[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 14735-14736]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. HEATHER WILSON

                             of new mexico

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 25, 2004

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4614) making 
     appropriations for energy and water development for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other 
     purposes:

  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address serious 
problems with this bill and particularly with its Report, which cannot 
be fully remedied by the amendment I propose.
  The problem is not so much with the bill, which we have before us, 
but with the directive report language that goes along with it.
  As members, we rarely focus on report language and our vote in favor 
of the bill does not approve the report language. Usually, report 
language tracks the provisions of the bill. In the case of this 
appropriations measure, the report language goes far beyond the 
authority of the appropriations committee, directly contradicts 
recorded votes taken by this House, and is inconsistent with the FY05 
Defense Authorization Act which the House has passed.
  I will vote for this Bill, which in itself generally provides funds 
necessary for Department of Energy to execute its important 
responsibilities in scientific research, energy, and national security. 
In fact, I applaud its increase in research funding for the Office of 
Science.
  But with my ``yes'' vote today, I also feel compelled to speak in 
favor of the majority in this House and put in the record our well 
documented objection to a number of directions to the Department of 
Energy in the accompanying Report.
  The Report language seeks to undermine initiatives supported by 
recorded votes in the Defense Authorization bill for the past two 
years, supported by votes on the House floor for two years, and 
sustained in the other body for two years. These initiatives have been 
advocated by the House majority in a policy statement; have been 
supported and requested by the Department of Defense and the Defense 
Science Board; and have been a sustained part of this Administration's 
development of a strategic forces policy for the 21st century 
consistent with reducing our nuclear forces to the lowest levels 
possible.
  Mr. Chairman, we all know that Committee Staff sometimes overreach in 
reports, and I would bet a dozen Krispy Kreme Donuts that fewer than 
half a dozen members of this House are even aware of what has been 
included in the report accompanying this bill in very prescriptive 
terms. But this report seeks to give legitimacy to policy positions 
directly contravened by recorded votes in this House and we cannot 
allow there to be any confusion about where we stand.
  The Bill appropriates $6,514,424,000 for Weapon Activities. The 
Report seeks to give the appearance that the House has limited funding 
for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. But we have not. We will vote 
today to spend those funds and we voted in the FY05 Authorization bill 
on May 20th of this year to authorize $6,577,953,000, including $27.6M 
for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator study, approving that bill by a 
vote of 391-34. An amendment to explicitly remove authorization for 
this study failed on that same day by a vote of 214-204.
  The Report seeks to give the appearance that we would like to 
restrict Laboratory Directed Research and Development at Department of 
Energy Laboratories. But we have not. We will vote today to fund out 
laboratories. Only the House Armed Services Committee can pass 
legislation to limit the LDRD program. On May 20 we passed the FY05 
Defense Authorization Act that continued the previously authorized LDRD 
program at our laboratories.
  After September 11, 2001, we were grateful that those Laboratories 
had been doing this kind of exploratory research under the LDRD 
program. The fact they have done so has helped secure our homeland and 
aid our troops in the field. To chill such research would be unwise.
  Further, the Report would have you believe that we are voting to 
restructure the future LDRD program. But we have not. This bill does 
not change the LDRD program in any way.
  Further, the Report language would have you believe that we are 
voting to have the NNSA focus solely on its missions of life extension 
of the existing stockpile and the current stockpile stewardship 
program. But we are not. The bill does nothing of the sort. In fact, if 
we were to pay any attention to the report language, we would be 
threatening those priorities. The Report suggests that we make major 
reductions in one Life Extension Program unsupported by an assessment 
of the impact and risks this would imply. It would

[[Page 14736]]

also require a higher priority for dismantlement activities in a way 
that will likely come at the expense of meeting current Life Extension 
milestones for the Department of Defense. It would make significant 
reductions to numerous areas of the stockpile stewardship program that 
were designed by the NNSA to address technical needs to assess with 
adequately small uncertainty the safety, reliability, and performance 
of our weapons without nuclear tests.
  None of this makes any sense and the report language would not stand 
up to any serious review by elected Members of Congress.
  The Report suggests that by voting for this bill we are changing the 
way NNSA operates with other entities within the DOE. But it does not. 
The report suggests that we are adding a burdensome procedure for 
approval of NNSA activities at the request of, other elements of the 
DOE, and would hold hostage numerous unique activities of the NNSA labs 
within these energy and science programs.
  The Report would suggest that we are approving a review of future 
requirements for the weapons complex development plan, to be conducted 
only by people with no experience in doing that work. That would be 
silly and the bill includes no such thing.
  The reason we cannot vote to amend report language under the rules of 
the House is because report language is not law and does not have the 
authority of law. The law we are voting on is in the bill before us. In 
most cases, report language explains and supports the bill.
  In this case, those writing the report went far beyond any reasonable 
authority as staff members and I think we need to make it clear that 
the measures included in the Report are inconsistent with statute, 
inconsistent with the FY05 Defense Authorization Act, inconsistent with 
recorded votes taken by this House and have no force or authority 
whatsoever. An error of this magnitude must be jettisoned in the 
conference committee so that agencies affected are not confused by the 
mixed messages sent here.
  Mr. Chairman, the problems in this Report are many. I felt it 
important to clarify for the record that members of the House are 
approving the text of the Bill. We do not approve of the Report 
language, which is replete with practical problems and inconsistent 
with the law.

                          ____________________