Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who has been a wonderful supporter of our effort that has been stretched out over 4 years.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the underlying bill. It is an excellent one, and I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for their bipartisan leadership of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. But I rise to urge the defeat of the previous question on the rule, because the rule does not provide a waiver for the amendments to address market manipulation and require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take action to refund consumers' dollars that were manipulated.

I testified before the Committee on Rules yesterday that this amendment be made in order, but the request was denied.

I think the word ``denial'' pretty well sums up the response of Congressional Republicans and the FERC to the western energy crimes. In 2000 and 2001, FERC essentially allowed energy producers to game and corrupt the western energy market, and consumers were gouged billions of dollars. In March 2001, Congressional Democrats wrote to the President for help and we are still waiting for the reply.

In 2002, Democratic Members of the California delegation asked six times for a Congressional investigation and hearings on market manipulation. It never happened. In 2003, we tried to address the refunds issue with amendments to the Energy Policy Act. Nothing happened.

Over 4 years we have tried everything we could to help consumers in the Pacific Northwest and California. This work is summarized in a five-page document which, Mr. Speaker, I include for the record.

The House must consider this amendment today because we are running out of opportunities to right the wrongs which created the crimes itself. This amendment will first amend the Federal Power Act by changing the rules for refunds effective dates under Section 206. Currently, these rules allow refunds after a complaint has been filed. This amendment will allow refunds for all overcharges regardless of when a complaint has been filed. This change will require FERC to order refunds for the gouging that occurred in the West and elsewhere in the Nation in 2000 and 2001.

Two, it requires FERC to open new investigations, if necessary, to award refunds to western consumers.

Three, it requires the FERC to step in to order refunds whenever manipulation occurs in the future in any State in our country.

Four, it requires the FERC to allow California to participate in heretofore secret negotiations between FERC and power producers who were thought to have engaged in market manipulation. And lastly, it requires the FERC to make public all documents that it is holding related to the manipulation of the western energy market in 2000 and 2001.

And let there be no doubt, there were wrongs. The Enron tapes which CBS broadcast earlier this month make it all too clear that companies were manipulating the market. They bragged about stealing money from ``those poor grandmothers in California.''

Some of the language was so profane that by congressional action it was deemed it could not be broadcast. The language was shocking and the facts in the transcripts chilling. They are part of a litany of evidence of widespread market manipulation.

There are smoking gun memos in which Enron admitted how they gamed the market. They had names for each one of their undertakings. We have transcripts of employees of Reliant Energy describing how they gamed the market; and with that striking evidence, FERC chose to negotiate a settlement in this case for pennies on the

dollar without allowing California to participate.

We have reams of evidence discovered by the State of California. We have the Justice Department's indictments and plea agreements with many energy traders and producers. Even the FERC found ``significant market manipulation.'' But, despite the evidence, the FERC has been reluctant to order refunds to compensate consumers even though it has the obligation to protect energy consumers of our country.

Mr. Speaker, it has been 4 long years since the crisis began. Consumers have been waiting for relief. We think they deserve it and they should have it. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and allow this amendment to come to the floor.

Congressional Activity To Address the Energy Crisis--Chronology

Highlights

2000

June 14, 2000--First blackout of the electricity crisis and

first blackout in California since World War II.

August 2, 2000--San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E)

files a complaint under Rule 206 under the Federal Power Act

against western power suppliers, alleging that market prices

are ``unjust and unreasonable.'' Calls on the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) to impose price limits.

November 1, 2000--FERC reports that wholesale electricity

prices have been and have the potential to continue to be

``unjust and unreasonable.''

2001

January 19, 2001--25 members of the California delegation

write to FERC to urge it to address the high price of

electricity in California.

January 20, 2001--Representatives Duncan Hunter and Anna G.

Eshoo introduce H.R. 238 to amend the Department of Energy

Authorization Act to authorize the Secretary of Energy to

impose interim limitations on the cost of electric energy to

protect consumers from unjust and unreasonable prices in the

electric energy market. A bipartisan group of thirty-two

Western Members cosponsor the bill. Senate companion (S. 26)

introduced by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer on

January 22, 2001.

January 30, 2001--Representative Bob Filner introduces H.R.

268, the California Electricity Consumers Relief Act, that

requires FERC to order refunds retroactive to the beginning

of the crisis on June 1, 2000.

March 2, 2001--Representatives Hunter and Eshoo write to

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin and

House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Chairman Joe Barton

to call for a hearing on the Western energy crisis and H.R.

238.

March 6, 2001--House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality

holds hearing--Congressional Perspectives on Electricity

Markets in California and the West and National Energy

Policy.

March 20 and 22, 2001--House Subcommittee on Energy and Air

Quality holds hearing--``Electricity Markets: California.''

March 22, 2001--House Democrats write to President Bush to

urge him to fill FERC vacancies, to call on FERC to

investigate and mitigate high electricity prices in

California, and to replace FERC Chair Curtis Hebert. No reply

is received from the President.

March 23, 2001--California Democrats on the House Energy

and Commerce Committee respond to the majority's request for

comments on proposed legislation to ``fix'' problems in the

Western energy market. Members note the omission of any

provision to address the excessively high cost of

electricity. No formal reply is received.

March 30, 2001--Democratic Members from California,

Washington, and Oregon write to President Bush to urge him to

address the high cost of wholesale electricity and

``investigate recent allegations of overcharges'' in the

Western energy market. No substantive reply is received from

the President.

April 4, 2001--H.R. 1468 is introduced with the support of

30 California Democrats. The bill requires the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission to impose cost-of-service pricing in

the Western electricity market and to order the refund of

overcharges.

April 10, 2001--U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham

writes to Members of Congress to update them on the

Administration's efforts to address the energy crisis. The

Secretary discounts the crisis as ``a supply crisis'' and

states the Administration's opposition to price mitigation.

April 16, 2001--California Democrats on the House Energy

and Commerce Committee write to FERC Commissioner Linda K.

Breathitt to urge her to support cost-of-service pricing in

the West.

April 26, 2001--FERC issues an order establishing a price

mitigation plan during stage 1, 2, and 3 power emergencies.

The order sets the mitigated price on the most inefficient,

polluting generator in the State. Generators can exceed the

mitigated price if they justify their costs.

May 1 and 3, 2001--House Energy and Air Quality

Subcommittee holds hearing on H.R. 1647, The Electricity

Emergency Act of 2001--a bill with the purported purpose of

solving the energy crisis by increasing the supply of

electricity. Among other proposals, the bill calls for the

suspension of federal environmental laws that might diminish

energy production. California Governor Gray Davis and the

California Energy Commission and Air Resources Board report

that environmental protection laws are not an impediment to

energy production. The bill does not address runaway prices.

May 1, 2001--Members of the California Republican

Delegation meet with Vice President Dick Cheney on the energy

crisis. California Democrats are not invited.

May 3, 2001--California Democratic Congressional Delegation

Chair Sam Farr writes Vice President Cheney criticizing him

for excluding California Democrats from his May 1, 2001

meeting with California Republicans. Rep. Farr requests a

meeting with the Vice President.

May 4, 2001--44 Democratic Members of Congress write to

Secretary Abraham to use his authority to address price

gouging in the West. Reply reiterating the Administration's

opposition to ``price caps'' mailed July 2, 2001.

May 17, 2001--Vice President Cheney and the National Energy

Policy Development Group (NEPDG) submit their recommendations

to President Bush. The recommendations do not include

anything to address runaway prices in the West. About the

Western energy crisis, the NEPDG writes, ``Though weather

conditions and design flaws in California's electricity

restructuring plan contributed, the California electricity

crisis is at heart a supply crisis'' (National Energy Policy,

page 1-3). The report blames California for not building

enough generating plants, ``there are no short-term solutions

to long-term neglect.''

May 25, 2001--84 Democratic Members of the House write

President Bush to request that he back a price mitigation

amendment to H.R. 1647 based on H.R. 1468. No reply is

received from the President.

May 25, 2001--Ten respected economists, including Alfred

Kahn, architect of deregulation in the airline industry,

write to President Bush and the Congressional leadership to

express support for cost-of-service based rates for

electricity in the western market.

June 2, 2001--Rep. Eshoo delivers the Democratic response

to the President's weekly radio address on the energy crisis.

June 7, 2001--21 Western Democrats write to FERC Chairman

Curtis Hebert to request the opportunity to testify before

the Commission in a public meeting.

June 12, 2001--California Democratic Congressional

Delegation meets with Vice President Cheney about the energy

crisis. Vice President promises no intervention to alleviate

high prices.

June 13, 2001--29 members of the California Democratic

Congressional Delegation write to Vice President Cheney

following a CNN report that the White House and Congressional

Republicans funded an advertising campaign to oppose price

mitigation in the West.

June 19, 2001--FERC expands its April 26th order to cover

the entire West during all hours of operation, requires all

generators to make their power available, and continues to

base the mitigated price on the least efficient generator.

FERC determines that refunds are owed and orders

administrative hearings to determine the amount.

June 19, 2001--Members of the California and Western

delegations testify before the House Rules Committee in

support of amendments to H.R. 2246, the Fiscal Year 2001

Supplemental Appropriations bill. The amendments would

require FERC to impose cost-of-service pricing in the West

and order electricity generators to pay refunds of rates that

are ``unjust and unreasonable.'' The Rules Committee, chaired

by California Republican David Dreier, refuses to allow the

consideration of these amendments.

June 20, 2001--Representative Nancy Pelosi attempts to

bring a cost-of-service amendment to H.R. 2246 to the floor.

Republicans block it on a procedural objection.

June 20, 2001--Governor Gray Davis, with many Members of

the California Congressional Delegation in attendance,

testifies before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee

about FERC's activities in the Western energy market.

June 30, 2001--California Democratic Congressional

Delegation writes to FERC Chairman Curtis Hebert about 32

important California-related cases that were pending before

the Commission for an extended period of time. Reply dated

August 28, 2001.

July 17 and 18, 2001--House Energy and Commerce Committee

holds markup of the Committee Print, Energy Advancement and

Conservation Act. Committee defeats two amendments offered by

the California Democrats on the Committee to impose cost-of-

service pricing and require the refund of overcharges.

August 1, 2001--Floor consideration of H.R. 4, Securing

America's Future Energy. House defeats Rep. Waxman's cost-of-

service pricing amendment by 157-274. The Rules Committee

refuses to make in order an amendment offered by

Representatives Eshoo and Harman to require refunds of

overcharges.

October 29, 2001--Rep. Eshoo testifies before a FERC

technical conference on behalf of the California Democratic

Congressional Delegation. Requests that the Commission's

price mitigation plan remain in force until the market has

stabilized. Asks the Commission to act quickly in ordering

refunds.

November 27, 2001--California Democrats on the House Energy

and Commerce Committee write to Energy and Air Quality

Subcommittee Chairman Barton to urge him to address the

problem of market power in energy markets within draft

electricity restructuring legislation. No reply is received.

2002

February 14, 2002--Members of the California Delegation

write to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Tauzin

to urge him to investigate and hold hearings on the business

conduct and pricing practices of Enron during the Western

energy crisis.

May 8, 2002--The California Democratic Congressional

Delegation and 4 Northwestern Democrats write Chairman

Tauzin, urging him to open an investigation and to hold

hearings on market manipulation in the Western energy market

after FERC posts internal Enron memos detailing how the

company artificially inflated prices. Memos indicate that

other companies adopted the same practices that Enron did.

May 9, 2002--The Securities and Exchange Commission

announces investigation into the ``round-trip'' trades

between Dynegy, an energy marketer that sold into the

California market, and CMS Energy of Dearborn, Michigan.

May 15-16, 2002--Senate Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce,

& Tourism Subcommittee holds hearing on Enron memos entitled,

``Examining Enron: Developments Regarding Electricity Price

Manipulation in California.'' Rep. Eshoo and Harman attend.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee holds a

similar hearing.

June 5, 2002--California Democrats on the House Energy and

Commerce Committee lead 75 House Members, including Minority

Leader Gephardt, in a letter to House Speaker Hastert and

Energy and Commerce Chairman Tauzin to ask for an

investigation of energy suppliers.

June 5, 2002--31 California Democrats write to FERC

Chairman Patrick Wood to urge him to extend FERC's price

mitigation plan for the West beyond September 30, 2002 when

it is due to expire.

June 18, 2002--The General Accounting office issues a

report that exposes weaknesses in FERC's ability to regulate

energy markets. The report says, ``FERC is not adequately

performing the oversight that is needed to ensure that the

price produced by [energy] markets are just and reasonable

and therefore, it is not fulfilling its regulatory mandate.''

June 19, 2002--California Democrats on the House Energy and

Commerce Committee write to Chairman Tauzin again to urge a

hearing and investigations, noting that the GAO report

indicates that FERC is not up to doing the job on its own.

June 20, 2002--Congress Daily AM reports, ``House

Republicans agreed [June 19, 2002] to hold a hearing to

examine whether trading firms such as Enron Corp., may have

illegally manipulated electricity prices in the West.'' The

article continued, ``The hearing would serve as a spring

board for a broader inquiry into price manipulation and

FERC's ability to oversee the Market [Energy and Commerce

Committee Chairman] Tauzin said.''

July 25, 2002--California Democrats on the House Energy and

Commerce Committee write to Chairman Tauzin again to urge a

hearing and investigations, noting that he has not fulfilled

his public promise a month earlier to hold hearings and

investigate energy transactions in the West. The letter notes

that this work should be completed before Chairman moves

ahead with the consideration of electricity provisions in the

House-Senate Conference Committee on H.R. 4, the

comprehensive energy bill. Finally, the letter asks for

access to documents that Committee obtained from FERC. The

documents had been compiled by FERC as a part of an

investigation that it initiated following inquiries from U.S.

Senators.

July 26, 2002--Chairman Tauzin responds to the Western

Representatives May 8, 2002 letter with a recitation of the

Committee's previous work on the Western energy crisis in

2001. The Chairman notes that he requested and received the

documents he received from the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC), which were being reviewed by majority and

minority staffs. However, he does not explain why the

Committee has not held a hearing since the Enron ``smoking

gun'' memos were made public. The Chairman does not respond

to the request for access to the FERC documents.

August 21, 2002--California Democrats on the House Energy

and Commerce Committee respond to Chairman Tauzin's letter,

and again ask for a serious, independent investigation of the

Western Energy market. The letter reiterates the request for

access to FERC documents obtained by the Committee.

2003

January 9, 2003--The California Democratic Congressional

Delegation writes to the Chairman of the Federal Regulatory

Energy Commission (FERC) Patrick Wood, III, to reject the

findings of Administrative Law Judge Bruce Birchman (Refund

Case EL00-95-045) because he recommended that energy

generators who supplied power to California during the 2000-

2001 energy crisis owe far less than the $8.9 billion that

California is seeking.

March 3, 2003--The California parties (including the

Governor and the Attorney General of California, the

California Public Utilities Commission, and the state's major

independently-owned utilities) present to the Commission more

than 1,000 pages of evidence of widespread market power abuse

and market manipulation. The California parties had to go to

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to force the Commission to

allow them to discover and present this evidence.

March 26, 2003--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC) released a detailed report on the California Energy

crisis, concluding that there was widespread manipulation in

the California energy market. However, FERC did not propose

increasing refunds substantially to reflect the gaming that

took place. In particular, FERC continued to insist that the

State of California could not receive refunds on the short-

term electricity purchases it made to keep the lights on.

April 2, 2003--During the Energy and Commerce Committee

markup of the Energy Policy Act (H.R. 6) Rep. Eshoo offers an

amendment to increase the refunds for California consumers by

$5 billion. The amendment simply required the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) to refund all ``unjust and

unreasonable'' charges the State of California incurred for

the short-term energy purchases it made to keep the lights on

during the California energy crisis in 2001. The amendment

failed on a vote of 21 to 30 in the Energy and Commerce

Committee. Rep. Eshoo, supported by the California Democratic

Congressional Delegation, attempts to bring the amendment to

the floor for consideration several days later but not one

California Republican would support the amendment and it

wasn't considered.

September 25, 2003--31 Members of the California Democratic

Congressional Delegation write to FERC Chairman Wood

reiterating previous concerns that FERC is having a poor

record in defending the interests of California consumers,

lacks an effective price mitigation plan, refuses to order

the renegotiation of unjust and unreasonable long-term

contracts, and has thus far short-changed consumers in the

refund proceedings.

2004

May 6, 2004--An amicus brief is filed at the 9th Circuit

Court regarding FERC and California energy refunds signed by

37 parties: California's 2 Senators, 33 House California

Democrats, State Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, and

State Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. The brief supports the

California parties' lawsuit that FERC follow the Court's

order to use the existing Remedy Proceeding--a forum subject

to judicial review--to collect evidence of energy market

manipulation, rather than non-public investigatory

proceedings that shut CA consumers out of the process.

June 2, 2004--CBS News broadcasts tapes unearthed by

Snohomish Public Utility District which capture Enron traders

bragging in profane terms about their effort to manipulate

the Western Energy Market.

June 14, 2004--All 33 California House Democrats write to

FERC to request that it address the issues raised by the

Enron tapes.

June 15, 2004--The House defeats motion to recommit H.R.

4305, the Energy Policy Act of 2004, 192-230 (Roll Call Vote

240). The motion would have added language to the bill that

will enable California consumers to receive equitable

refunds.

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, if the gentleman will yield, yes.

Mr. Chairman, I will agree to work with the gentleman on this as the bill goes to conference, but I want to remind him, though I am sure this study deserves to proceed, the fact is that not all deserving new studies can go forward at the same time.

It is one of the basic cornerstones of this bill that we tried to limit projects and studies until we finished some of the things we have already started. There has been a lot of criticism of the Corps that it does not get things done and costs get out of line. What we have tried to do is limit the new starts.

But I want to assure the gentleman that should the door open and new studies in conference are available, we will take another look at the merits of the Boulder Creek study.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I share my colleague's concern about the lead in parts of the D.C. water system. However, I have to point out that such work is really not in the Corps of Engineers bailiwick. They are not authorized and we do not include any new water project authorization in our bill at this time.

I should also note that the Corps is probably not the best agency to conduct this kind of work. The Corps' role in the water system for the District of Columbia is limited to operating the water treatment plant. The Corps currently has no responsibility after the water leaves the plant for the water distribution and supply lines are a district responsibility and not that of the Corps.

Therefore, regrettably, I mean this sincerely, I do not have any way to really take care of this right now. This is a problem that the District has. At some point we ought to find a solution to help the District solve this problem. I just do not have the tools at this time to do that. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through title II be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 24 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to oppose the amendment to increase funding for the renewable energy program. Everything we did in the major renewable accounts, with the exception of the hydrogen program, which were reduced because the Department ignored congressional guidance on competition and cost sharing, is at or above the President's budget request.

While I am supportive of the renewable energy programs, there are many other areas of the bill I would have included additional funds, if possible. However, the committee's allocation was tight and we had to make some tough decisions. I believe we wrote a fair and balanced bill, and the renewable energy programs did very well.

I might point out that I have already taken a hard line in our committee with the nuclear weapons computer programs, and additional major reductions, I do not think, are helpful or necessary at this time. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the remainder of the bill through page 42, line 6 be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would just ask for approval of the amendment. This restores the language for one year in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), and I thank the chairman.

I find it interesting to come to the floor today virtually 3 years on to discuss the issue of energy in California. Frankly, I have spent my entire chairmanship on the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs dealing with energy issues, in particular the California issue.

We have heard a lot of talk about certain companies manipulating market behavior, and the transcripts clearly indicate that that is the case. The question that we ought to ask is what were the precursor conditions that led to that. I think that is a fair question. I mean, instead of treating the symptoms, let us treat the root cause of the issue; and the fact of the matter is that for all the complaints that might be registered against the current administration, the same requests being registered with them were registered with the previous administration. And in accordance with the law, the previous administration said there is not a thing we could do.

Go back and check the record. I encourage you to do that. Go back and see how many requests were made of the Clinton-Gore administration to intervene on this issue, and you will find that Clinton-Gore routinely and regularly said the law is very clear, and we cannot intervene. And the law has not changed. The law has not changed in terms of how FERC can intervene on these things. I think that is an important point to make. So if you are going to complain about how the law is interpreted, perhaps we ought to first look at the law itself and change that.

Now, the second thing is that in California there is this interesting mix in terms of how the energy markets are regulated. And California being kind of like the big market in the entire United States, the consequences of how the market in California operates have ramifications for Oregon and Washington, Nevada and Arizona and the rest of the country.

Well, in California the ability to build new plants or price the product is controlled by what is called the Public Utilities Commission, and in California at the very onset of this electricity crisis, a request was made of the Governor to ask the Public Utilities Commission to provide the investor-owned utilities, PG&E and Southern California Edison and Sempra in San Diego, the ability to forward contract for delivery of power.

There is a letter on record sent from the assembly Republicans to the Governor asking him to exercise his authority over the PUC and get this forward contracting ability in place. And you know what the Governor did? The Governor never responded. He did nothing.

The consequence of that is that the investor-owned utilities were left defenseless. Under a set of rules adopted unanimously by the California legislature, that effectively forced them into the day ahead of market. In other words, they had to go into the market no more than 24 hours ahead of time and buy the power for their customers. Now, think about that. Do you buy your mortgage 24 hours ahead of the time when you occupy your house? No, you do not. Do you buy your gasoline or your food or your health care insurance, do you buy that 24 hours ahead of the time when you need it? No, you do not, because the price is not going to be very favorable. And yet the structure in which the California Public Utilities Commission set this up was such as to be self-defeating, and to now come forward 3 years on and complain about the circumstances that existed in California is somewhat interesting to me at best.

Now, there is a demand and supply imbalance in California. The demand and supply imbalance in California has ramifications for the folks in Oregon and for the folks in Nevada and for the folks in Arizona and Washington, because the demand in California is so great that we will suck up every kilowatt of power that is anywhere in the market. We will not let our families and our factories go quiet or be without power, and the price will act accordingly.

Now, there was a proposal that I put forward to allow FERC to immediately assess the impact of inappropriate behavior, rather than waiting for 60 days. I got no cosponsors from that side of the aisle for that. There is a proposal I put forward that eventually led FERC to a solution in terms of the pricing imbalance in California that allowed FERC to set overall prices in the marketplace at the last marginal pricing unit. I not only did not get any cosponsors from that side of the aisle; I got attacked from that side of the aisle. And now I find, interestingly enough, that is exactly the proposal my Democrat colleagues all are putting forward.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot solve these problems by snapping our fingers. These are not things that get solved 24 hours beforehand. We can no more solve this problem in 24 hours' time than we can reasonably expect investor-owned utilities in California or anywhere else to be able to meet their power demand in a 24-hour-ahead market. We cannot do it. We have to plan ahead.

Now, to come out here 3 years on and beat your chests about the behavior of the current administration, which is exactly the same as the behavior of the previous administration that you all refused to hold accountable, I mean, that is just unacceptable. Now, you can go on and do it, but the facts of the matter speak very loudly.

I invite you, and I have invited you, to look at the bills that I have put forward. I have been harangued by some of you; and upon examination, you have not even read the bills that I have put forward to try and solve this problem. I invite you to come help us. We are looking for partners to solve this thing.

There are three legs to this solution. The first is the PUC, which has yet, has yet to adopt the regulation in allowing

investor-owned utilities to contract for forward delivery of power. That is the first leg. The second leg is to allow the construction of new facilities instead of defending these dinosaur facilities that are high-polluting, using coal, or oil, or diesel for power generation; the second leg of this is to allow new technology to come to the market. But you stand over there and you object to everything. You stand there like Horatio at the pass, and you will not let us into the Valley of Solutions.

I ask you to stand next to us, not in front of us objecting or preventing us to move forward. I will tell my colleagues why. Because the facilities we can bring on line today with new technology, created in California, perfected in California will allow us to generate power with less adverse impact on the environment at lower price, at a higher efficiency. It is unfathomable to me, after 5\1/2\ years, the last 3\1/ 2\ years of which I have been chairman of a subcommittee, to find that my friends who happen to live in California with me are only now coming to look at this solution. And the path of solution that they propose is to beat their chests, attacking an administration which did exactly the same thing as the previous one.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues in California to look at these solutions. We need to give these investor-owned utilities the ability to forward-contract for power. That is a huge step in the right direction. We need to create the new facilities that use natural gas and far less polluting carbon-based power sources to provide us the energy for our homes and our factories. We need to find a way where we can talk sensibly about a market-based solution.

My Democrat colleagues cannot come down here and beat their chests in 2004 because it is a Presidential election year and try and rewrite history. Governor Davis tried that, and now he is writing his memoirs. That is just the fact. I am not interested in you guys writing your memoirs. I am interested in you joining with us to find solutions. That is what this is all about.

I am not going to be here a year from now. You all are going to have this in your lap, and you are going to have to deal with it. I am going to be out in California dealing with the consequences. But I ask you to please focus on solutions.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson), he has been a mentor of mine and he has done heavy lifting across this country on energy issues, and I thank him.

Mr. Chairman, we talked about this a little earlier today. I was listening to the minority leader's comments very carefully in my office, and I ran over here. I apologize for being a little short of breath.

I just want to refresh everybody's memory about what happened in 2000 and 2001 and to point out the empirical fact that there have been no statewide blackouts or brownouts in California since, frankly, the Republican-dominated FERC got put into place.

First of all, the law was very clear. When the previous administration was in control, these same complaints were uttered, the same concerns were brought to the floor, and the same response was given by FERC down to the last period or punctuation mark. You got no more response from the FERC under Clinton-Gore than you are complaining about today. The reason is that the law is clear. If you are unhappy about that, change the law.

The prohibition of funds that the gentlewoman is asking for here will not do one thing to create another megawatt of power for California. It will not do a single thing to help us replace the carbon-based, high- polluting facilities that exist in California today with much more efficient and less adverse impact to the environment. It does not do a single thing to reduce the pricing that the California PUC board regulates which is dominated by appointees of former Governor Gray Davis. It does not do a single thing to solve the problem on forward contracting for investor-owned utilities.

I repeat my invitation. I said Horatio earlier. I meant Hannibal. Rather than acting as Hannibal at the gates to the valley of solutions, stopping us from entering, come over and join us. Help us put in place the infrastructure and the technology that California is so good at creating. Help us put that in place to create the megawatts of power that our people need and our factories depend upon. Help us bring power to the peninsula of San Francisco which is probably one of the most difficult places to get power to in the entire United States. Help us eliminate the variability in power that Santa Clara depends upon. Help us bring power to our food processors up and down the State where agriculture remains the largest industry. Abandon this Hannibal at the gates concept and come over here and help us. Instead of haranguing us about past history and attempting to rewrite it, come over here and propose your solutions.

This is not a witch-hunt. It should not be a witch-hunt. The response you are getting today is the same response you got under Clinton-Gore. The law is very clear about what FERC's prerogatives are. So come over here and help us find solutions. Help us create the technology and put it in place that allows us to create power at less adverse impact to our environment.

I know you are environmentalists. I know you are, because I watch you very carefully. One of my models on environmental issues is the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), one of your fine, outstanding Members and one of your leaders. Help us put that technology in place and make California's environment even more suitable for our use. I know that PG&E is based in San Francisco. They have just gone through a horrendous bankruptcy. I know the gentlewoman as the minority leader is very curious about the outcome.

I am trying to find solutions. We need to work together on this.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, who is a neighbor of mine, because all of those are good ideas. And to the extent that we have bad actors that have manipulated the system, we are going to get at it because the chairman is going to probably accept this amendment.

But the point is that we cannot sit here flailing away at the past history. We have to come to a solution, and the solution is along the lines that you would otherwise advocate for and advocated for when President Clinton was here and Vice President Gore was here and advocated for when Governor Davis was in office and now that he is not and those people are gone, you are opposing them. We want to get at the bad actors. There are two or three who manipulated the market. There is no question about it. And they did it to the detriment of every single one of us who lives in California. Every single one of us.

Whether one lives in San Francisco or Modesto or Santa Clara, every single one of us suffered from that. But I ask you to come over here and help us find solutions on a bipartisan manner, on a manner that does not attempt to rewrite history. History is history. It is gone. It is done. It is over. Clinton is gone. Davis is gone. There is no point in pointing the finger. We know what the facts are. Help us put in place the facilities that give us power with the least detriment to our environment, that give us power at the lowest price, that give our investor-owned utilities, who employ thousands of people up and down the State, who give our investor-owned utilities the opportunity to forward contract because if they had the opportunity to do that, to remove the uncertainty on supply, the very same thing that Governor Davis was asked to do, that the PUC was asked to do, that both declined to do, if we gave them that power, we would not have to

build new facilities. We would not have additional constraints on supply. We would not have prices going through the roof.

I want to repeat my compliments to the gentleman from Ohio. I left one thing out earlier. Oftentimes he has been a gentle hand in my tenure here. Sometimes he has been a heavy hand. In every instance I have appreciated it.

I thank the folks on the other side because we are in this together.

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 yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

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

Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman I will join the chairman in reconsideration of this project if the opportunity presents itself.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, and I congratulate the chairman and the ranking member and the subcommittee Chair and the ranking member for their hard work and diligence in bringing this appropriations bill to the floor in a timely fashion.

Specifically, this bill provides a total of $27.9 billion for the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy and a handful of independent agencies including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I am especially pleased that this bill soundly rejects the administration's continuing efforts to dramatically reduce funding for the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The administration's fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers was actually $460 million less than the Corps received in fiscal year 2004 and $578 million below what it received in fiscal year 2003. This is tantamount to a systematic attempt to cripple the Civil Works program.

As a Member with mainly inland waterways in my district, I value and appreciate the extraordinary work the Corps performs on behalf of the cities and towns we represent. In this bill, the committee has wisely given both the specific guidance and the sufficient resources the Corps needs to address the projects it is presently charged with completing.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to applaud the committee for plainly exposing the administration's funding scheme for the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. This project is riddled with scientific uncertainty and threatens millions of Americans, both in Nevada and in communities along the transportation routes. Notwithstanding the many health and safety concerns that should stop the Yucca Mountain project from going forward, OMB's attempt to use a budget gimmick to leverage $749 million of the administration's $880 million request is a cynical and shameless attempt to cook the books on the total budget deficit. By refusing to loosen the purse strings on funding for the Yucca Mountain project, this appropriation bill rightly tells the administration to go sell stupid somewhere else.

I also want to commend the chairman and the committee for its actions on nuclear weapons development. The bill strips out funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapons, also known as ``bunker busters.'' I share the chairman's frustration that the Energy Department seems to be totally ignoring the restrictions Congress has placed on this research.

The bill also eliminates funding for the Advanced Concepts program to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons and zeros out the funding for siting a new Modern Pit Facility to manufacture new triggers for nuclear weapons.

In addition, the bill does not provide funds to move test readiness at the Nevada test facility up from 24 months to 18 months. Mr. Speaker, instead, the bill has placed emphasis on the consolidation of bomb material for greater safety and security and on the disassembly of surplus nuclear weapons.

On these matters, I believe the bill reflects realistic national security and budget priorities, and I commend the chairman and ranking member for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, while I support this bill on the whole, I feel compelled to express my disappointment in the funding levels for renewable energy technologies. Just 2 weeks ago senior officials from the United States and 153 other nations met at a conference in Bonn, Germany, where they unanimously endorsed a communique committing to a substantial increase ``with a sense of urgency'' in the percentage of renewable sources to meet global energy needs.

Reportedly, the delegates of the conference did not set specific targets or timetables as a concession in order to get President Bush's administration on board. The President has said he favors the invisible hand of the free market over government regulation.

Sadly, this appropriations bill does not reflect the sense of urgency which is needed in increased funding for renewable energy sources. I can tell you that my constituents in Massachusetts, who are paying on average $2.10 per gallon at the pump, do not have much faith that ``the invisible hand'' of the free market is going to show up any time soon and drive gas prices down either.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation cannot afford to wait any longer. We cannot afford to continue underfunding renewable energy and efficiency programs while our dependence on foreign sources of oil grows and our natural gas shortage worsens. We need to move with all deliberate speed to significantly increase funding for renewable sources of energy.

I have start-up fuel cell companies and established photovoltaic manufacturers in my district like Mechanology,

Protonex, Cell Tech Power and Evergreen Solar that are doing remarkable things, but they are struggling to compete with other countries who are leaving us behind in the race to a new energy economy because they cannot get the Federal funding support they need to continue research and development. And the invisible hand of the free market economy is not helping them out either.

Meanwhile, we spend our time here passing ill-conceived energy bills for a second time that grant $23 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Surely, if we can do that, then we can do better in funding our renewable energy technologies.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriators have done their job, and while I would like to see a more comprehensive bill, I believe that the appropriators have done their job well.

Let me be the first to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for their work.

With that being said, my main regret is that the Republican leadership decided not to make in order the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

The Eshoo-Lofgren amendment is simple. It would require that the Federal Emergency Regulatory Commission order refunds whenever sellers of electricity charge rates that are not just and reasonable. This will require FERC to order refunds stemming from the market manipulation that occurred in California and the Pacific Northwest in 2000 and 2001. It would also require FERC to disclose documents and evidence that it has obtained in its investigation of Enron in manipulation of the western energy market; and it would require FERC to allow States to fully participate in FERC proceedings and negotiations on market manipulation.

At the end of this debate, I will offer a motion to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) will offer their amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005. This is an important proconsumer amendment, and it deserves to be considered today.

Mr. Speaker, when is enough enough? It is sad that the Republican leadership feels compelled to continue to protect the Enrons of the world. It is time that we hold these companies accountable, and the Eshoo-Lofgren amendment is the right prescription for this ailment.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we engaged in a colossal waste of time as the leadership of this House forced the Members of this House to spend an entire day to debate a bill and amendments that were defeated by substantial margins; and yet the leadership of this House is unable to allow us to have the opportunity to debate an amendment that will actually make a real difference in the lives of the people of this country. We can do much better than this, and I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

(Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat what I said at the beginning. We have no problem with this bill. We congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, for a job well done. We are just frustrated the Committee on Rules, when it comes to amendments of substance, continues to shut us out. That is what we are upset about today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to call for a no vote on the previous question so this body can consider and vote on the Eshoo amendment.

We all remember the horror stories of the energy crisis in California in 2000 and 2001. Virtually overnight, energy prices went through the roof, causing a fiscal crisis and chaos due to energy shortages. Energy became prohibitively expensive. Electricity that had cost under $50 the previous year was suddenly costing over $1,000, and some days peaked above that.

Energy disruptions brought enormous disruption to the everyday lives of the people of that State. There were rolling brownouts that shut down traffic signals and crowded intersections, endangering those stuck in the gridlock. Even some hospitals suffered temporary power loss with little or no notice. To add insult to injury, we found out months later that this so-called energy crisis was a fraud on the part of the companies that sold the energy. They created a fake shortage and jacked up energy prices.

Mr. Speaker, we need to do something to make sure that this never happens again. The Eshoo amendment is a step in that direction. It deserves consideration in this House. A no vote on the previous question will not stop the House from taking up the energy and water appropriations bill, which is a good bill. However, a yes vote will prevent the House from considering the Eshoo amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what we did yesterday on the House floor, but it was a complete waste of time. Overwhelmingly, the bill considered yesterday and all the amendments were rejected. We have an opportunity today to actually debate something meaningful that will make a difference in people's lives.

I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us in voting no on the previous question. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they are outraged by Enron and Enron-style companies that ripped off the consumers in California. If they are truly outraged, then they should put their action where their rhetoric is: Vote no on the previous question and allow us to have a meaningful debate that will make a real difference in the lives of the people of this country and allow us to vote on the Eshoo amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the Eshoo amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.