million tons.
The 2000 Interim Feasibility Report recommended that the Greenup Lock
and Dam project be complete by 2008. Because this appropriations bill
does not include any funds for the Greenup Lock and Dam, no work will
be accomplished on that project for an entire year. Every year of
insufficient funding results in increased risk of closures and makes
the entire project more expensive.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert)
for purposes of a colloquy.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, would the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on
Appropriations engage in a colloquy with me about some provisions and
programs in this bill that fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee
on Science?
Mr. HOBSON. Yes.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Under the bill, the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative,
or NERI, would no longer operate as a separate program. NERI was
targeted at university research which is a vital source of innovative
ideas on nuclear energy. Is it the gentleman's intention that the
Department of Energy continue to fund university research on nuclear
energy even though NERI will no longer exist?
[[Page H3867]]
Mr. HOBSON. I share the gentlewoman's views on the importance of
university research. The committee expects the Nuclear Energy Research
Programs to set aside a portion of their funds for university research.
The committee will be monitoring the programs, as I am sure you will
also, to be sure that the funding is continuing in support of the
university research.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman.
Lastly, I would like the gentleman to clarify some language related
to the FutureGen project on page 20 of the bill. The language states
that the Department should manage FutureGen ``without regard to the
terms and conditions applicable to clean coal technology projects.''
My understanding is that the phrase is intended only to apply to
cost-sharing requirements. In fact, the phrase is unnecessary because
the cost-sharing requirements for FutureGen are spelled out in the two
provisos that immediately follow on page 20. Is my understanding
correct?
Mr. HOBSON. The gentlewoman is correct. Our intention is to waive
only the cost-sharing requirements for clean coal technological
projects for FutureGen, and the cost-sharing requirements that are
intended to operate instead are also on page 20.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for his time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt).
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, earlier I entered into a colloquy with the
chairman, and he was good enough to clarify for me some parts of this
committee report that are important to me. I would like to further
build a context on which my concerns were built.
In this committee report accompanying the bill, there is directive
language at pages 122 and 123 and 124 that can be taken to amend the
explicit terms of existing laws. And the laws at issue, which the
report language could be construed to change, of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act and possibly even the National Environmental Policy Act,
both carefully wrought, are both vitally important. I do not think it
is the intention of the committee report to change the laws because I
do not think it can but nevertheless it makes some strong
recommendations.
The committee report laments the latest delays at Yucca Mountain. The
start-up date has slipped again, this time from 2010 to 2012. The
committee, to its credit, with the chairman's strong support, funds
Yucca Mountain at the requested levels, I think we should, $651 million
for fiscal year 2006; and I commend you for that and finds this
sufficient to do the engineering work, continue the license
application, continue the design work.
I have an interest in this because I represent four nuclear reactors,
and I live in an area where nuclear generation accounts for 50 percent
of our electricity. My constituents pay one mil per kilowatt per hour
to fund a permanent waste facility, and they and the others who pay
this assessment deserve to have their money spent well and used solely
for that purpose, a spent fuel repository. The chairman has assured me
wholeheartedly that he wants to see, too, that that end is
accomplished.
But Yucca Mountain in the words of the report ``recedes into the
future.'' I am concerned if we open up new options, even expedients
like interim storage, and if we use the Nuclear Waste Fund to pay for
these options, then Yucca Mountain will keep on receding into the
future.
This report proposes a concerted initiative. It is a bold proposal
for interim storage of spent fuel and for reprocessing of spent fuel.
These are ideas that have been considered in the past, but abandoned.
The committee brings them back to life, provides some funding; but it
is only a tiny fraction of what these facilities are going to cost. So
you cannot avoid the concern that some, if not all, of this money may
come from the Nuclear Waste Fund at the expense of Yucca Mountain.
I have this concern because Savannah River Site is among the specific
sites singled out as a candidate for interim storage. I become more
concerned when I read the report which says: ``The committee directs
the Department to begin the movement of spent fuel to centralized
interim storage at one or more DOE sites within fiscal year 2006.''
That is next year.
If this is taken literally, I do not see how they can possibly
prepare an EIS. That is why I was saying that the report would almost
override the National Environmental Policy Act. There is no way they
can finish an EIS on a matter of such importance in a year.
The report recognizes that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act applies to
these matters. For example, the report recognizes that the NWPA borrows
an interim storage facility at the same location as the permanent
repository, Yucca Mountain, and yields to that law by proposing that
the storage facility be sited elsewhere.
In another place, the report calls for a plan of implementation
within 120 days. Here again, it anticipates that legislative changes
may be necessary to execute the plan by asking DOE to submit them.
In these respects, the committee report supports my point that
explicit law cannot be amended or overridden by report language. But in
pushing for an interim storage facility, the report is on the collision
course with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act because it abandoned the idea
of interim storage in 1990 by sunsetting the law that passed it. In its
place it authorized a retrievable storage facility, but only after
Yucca Mountain is licensed.
So these were my concerns. These were the reasons for asking for the
colloquy and asking for the clarification. I have problems with interim
storage, and I have problems with reprocessing fuel. But I support the
chairman in his endeavor to see Yucca Mountain finished, and I also
support the chairman in his quest to see that nuclear power is able to
make a comeback, because I think it has a role in our energy future.
That is the reason I asked for clarification, to make sure that the
committee was not pushing the envelope and overriding the statutory law
on pages 122, 123, and 124, which struck me as more than just report
boiler plate.
I appreciate the confirmation, the clarification from the committee
chairman and for all of his other efforts in bringing together this
bill. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me to make this
clarification.
Mr. Barrett and I have an amendment, but before I explain it, let me
explain why I am offering it.
There is a longstanding rule of this House against legislating policy
on an appropriation bill, but it's honored in the breach. In the case
of this bill, the committee report contains directive language at pages
122, 123, and 124 that can be taken to amend the explicit terms of
existing law. And the laws at issue, which the report language could be
construed to change, are the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act, both carefully wrought laws, and both vitally
important.
The committee report laments the latest delays at Yucca Mountain. The
start-up date has slipped again, this time from 2010 to 2012. The
committee, to its credit, funds Yucca Mountain at the requested level,
$651 million for fiscal year 2006, and finds this sufficient to do the
engineering work in support of the license application and to continue
the design work.
I represent 4 nuclear reactors and live in an area where nuclear
generation accounts for fifty percent of our electricity. My
constituents pay 1 mil per kilowatt hour to fund a permanent waste
facility, and they and others who pay this assessment deserve to have
their money spent well and used solely for the intended purpose: a
spent fuel repository.
But Yucca Mountain, in the words of the report, ``recedes into the
future.'' And I am concerned that if we open new options, even
expedients like interim storage, and if we use the Nuclear Waste Fund
to pay for these options, Yucca Mountain will keep on receding.
That's why I am concerned about this report. It proposes ``a
concerted initiative'' (1) for interim storage of spent fuel and (2)
for reprocessing spent fuel. These are ideas that have been considered
in the past and discarded; but the committee report resurrects them,
with a token addition of funds that is the tip of an iceberg, a tiny
fraction of what these facilities will cost. One cannot avoid the
concern that some, if not all, of this money will come from the Nuclear
Waste Fund, at the expense of Yucca Mountain.
I have this concern because Savannah River Site is among the sites
singled out as a candidate for interim storage. I become even more
concerned when I read report language
[[Page H3868]]
which says: ``The Committee directs the Department to begin the
movement of spent fuel to centralized interim storage at one or more
DOE sites within fiscal year 2006.'' If this directive is taken
literally, it will override the National Environmental Policy Act,
because it is doubtful that an Environmental Impact Study can be
finished in a year.
The report recognizes that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act applies to
these matters. For example, the report recognizes that the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act bars an interim storage facility at the same location
as the permanent repository, and yields to that law by proposing that
the storage facility be sited elsewhere. In another place, the report
calls for a plan of implementation within an incredibly short time, 120
days, and here again, the report anticipates that legislative changes
will be necessary to execute the plan by asking DOE to submit them.
In these respects, the committee report makes my point, that
explicit, longstanding law cannot be amended or overridden by report
language. But in pushing an interim storage facility, the committee
report is on a collision course with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It
abandoned the idea of an interim storage facility in 1990 by sunsetting
the law that authorized it. In its place, the NWPA authorized
construction of a Monitored Retrievable Storage Facility only after the
completion of the license for construction of Yucca Mountain. This
means that no interim storage facility is allowed under the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act for the time being, and I do not believe that
report language can change the explicit provisions of an existing
statute.
Our amendment simply points out that despite the report language,
``None of the funds made available by this Act shall be obligated or
expended in contravention of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.''
So, unless the NWPA is changed, DOE cannot move forward with interim
storage until Yucca Mountain is licensed.
What's wrong with interim storage?
Interim storage is risky because it puts spent fuel in facilities not
constructed to hold them forever, yet there is a real risk that once in
place, interim storage becomes permanent storage.
Interim storage is problematic because it could shift funds and focus
off Yucca Mountain, and stretch out its completion indefinitely.
Finally, interim storage is expensive. It's expensive to put nuclear
waste in interim storage, and even more expensive to take it out to
move it to Yucca Mountain.
How does interim storage affect you? Under the committee's report
language, anyone's district could be the next nuclear waste storage
facility. If you have a DOE site, a closed military base, or any other
federally owned site, your district could be a candidate to store
nuclear waste.
So, pages 122, 123, and 124 of the committee report are more than the
usual boilerplate. To clarify their effect, I asked the distinguished
Chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee if he would engage in a
colloquy, and he confirmed that the committee ``provided our guidance
only in report language;'' and with that assurance, I withdrew our
amendment.
Amendment to 2419, as Reported Offered by Mr. Spratt of South Carolina
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be obligated or expended in contravention of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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, $22,032,000, 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,
$6,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Denali Commission
For expenses of the Denali Commission, $2,562,000, 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, $714,376,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the amount
appropriated herein, $66,717,000 shall be derived from the
Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided further, That revenues from
licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and
collections estimated at $580,643,000 in fiscal year 2006
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 2006 so as to result in
a final fiscal year 2006 appropriation estimated at not more
than $133,732,600: Provided further, That section 6101 of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 is amended by
inserting before the period in subsection (c)(2)(B)(v) the
words ``and fiscal year 2006''.
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, $8,316,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That revenues from licensing fees,
inspection services, and other services and collections
estimated at $7,485,000 in fiscal year 2006 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
2006 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2006
appropriation estimated at not more than $831,000.
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section
5051, $3,608,000, 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. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in this Act
or any other appropriation Act.
Mr. HOBSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the bill through page 45, line 8, 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.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
contract with or reimburse any Nuclear Regulatory Commission
licensee or the Nuclear Energy Institute with respect to
matters relating to the security of production facilities or
utilization facilities (within the meaning of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hobson).
Mr. HOBSON. If the gentleman is agreeable, we are willing to accept
this amendment and move forward.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the gentleman's
acceptance.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used before March 1, 2006,
[[Page H3869]]
to enter into an agreement obligating the United States to
contribute funds to ITER, the international burning plasma
fusion research project in which the President announced
United States participation on January 30, 2003.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to have a to-the-point and brief explanation
to this amendment because its purpose is to bring to a head an
important issue that might otherwise be overlooked.
The Department of Energy is moving ahead with negotiating U.S.
participation in ITER, the International Fusion Energy Project, which
is all to the good. I support U.S. participation in ITER, a critical
experiment that will help determine finally if fusion is a realistic
option for energy production. But ITER is expensive.
The U.S. contribution is expected to exceed $1 billion, and I want to
make sure that before we commit even one dime to ITER, we have a
consensus on how we will find that money.
The U.S. must not finalize an agreement on ITER until we have a
consensus on how to pay for it. In the meantime, the site selection and
planning process and negotiations on ITER can and should continue. But
I will do all I can to prevent the U.S. from entering into an agreement
if no one is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to pay for it.
{time} 1930
Moving ahead without consensus will mean either reneging on our
agreement or killing other worthy programs within the Office of Science
to pay the disproportionate cost of the fusion program. Let us avoid
that.
I look forward to working with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson)
and everyone concerned with this issue to build a strong and balanced
fusion program.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I share the frustration of the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Boehlert) over how the Department has proposed to
fund the International Fusion Project at the expense of domestic fusion
research, and I will support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Filner
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Filner:
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 by the Secretary of Energy to issue, approve, or
grant any permit or other authorization for the transmission
of electric energy into the United States from a foreign
country if all or any portion of such electric energy is
generated at a power plant located within 25 miles of the
United States that does not comply with all air quality
requirements that would be applicable to such plant if it
were located in the air quality region in the United States
that is nearest to such power plant.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the point of order, and I appreciate the
advice he gave me yesterday, and I will just take a few minutes today
to make some important points regarding our border communities.
This should be a simple and common-sense amendment to protect the air
quality in border States without adding or subtracting appropriations
from a single account in this bill. The amendment simply requires that
power plants in northern Mexico that want to transmit electricity into
the United States must meet U.S. air quality standards. Pretty simple.
Many communities in border States, including many in my district (I
represent the whole California-Mexico border) are literally under siege
from air and water pollution from northern Mexico. Companies that wish
to avoid American environmental regulations, but want to meet our
energy needs in California and other southwestern States, are building
power plants in Mexico directly across the border from American
communities. Yet many of these power plants do not have to meet any of
the American regulations, even though they are in the same air basins
as towns on the U.S. side of the border.
For example, companies that recently built power plants in Mexicali,
which is right across the border from the Imperial County of California
that I represent, have not funded any road paving projects and other
clean air efforts that would be required to offset their pollution if
they were a mere 3 miles to the north. In a place like Imperial County,
which is plagued by the highest childhood asthma rates in the Nation,
and limited public resources, these offset projects are needed to
mitigate the public health problems that are worsened by the power
plants.
While the Mexicali plants have largely brought their emissions into
compliance in response to this Congress' pressure, they have refused to
pay for any mitigation projects. The Department of Energy, which
acknowledges that Imperial Valley is in the same geographical air basin
as the power plants in Mexico, have turned their backs on the residents
of Southern California and approved the permits without requiring the
companies to pave the dusty dirt roads or implement other clean air
projects that would offset their pollution. The Department had the
information and opportunity, but apparently did not feel obligated to
fully protect clean air in Imperial County.
I believe the Department should be obligated to require offsets
because there are a dozen more power plants in northern Mexico on line
right now. These power plants are now under no obligation to meet any
U.S. standards despite sharing air basins with American communities.
My amendment does not interfere with the Mexican Government's right
to regulate pollution; instead, it prohibits the Department of Energy
from using funds in this bill to issue permits for the transmission of
electricity into the U.S.
I urge adoption of this important clean air amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), the cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this
time, and I appreciate that we talked yesterday with the chairman about
this particular amendment, but if he would just allow us to make a
particular statement. I appreciate the time the chairman gave us, and I
understand his point of order.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment helps to raise the clean air standards
on the border. I am from Laredo, Texas, on the border. And if you would
just take the border region and make it a particular State, you would
see that it is one of the fastest growing parts of the country, and it
is one of the poorest parts of the whole country. If the border region
was its own State, it would rank last in access to health care, second
worst in death from hepatitis, last in per capita income, and first in
the number of schoolchildren living in poverty.
Air quality in the border region is just as important as in any other
metropolitan area in the country. This particular amendment would help
boost air quality by requiring sellers of electricity from the Mexican
side to protect the consumers on the American side. We expect nothing
less than corporate responsibility from our friends in the domestic
corporations, and we expect the same stewardship from foreign companies
that have a direct impact on our communities.
[[Page H3870]]
We live in a world that increasingly requires us to cooperate across
the border to solve problems. Trade, commerce, and economic activity do
not stop at the border, and the environmental problems that sometimes
accompany economic growth do not stop at the border.
In conclusion, this amendment recognizes the simple truth that the
border region is a community and that air pollution affects all the
region's residents, American and Mexican alike.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for their time and just ask that
the chairman consider this particular amendment.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I understand the
point of order, and I appreciate the gentleman's advice and I hope he
will stay interested in this topic.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Jones of North Carolina
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Jones of North Carolina:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for
``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYDepartmental Administration'' and
increasing the amount made available for ``CORPS OF
ENGINEERS--CIVIL--Operation and Maintenance'', by
$20,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume, and I first would like to say to the chairman and the
ranking member, thank you very much for your work on this bill and for
the opportunity to offer this amendment tonight.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a coastal area of North Carolina, and many
of my colleagues, both Republican and Democrat, do the same throughout
the United States of America. What this amendment does is to, in my
opinion, provide a small, meaningful increase to the Corps of
Engineers' operation and maintenance budget of $20 million. It would be
offset by taking $20 million from the administration at the Department
of Energy.
Mr. Chairman, our coastal areas are in deep trouble throughout
America. Not just my district, but I can tell you that the waterways
are so critical to the economic importance of these counties and States
in North Carolina and throughout the United States of America that we
need to remember that those people who make their living off the
waterways are just like every other American, they are in need of every
dollar they can make.
My district says to me, Mr. Chairman, when we can find $6.5 billion,
not from this bill now, I want to make that clear, but we have spent
$6.5 billion in Iraq with the Corps of Engineers, and then my taxpayers
say to me and to the gentleman from Indiana, why can we not get a
little bit of help?
So this is a modest amendment, Mr. Chairman.
I understand the gentleman's opposition to it, but I can honestly
tell you that the waterways of America are the economic engines for the
coastal districts of America, and not just North Carolina. And, to me,
to be able to take just $20 million and do a little bit of good is
better than not having the $20 million. And I know the gentleman from
Ohio and the gentleman from Indiana did try the best they could,
knowing we are in a tight budget year.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard from other Members who support this
amendment, and let me say the amendment is also supported by the
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association and the Congressional
Waterways Caucus. We believe sincerely that this modest reduction
within the Department of Energy will mean a whole lot to the people who
pay the taxes.
I do not know of anybody in Iraq that is paying taxes to help the
American people, so I think it is time that the American people who pay
the taxes get a little bit of help.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment cuts $20 million from the Department of
Energy's departmental administration account and adds $20 million to
the Corps of Engineers' operation and maintenance account.
This bill currently provides $253 million for the Department of
Energy's departmental administration account for fiscal year 2006, and
the committee recommendation is a cut of $26 million from the request.
The gentleman's amendment would further reduce appropriations from the
Department of Energy's salaries and expenses $5 million below the
current-year enacted level. Cuts of this magnitude will require
reductions in staff at the Department of Energy. Government employees
may potentially be RIF'd for a period of time.
The amendment also seeks to add $20 million to the Corps' operation
and maintenance account, for which the committee recommendation
includes $2 billion. The amendment, if adopted, would have the effect
of increasing funding for operation and maintenance by 1 percent.
Frankly, I sympathize with the gentleman. Funding needs are great,
but the resources we have are limited. The Corps cannot, and we cannot,
spend money we do not have. We need to ensure that the funds that are
provided to the Corps are expended efficiently, consistent with the law
and on the projects we appropriate.
I would like to point out to the gentleman that the bill provides
$12.4 million in operation and maintenance funds for the projects he
has expressed an interest in. In the past, the Corps was able to
reprogram these funds and use them on other projects. In addition, the
Corps would take ratable reductions against projects in the name of
savings and slippage and use those funds on other purposes, not this
year, as the bill includes reprogramming limitations and eliminates
savings and slippage.
So while the gentleman may believe the funds provided in this bill
are insufficient, I can assure him that the funds provided in this act
will be used for those projects and not siphoned off for other uses.
I would suggest the gentleman withdraw the amendment. Failing that, I
would oppose the amendment.
I also might point out that in the gentleman's district there is a
total of, in North Carolina in O&M, there is $38 million put into this
bill. With the limited resources that we have, I think the State did
pretty well.
I will fight with the administration, for example, for the beach
renourishment, for which they do not put anything in. But we do in the
House and we have supported that because I do believe that that is an
economic tool that the States need.
But at this point I would have to oppose the amendment and urge it
not be adopted, but I would hope the gentleman would withdraw the
amendment. Hopefully, next year, we will get a better allocation and we
will do a better job on some of these things.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume to say to the gentleman from Ohio that he has been
very helpful, and I realize it is a tight money situation, but let me
share with the gentlemen from Ohio, as well as Indiana, that last year
I had the Marine Corps down in Camp Lejeune call me in my office and
say, We need your help. We cannot train our Marines, who have been
asked by this administration to go to Afghanistan and Iraq.
If the Corps had not had a little bit of extra money to do some
dredging that was absolutely necessary in New River Inlet, which is in
Jacksonville, North
[[Page H3871]]
Carolina, the home of Camp Lejeune, the Marines would not have been
training.
Again, I respect the gentlemen greatly on both sides, but I am going
to, at the proper time, ask for a recorded vote on this. I will say
that I feel that I owe this not just to my district, but to the States
in the United States that have waterways and have the needs that we
have in North Carolina. Because it is not just North Carolina; there
are many other States.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will just close by saying that I respect and
appreciate the help I have received, and I hope next year will be a
better budget year. But this year my State, as well as the other 49
States which have the harbors and inlets, are in desperate need and we
need all the help we can get.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I respect the remarks and the impetus
behind the gentleman's amendment, but would add my voice to the
chairman's in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote,
and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
{time} 1945
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Stupak
Mr. STUPAK. 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 Mr. Stupak:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used to accept deliveries of petroleum products to
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hobson) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
hard work on this legislation. This amendment here is the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve amendment.
Basically, it says no funds made available by this act shall be used
to accept deliveries of petroleum products to the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. When we did the energy bill, and I sit on the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, our amendment was made in order and was accepted
by the committee. Our amendment then was a little more detailed. It
said there would be no oil going into SPR until the cost of a barrel of
oil dropped below $44 for 2 consecutive weeks under the New York Stock
Exchange.
If we put that triggering provision into this amendment, there would
have been a point of order and this amendment would have been accepted
under the rules of the House. Therefore, we have changed it and said no
more delivery of petroleum products to the SPR fund. So I am joined by
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bishop) to support this amendment.
When I go back to my district, many of my constituents express their
concern with rising gasoline prices. I suspect most Members are hearing
the same thing when they go home to their own districts. In an already
fiscally constrained economy, these high gasoline prices yield yet
another burden to America's families' already-tight purse strings.
The high cost of gasoline and oil has long been a problem and one
that Congress has long grappled with. Today, oil is hovering around $49
a barrel which some experts predict could spike as high as $60 a barrel
this summer.
With Memorial Day just around the corner, we are seeing prices at the
pump reaching over $2 a gallon, with some parts of the country seeing
prices as high as $2.44 a gallon. How high does the price have to go
and for how long before we take action?
It is no secret, there are no quick fixes or easy fixes when it comes
to the problem of high gasoline and oil prices; but there is no reason
to continue filling the SPR with petroleum products when our economy is
suffering due to sky-high oil and gas prices. The suspension of oil
delivery to the SPR would put additional barrels of oil out into the
world market to stabilize the world's oil supply and provide some
relief at the pump to our consumers.
To continue filling the SPR sends the wrong message to the American
public who continues to struggle because of these record-breaking gas
prices, and it does nothing to help reduce the skyrocketing prices at
the pump. It just does not make economic sense to add more pressure to
what we all know is a very tight oil market when the effect is creating
even higher gas prices for consumers here at home.
Finally, suspending the filling of the SPR does not hurt our energy
security. The reserve is already filled to 95 percent capacity. It has
approximately 695 million barrels that are now in storage. That is the
highest it has ever been in our Nation's history. I urge my colleagues
to support this amendment that will take pressure off the price of a
barrel of oil and hopefully at the gas pump at home.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. The capacity of the
strategic petroleum reserve is 727 million barrels. By August of 2005,
the President's direction of 700 million barrels will be achieved.
The 2006 Presidential budget does not request additional barrels to
be contracted. However, should the President determine in 2006, for
reasons of national and economic security, to increase the supply of
oil for the reserve, this amendment could prevent that.
One cannot predict the future, if there will be a national emergency
to release the oil from the reserve, or a need to contract for more.
This amendment unnecessarily restricts the President from acting in a
time of national need by setting an arbitrary limitation on the use of
funds. Last year after hurricanes ravaged the Gulf of Mexico, there was
a disruption in production at individual refineries. DOE made a short-
term loan of 5.4 million barrels of oil to refiners that had a
shortened supply of feed stock. If the Stupak amendment was in place at
that time, these loans would not have happened because the oil would
not be able to be repaid back to the reserve.
I do not think that we want to be in the business of restricting
emergency powers only to make a statement on the price of oil today.
Therefore, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stupak/Bishop/
Sanders amendment and commend them for bringing this important
amendment to the floor.
Before speaking on it, though, I want to commend the gentleman from
Ohio (Chairman Hobson) of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water for the
very dignified way the gentleman has dealt with the legislation, and to
commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), our ranking member
on the subcommittee. They strive to work in a very bipartisan way on
this important legislation.
I rise in support of the Stupak/Bishop/Sanders amendment, which, as
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has explained, would
immediately stop the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while
gas prices are so high.
Mr. Chairman, all over the country people are crying out for relief
at the
[[Page H3872]]
rising price at the pump. Small businesses and families are feeling the
pinch, and the consequences are very substantial. Under current
estimates, a family of four will spend $423 more on gasoline this year
than last year and almost $800 more than 2 years ago. Consumers have
paid the price for rising prices over the last year. Gas prices have
remained at record levels for the past 2 months at over $2.12 per
gallon nationwide with some States, my own State, the State of
California, more than $2.53 a gallon.
This means that gas prices have risen 35 cents per gallon since the
beginning of the year. The Department of Energy predicts that gas
prices could average over $2.25 nationwide this summer. The Department
of Energy also has said, their report also has said that the energy
bill passed by this House a few weeks ago would increase the price at
the pump.
Imagine that we are legislating on the floor of Congress measures
that would increase the price at the pump instead of giving consumers
the relief that they need. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak),
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), and the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) have a better idea.
This idea, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) explained,
would stop filling the SPR so more oil was in the market, supply
increases, and then the price should go down. This is what happened
when it was done before.
When President Clinton was President, they released oil from the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2000 and gas prices were reduced by 14
cents a gallon, $6 a barrel. When President Bush released Strategic
Petroleum Reserve oil in 1991, the price of oil per barrel dropped $10.
There was bipartisan support for this in the Senate in March 2004,
and in the House in 2004 bipartisan initiatives urging the President to
suspend oil deliveries in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This has
worked for us before, whether it was releasing oil from the reserve or
stopping oil from coming into the reserve.
Under current estimates, a family of four would pay so much more. As
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com said recently, ``Each 1-cent
increase in gasoline costs consumers $1 billion a year.''
It is no wonder that gas prices are the top concern of the American
people, and record gas prices are starting to have a ripple effect in
the economy. The airline and trucking industries are feeling the pinch.
For 5 years, Republicans in Congress have pursued an energy policy to
give away billions of dollars in subsidies to special interests that
are already profiting from record-high gas prices. They have turned
Washington into an oil and gas town when this is supposed to be the
city of innovation, of fresh new thinking and ideas about our energy
policy and the impact it has on the pocketbooks of the American people
and on the environment and the air they breathe.
The President's own Department of Energy found the provisions in the
energy bill actually increased the price of gasoline 3 cents, and our
dependence on foreign oil is projected to increase 85 percent under the
proposed policies of President Bush. During consideration of the energy
bill, Democrats offered an amendment by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Bishop) that called on the President to immediately urge OPEC to
increase oil production and also to stop the filling of the SPR. It
would have taken steps to protect the American people from price
gouging and unfair practices at the gasoline pump and increased public
information on prices. Unfortunately, the amendment failed.
How do Members figure that amendment would fail when it was in the
interest of America's consumers? Well, if the public interest is not
served and the special interest is, then it would follow that the
consumer is not served. But we have another chance today. I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Stupak), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop), and the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) to immediately stop filling of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve while gas prices are so high. Give the American
consumer a break; vote for this important amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders), a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, congratulate the gentleman for his leadership, and thank the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for her support, and concur
with the gentlewoman's remarks.
Mr. Chairman, all over this country, the people are asking a simple
question: When will the United States Congress stand up and protect
those workers in Vermont and all over this country who are spending
hundreds and hundreds of dollars a year more at the gas pump?
Our Republican friends talk about tax breaks given to people. Those
tax breaks have been eaten up many times over by people who are forced
to pay outrageously high prices in order to get to work. This affects
not only people in rural States like Vermont. It affects small
businesses, farmers, the airline industry, the trucking industry; and,
in fact, nobody denies it is affecting our entire economy. When is
Congress going to stand up?
Meanwhile, while working people are paying more and more to fill up
their gas tanks, the large oil industry corporations are reaping
record-breaking profits.
I think it is about time that we started paying attention to the
American worker and we did something, at least right now, to lower the
cost of gas at the pump.
As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) mentioned, this is not a new idea. In fact, it
is not a partisan idea. This is a concept that has been supported by
Democrats and by many Republicans. It has been supported by the first
President Bush and by former President Clinton.
Specifically, this amendment would suspend oil deliveries to the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is what President Bush did in 1991,
what President Clinton did in 2000. This action would have the very
immediate impact of lowering gas prices in America now.
Mr. Chairman, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve currently contains
about 693 million barrels and the administration is pushing to increase
that number to over 700 million barrels.
Today, approximately 72,000 barrels of oil per day are still being
added to the SPR, over 2 million barrels per month. This amendment
would suspend these oil deliveries and put this oil back on the market
which could lead to lower prices immediately upon its implementation.
{time} 2000
It would also keep gas prices down by making sure the government is
not competing against consumers in the marketplace at a time when gas
prices are so high.
Mr. Chairman, extrapolating from at least three economic studies done
by Goldman Sachs, the largest crude oil trader in the world, the Air
Transport Association, and petroleum economist Phillip Verleger, the
estimate is, by releasing some 15 million barrels from SPR, we could
reduce gasoline prices at the pump by 10 to 25 cents per gallon. By
voting for this amendment today, we will be sending a very strong
message to the President and that is, Mr. President, release oil from
SPR right now.
Mr. Chairman, in the spring of 2002 when the price of gas was
starting to increase, the staff at the Department of Energy recommended
against buying more oil for SPR. DOE staff said, ``Commercial
inventories are low, retail prices are high, and economic growth is
slow. The government should avoid acquiring oil for the reserve under
these circumstances.''
Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, there is bipartisan support for
this concept. The time is now for the United States Congress to listen
to those working people in the State of Vermont and elsewhere who have
to travel 100 miles back and forth to work each day. That is not
uncommon in this country.
These workers, who are seeing in many cases a real decline in their
wages, need help. It seems to me that at a time when the profits of the
oil industry are soaring, when workers are struggling to keep their
heads above water, when the price of gas is soaring,
[[Page H3873]]
now is the time for us to act and act immediately.
I would hope we would have strong support from both sides of the
aisle for this important amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Bishop), a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time and I thank him for his leadership on this important
issue.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise as a cosponsor of the Sanders-
Stupak-Bishop amendment which will restrict funding in the
appropriations bill from being used to add more oil to the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. Today, our Nation faces exorbitant energy costs, and
taxpayers continue to suffer sticker shock at the gas pumps.
As a front page article in today's Wall Street Journal reported, we
have seen a recent decrease in the cost of oil, but compared to 1 year
ago, gas prices on average are still 6 cents higher per gallon, diesel
fuel is up $1.75, and jet fuel is up nearly 50 percent. Congress can
and must do more to help stabilize the price of fuel.
The energy bill recently passed by the House failed to address these
cost increases. In fact, some reports state that the cost of fuel may
actually increase between 5 and 8 cents per gallon due to provisions in
that legislation. That may not sound like a lot, but for a middle-class
family, already struggling to keep up with rising tuition, health care
costs and saving for retirement, this increase in gas prices will add
up very quickly.
Today's Journal also reports that other experts estimate that the
cost of oil may spike again to as high as $60 per barrel. I offered an
amendment to the energy bill that would have prevented that increase,
although it was not incorporated into the House-passed bill.
Mr. Chairman, as we approach one of the most heavily trafficked
holiday weekends of the year, let us act now to do something positive
for American families. By restricting funds used to store petroleum in
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and in consideration of other market
factors, we can realize a drop in the cost of oil of between $6 and $11
a barrel.
In 2001, President Bush ordered the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to be
filled to a capacity of 700 million barrels. The Reserve currently
holds 692 million barrels, nearly 99 percent of the President's goal.
Thus, I believe now is the time to temporarily suspend funding for the
Reserve and offer the American people a break at the pumps.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Sanders-Stupak-
Bishop amendment.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STUPAK. 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 Michigan (Mr. Stupak)
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Stupak
Mr. STUPAK. 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. Stupak:
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 implement a policy, proposed in the Annex V
Navigation Programs by the Corps of Engineers, to use or
consider the amount of tonnage of goods that pass through a
harbor to determine if a harbor is high-use.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to Members' attention a newly
created OMB and Army Corps of Engineers' criterion for recommending
operation and maintenance dredging of all small commercial harbors.
Unfortunately, this criterion, which is highly inadequate and unfairly
biased, will have a detrimental effect on communities in my northern
Michigan district and on a number of communities across the country.
For fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007, the Corps, with the help
of OMB, has implemented new guidelines for determining whether a harbor
is considered high use and, therefore, eligible to be considered to be
funded for dredging in the President's budget.
According to the Corps, in order for a commercial harbor to be
considered high use, it must now move at least 1 million tons of cargo
annually. As a result of this tonnage requirement, a number of routine
Army Corps operations and maintenance harbor dredging projects will not
be carried out this year as they were in past years. As a result,
small-town, rural America will suffer more job losses, businesses will
struggle and infrastructure could be damaged.
You only need to look at the community of Ontonagon in my district
for an example of the devastating effects this policy will have.
Ontonagon was taken by surprise when they were not included in the
President's budget for the first time in many years. If this harbor is
not dredged, the future of our paper company, Smurfit-Stone Container
Corporation, which relies on the harbor for coal and limestone
deliveries, and White Pine Power, a revitalized coal plant that depends
on the harbor for coal deliveries by ship for its power generation,
will be in jeopardy.
To give you an idea of how bad the silting is in this area, last year
it was dredged and it was dredged down to 19 feet. Less than a year
later, this weekend when I was at Ontonagon, it was back down to 6
feet. We lost 13 feet in less than a year because of the silt coming
down from the Mineral River. Imagine the consequences for small towns
like Ontonagon if their largest businesses are unable to receive the
goods they need to remain competitive. Rural communities already have
limited resources available to them without this added hardship.
The Army Corps must develop more appropriate requirements to
determine whether a harbor is to be included in the President's budget
for a yearly dredge. If they continue to determine whether harbors like
Ontonagon receive funding in the President's budget based primarily on
tonnage, our small commercial harbors will continue to be shortchanged,
affecting the economic livelihoods of our communities.
We need to ensure that the Corps is putting forth guidelines and
policies that are as fair as possible and also reflect an appropriate
amount of transparency to the public.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to ask for a recorded vote. In fact, I
will withdraw the amendment if I may enter into a brief colloquy with
the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
For fiscal year 2006 and 2007, the Army Corps has implemented new
guidelines for determining whether a harbor is considered high use and,
therefore, eligible to be considered to be funded for dredging in the
President's budget. In order for a harbor to be considered high use, it
must move at least 1 million tons of cargo per year.
This would have severe ramifications on small, rural harbors, such as
Ontonagon Harbor in my district, which has typically been included in
the President's budget. If the harbor is not dredged, the future of our
paper company, Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation, which relies on the
harbor for coal and limestone deliveries, and White Pine Power, a
revitalized coal plant that depends on the harbor for coal deliveries
by ship for its power generation, will be in jeopardy. Without this
yearly dredge, these communities are subject to harsh floods and
[[Page H3874]]
the inability to receive goods they need through these harbors.
I seek assurance from the gentleman that he will work with the Corps
and us to reevaluate this policy that could affect not only my small
harbors, but small harbors throughout this country.
Mr. HOBSON. I understand the gentleman from Michigan's concerns about
the effects this policy may have on small harbors. While I believe that
tonnage should be a consideration when the Army Corps prioritizes
operations and maintenance dredging projects, I do not believe it
should be the sole basis.
I look forward to working with the gentleman from Michigan and the
Army Corps to address this issue and identify appropriate factors for
consideration.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for
raising the issue. It is an important one. We have had other ratios for
determination of Corps funding that had been brought before the
subcommittee during the hearing process. They were also questioned.
I understand that the gentleman is concerned about ports of specific
size, but I also think one of the things that we have to do a better
job of, and the chairman has done his very best here, is to look at
entire systems, as well, to make sure there is a fair allocation of
these resources for the commerce and, potentially, for the
environmental cleanup of these very systems and the individual ports;
and I certainly want to join with the chairman and the rest of the
subcommittee to do the best job possible looking forward to address
this issue. It is an important one.
I appreciate its having been raised.
Mr. STUPAK. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
assurances. I look forward to working with them on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Tiahrt:
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 promulgate regulations without consideration of
the effect of such regulations on the competitiveness of
American businesses.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the United States has the number one economy in the
world, and it is the envy of the world. We also have the most powerful
military in the history of the world, but I believe we are headed down
the wrong path.
Our trade deficit last year was $670 billion. Our Federal deficit
exceeded $400 billion. And we saw the loss of many high-quality, high-
paying jobs. While other countries are preparing for the future, the
current trends in the United States should be of concern to us all,
because I believe we are on the path towards a third-rate economy.
Our health care costs are growing too fast and forcing companies to
withdraw these benefits from many of our employees. Our education
system lags behind the developing world and needs to be revamped. Our
trade policy fails to enforce many of the policies that we have in
place. Our tax system punishes success. Our energy policy relies on
imports rather than natural resources we have here in America, along
with renewable energy resources that we have here in America. Our
research and development policy needs to be enhanced. Lawsuits plague
those who keep and create jobs here in America and that slows our
economic growth.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment says that none of the funds available in
this act should be used to promulgate regulations without consideration
of the effects of such regulations on the competitiveness of American
businesses, because that, Mr. Chairman, means more jobs. If we are
going to succeed in the future, we have to create an environment here
in America that encourages competition and does not discourage growth.
Regulatory costs are killing our jobs. Less government regulations not
only means granting the freedom to allow Americans to pursue their
dreams, it also means providing the space for business to thrive, which
means more jobs for working Americans.
Instead, our Federal Government has become a creeping ivy of
regulations that strangle enterprise.
It is estimated today that the regulatory burden as of 2000 was $843
billion. That has cost us U.S. jobs. The regulatory compliance burden
on U.S. manufacturers is the equivalent of a 12 percent excise tax.
Mr. Chairman, if we could cut the regulatory burden in half, we would
be 6 percent more competitive. As we approve spending allocations for
the Department of Energy and other related agencies, we need to remind
them of the importance of their actions and what they do with the
funding that we give them.
Mr. Chairman, I have spoken with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hobson), and I have complete confidence that he will help us make
America more competitive in the future. I plan to withdraw this
amendment tonight, but I do not plan to retreat from this fight to
reduce the barriers to keeping and creating jobs in America.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman from Ohio will work with me
to help us create an environment to bring more jobs back to America.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment of the gentleman from
Kansas is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for their work on
this bill.
I wish to associate myself with the words of the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) concerning smaller ports and maintenance dredging
by the Army Corps of Engineers. Not only would this affect the port of
Astoria in my congressional district, but it would affect smaller ports
up and down the coast of Oregon. This is an issue of great concern to
Michiganders, to Oregonians and to other Americans.
{time} 2015
Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order: the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), and the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 110,
noes 312, not voting 11, as follows:
[[Page H3875]]
[Roll No. 207]
AYES--110
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gibbons
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (RI)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Michaud
Miller, George
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--312
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Allen
Bean
Doggett
Hastings (WA)
McCrery
Millender-McDonald
Moore (WI)
Pence
Pickering
Wamp
Young (AK)
{time} 2042
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida and Messrs. PETERSON of
Pennsylvania, KIRK, HEFLEY, SHAYS, ROTHMAN, CLEAVER, MORAN of Virginia,
GENE GREEN of Texas, REYES, MCINTYRE, GILLMOR, STRICKLAND and AL GREEN
of Texas changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. LOFGREN of California, Ms. DELAURO, Ms. WATSON and Mr. SHERMAN
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 207, the
Markey-Holt amendment to H.R. 2419, had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 207, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Jones of North Carolina
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN.
A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152,
noes 275, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 208]
AYES--152
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baca
Baird
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Berkley
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Boehner
Boswell
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Cannon
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Coble
Conyers
Costa
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Duncan
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Goode
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Leach
Lee
Lipinski
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Meehan
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Ruppersberger
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Sessions
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Strickland
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--275
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
[[Page H3876]]
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Waters
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Wu
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Allen
Hastings (WA)
Millender-McDonald
Pickering
Wamp
Young (AK)
{time} 2051
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California changed his vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. HONDA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Stupak
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 253, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 209]
AYES--174
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--253
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Allen
Hastings (WA)
Lee
Millender-McDonald
Pickering
Young (AK)
{time} 2100
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 207, 208, and 209, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on
all 3.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act, 2006''.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Putnam) having assumed the chair, Mr.
[[Page H3877]]
Goodlatte, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration
the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water
development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for
other purposes, had directed him to report the bill back to the House
with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be
agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 291, the
previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Etheridge
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, in its current form, yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Etheridge of North Carolina moves to recommit the bill
H.R. 2419, to the Committee on Appropriations with
instructions to report the same back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
On page 23, line 20, after ``$86,426,000,'' insert the
following:
``of which $500,000 shall be available to develop and publish
a report on imported crude oil and petroleum sales to the
United States pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 796 and 42 U.S.C. 7135.''
On page 27, line 8, strike ``$35,000'' and insert
``$1,035,000''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Etheridge) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I know the hour is late and folks want to
go home.
Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for
their hard work on this bill. But like anything we do in this body, we
can do better. This coming Friday will begin Memorial Day, and for many
Americans it really is the beginning of summer.
On that day, tens of thousands of North Carolinians and millions of
Americans are getting into their cars and hitting the road for
vacation. They may visit our State's beautiful beaches or seashores.
They may visit the cool mountain vistas to the west. Or they may just
leave our State altogether and travel across this country.
Regardless of where they go and how far they travel, they will all be
confronted by the same ugly truth: Our Nation is experiencing the
highest gasoline prices in the history of this country. The average
price of regular unleaded gasoline in the United States is over $2.12 a
gallon, 6 cents higher than it was a year ago.
For diesel fuel users like truck drivers and farmers, the national
average is over $2.15, 39 cents a gallon higher than last year. In the
central Atlantic States, like North Carolina, the price for regular
unleaded and diesel are higher than the national average.
As I travel throughout my district, I regularly hear complaints from
my constituents about higher gasoline prices and diesel fuel prices.
Farmers, commuters, employers, senior citizens and all North
Carolinians have been hit hard by higher gasoline prices.
Truck drivers are seeing their businesses suffer. Farmers are forced
to watch their costs escalate, eating into their bottom line,
especially now, when they are getting into the fields. And for people
who have lost their jobs and still cannot find work, higher gasoline
prices place an even higher burden on them.
People who live in rural districts like mine have to travel farther
than folks living in any other area to go to work, to get to a store,
to go to church, to take their children to school and any number of
places. While high gasoline prices hurt everyone, rural Americans are
especially hit hard. Everyone talks about the problem.
The United States is too dependent on foreign oil. Every time we have
a small disruption in the Middle East, the marketplace reacts wildly
and drives the price of a barrel of oil even higher. We need to reduce
our Nation's dependency on foreign oil, and we need to bring gas prices
down, and this motion to recommit is a step in that direction.
This motion will direct $500,000 from the Energy Information
Administration for analysis of imported crude oil and its impact on
petroleum sales.
It also provides $1 million for the Secretary of Energy to conduct a
conference with foreign oil producers of foreign oil-producing nations.
I remember when Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations used to say they
wanted to get the price of a barrel of oil between $22 and $28 a
gallon.
Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue. We may not think so in this
body, but I guarantee you the people across this America do. And let me
tell you, when the Saudis said $22 to $28 a barrel they were shooting
for, and it is now $50 and above, they missed that by a country mile
where I come from.
If they truly want to bring down prices, they could do that today.
Actions speak louder than words, and it is time for action.
This administration must insist that Saudi Arabia and OPEC nations
raise their production levels now. And this motion will ensure that the
administration has the means to bring these nations together at a
conference and deal with this issue immediately. Every day we continue
to experience higher gas prices is another day that is a drain on the
wallet of every single American.
Last Sunday at church a church member came to me and he said, You
know, I am an independent truck driver, and the cost of my fuel is
going up, and it is going to put me in bankruptcy.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people across this country tonight in
that same situation, and we can do something about it. Instead, we are
not offering the kind of proposal to make a difference. This will offer
a proposal to the U.S. Department of Energy Information Administration
to move and take action and take action quickly.
Mr. Speaker, the bill that we passed earlier on energy will increase
the cost by 85 percent in 20 years. That is increasing our dependency.
This is an opportunity for a solution. This is the way that we should
impact it positively.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to recommit.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit and urge a
speedy passage of the underlying bill, and yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for the electronic vote on
the question of final passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167,
noes 261, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 210]
AYES--167
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
[[Page H3878]]
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Towns
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--261
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Hastings (WA)
Millender-McDonald
Pastor
Pickering
Young (AK)
{time} 2128
Messrs. CAPUANO, COSTELLO and TIERNEY changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 416,
nays 13, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 211]
YEAS--416
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--13
Berkley
Etheridge
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Gibbons
Green (WI)
Inslee
Kucinich
Matheson
Paul
Porter
Sensenbrenner
Stearns
[[Page H3879]]
NOT VOTING--4
Hastings (WA)
Millender-McDonald
Pickering
Young (AK)
{time} 2136
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________