Appalachian Development Highway System Completion Act of 2003

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to submit to the House for consideration the fiscal year 2004 energy and water development appropriations act.

I want to first thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for working with me on this bill. I want to thank his staff. I also want to thank my staff, who has worked very hard on this bill. This is the first time I have actually done the full bill on the floor, and I appreciate the tutorial from everybody on this bill.

I also want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the full committee. I also particularly want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), my overall chairman, who has worked with me on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have a rather long speech here this morning to give; but I am not going to give it, because I know a lot of Members want to go home, so I am going to submit it for the Record.

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to submit to the House for its consideration the fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. On Tuesday, July 15th, the Appropriations Committee unanimously approved the bill, and I believe it merits the support of the entire membership of the House. I want to thank all the members of the subcommittee for their help in bringing the bill to the floor today. I particularly want to thank Mr. Visclosky for his help and cooperation. I also want to thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young, and the ranking minority member, Mr. Obey for allowing us to move forward in such an expeditious manner.

Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide variety of programs, which include such diverse matters as maintenance of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, navigation improvements, environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced scientific research, and nuclear waste disposal.

Total spending in the fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water Development Bill is $27,080,000, the same as the subcommittee's 302b allocation. This is an increase of $942 million over fiscal year 2003 and $134 million over the President's budget request. The bill I present to the House today is fiscally responsible, and meets the major needs of the members of the House.

Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works programs of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Formerly Used Sites Remedial Action Program. The Committee has recommended a total of $4.48 billion for Title I, $288 million above the budget request, but $156 million below the amount appropriated last year. The Committee concentrated the limited resources it had for the Corps on ongoing projects and did not include funds for new studies or construction projects.

Mr. Chairman, even though we were able to provide an increase over the budget request for the Corps of Engineers, I am very concerned that we, and that includes the Congress and the Administration, are not spending enough on our water resources infrastructure. This infrastructure supports much of the Nation's commerce and provides a physical safety net against natural disasters for many of our citizens. The Administration's budget request underfunds most of the ongoing Corps of Engineers construction projects. While we have added funds for a number of those projects, those funds are not adequate to keep the projects on their most efficient schedules. The result is higher costs and a delay in receiving the benefits that the projects will provide. I hope to begin an active dialog with the Administration in an attempt to convince them of the need to increase funding to support the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers.

One program of the Corps of Engineers which is of great interest to me is the restoration of the Everglades, which is a partnership between the Federal government and the State of Florida. In very simple terms, the State is charged with cleaning up the water that enters the Everglades, and the Federal government is responsible for fixing the plumbing. We fully funded the Administration's request of $145 million for activities related to restoration of the Everglades; however, I am concerned that recent actions taken by the State may signify a lessening of its resolve to live up to its part of the bargain. I have written to the Governor and have spoken to him to let him know of my concerns. Because of those concerns, we have included language in the Bill that would deny the use of funds for Everglades restoration if the State does not meet court ordered water quality standards. I intend to monitor this situation very closely.

Funding for Title II of the bill, which includes the Central Utah Project Completion Account and the programs of the Bureau of Reclamation, is $947.9 million, $24.3 million below the amount appropriated last year and $25.7 million above the budget request. The Committee did not provide the $15 million requested by the Administration for the CALFED Bay-Delta program. The authorization for this program expired in fiscal year 2000 and it has not been reauthorized.

Today funding for Title III, the Department of Energy is $22 billion, $1.18 billion above fiscal year 2003 and $147 million below the budget request.

Mr. Chairman, my top priority within the Department of Energy is Yucca Mountain. It is essential that we have this repository ready to accept spent nuclear fuel as soon as possible for two very important reasons--energy security and homeland security. Nuclear energy currently generates about 20 percent of the Nation's electricity without emitting any greenhouse gases. That percentage could grow, but it will not until there is a place for safe, long-term storage of the waste that is generated. That place is Yucca Mountain. With regard to homeland security, the events of September 11th have taught us that spent nuclear fuel currently stored at reactor sites around the country might not be as secure as we once thought. Therefore, we have included an additional $174 million above the budget request for the Department of Energy to begin work on a rail line in Nevada that, and this is important, will avoid Las Vegas, on the national transportation system, and on improved containers and early acceptance of spent fuel presently stored at reactor sites. These items have not been addressed in the past because the other body has routinely cut the President's budget, and the Department has had to concentrate all its resources on the license application it is scheduled to submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in December of 2004. For fiscal year 2004, the other body has recommended $425 million, $166 million below the budget request. We also provide $30 million for impact assistance to the affected counties in Nevada so the people there can see the economic advantage that the repository will bring.

Another priority in this Bill is advanced scientific computing. By a number of key measures of computing power, the United States is now in second place behind Japan. For the sake of our scientific leadership, for our national security, and for economic competitiveness, we cannot afford to stay in second place. We have provided an additional $40 million for DOE's Advanced Scientific Computing Research program to procure additional state-of-the-art computers in the near term and to begin an interagency effort to develop a next-generation computer architecture that will leapfrog ahead of current designs.

Mr. Chairman, another area of concern is the portion of the Department of Energy's budget request that deals with the nuclear weapons complex. The Department continues to ask Congress to fund a Cold War nuclear arsenal, and the infrastructure necessary to maintain that arsenal, even though we no longer face a Cold War adversary. As President Bush said when he announced reductions to the nuclear stockpile on November 13, 2001, ``The United States and Russia have overcome the legacy of the Cold War.'' AT that time, he pledged that the United States would reduce our stockpile to 1,700 to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads over ten years because, as he said, ``the current levels of our nuclear forces do not reflect today's strategic realities.'' I couldn't agree more. We do not need thousands of warheads to deter a nuclear attack anymore, but the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense want Congress to continue to pay for a Cold War stockpile. It is time the DOE and the DOD begin to shrink the footprint of the nuclear weapons infrastructure to reflect the President's decision to reduce our nuclear arsenal. DOD is rethinking the kinds of forces it needs to respond to the threats of the new century, and will go through another round of BRAC to bring down its footprint. The National Nuclear Security Administration should go through a similar process and take a hard look at its workforce and facility needs for a smaller stockpile. Accordingly, we have not approved all of the increase requested for weapons activities in fiscal year 2004.

Mr. Chairman, in this Bill we have also attempted to send a signal to the Department of Energy and the Russian government with regard to the Nuclear Nonproliferation program. At the end of May of this year, the Department had unobligated balances in this program of almost $600 million. That is money just sitting at DOE headquarters. In addition, by this fiscal year, the Department estimates that it will have uncosted balances of over $1.1 billion. I view this as poor management. We are fully supportive of the nuclear nonproliferation mission, but we have to question whether we are achieving the program goals when over a billion dollars goes unspent. We need to figure out what is wrong and fix it before this issue endangers support for the program.

Lastly, one of the key changes I want to make in the Department of Energy is to change the culture about contract competition. There are a number of DOE lab contracts that were initially awarded without competition back during World War II and have never been competed since. That has to change. I am firmly convinced of the benefits of competition, and we have included language in the bill effectively requiring the Secretary of Energy to compete all M&O contracts that have not been

competitively awarded within the past 50 years.

Funding for Title IV, Independent Agencies, is $138.4 million, a decrease of $68.2 million from last year and $9.5 million below the budget request. We have funded the Appalachian Regional Commission at the budget request level of $33,145,000. I realize that a number of members are concerned about this level of funding, which is $37 million below last year's level. However, our allocation did not permit us to provide an increase above the budget request. The other body has provided $ for the ARC and we can address this when the bill is in conference.

Mr. Chairman, before I conclude I would also like to thank the staff for their help in getting me up to speed on the complex issues we have in this bill. The Subcommittee staff includes Bob Schmidt, Kevin Cook, Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, Tracy LaTurner, and our detailee from the Corps of Engineers, Robert Pace. I also want to thank Kenny Kraft of my staff.

Mr. Chairman, I know that not everyone is happy with everything we have done in this bill, but I think we have produced a fair and balanced product and I hope the members will unanimously support what we have done.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY03.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY03.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY03.003

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, first I might say this colloquy is a little more structured than the one we had that everybody thought was a dog and pony show in committee. We did not plan it there, but we have decided to do it again.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I believe there are 103 nuclear power stations in

the United States. At those installations, less than half the spent fuel is held within the reactor wall in giant water-cooled pools.

That is correct. The Federal Government signed an agreement with the utility companies to dispose of this nuclear material by 1998 at the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada. Unfortunately, Yucca Mountain is not scheduled to open until 2010.

Yes, that is true. What has happened is some of the material has been transferred to concrete stationary casks after it has been in the pool for the appropriate time, but this radioactive fuel will have to be carefully removed and repackaged for shipment to Yucca Mountain in a manner that is much safer and in a moveable container.

In my opinion there is. This bill directs the Department of Energy to determine the potential cost savings and threat level reduction by placing spent fuel into a dual-use cask rather than separate storage and transportation casks. By reducing both the handling and exposure periods, we can substantially increase the safety and security levels and prevent a possible or potential future accident at the sites.

These are casks that, on the site, instead of putting them into the concrete thin-barrier-walled facilities that they are in now, they would go into a much higher, non-penetrable type of facility container that would be manufactured and delivered to the site, and put into that cask. That cask could then be put on a rail car in future years and transferred out to Yucca Mountain and put directly into the mountain, rather than the procedure they are talking about now of taking those casks that they have got there now, which are concrete and a very thin wall, taking those, putting them into another container, then putting them on a rail car, taking them to Yucca Mountain, taking them out again, putting them into another container there, and then putting it in the ground.

This would, in my opinion, be a much more cost-effective way of handling this waste and a much safer way of handling the waste in the current situation.

That is correct. You would not have to do it again after you got out there. You would not have to take it out, put it in another container, and then put it underground.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the word ``impervious'' is pretty difficult or a pretty high standard. I think we would have to study it a little bit more, but I think they are far more resilient to that type of attack or another type of attack than where we are today, and we would be much safer.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I agree with the gentleman's comments.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to protest the drastic and devastating cuts to the Appalachian Regional Commission (``ARC'') in the House of Representatives' Energy and Water Appropriations bill, on which we will vote today.

The ARC provides vital infrastructure investments in a historically distressed area of the country that spans 13 states including all of West Virginia, my home State.

The cuts in the Energy and Water Appropriations will slash the ARC budget by over 50 percent from its fiscal year 2002 levels. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, of which I am a senior member, had authorized $88 million for this vital program, but the bill only provides for $33 million in ARC funding. Simply put, this bill seeks to gut a worthwhile program upon which so many people across so many states depend.

I understand that Senator Robert Byrd, that great West Virginian and one of the most distinguished public servants in American history, has managed to fund the ARC at its current level in the Senate's Energy and Water Appropriations. His efforts are greatly appreciated, and I applaud him both personally and professionally for what he has done for the ARC and therefore for West Virginia. Were it not for Senator Byrd's efforts, I would have to oppose the House Energy and Water Appropriations bill outright.

In the 1960s, President Johnson carried out a promise to help raise the Appalachian region out of its crushing poverty when he formed the Appalachian Regional Commission. For over 30 years, the ARC has provided for development and jobs throughout 410 counties across a 200,000 square mile region. Although the Appalachian region is dramatically improved because of this effort, there remains more work to be done to fulfill the promise made.

Mr. Chairman, some have questioned the value of the ARC. In response, I would like to note a few examples of the good work the ARC has done most recently in southern West Virginia:

The ARC provided the Prichard, WV Public Service District with a $100,000 grant to construct a wastewater collection and treatment system that will provide water to 225 customers and create 148 jobs in Wayne County, WV.

A $1 million grant to the Glen White/Trap Hill Public Service District in Raleigh County, WV, will fund construction of a three water storage tanks and replace some existing water lines while extending service to surrounding communities that had to rely on underground wells.

In Boone County, WV, a $680,000 grant from the ARC is being used to extend waterlines to Julian, WV.

The ARC also has provided the West Virginia Access Center for Higher Education in Bluefield, WV, a $75,000 grant to help increase the number of high school students who go on to attend college.

Now, I don't think the people who live in Prichard, Glen White, Julian, and Bluefield will claim that the ARC has a questionable track record.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Byrd is the sponsor of a Senate bill to complete construction of the Appalachian Development Highway System. I proudly note that I am the sponsor of the House version of the same bill, H.R. 2381, which is cosponsored by my fellow West Virginian and close friend, Alan Mollohan, and that stalwart ARC supporter from Ohio, my friend Ted Strickland.

I urge my colleagues to remember the ARC as a worthwhile program that has benefited many lives and continues to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, and I want him to know that I am aware of the needs of his district and many others around the country, frankly. In my prepared remarks, which I did not give today, I list some problems. The Operation and Maintenance backlog is nearly $1 billion and growing every year, and I talk about that. I also talk about the fact that OMB has got to work with us on a long-term basis because every year we go on, this aging infrastructure, we need to make an investment, and I want to make that investment.

And what I am going to try to do in this bill, and this is my first time doing this, and I have a very able ranking member, when we sit down with the other body in conference, I am going to try to increase the money available for Operation and Maintenance, and I will try very hard to get the OMB to work with us to be more realistic in the future about this, because I do not think it is realistic. We need to help the Corps of Engineers so that we do not make so many hard choices in support of our economic, environmental and recreational infrastructure.

I want to assure the gentleman and everybody else in here we have got a real problem here. This affects our economy. We have to maintain these facilities and make sure they are up to date because it has a detrimental effect on our economy and on our environment. And I would appreciate if the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, but I want him to know I am very sincere about trying to get this account up not only now, but in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes with the time to be equally divided between the proponent of the amendment and a Member opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The deepening of the Delaware River is considered by many to be vital to the future of commerce in the northeast. The Corps of Engineers believes that it is an economically viable project. It was authorized in 1992. They have already spent more than $17 million to date on its study and design.

The ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and I have been contacted by the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Honorable Ed Rendell, who urged us to oppose any amendment to reduce the level of funding for this project. His letter contains a long list of labor and business interests who are in strong support of this project which he calls ``essential to maintaining a competitive port.''

Therefore, I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time for his control to my ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) and the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

I understand the concerns of the Members from Nevada. We have tried to do the right thing for Nevada in this bill by directing the Secretary to select rail as the preferred mode of transportation within Nevada and by directing the Secretary to select a rail route that avoids Las Vegas. Further, we have restored the external oversight funding for the State of Nevada and the affected counties, and we have provided $30 million in impact assistance funding for the affected Nevada counties.

Nevertheless, I understand the sensitivity on the issue of this early acceptance. I commit that we will drop the report dealing with early acceptance when we get to conference, and I will direct the Secretary to apply the $4 million to improving the security of the containers used to store spent fuel at reactor sites.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think we provided very generous funding for renewable energy sources, and I strongly object to any reductions in the funding for Yucca Mountain repository.

Let me explain what our bill really does for renewable energy resources. The enacted funding levels for renewable energy resources for fiscal year 2003 was $419.5 million. The request for fiscal year 2004 was $444.2 million. However, subsequent to submission of the budget request, the Secretary of Energy proposed transferring $73.6 million from renewable energy to a new Office for Electricity Transmission and Distribution. The House recommendation for renewables is $330.1 million, an apparent reduction of $89.3 million from the current year. I say apparent because $73.6 million of this apparent reduction represents the transfer to the new electricity office. Therefore, the real reduction for renewable energy is only $16 million compared to the current fiscal year.

Our fund funds the mainstream renewable programs for solar power, wind power, biomass, and geothermal energy exactly at the requested levels. We fund the International Renewable Energy Program, tribal energy activities, and the Renewable Energy Production Incentives all at the requested levels.

That sounds like renewable energy does pretty well in our bill, and it does. We made a few specific funding reductions and with good reason. The administration wanted to double the funding for hydrogen from $39.7 million to $88 million. We cut that increase by $20 million, partly because the Department has not convinced us that it can spend that large of an increase constructively, and also because we learned that the Department intended to keep much of that funding within the national laboratories, rather than make it available competitively for industry and university research.

We have eliminated the request for $15 million of the National Climate Change Technology Initiative not because we opposed the research on this important topic, but because we opposed the Department's proposal to

pull funding from our bill and the Interior appropriations bill into a single program. Such pooling is unwise and unnecessary.

The Department presently spends over $1.6 billion annually on climate change research. Over $1.1 billion of that is in the energy and water development bill. We do want the Department to seek out good technology ideas from the private sector and universities, but it can certainly accomplish that goal by simply making competitive awards of a greater portion of the $1.6 billion available for climate change research.

We make several other minor reductions, but we also added $4.9 million to start construction of a new research facility at the National Renewable Energy Laboratories. I think we treated the renewable energy programs very fairly in the bill.

What I do not think is fair and sound policy is a proposal to cut back funding for the Yucca Mountain repository. The majority of Members of this Chamber voted last year to designate Yucca Mountain as the site for the repository. I am sure the majority of Members of this Chamber believe that the Department of Energy is now moving forward aggressively to get the repository built and operational. I am here to tell you that is not so. This program has been starved for funding practically every year by the actions of the other body. The result of these persistent funding cuts is that the Department has had to defer much of the essential work that will be required to get this repository open by 2010.

Let me tell you, 2010 is a pipe dream at the requested funding level. It simply will not happen unless we provide more funding for these essential tasks. Our bill provides $174 million for these tasks. In particular, we provide $70 million so the Department can begin planning for a rail line to Nevada. And we prohibit the Secretary from routing this line close to Las Vegas, which has been used by everybody as a political football.

We restore $9 million for funding for external oversight by the State and affected counties, and we provide $30 million of impact assistance to the affected Nevada counties. In total $129 million of these additional funds are to be spent in Nevada for the citizens of Nevada.

It is hard to argue that this additional funding harms the State of Nevada. It is an economic development tool whether Yucca Mountain opens or never opens. It is a great economic tool for Nevada, and I cannot understand why Nevada Members would stand up here and want to hurt the economy of Nevada.

I also want to remind Members that many of you have operating reactors, closed reactors and DOE clean-up sites in your district. I do not believe you want this spent fuel and high-level waste to stay in your districts indefinitely. Rate-payers in every State that uses nuclear power have paid over $16 million into the nuclear waste fund. It is time for the government to fulfill its statutory responsibilities and deliver an operational repository by the end of the decade.

For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we cannot continue to allow the opponents of the repository to continue to delay this vital project. Therefore, I strongly oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to enter into a discussion with the chairman of the Committee on Resources, and would tell him that I understand the need for this important project, and I will commit to my friend from California to do the best I can to secure funding for this project in the conference.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill, to page 39 line 23, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to also say thank you to the gentleman from Louisiana for his courtesies that he extended to us in working out a couple of things we had. And I did not get a chance to, but I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) of Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), and all the other chairmen we worked with to get this bill to the floor today.

I think everybody has been very reasonable in working together, because there were some jurisdictional things, but we all understood what we were trying to do, and I very much appreciate the gentleman's comments and the cooperation not only of the gentleman himself, but the staffs of each of the Members I mentioned in working with our staff to work this out.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and advise the gentleman that we accept it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to gentlewoman's amendment. If she wishes to explain it briefly, that is fine.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I was the Speaker's delegate to the budget when we balanced the budget. I am very aware of budget priorities. I am also an appropriator.

I have great difficulty with everybody saying the administration's decisions are right. We had a discussion earlier which I agreed with that we have great infrastructure problems in this country that are not being taken care of and will cost more money if we do not fix them in the future.

It is very interesting to me that the gentleman picked the Appalachian Regional Commission to mention, because if I had my way, I would have zeroed it all out, but I cannot tell the Chairman how many Members of Congress have come to me and complained to me about the fact that I went with, not my wish, but I went with what the President and the OMB, what their provision was in the bill. I cannot tell how many Members have come and said, this is death. This is the end of the world.

So $331,000 may not sound like much, but I can tell the Chairman that to the Members that have all come to me, they want it increased dramatically. They want me to double the money; and the Senate is at about $71 million, which shows what I am up against when I go to conference on this bill. Frankly, they are $220 million above this bill when we go to deal with them, so I think we have been pretty good with our 302(b) allocation.

I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman withdraw this amendment? I insist upon my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I agree with the gentleman's comments and will try to work with him.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns of the gentleman from Washington, and I agree that we should not be placing low-level radioactive waste into unlined trenches; and it should not take the Department of Energy several years to figure that out. I will work with the gentleman and with the Assistant Secretary, Jesse Roberson, at DOE to resolve this expeditiously. If we cannot get satisfaction from DOE, then we will address this in conference, and our conference is a little while off; but I do not disagree with the gentleman.

Make sure you keep poking at us as we get towards conference.

Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman wants to explain his amendment, but I am advised that the Committee on Energy and Commerce has passed similar language to this about three times. If that is correct, then I am willing to accept the amendment on its face. If there is a problem, we will have to work it out in conference at some point; but in an effort to expedite the process here on the floor, I am willing to accept the amendment at this point if the ranking member has no objection.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this bill provides the annual funding for a wide range of Federal programs, including such diverse matters as flood control, navigation improvements, environmental restoration, nuclear waste disposal, advanced scientific research, maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear nonproliferation. Total funding for the energy and water development in fiscal year 2005 is $27.988 billion. This funding amount represents an increase of $50 million over fiscal year 2004 and $734 million over the President's budget request. The bill is right at our subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and provides adequate funds to meet the priority needs of the House.

I believe we do some good things for the Nation in our bill. Members will not receive as many water earmarks as they might like, but we did take care of their top priorities. Instead of a steady regimen of pork, we try to put the corps back on a balanced diet. We hope that we can leave the corps civil works program in better shape than we found it, and I am confident the changes we make in this bill will have lasting positive effects. The same holds true for DOE.

Lastly, I would like to thank all of the members of this subcommittee for their cooperation and especially thank my ranking member and partner, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). It has been a pleasure working with the gentleman and his staff on this bill, Dixon Butler and Peder Maarbjerg. I want also to thank the committee staff, Kevin Cook, Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, and Tracey LaTurner, as well as Kenny Kraft on my own staff. I also want to recognize our agency detailees, Tim Winchell and Jim Spratt. Their assistance was invaluable in putting this bill and report together. I think this is a good bill. We ought to pass it expeditiously.

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to submit to the House for its consideration H.R. 4614, the 2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2005. The Appropriations Committee approved this bill unanimously on June 16th, and I believe it is a good bill that merits the support of the entire membership of the House.

I want to thank all the members of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the floor today. I especially want to thank my Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky of Indiana, for his extraordinary cooperation. This is truly a bipartisan bill-- that is not to say we agreed on every issue, but we did agree to work together in a professional manner to resolve our differences. I am proud of the product and equally proud of the process behind this bill. I also want to thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young, and the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Obey, for allowing us to move this bill forward in an expeditious manner.

Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide range of Federal programs, including such diverse matters as flood control, navigation improvements, environmental restoration, nuclear waste disposal, advanced scientific research, maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear nonproliferation. Total funding for energy and water development in fiscal year 2005 is $27.988 billion. This funding amount represents an increase of $50 million over fiscal year 2004 and $734 million over the Presidents budget request. This bill is right at our subcommittee's 302(b) allocation, and provides adequate funds to meet the priority needs of the House.

Title I of the bill provides funding for the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program which is executed by the Corps, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The Committee recommends a total of $4.833 billion for Title I activities, $252 million above the current year and $713 million above the budget request. That gives you an idea of how inadequate the budget request for the Corps really was. The Corps has been in an unhealthy situation the past couple of years because Congress has given them more work to do but not enough money to do it. This year, we were determined to correct that situation and put the Corps on the road to fiscal recovery. For a change, we have over-subscribed the Civil Works budget. We exercise restraint on the number of projects that we put on the Corps plate and we provide sufficient funds to get the work done. For the projects that we do fund in fiscal year 2005, we decided to concentrate on protecting existing water infrastructure and completing ongoing projects.

This country has invested over $300 billion in current dollars in our existing water infrastructure, and this infrastructure provides over $38 billion in annual benefits to the economy. We can't afford to ignore the maintenance of this critical infrastructure. Imagine what would happen if we have to shut down part of our inland navigation system because one of the lock structures fails--the consequences to our economy would be enormous.

Over recent years, we have created a huge backlog of work for the Corps. Existing projects take longer to complete and cost more. Let me give you just one example from my part of the country, the replacement of the McAlpine Lock on the Ohio River. Ideally, this lock replacement should take no more than 4 years to complete and should cost roughly $230 million. However, it will cost the taxpayer an additional 10 percent for every year of additional delay on this project. We have to reverse that trend and finish what we started, and finish projects in a timely and cost-effective manner. We do not include any new project studies, new construction starts, or new project authorizations in our bill.

We task the Corps to begin preparing 5-year budget plans, similar to what the Department of Defense prepares in its Future Years Defense Plans. This should provide some consistency and stability if Congress has a clear picture of the future Civil Works program. Also, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is now funded in our Energy and Water bill rather than in Defense appropriations.

Title II of our bill provides $1.1 billion for the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of $36 million above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and $46 million over the budget request. The Committee does not provide funding for the California Bay-Delta Restoration program in California pending the enactment of authorizing legislation, but includes funding for several authorized components of this program.

The Department of Energy receives a total of $22.48 billion in our bill, an increase of $511 million over fiscal year 2004. As with the Corps, we task the Department of Energy to begin preparing 5-year budget plans, first for individual programs and then an integrated plan for the entire Department. This plan must include business plans for each of the DOE laboratories, so we understand the mission and resource needs of each laboratory.

The Committee funds the Yucca Mountain repository at the Administration's net budget request of $131 million, and does not include the proposed authorization language to reclassify the fees paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund. As I have mentioned many times, OMB played Russian roulette when they assumed the House and Senate would pass the proposed reclassification language. By assuming the offset of $749 million, OMB reduced the total request for discretionary spending by that amount. The House Budget Resolution reduced it even more. I don't like going forward with so little money for Yucca Mountain, but we are playing the hand that we were dealt. I remain supportive of the proposed reclassification language, and hope the efforts of the Energy and Commerce Committee to enact such legislation will be successful.

For the Energy Supply account, which funds the Department's research on renewable energy, nuclear energy, and electricity transmission and distribution technologies, the Committee provides $817 million, an increase of $84 million over the current year by $18 million below the request. The Committee provides a modest increase of $51 million for the Office of Nuclear Energy, with a focus on improving the infrastructure at the Idaho National Laboratory. We reduced the funding for hydrogen research by $31 million below the request because the Department failed to comply with House and conference guidance regarding competition and cost sharing of hydrogen research.

The Committee provides an increase of $168 million for the Office of Science to support research on an advanced leadership-class scientific computer and nanoscale science, and to increase the availability DOE user facilities to the scientific community.

Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), is $9 billion, an increase of $372 million over fiscal year 2004 and a decrease of $22 million from the budget request. The Congress just received a plan that finally shows major reductions in our nuclear weapons stockpile. However, much of the DOE weapons complex is still sized to support a Cold War stockpile. The NNSA needs to take a ``time- out'' on new initiatives until it completes a review of its weapons complex in relation to security needs, budget constraints, and this new stockpile plan.

The Committee provides no funds for advanced concepts research, the robust nuclear earth penetrator study, the modern pit facility, and enhanced test readiness. Our bill does provide significant increases for weapons dismantlement, for consolidation of weapons-grade materials, and for security upgrades at several sites in the weapons complex. The Committee fully funds the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and directs the National Nuclear Security Administration to complete NIF by 2008 and conduct all necessary experimental work to support first ignition in 2010.

For nuclear nonproliferation, the Committee provides the request of $1.35 billion. We reduce funding for the domestic MOX plant and spend the resources on other high-priority non-proliferation needs.

The Committee provides the requested amount of $943 million for non- defense environmental management, the same as the budget request. For defense environmental management activities, the Committee provides $6.9 billion, $301 million more than fiscal year 2004 and $65 million less than the budget request. The Committee does not provide the full request of $350 million for the Administration's high-level waste proposal for Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, and reduces the request by $77 million for two specific projects at the Savannah River Site. The Committee does not support partial solutions to the Waste Incidental to Reprocessing problem that do not address all of the affected States.

Across the entire Department of Energy, the Committee fully funds the request of $1.4 billion for safeguards and security to protect sensitive materials, facilities, and information, and provide additional funds to address selected high-risk areas.

Title IV of our bill provides $202 million for several Independent Agencies. The bill includes the requested funding for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, the Delta Regional Authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its Inspector General, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Reduced funding is provided for the Appalachian Regional Commission, and no funding for the Denali Commission or the Office of Inspector General for the Tennessee Valley Authority.

I believe we do some good things for the Nation in our bill. Members won't receive as many water earmarks as they might like, but we did take care of their top priorities. Instead of a steady regimen of pork, we try to put the Corps back on a balanced diet. We hope that we can leave the Corps Civil Works program in better shape than we found it, and I am confident the changes we make in this bill will have lasting positive effects. The same holds true for DOE.

Lastly, I would like to thank all of the Members of this Subcommittee for their cooperation, and especially thank my Ranking Member, Pete Visclosky. Pete, it has been a pleasure working with you and your minority staff, Dixon Butler and Peder Maarbjerg. I want to thank the Committee staff--Kevin Cook, Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, and Tracey LaTurner, as well as Kenny Kraft on my own staff. I also want to recognize our agency detailees, Tim Winchell and Jim Spratt. Their assistance was invaluable in putting this bill and report together.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JN04.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JN04.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JN04.003

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's statement. I want to assure him that I will work with him to insert acceptable language into the Statement of Managers to accompany the conference report to encourage the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to address the recommendations found in the May 2004 General Accounting Office report.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. The committee wrestled with the need to balance existing commitments of the Corps of Engineers with new projects such as the Wabash River study in Tippecanoe County. Unfortunately, we were not able to satisfy both demands.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I do share the concerns of my colleague from Illinois. That is why I commit to her and the rest of our Great Lakes colleagues that I will work in conference, I am sure with my ranking member, to see that the Corps receives the funding and authority it needs to complete work on these barriers and have them up and running as soon as possible. I agree we need a permanent redundant protection against the spread of aquatic invasive species between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basins and the Federal Government should be responsible for the long-term operation and maintenance of this project of national and international significance.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the vice chairman of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to first of all congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), as well, on a very well-crafted bill. I would start by thanking the chairman very much for his friendship as well as his fairness and discretion in his dedication to make sure that the right thing is done and that the agencies under our jurisdiction are made as efficient and as effective as possible.

As the chairman noted, we have an excellent staff that works very, very well together and they have helped us craft a very good bill. I too want to enumerate them because they are all so very important to us: Tracey LaTurner; Tim Winchell; Jim Spratt; Kenny Kraft; Dennis Kern; Scott Burnison; Kevin Cook, whom, I might add, is a Cornell graduate and has replaced a Notre Dame graduate as clerk of the committee; Dixon Butler and Peder Maarbjerg.

This is a very good bill. There are a lot of good things to recommend it to the membership.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Hobson, for the courtesy shown to me and the Democratic staff by him and the majority staff of our Subcommittee. The positive environment and cooperation engendered makes work on this bill a joy and pleasure.

I share with the Chairman the frustration that more cannot be done, particularly for the water and environmental infrastructure of our nation. The constraints imposed by the budget are very real. Our subcommittee mark increases funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers above last year's level and well above the ridiculously low request of the President. That said, the level recommended for FY 2005 is only 2.6% above that enacted by FY 2003; clearly this increase is below the level of inflation, so the buying power of the Corps-Civil Works budget is again below what it was two years ago.

This bill puts a priority on completion of on-going construction projects and studies and maintenance of high priority existing infrastructure. It does not contain any new starts, and this should help to begin to clear the current backlog of projects and enable the accomplishment of these projects in less time--thereby reducing total project costs and accelerating the realization of benefits to our economy. However, current funding levels will not truly fix this problem. In my opinion, substantive increases to the budget of the Corps are needed--increases above the rate of inflation. A transformation in the way that water infrastructure and environmental restoration are supported through the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation will require a transforming rather than simply sustaining increase in the funds we provide. Without this, completion of construction and maintenance projects and studies will continue to take too long and major new projects will languish.

There are those who have flirted with radical changes to our nation's approach to nuclear weapons--seeking to study new weapons for new missions and to develop a nuclear bunker buster. These same individuals have pushed to have this Nation prepare to resume underground nuclear testing within 18 months of a Presidential decision and to begin development of a major new facility to build plutonium pits--also referred to as nuclear triggers. All of these steps jeopardize our position in the world as advocates of restraint in the development of weapons of mass destruction. They all portend major increases in funding requirements. Today, conventional national defense and homeland security, including nuclear nonproliferation, are far better investments than enhancements to our nuclear deterrent. Under the leadership of Chairman Hobson, no funding is provided in the Energy and Water Development bill for any of these ill-considered policies.

As many members realize, plutonium, highly enriched uranium and some highly radioactive products of nuclear fission in the hands of terrorists could pose major hazards to the United States and its allies. Accordingly, this bill fully funds the President's request of almost $1.35 billion for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation at DOE. Some elements of the DOE program are stalled while other opportunities have opened up to protect major quantities of fissionable material. Accordingly, I fully support the shifts in this bill of $177.25 million to priority targets for nonproliferation including: security of Russian Strategic Rocket Forces sites (+$32M), MegaPorts (+$30M), and efforts outside the Former Soviet Union (+$60M). Also, I am pleased to note that this year no reductions are taken to nuclear nonproliferation efforts due to uncosted prior year funds; this helps keep the pressure on to move aggressively to initiate new projects in Russia.

Last year, in the first year that the gentleman from Ohio served as chairman of the subcommittee, the FY 2004 Energy and Water Development appropriation fenced some funds for advanced nuclear weapons concepts, specifying that $4 million could not be spent until the Administration provided a revised nuclear stockpile plan. Thanks to this action, the Departments of Defense and Energy have finally delivered a revised plan that details how the United States will achieve our treaty commitments to bring the number of deployed nuclear weapons down to the range of 1,700 to 2,200 by the year 2012. The development of this plan is vital to our nation.

Now, the spending plans of the National Nuclear Security Administration need to be brought into alignment with the revised nuclear stockpile plan. I am committed to working with the majority and DOE to bring this about. For FY 2005, the bill will fund the beginning of this process by providing support for an ongoing program of disassembly for nuclear weapons that are no longer needed. A smaller stockpile will be less expensive to maintain and certify while still providing a more-than-adequate nuclear deterrent.

Experience shows that when the Department of Energy's labs are forced to compete with universities and other outside research groups, the country gets more for its money and the labs actually do better work. The Department has for some time asserted that open competition between its labs and external entities, such as universities, is not allowed under federal procurement law and regulations. I am particularly pleased that this year this bill instructs DOE to find a way to accomplish fully open competitions and to propose changes to law or regulation if any are needed. I note that DOE labs are already involved in space missions where traditionally competition for science investigations, including major research instruments, is open to NASA centers, DOE and other agency labs, universities ,and corporations, so DOE may find that this is easier than they have asserted in the past.

As we in the Congress push the Administration to develop a five-year plan for DOE and business plans for each of its labs, we also should work to clarify the role of DOE in the life sciences. Our nation continues to make major investments in the National Institutes of Health, yet the DOE is seeking to develop major facilities to support research in protein synthesis and the control genes exert over processes in living cells. Many of these facilities involve the use of advanced physics techniques--a traditional strength of DOE. Does this traditional role in physics research mandate that DOE fund these facilities? Furthermore, does DOE's traditional role as the chief supporter of high energy physics mean that DOE should co-fund satellite missions in astronomy that are traditionally the responsibility of NASA? NSF supports astronomy of all kinds and has since its inception, yet it does not seek funding for satellite missions.

This year, the bill again provides strong support to the Office of Science at DOE. This office is leading efforts to develop a U.S. supercomputer that will be the most capable in the world--a distinction currently held by the Japanese Earth Simulator. Last year, an extra $30 million was provided to jump-start this effort. This year, the Department included this increase in its base budget, but this level of funding will not get the job done. So, again another increase of $30 million is provided for this effort. DOE provides the science and industrial communities with powerful research tools. In the President's budget request, operating time on some of these user facilities would have been less than optimum. To get the most from our past investment in these facilities, funding levels are provided to increase the number of weeks they can operate in FY 2005. More support also is provided for nanoscale science and technology and maintenance of DOE science facilities around the nation.

Long ago, our nation made a commitment to to use nuclear energy to power our submarines and aircraft carriers and to provide a significant amount of our commercial electricity generation. We have operated a nuclear weapons complex for about 60 years. The result is considerable amounts of high-level nuclear waste that is currently spread around our country. For our safety and that of coming generations, this waste needs proper, long-term burial. The Congress and the Executive have decided that this burial will be in Yucca Mountain on the edge of the Nevada Test Site.

Funding for long-term disposal of high level nuclear waste in FY 2005 should be $880 million, but OMB muddled the situation by needlessly proposing that the civilian support of $749 million be funded through a legislated reclassification of money paid into the nuclear waste fund and kept in the general treasury. This, along with the constraints of the budget, has left us unable to provide these funds in this bill. I find it hard to believe that a poorly timed proposal, which in no way affects the

actual deficit, will undermine a policy consensus carefully developed over decades, but that is where we are.

So, I would say to my fellow members, the FY 2005 Energy and Water Development bill is a very good bill. It makes major progress on crucial issues. It provides for many activities that are critical to our nation and the world as well as to regions of our country and individual localities and member districts. I think it will give the House a strong position in our conference negotiations with the Senate. It does not fix all problems, but it provides for significant improvements. I strongly urge that it be passed by this House.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), as well, for his dedication on trying to resolve this situation, helping his constituents, and also make note that he has also been in very close coordination with our office so that we can solve this problem. I do appreciate his very hard work on this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall)

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to revoke the operating license of the Davis Besse nuclear power plant. I do so because of the substantial safety issues at this reactor and the poor response by the plant owner and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I offer this amendment to ensure the safety of the residents of the 10th Congressional District of Ohio who live less than 100 miles from the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station. Due to its proximity to the plant and the prevailing wind conditions, people and property within the 10th Congressional District would be detrimentally affected if a nuclear accident were to occur at the Davis Besse facility.

This amendment is not a permanent shutdown. It would merely require the Davis Besse owners to reapply for a new license. This would force a vastly improved assessment of the nuclear plant before it restarts. The basic fact

is that Davis Besse came far too close to a serious loss of coolant accident. The reactor core, the heart at the reactor, at the Davis Besse nuclear plant, sits within a metal pot designed to withstand pressures of up to 2,500 pounds per square inch.

The pot, called the reactor vessel, has carbon steel walls nearly 6 inches thick to provide the necessary strength. Because the water cooling the reactor contains boric acid, which is highly corrosive to carbon steel, the entire inner surface of the reactor vessel is covered with 3/16-inch stainless steel protection. This is the first line of defense to protect us from radiation.

I want to point to this picture here. Water routinely leaked onto the reactor vessel's outer surface, and because the outer surface lacked a protective steel coating, boric acid ate its way through the carbon steel wall until it reached the back side of the inner liner. The cavity was 7 inches long, 6 inches wide and 6 inches deep. High pressure from the reactor vessel pushed the stainless steel outward into the cavity formed by the boric acid.

An engineering analysis by First Energy revealed that the bulging stainless steel was beginning to crack. These cracks certainly suggest that given enough time, the reactor wall would have ruptured. Any tear or rupture in this wall would drain the reactor and require the emergency backup safety systems to work properly to avoid a major accident.

Experts have concluded that if the hole was not discovered, the reactor would have ruptured in the next year of operation. In short, a small leak in a critical area that began around 1996 came far too close to creating a serious nuclear accident.

I want to point to another card here that illustrates what happened when the NRC asked for information about what was going on at Davis- Besse. First Energy, the company running this plant, removed the photograph of the reactor head that was taken during April of 2000. This is the photograph. This company removed this photograph from a packet of information that was given to the NRC. Damage from the corrosion is clearly indicated in the photograph. There is an evident red river of boric acid flowing from the top of the reactor head. This company removed this photograph from a file in order to cover up the kind and extent of damage that was occurring.

A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled, ``Davis-Besse: The Reactor With a Hole in Its Head,'' documented the potential failures of the safety systems that would have been necessary if the steel liner had ruptured. The report concludes that the nuclear industry backup safety systems fail all too often for the nuclear industry to depend on them.

Last week, First Energy made public that an essential safety system was inoperable since the plant began its operation in 1977. A valve that needed to be open to supply cooling water to measure explosive hydrogen in a loss-of-cooling accident has been closed for 25 years and is now rusted shut. According to First Energy, a crack developed in a control nozzle in 1990. By 1995, the crack grew all the way through the nozzle. Boric acid from the water leaking through the crack began attacking the reactor vessel head. By 1999, the reactor vessel head corrosion was bad enough that iron oxide, rust particles, were being detected in the containment atmosphere. Once it opened, the hole widened by nearly 2 inches per year.

It is clear that First Energy and the NRC have failed my constituents. Of course, complacency on the part of the plant's owner and the NRC really caused the hole in the reactor head.

The following are examples of this complacency:

Workers did not discover the damage during visual inspections of the reactor vessel head in 1998 and again in 2000. Boric acid crystals coated the reactor vessel head masking the metal surface.

When problems with leaking CRDM flanges surfaced years ago, workers at Davis-Besse proposed a modification that would enable better inspections of the reactor vessel head. Management approved this modification, but then deferred its implementation.

When boric acid crystals were repeatedly found coating the outer surface of the reactor vessel head, workers at Davis-Besse merely tried cleaning them away. The plant's design required all components coming into contact with reactor water to be made of corrosion-resistant materials or to be clad with a protective layer of stainless steel. The outer surface of the reactor vessel head was neither corrosion- resistant nor coated with stainless steel. Management tolerated a degraded condition prohibited by the plant's design.

Armed with knowledge about leaking CRDM flanges at Davis-Besse causing the outer surface of the reactor vessel to be coated with boric acid crystals, about the high likelihood that one or more CRDM nozzles would be cracked, and about elevated iron oxide levels within the containment building, management lobbied the NRC in fall 2001 to allow it to skip the reactor vessel head inspection mandated by the end of the year.

There is also evidence of complacency by the NRC.

The NCR's Inspector General recently concluded:

During the review of the potentially hazardous condition at Davis- Besse, the NRC staff considered the financial impact to the licensee of an unscheduled plant shut down. The fact that FENOC sought and staff allowed Davis-Besse to operate past December 31, 2001, without performing inspections was driven in large part by a desire to lessen the financial impact on FENOC that would result from an early shutdoen.

NRC appears to have informally established an unreasonably high burden of requiring absolute proof of a safety problem, versus lack of reasonable assurance of maintaining public health and safety, before it will act to shut down a power plant. The staff articulated this standard to OIG as a rationale for allowing Davis-Besse to operate until February 16, 2002.

There is significant evidence that FirstEnergy falsely represented the condition of the pressure vessel and associated piping in order to avoid an NRC-ordered shutdown, and knowingly and recklessly exposed the people of Ohio to a grave and preventable safety risk.

Unfortunately, the NRC has recently issued a draft decision to deny my petition. They just don't get it. The NRC must place the safety of people before the profits of the nuclear industry.

The gentleman insisting upon the point of order, I will withdraw the amendment using this opportunity to call this to the attention of the public.

Mr. Chairman, today I urge my colleagues to vote for the Udall-Porter amendment. This amendment would strengthen the Department of Energy's renewable energy research programs, and would work toward decreasing our Nation's dependence of foreign sources for energy.

Renewable energy is vital to America's future. By boosting renewable energy, we are working toward bringing down energy costs, creating a consistent and reliable source of energy, improving other environment and public health, increasing our role in the global renewable energy market, and reducing our vulnerability to terrorism. Nuclear power, by contrast, has left us buried under thousands of tons of radioactive waste. The proposed Yucca Mountain repository, hundreds and thousands of miles from reactor sites, has been marked to house this waste, but transporting and storing nuclear waste creates potential targets for terrorism, leaving our Nation at risk.

We need to invest more funds to help our Nation's renewable power industry grow. This proposal would overcome many of the financial hurdles encountered with renewable energy research. Geothermal energy, a highly accessible form of renewable energy, has shown little growth in the U.S. during the past decade compared to other nations. With more

funding, this could change--we could create a boom in the geothermal energy industry. With the help of financing, just last year the solar power business grew by 60 percent to $500 million. Wind plants in 27 States produced enough energy to serve more than 1.3 million households.

The State of Nevada has been cited as a ``highly favorable'' State to develop renewable energy. It is blessed with natural energy resources. The numerous mountain ranges, bordered by underground faults, are sources for geothermal energy. The Department of the Interior has listed 10 sites in Nevada that could produce geothermal energy in the next 2 years. Each of these sites is located near transportation lines, which could transmit energy to other markets. Geothermal power provides the Nation with about 17 percent of the renewable energy, but is less than 0.75 percent of the Nation's total energy supply.

Solar energy generated from the sunlight of Southern Nevada, on a 100-square-mile grid alone, could supply enough electricity to power the rest of the United States. Wind power has the potential to produce twice as much electricity as nuclear energy. Currently, not even counting solar power, Nevada could produce 27 percent more from renewable resources. This energy could be exported to other States, creating more jobs and economic benefit to Nevada.

Instead of investing funds into the Nuclear Waste Disposal Program, we should be endowing the Renewable Energy Program with funding to expand research and development. Money should be invested in cleaner forms of energy, not problem-ridden projects like Yucca Mountain that create potential risks to our communities. We must look ahead into the future of energy. Renewable energy is beneficial for people and the environment. With this I ask you to vote for the Udall-Porter amendment.

Mr. Chairman, due to a family emergency, I am unable to be here today for the debate on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I want to express my strong opposition to the language in the bill regarding the Nuclear Waste Disposal Account.

The House Appropriations Committee on Energy and Water has allocated a total of $765 million for FY 2004 for the Yucca Mountain Project and nuclear waste disposal. This represents an increase of 67 percent above current spending levels and $174 million more than the Energy Department's request for FY 2004. Appropriating such a massive increase in funds for a project that has yet to be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is unconscionable.

I would like to bring to your attention several outstanding issues that cloud the future of the problem-ridden Yucca Mountain Project.

Key scientific issues surrounding the Yucca Mountain project remain unresolved. Sound science on the long-term viability of a deep geologic burial site for 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste has yet to be produced. The Department of Energy continues to struggle to address the nearly 200 outstanding ``key technical issues'' concerning the repository. Numerous scientific reports highlight the potential shortcomings of the current plan, including a lack of comprehensive performance tests on the man-made storage casks, the presence of significant seismic activity at the proposed site, and incomplete data on the effects of the waste on the surrounding communities. Additionally, questions regarding the reliability of computer models in evaluating risks posed by long-term waste storage at the Yucca site remain unanswered.

Some have stated that only the people in Nevada have a problem with Yucca Mountain. Proponents of the Yucca Mountain nuclear dump site claim that it's needed to address security concerns at 131 nuclear reactor sites. But this simply is not the case. Even if the Department of Energy receives a license to construct the repository at Yucca Mountain, operating nuclear reactors will always have nuclear waste on- site. As long as a nuclear power plant is in operation, it will produce hot, radioactive, spent nuclear fuel. The fuel must be cooled on-site for 5 to 10 years before it can be moved. Therefore, even as older fuel is shipped to a repository, huge amounts of nuclear waste will remain at those 131 sites.

Shipping nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain will not make these reactors any safer. On the contrary, it will create another potential terrorist target in Nevada. In addition, it will also create thousands of mobile targets traveling through 43 States and as many as 360 congressional districts for more than 30 years. However, if approved, 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste would be transported from 131 sites across the United States through 43 states, and perhaps as many as 360 Congressional districts, for the next 30 to 40 years, equaling a total of over 100,000 shipments of

nuclear waste. Nuclear waste shipments will pass within miles of our homes, schools, and hospitals. In fact, one-in-seven Americans, 38 million people, live within one mile of a proposed transportation route. At every stage of transportation, from rail and truck transfers to storage depots, to the actual repository, a devastating terrorist attack could result in massive civilian casualties, severe economic disruption, and long-lasting environmental contamination.

Finally, I would like to address the language in the report that addresses ``early acceptance'' of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Sound science has not proven that Yucca Mountain is a safe repository for nuclear waste storage. There have been promises made to Nevadans that no waste would be shipped before it was proven to be safe. I would urge the Department of Energy to ensure this is the case before there is any discussion of early acceptance.