[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.

                          ____________________