[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 29440-29442]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2754, ENERGY 
             AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 444 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 444

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2754) making appropriations for energy and water 
     development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 444 is a standard rule that provides 
for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2754, the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2004. The rule waives all points of order against 
the conference report and against its consideration. The rule also 
provides that the conference report will be considered as read.
  Madam Speaker, the underlying conference report is the result of hard 
work and compromise by the energy and water appropriations conference 
committee. The conference report suggests a strong civil works program 
with the Army Corps of Engineers. By concentrating $4.5 billion on the 
traditional tasks such as flood control, shoreline protection, and 
navigation, which yield the most economic benefit for the Nation, the 
bill ensures the highest possible return on taxpayer investment.
  Within the agreement, the Department of Energy is provided with $22 
billion. Included in that funding is nearly $350 million for renewable 
energy programs and $393 million for nuclear energy programs. Specific 
programs funded within the Department are the nuclear energy research 
initiative of $11.6 million, $6.5 million for the nuclear hydrogen 
initiative, and $68 million for the advanced fuel cycle initiative. 
Adequate and needed funding is provided for science programs within the 
Department, including high-energy physics, nuclear physics, biological 
and environmental research, fusion energy research, and advanced 
scientific computing research.
  The nuclear waste program continues to be one of our highest 
environmental priorities and one that is of particular importance to my 
region. I am also pleased that the conference report provides a total 
of $580 million for nuclear waste disposal. Additionally, $7.6 billion 
is provided for environmental management cleanup activities, continuing 
the strong commitment to accelerate cleanup schedules at contaminated 
sites throughout the country.

                              {time}  1115

  This funding is vital in reducing public health and safety risks. The 
conference report also provides $8.7 billion for the National Nuclear 
Security Administration, which includes the nuclear weapons program, 
defense nuclear nonproliferation, and Naval reactors.
  In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from 
Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and all of the distinguished conferees on both 
sides of the aisle for their hard work and dedication to our Nation's 
energy and water priorities. I urge my colleagues to support this rule 
and the underlying conference report.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for 
yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, as my colleague on the Committee on Rules already 
noted, this rule is typical for a conference report. It is closed and 
it allows for 1 hour of debate. I should note that I am pleased to rise 
today to debate the content of the energy and water appropriations bill 
and only the energy and water appropriations bill. Let us just hope 
that when Congress adjourns the first session of the 108th Congress, it 
will have considered 13 such appropriations conference reports.
  To Republican leaders who say that considering 13 separate 
appropriations reports is not possible or just highly unlikely, I note 
that while the other body remained in session last week, the House took 
the week off. Where there is a will, Madam Speaker, there is always a 
way. The will of the majority is clear, and it is not on the side of 
the American people.
  But I should not dwell on this body's work ethic nor shall I attempt 
to predict or foresee the prospects of this week, however dim they may 
be. Instead I rise in support of the underlying conference report.
  As previously mentioned, the energy and water appropriations bill 
provides $27.3 billion in funding for the United States Department of 
Energy and many of our country's most important water-related projects. 
The bill appropriates about $4.5 billion for the Army Corps of 
Engineers, about $1 billion for the Bureau of Reclamation, $22 billion 
for the Department of Energy, and about $140 million for independent 
agencies including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
  The report also includes more than $15 million in funding for the 
restoration of Florida's Everglades, and I thank all of our colleagues 
in the House for continuing to support that vital project in the State 
of Florida. It further contains legislative language ensuring that the 
State of Florida fulfills its commitment to improve water quality in 
the Everglades, and I would urge the Florida legislature to undertake 
its responsibilities most immediately in that regard. Both of these are 
prime examples of Congress's continuing commitment to the largest 
environmental cleanup in the history of the world.
  I am proud of the fact that several of our colleagues including the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), and myself 
are the immediate Representatives for the lake and Everglades area. 
There are other Congress persons, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Meek), the

[[Page 29441]]

gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Wexler), all of whom have been directly involved in this 
historic undertaking. I am proud of the work that Florida's whole 
congressional delegation has done on a bipartisan basis, particularly 
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member who is not from Florida but 
has helped us with this to keep this project moving ahead. The 
subcommittee chairman and the ranking Democrat are to be thanked for 
their tireless work, and I look forward to working with each of them in 
the future.
  In addition to funding Everglades restoration efforts, the underlying 
report provides more than $4.5 million for south Florida beach 
renourishment and protection projects, $500,000 for Florida Keys water 
quality improvements, and more than $17 million for improving south 
Florida's ports and waterways.
  I am well aware that some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle 
have severe reservations regarding the report, particularly funding for 
the Yucca Mountain site, a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator study, and 
an anti-environmental rider that affects a fair process already 
underway in Alaska. Their concerns are real, and, frankly, I am 
disappointed that we have not better addressed them in the conference 
report.
  Again, Madam Speaker, this is by and large a good report. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I think one of the obligations of those of 
us in the minority is to raise objection when we believe that the 
majority has not handled legislation correctly and to indicate support 
when we think it has handled things correctly. I want to stipulate 
that, in this instance, I think the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Hobson) has done a wonderful job in seeing to it that the Congress 
addresses its institutional responsibilities in the areas under the 
energy and water bill jurisdiction, and I think he has done an 
excellent job in involving the minority in reaching those decisions. In 
the process, it has been very apparent that the primary consideration 
of the chairman of the subcommittee has been the substance of the 
legislation, and he has tried to take the conference in a direction 
which defends the public interest irrespective of what either some 
people in the Congress or some people in the executive branch of 
government have felt about these issues. So I simply want to take this 
time to congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and to 
congratulate the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking 
minority member on the subcommittee, because they have handled this 
bill in a way which, in my view, all appropriations bills should be 
handled, all legislation should be handled, for that matter. And in the 
process, while I certainly do not agree with every provision in the 
bill, I think the process has been reasonable enough and the substance 
is reasonable enough that this bill merits support on both sides of the 
aisle, and I am pleased to report that to the House.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I take with good note the ranking member of the full Committee on 
Appropriations on the compliments to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hobson) as chair of the subcommittee, and I know that he works hard in 
those endeavors to achieve that, but it is not easy to get such a fine 
accolade on behalf of the ranking member, and on behalf of the chair of 
the subcommittee I will pass along his kind remarks.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the 
underlying legislation as it relates to energy and water development, 
and I thank the chair and the ranking member.
  Coming from Houston, Texas, having just experienced enormous flooding 
over the last 48 hours and the tragedy of tornadoes, I recognize the 
importance of a system of both energy and water that needs to work. I 
particularly want to note the importance in this legislation of the 
$3.45 billion for the Department of Energy science programs that will 
allow us to deal with climatic concerns that impact the quality of life 
of our constituents and $8.7 billion for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration because I would like to see the responsibility of 
cleanup be enhanced; $426 million for renewable energy programs, and as 
well $580 million for the nuclear waste program, and most of all, the 
$4.6 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, drastically needed in a 
community like mine that is 50 feet under sea level. So I am publicly 
asking for assistance from the Army Corps of Engineers as I have to 
return to Houston today because of several of my community sites have 
been destroyed, and I am going to seek help for them.
  As I mentioned, this is an important question in Houston. In fact, 
the recent mayoral campaign was based upon who can deal with flooding. 
So this strikes at the heart of our community and its survival. I also 
want to note that we will be bringing up H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act 
of 2003. Let me note that I am grateful for the focus of doing energy 
research for both renewables, but also alternatives, and although it 
was a vigorous debate, I want to say to my energy friends, the deletion 
of ANWR does not mean that we cannot be domestically sufficient, that 
we cannot resources to invest in domestic energy resources, 
particularly in the Gulf where the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) 
and I offered an amendment to determine the amount of resources in the 
Gulf off the shores of Louisiana and Florida, in particular, and to do 
more reinvigorated drilling in that area where it is well assured that 
it can be done in a very scientific and environmentally safe area. Even 
though there are issues with the Energy Policy Act that I would be 
concerned about, as a Texan, I think it is vital that we become more 
independent as it relates to energy resources, that we begin to look at 
alternatives, begin to look at incentives for alternative motor 
vehicles and the $1.8 billion for the electric power industry. My 
colleagues can be assured, to my friends in Texas, that we will never 
be totally independent of oil and natural gas of which we have much in 
this area. So this Energy Policy Act, that is, H.R. 6, should at least 
be considered a first step where we have come together, although 
sometimes in controversy, to put on the table a real energy agenda and 
policy for the 21st century and for this country. It is long overdue, 
and as someone who has practiced oil and gas law since about 1976, I 
can tell the Members that we will be better off having a road map that 
we can follow and that we can work with environmentalists and work with 
independents, small energy companies, who can be the backbone of an 
energy policy in this Nation.
  So, Madam Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 2754 and the rule, as well 
as H.R. 6.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule, yet 
with some strong reservations also regarding final passage of the 
Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report. But before I explain 
my reservation, I would like to recognize the many efforts of the 
gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), ranking member, and other hardworking Members and their 
staffs who have made, over the past year, an effort to work with the 
Nevada delegation to address our serious concerns with the Yucca 
Mountain project.
  For example, during initial House floor consideration of the energy 
and water bill this past July, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Hobson) was gracious enough to grant the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Porter) and

[[Page 29442]]

I a colloquy on the issue of early acceptance of spent nuclear fuel at 
Yucca Mountain. In response to our concern, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Hobson) agreed not only to strip the early acceptance 
language from the bill, but also to dedicate $4 million in additional 
Federal spending to bolster security at our Nation's nuclear power 
stations. I am heartened by the gentleman from Ohio's (Chairman Hobson) 
willingness to ensure that the early acceptance of spent nuclear 
language did not remain through the conference on this measure.
  However, the conference report still dedicates $580 million in 
taxpayers' dollars to the Yucca Mountain project, in my opinion, a 
fatally flawed Federal boondoggle that a majority of Nevadans, millions 
of Americans, and the Nevada Congressional Delegation strongly opposes.
  Madam Speaker, I will vote yes on this rule; however, I will remain 
opposed to frivolously spending taxpayers' dollars and will never give 
up the fight against wasteful Yucca Mountain project spending.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question is ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________