Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I thank both the ranking member and the chairman for the work they do. Having served on this subcommittee for 6 years, I know the important work that they do.

Mr. Chairman, the American people probably do not pay a whole lot of attention to this bill, because a lot of it is inside the Beltway, but I know the American people are keenly aware of the rising cost of gasoline and the need for our country to be independent of energy sources and not so dependent on oil. And I do not want to encourage any extra government spending whatsoever.

A number of Members either take a mileage reimbursement for official travel, which is totally permissible under the rules, or they lease a vehicle at government expense. And in either case, this resolution encourages Members to use hybrid electric or alternatively fueled vehicles. Why? Because the American people expect us to lead. And a lot of them are asking what are we going to do about our dependence on foreign oil; what can we do to lower our cost of fuel.

In the past, the options have not been too good. But this fall, in this country, there are at least eight hybrid electric vehicles in the marketplace for American consumers, including domestic vehicles, from pickup trucks to SUVs, where you can double your gas mileage. The new Ford Escape, and I have one on order, will get 38 miles per gallon. It is a small SUV. Throw your kids in the back, or if you are taking staff around the district, drive one of those. Or even a foreign model, if your constituents like that or will allow that. Some will not. But you have all the options, and we want to encourage this.

The resolution simply says it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members of the House who use vehicles in traveling for official or representational purposes, including Members who lease vehicles for which the lease payments are made using funds provided under the Members' Representational Allowance, are encouraged to use hybrid electric or alternatively fueled vehicles whenever possible, as the use of these vehicles will help to move our Nation forward toward the use of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle and reduce our dependence on oil.

We need to accelerate the transition to a hydrogen economy away from a petroleum-based economy, clean up the air, secure our liberty, and Members should lead by example. As the cochairman of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus here in the House, the Republican cochairman, with my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), we have over 228 to 232 Members, well over a majority of this body are members, we encourage the use of these hybrid electric vehicles, and it begins with us. Lead by example.

If my colleagues are taking the mileage or if you lease a vehicle, we encourage you to use these alternative-fuel vehicles, double your gas mileage, and move us towards a secure energy future. I commend the chairman for including this important language.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman's leadership. I do come as an appropriator today to say thanks to the authorization committee, and thanks to the chairman of the Committee on Science, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert); the ranking members, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud that Tennesseeans stand together in a bipartisan way today. Of course, I represent the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Oak Ridge is a lead laboratory for high-speed computing. So I come with great excitement today because our Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations has actually gone beyond what we were authorized to do or what the administration asked for on supercomputing, because our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), believes, as we believe, that this is the seed corn for the future; that we must make these investments if we are to have a robust economy and a very high quality of life and experience the growth that this country deserves and, frankly, we should expect. And it comes with scientific investment.

Basic research, for years, through the physical sciences, led to the breakthroughs that we enjoy today. Space had a lot to do with it. And then the life sciences of the last 15 years, as we tried to get our arms around diabetes and Alzheimer's and Parkinson's; and so we invested heavily in life sciences. But there is a whole new field that is part of the physical science arena called high-speed computing, computer simulation and modeling. We are going to be able to do things with computers that we will not even need a laboratory for, because we can simulate with the use of high-speed computing. It is a whole new field.

I will tell my colleagues that as we invest in it, our economy will grow and the budget will come closer to balance because we are making these investments. We are not going to balance the budget in the world we live in today by cutting spending, because there are too many needs. But if we grow the economy with these kinds of investments, we can balance the budget.

This is critical. The authorizers have stepped up. This is real good for America. It is great for our laboratory systems. And I want to give a lot of credit, while I have the floor, to the DOE Office of Science, because this administration is way out in front on these investments.

This is the right thing to do. This is where the Congress comes together in the very best way to make investments not for next year necessarily, but for the next generation. They will reap a high return.

So congratulations to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert). I thank her for her leadership in all science investment for our country. She is helping us on the Committee on Appropriations expand the fence so we can fund these necessary investments. Without the authorization, without the statutory framework that the gentlewoman is establishing today, and the many other times that she has brought quality legislation to this floor, we cannot fund it. With this, we can fund it and then some.

So I thank all involved very much.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I come to the floor today to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the subcommittee, and, of course, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), ranking member. But the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) just got back from the Sudan. He has a passion for human beings, all human beings, and he works to protect their life. And I just thank him for that work. In human rights there is really not a Member of this House that cares more, that does more, that goes into more dangerous places than the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I thank him and I thank him for this bill.

In the foothills of Appalachia, where I live, in east Tennessee, methamphetamine production has been overtaking us. But I want to thank the leadership of this subcommittee, going back to when the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) was the chairman of this subcommittee, this subcommittee began to resource what is now the East Tennessee Methamphetamine Task Force. It is 42 counties. We have seized over 3,500 meth labs in the last 5 years in east Tennessee, 3,500, with the support of this subcommittee at $1 million a year. It sounds like a lot of money. In the scheme of things in this bill, it is not; but 3,500 labs have been seized.

I want to hail Sandy Mattice, our U.S. Attorney; Russ Dedrick, our assistant U.S. Attorney; and the entire task force, who are sheriffs, local government, the DEA, the FBI. It is a true local-State-Federal partnership. It is state of the art, and we are winning the battle on methamphetamine; but it is destroying families. In these pockets of pain in rural America, methamphetamine production is catastrophic; but this is very helpful, the money that this subcommittee is targeting, putting in to help organizations like the East Tennessee Meth Task Force. It needs to be done at the local level.

This is really a grassroots effort, not a Federal program. But the Federal Government is assisting local government, fighting this problem. And we cannot clean the labs up without the Federal money. We do not have the resources at the local level, and the coordination needs to happen at the local and regional levels. It is happening in east Tennessee. And I thank the committee and the people that are in the field fighting methamphetamine production to save our children.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and state what a great Member of Congress the gentleman is.

I want to come this morning, after a long year, and thank the staff. Kevin Cook, the majority staff and the minority staff have worked diligently and have created a very balanced product. There are a few things that are not as high as we would like and are not funded as much as we would like, but overall it is excellent work.

Over the last year and a half, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) has been all over the country familiarizing himself with our varied missions, both in the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member, is a thoughtful and diligent member who has made enormous contributions; and this is possibly the best bipartisan work we will see through the appropriations process this year.

The things I want to point to during the debate to bring the rule up and pass this bill with tremendous bipartisan support today are, first and foremost, frankly, in the wake of September 11, the enhanced security at our nuclear weapons facilities that is manifested in this bill. This is the result of a chairman who went out and looked at these facilities, many times in a very classified setting, but came back and really dug in to get to the bottom of what needs to be done and accelerate those improvements as much as possible in this bill. I want to thank him because I represent one of those facilities, and we are going to be much more secure in the months and years ahead because of the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

Secondly, I was with the Secretary of Energy yesterday; and we were touting how this bill even ramps up the administration's commitment to science and research, supercomputing, fusion energy, the next breakthroughs that will lead to a productive society in future years in this bill. The Congress is even doing more than the administration. The administration is doing more than last year. We are making great breakthroughs. This is the seed corn of a productive American society, and this Congress is responding through this committee's work.

I am excited. We really do have a team of leadership on the subcommittee that gets it, and we need it. We have nanoscale research now at a level we have never had. This subcommittee is honoring that.

Another great initiative of this administration is we have all of these nuclear weapons facilities from the Cold War legacy. We have been maintaining them at billions and billions of dollars of annual cost. We should clean them up quicker. It is called accelerated cleanup. It is a Bush-Abraham initiative. This Congress is fully funding accelerated cleanup all across the country. Spend more money early so we do not have to spend all that money later.

Accelerated cleanup is honored in this committee's work; and I am very grateful, again representing one of those sites where for a number of years we were just stirring the money around in a pot every year and asking for more. We were spending money to stir it, instead of cleaning it up.

Mr. Speaker, important water projects, infrastructure investment are in this bill. It is very balanced between energy and water. Sometimes the Senate goes more towards energy investments and takes away water money, sometimes the House has more water, less energy. This committee has balanced the approach from the very start, which is what we need.

For instance, in the Tennessee Valley, we have this river system with a number of dams and locks, but we have one lock with bad concrete growth problems. The Corps of Engineers has said for a number of years it needs to be replaced, but it is a $300 million ticket. This bill starts the process of replacing the Chickamauga lock on the Tennessee River.

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) from the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, our chairman, he wrote a bill to replace this lock; and we passed the bill. The President signed the bill into law. This committee puts the money in to start the process. We need to get it rolling and clean it up.

Now, what does this bill not have? This bill does not have everything we need to keep the nuclear energy program in this country robust and growing which has been flat for a number of years because of the long- term waste issue. That is the Yucca Mountain piece. We do not have the money. We are going to keep fighting. We believe that nuclear is a safe, clean alternative to fossil emissions. If Members want clean air, we need nuclear power.

Other countries get it. Other countries which are more environmentally sensitive, from time to time, than America are in the nuclear business because they see it as clean green energy. We need that, but we have to work out this long-term storage issue. That is Yucca Mountain. We fully funded it last year. The chairman knows that we have to have this, but we do not have the money. But we are not giving up. This is the beginning of the process with the Senate, with the budgeteers and all of the people who would have imposed caps on it. This is a great bill with bipartisan support.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman, and I appreciate very much his fielding it, for a clarification on some language in the report.

Mr. Chairman, is it your understanding that the language under the fusion energy section of the report dealing with the additional funds for development of ``compact Stellarator Experiment'' should actually be ``experiments'' plural?

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for the clarification.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time. I appreciate not only the gentleman yielding me time but just his extraordinary time over this last year and a half since we began this new subcommittee here in the House.

The gentleman who just spoke is a very thoughtful, well-educated and very energetic member of the subcommittee, and as we have worked through all these issues over the last year and a half he has been very helpful, but what he just said is drivel, drivel.

The fact is tax cuts are one issue that helps the economy. It is a policy matter that was made by the Congress. This is homeland security, where we have spent billions of dollars and done extraordinary work. It is nonsense to bring up the tax issue while we are talking about appropriating the money for homeland security. That is a fact. That is a different debate for a different day, but this is also not cost sharing with local government from the Federal Government. We cannot do everything, and for a lot of people on this side we cannot appropriate enough money. It does not matter what the level is, they will want more, and they will play politics with this issue because they think it can resonate, and this is unfortunate because the best work here is when we get together and we do what is right, and that is what we are trying to do on this side of the aisle.

The chairman and his staff have done an extraordinary job. Now I am not totally happy with the Department of Homeland Security at all, and my colleagues know that at the hearings I have been very hard on the Homeland Security Department, particularly in the Science and Technology Directorate, and they need to hear us long, loud and clear. They need to do a better job, but overall, I have to tell my colleagues, this subcommittee has done extraordinary work.

Our intelligence work is dramatically better than after September 11. We are allocating the money to the best of our ability, but it is not a bottomless pit, and when my colleague talks about reports that show that firefighting organizations around the country do not have everything they want or need, there are 55,000 local law enforcement and firefighting organizations in this country, and the Federal Government cannot fund them all with everything they need. The responsibility still lies at the local and the State level, and this subcommittee has done an extraordinary job, and the Congress has a balanced approach, and this is not a bottomless pit.

I just want to say that we are at a critical juncture going into the next several months in this country with events that are very important, and I think it is important that we pull together. I hope this subcommittee can stay above some of the mindless kinds of rhetoric that comes to the floor when we pass important appropriations bills, and I hate to hear some of the most educated and informed Members dumb this down to a debate over tax cuts versus necessary spending.

This is necessary spending, and we are meeting those needs. I want to applaud the leadership. Our chairman and his staff have done an excellent job. Secretary Ridge is doing an excellent job. We still have miles to go before we get there, but we are on our way.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise, as a member of the subcommittee, to speak in opposition to the amendment but with the highest respect for the unity from the New York and New Jersey delegations. It certainly transcends party, and I love New York. The older I get, the more I love it. And I especially love the way that they all pulled together after September 11 and continue to stick together on important national priorities such as this.

But I just want to make a couple of points. We had well over 50 hearings at the subcommittee, we have had in the last year and 5 months. Many of these are highly classified or even at the top secret level. And while I am not going to talk about anything that is talked about, we have to assume, we have to assume, that terrorists plotting a future attack may very well commit that attack on several fronts simultaneously and certainly not just in an urban setting.

For instance, in the foothills of east Tennessee after September 11 people felt relatively safe and secure even within days of the attack because they did not live in a highly populated area. We must assume that the terrorists in the future will want every American, regardless of where they live, to be afraid and to live in fear because that is their weapon is fear.

These grants under the formula are heavily weighted towards population. But they are not heavily weighted towards infrastructure targets. And I will give another example. On the west side of the State I live in, Tennessee, Memphis is there, and Memphis qualifies for some of these grants under high density. But I have got to tell the Members that the nuclear weapons are in my district in east Tennessee, but the most populated area is over there but not around the nuclear weapons plant. Frankly, we do not want the nuclear weapons plant to be in the heart of all the people, but it is a target, and so are our nuclear plants and our dams and the infrastructure that is there.

So I think we have to have a balanced approach. I really love it that my colleagues are willing to fight for their people. I really believe that they are doing the right thing. But I think we had better be careful as a subcommittee that we do not get carried away or even send the signal inadvertently to the terrorists that most of the money is going to go into the big cities and the highly populated areas. They need to know that we are covering all of our bases and all of our infrastructure and that we expect them to hit us on multiple fronts simultaneously in the future and that we are spending the money in a comprehensive way around the country and that we are not putting almost all of our eggs in a few baskets, and that their method before, which was primarily to use airplanes as weapons of mass destruction, is probably not the kind of attack they are going to launch in the future. It will be different, and it may be with biological or chemical agents. And I have got to tell the Members those first responders in those communities had better be ready as well. And that is what we are trying to do is make sure that the whole country is covered.

I know the chairman and I are from a more rural area, but please do not believe for a second that we do not want to make sure that all of the highly populated areas are covered, not just satisfactorily but well. And we are going to work with them on this and I think we have done a reasonably good job. And I know they are coming down here tonight to defend the people that they love and we love. But this whole country cares about New York City and New Jersey and all the people that perished, and we are all going to stand together to make sure that we are covered.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for taking the leadership tonight. The previous speaker, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), myself, and President Reagan all shared one thing in common as many do in this House and that is we used to be Democrats and we are Republicans. That brings me to what I want to share tonight, which is the change in the political landscape brought about by the life and service of Ronald Wilson Reagan; but I want to start by saying that I believe, and I think this honors his memory, that neither party has an exclusive on integrity or ideas, neither party always has it right or always has it wrong and the two-party system continues to serve our country extremely well.

I am proud of the first half of my life when I was a Democrat and proud of the second half of my life as a Republican, but the story in my life as a Southern conservative Democrat goes way back generations. My father's great great grandfather, Enoch Alldredge, served in the 19th century in the Alabama General Assembly for in excess of 40 years. My mother's great uncle Reuben Alldridge served in the 20th century in the Alabama General Assembly for a number of years, both very prominent political figures from the northern part of Alabama, all as Democrats. So I grew up honestly as a Southern conservative Democrat.

As a matter of fact, my first real memory of it all as a young person was watching my parents be involved in local campaigns and then, in the fall of 1976, going to Woolen Gym at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as a 19-year-old freshman and voting for Jimmy Carter as President of the United States and then having my parents attend the inaugural in Washington here with Franklin and Emmy Haney, two of the biggest Democrats in the State of Tennessee and being proud that my parents were here and saluting the new President, Jimmy Carter.

But the years that followed in my formative years certainly gave me an opportunity and hope when I saw Ronald Reagan. I saw the malaise we were in. Let me say that Jimmy Carter has proven what a fine and outstanding man he is over these last 24 years since leaving office. It was a low point in our country's history, but he is a good and decent man; and frankly I will stand by that vote as a Democrat at that time, but over those next 4 years at the University of North Carolina, we saw a real low in our country's history and then all of a sudden there was a new day in 1980, and it seemed like someone came from the West and actually kind of showed us the hope and opportunity that you heard repeated on this floor over and over and over again.

I can remember as the campaign generated momentum in 1980 at UNC, my fraternity, the Sigma Nu house, got real energized about the campaign and by the convention when they had that strong conservative Governor from the West team up with maybe the best person on paper that had run in 100 years, George Herbert Walker Bush. It was like that did it. That sealed the deal. What a great team. And on election night in the fall of 1980 we loaded up in cars from UNC. It was Lee Ives and Tom Nesbit and Tony Floyd and Allen Miller and Lyn Thornburg and a group of us, and we drove to Washington, D.C. and we were here that night in 1980 when Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States.

I was a Southern conservative Democrat who became a Republican. Our entire family shifted from our party identification over the hope, the opportunity, the fresh start that Ronald Reagan brought to the political process. That changed the political landscape in the United States of America, and it moved our country from what was more left of center to slightly right of center.

The Founding Fathers did not want things to change dramatically. This is like a big ship of state. If you turn it one degree, you arrive at a different destination. The country went from being left of center to right of center over the leadership, the strength and what I would say is the constancy of Ronald Reagan. He stood for something, and he simply articulated to this country what he stood for, and he never wavered. When people elect a President, they want a strong leader that can make a decision, that will stand his ground. When the wind blows, he stands firm. Ronald Reagan did that.

That is why the 8 years is a legacy beyond measure. As the previous speaker said, in our lifetime, the model, the great leader is Ronald Reagan. I salute him. He made a Republican out of me, and I have been in the House of Representatives as a Republican elected official for 10 years. I ran once and lost to get here, and I am proud of the whole story. I am very typical of a lot of Southern boll weevil conservatives that believed in that simple limited government, personal responsibility, traditional values, strong national defense, lower taxes, take care of yourself and your family first and your extended family, look to the government last, but do it with a smile on your face and love in your heart. He is like a father, a big brother, a great leader who we could trust and have confidence in. Today we remember a truly great American President, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Mr. Speaker, I arise today to honor the works of the Chattanooga Bar Association and the Chattanooga Human Rights Commission in my hometown of Chattanooga, Tennessee and join them in celebrating the CBA's upcoming Law Day Luncheon on May 24, 2004. Law Day, USA is set aside each year on May 1st by a joint resolution of Congress and Presidential proclamation as an occasion for honoring the place of law in our lives. It is not a national holiday, nor is it a ``lawyer's day.'' Instead, Law Day is an occasion for all Americans to learn more about our law, our legal system, and our rights. It is also a day to reflect on our legal heritage, our responsibilities as citizens, and the principles of our democratic government. Law Day has been a vital part of American life for several generations. Law Day has celebrated our great heritage of liberty, justice and equality under law since it was first proclaimed in 1958 by President Eisenhower. Law Day gives us the opportunity to reflect on how the law protects and guides America's quest for equal justice and equal opportunity, just as it permits us to express our opinions, select our leaders, worship where we choose, and pursue our livelihood. Thanks to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, and protected by our laws and courts, we Americans have the opportunity--unmatched anywhere in the world--to develop our capabilities to the fullest.

This year, the Chattanooga Bar Association and the Human Rights Commission will celebrate the 50th anniversary of one of the United States Supreme Court's most important cases. Brown v. Board of Education, decided on May 17, 1954, changed the civil rights landscape in America forever. Brown showed that resolute citizens, served by dedicated lawyers, can strike powerful blows against social injustice through law and courts.

On May 24th, the Chattanooga Bar Association will honor the legal community of Chattanooga, Tennessee with their annual Law Day Luncheon. The featured speaker is Cheryl Brown Henderson. Mrs. Henderson is one of the children of the late Reverend Oliver Brown, namesake of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision of 1954. During the luncheon, the Chattanooga Bar Association will honor James R. Mapp with the 2005 ``Liberty Bell Award.'' This award, given to a person who is not in the legal profession, is one of the CBA's highest honors. The purpose of the ``Liberty Bell Award'' is to recognize community service that has strengthened the American system of freedom under law. In selecting the recipient of this award, the Chattanooga Bar Association considers activities which: (1) promote a better understanding of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights; (2) encourage a greater respect for the law and the courts; (3) stimulate a deeper sense of individual responsibility so that citizens recognize their duties as well as their rights; (4) contribute to the effective functioning of our institutions of governments; and (5) foster a better understanding and appreciation of the rule of law. I ask all Members of the House of Representatives to join me in congratulating James R. Mapp for his contributions to the Chattanooga community.

The winners of the Law Day Essay Contest, which is open to all Hamilton County, private and home school students, grades 9-12, are: 1st place winning the $2000 college scholarship is Lindsay Frost of Girls Preparatory School. The Second place winner is Stephanie Liu of Girls Preparatory School. The Law Day poetry contest is open to all Third through Fifth graders of the same demographics. Winning 1st place is Caroline Holloway of St. Peter's Episcopal School; 2nd place is Chris Cooper of St. Peter's Episcopal School. The Law Day art contest is open to all Kindergarten through Second graders of the same demographics. Winning 1st place is Sloan Lewis of St. Peter's Episcopal School; winning 2nd place is Lauren Hood of St. Peter's Episcopal School.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the United States House of Representatives to join me in thanking the Board of Governors of the Chattanooga Bar Association for their contributions and commitment to the legal profession and to the Chattanooga community. The members of the Board of Governors Executive Committee are: Lynda Minks-Hood, Executive Director; Alan L. Cates, President; Michael K. Alston, President-elect; Joseph R. White, Secretary-Treasurer; Honorable Rebecca J. Stern, Immediate Past President. Board members include: Marcia J. Eason, Steven W. Grant, James M. Haley, IV, Wade A. Hinton, Steven M. Jacoway, Jason L. Thomas and John M. Phillips.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Defense Authorization Act of 2001, which was actually signed into law in the fall of 2000 by President Clinton, included the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, EEOICPA, which we wrote and passed to compensate workers who became ill as a result of their work in the Department of Energy facilities across the country. There are nine major sites affected, and I represent Oak Ridge, Tennessee, which handles the largest number of affected workers in the country.

This is a critical issue for many of us, and we have been very involved for a number of years. The Department of Energy has had definite problems administering the program, and some of those programs are brought about by statutory issues that need to be remedied.

Part B of this program is actually administered by the Department of Labor, and people affected qualify for $150,000 lump-sum payments. That has gone relatively smooth. But part D of this program is the DOE portion, and we have had numerous problems identified under subtitle B relative to the claims process, a lack of communication, long delays, et cetera.

Now, the GAO, which we need to listen to in this case, has made recommendations for changes to the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy has made rules changes, but we now need statutory changes. And that is what this amendment actually addresses, three issues that cannot be done by rules. They need to be done by statute here in an amendment, and we have the full support of the Department of Energy; and the administration is asking that these three changes be adopted.

Number one, this amendment eliminates the pay cap for physicians and lets the market set the rate. One of our problems today is that the statute sets physician pay at $69 an hour when, indeed, occupational medicine physicians are paid in the market $130 to $150 an hour. We do not have enough physicians to meet this caseload; and, therefore, we have a backlog. This will help us alleviate the backlog.

Number two, this amendment eliminates restrictions on hiring authority. Today, the Department of Energy can only hire temporary or intermittent experts when, indeed, we need Federal and contract employees full time on the job to move this program forward. This has severely impaired DOE's ability to staff this necessary program and to move it smoothly.

Thirdly, this amendment will eliminate the requirements that an application for a benefit can go forward if, indeed, the State has an agreement in place. Not all States do. Based on the feedback for the advocates of the program and the States at the local level, DOE is moving away from this requirement, and we need to statutorily change the legislation. This will affect 80 percent of the workers.

With all due respect to a few people in this body that may be opposed to this, I know it does not do everything; but we shopped these issues around to the committees of jurisdiction, and this is all we could get. I would like to do more.

There were amendments offered to the Committee on Rules that I said I would be happy to support. They were not ruled in order, and you do have some committees of jurisdiction weighing in.

This is what we can do. And I hope that even though people will express their discontent today on the floor with the Department of Energy which we all have experienced because it is a very frustrating, very complicated program and there was great bipartisan cooperation in bringing it about, I hope that they can support this amendment in the final analysis because this clearly will help immediately many workers who are waiting in line. That is the bottom line.

While it does not get to everyone, there are States that do not have agreements in place. They may not have a willing payer in their State or whatever the issue is. Eighty percent of the workers affected will be expedited if this amendment is adopted and

allows DOE to move forward, getting the physicians, hitting the panels on time, and making this program more effective. It is very complicated, but we need to make these changes today.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

(Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, this issue is not about moving the program to the Department of Labor. That is another issue for another day. That may come up at a later time. This is about making the program as it is currently written work much better. That is why I really hope that everybody that has a dog in this hunt will help us do this today.

It is just one step forward, but it needs to be made short of sweeping reforms, which I know are pending before the Senate, but that is a whole different issue, and a lot of people have to get back in line and start over if that does happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, like so many here in the House, I continue to pray for all of the courageous men and women in the uniforms of our Armed Forces, and especially the families who have lost a loved one and have paid the ultimate price in Afghanistan and Iraq. But I wish, as the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) referenced, that all of the Members could have been with me in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, this past Monday, along with the Secretary of Energy, to see the centrifuges and the nuclear arsenal that was voluntarily given up by Moammar Qaddafi from Libya, because there is no doubt, while we can all draw our own conclusions, there is no doubt in my heart that that is a result of our consistent and decisive offensive since September 11 around the world against terror; because terrorism, as we see in Spain and in Baghdad and the fear in London, is alive and well, and terrorism continues, and we must pursue the terrorists and keep them on the defensive.

I believe our consistency and our resoluteness has paid off in effective ways, such as Libya giving up their nuclear deterrent; the Bush doctrine: You are either with us or you are against us. They have to declare. Libya declared. We do not want to be against you; they are voluntarily giving it up.

Now, we need to listen to some of the neutral parties. I know a lot of the concern today is about process. I do not know, I was not here when the Democrats were in the majority. Frankly, both parties are guilty of shutting out the other side. But I know that I am concerned about the signals that are being sent today out of this Chamber and in this town about our commitment to Iraq. This is a bold, long-term commitment.

Neutral observers like Thomas Friedman expressed concern in the last 48 hours about Spain, what is happening in Iraq, and whether the terrorists are intimidating free people around the world. We need to stand our ground in this war on terror. There is no doubt we had to do what we did in Iraq and that good has come out of it.

Mr. Speaker, terrorism cannot be allowed to win the day. Peace through strength works. Appeasement has never worked. And we are tested again today, whether or not we will stick to our guns and finish what we have started, even if it takes years and more money.

I want to secure our investments in the region. The people were poor there, but the country was wealthy. I believe we have done the right thing, and we have to be strong and tough and dig our heels in.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize James A. ``Buddy'' Conner, who has contributed some 45 years of service to the defense of our Nation as a leader, a worker, and a soldier.

Mr. Conner is retiring from a 43-year career with BWX Technologies, where he rose from his first assignment as an associate engineer and technician to become one of the company's four highest-ranking executives.

Mr. Conner was born in Appomattox, Virginia, and after finishing his primary education, devoted two years of service to the United States Marine Corps.

Upon his arrival back home, Mr. Conner took a short trip west to the town of Lynchburg and began working at the recently built Nuclear Facilities Plant while he earned his business degree from Lynchburg College. He would spend the next 40 years at that site, eventually leading the Naval Nuclear Fuel Division, which supplies the United States Navy with all of its nuclear fuel. During his tenure, in 2000, Mr. Conner joined the BWXT team vying for the operations contract for the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. For Buddy, this was a chance to lead a facility that is still as monumentally important in our nation's defense as it was during one of our country's biggest security successes, the Manhattan Project.

BWXT won the contract, and Mr. Conner has spent the last three years helping to ensure the site will continue to be the unique jewel in America's first line of nuclear defense. When America has called on Buddy and Y-12 to provide stewardship and security to a safe and reliable stockpile of nuclear weapon components and materials, they have stood at the ready.

Since taking the helm of the operating contract for the site, Buddy and his management team have lead Y-12 into an exciting new era. From modernization plans that are transforming our country's Fort Knox of highly enriched uranium into an efficient storage and production facility, to the renewal of the worker's spirit and enthusiasm through aggressive recruitment and mentoring programs that are bringing in the future of Y-12--Buddy and company have set Y-12 on a fantastic course.

Mr. Conner rose through the ranks of one of our premier defense contractors because of his intelligence, dedication, and outstanding work ethic. In short: he is the real deal.

Mr. Conner's 45 years of devotion to our Nation's security are not to be forgotten. That is why today I am proud to recognize Mr. Conner's efforts for his years of service to the defense of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill as well, and want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson). During no time in my 9 years here have I seen anyone grow as fast on the job in 10 and a half months as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson). His first Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development meeting was coming in as chairman, and in the last 10 and a half months, he has been all across the country, studied these issues, consumed himself with it, and done an outstanding job, in large part because of the bipartisan cooperation. There is no doubt this is a bipartisan product, an excellent work product.

I want to thank again those staff members already mentioned on our side of the aisle, Bob Schmidt, Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, Kevin Cook, Kenny Kraft, and Tracey LaTurner. They have done outstanding work.

A couple of points I want to make, first as a representative of the premier multipurpose laboratory in the United States, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, science is up. Our long-term investment in the future of our country, the seed corn for the next generation, is up above the President's request because the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) believe we must invest for future generations, and this bill reflects that commitment long term. It is very important. Plus, energy security; everybody has talked for a long time about our need to solve the long-term waste issue relative to our nuclear waste storage and whether we can ever go back into the nuclear business. We are solving that problem by fully funding and adequately funding Yucca Mountain, which we need to do. This committee has moved on this.

We also have an accelerated cleanup program across the country now because this Department of Energy, under Secretary Abraham's leadership, rolled out an ambitious plan to clean these nuclear sites up sooner rather than later and invest more in the short run to save money in the long run. We are doing that at Oak Ridge, at Hanford, Savannah River, and across the country. It is important that we do that for the health and safety of our citizens, and this bill is an excellent work product. I agree with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) that this is the best energy and water bill that we have offered in a number of years.

Mr. Speaker, we are at the end of a 6-week process, and I am proud of the work that the House has accomplished. We cannot afford to fail in Iraq.

The best and brightest in this House have scrubbed the proposal sent from the White House. We have done our best work, and now it is time to vote. Those who say this is a blank check from the White House are just not telling it like it is. This is a world changing paradigm shift on the other side of the world.

I think back to the bipartisan retreat early this year. I was there. Thomas Friedman came from the New York Times, spoke to a large group and said, maybe we are not going about this right, but we need to do this. He really said this needs to happen, an experiment in the 22 Arab countries to promote democracy and make this investment.

We were all hit with sticker shock. Eighty-seven billion dollars is a huge number. It shocked me but we now realize how important it is. It is going to be incalculable the benefits of this investment.

The big debate came down to loans versus grants. When I looked the President eye to eye, he said we believe we are going to get U.N. support. We did, unanimous, for a U.S.-led peacekeeping force in Iraq. We are making progress. Frankly, I was disappointed with Madrid. I say to the White House tonight, prove us wrong on the loans; work until we get more global support. I believe we need to.

The bottom line is this is an unprecedented situation in the history of the world, and we have got to step up. It is easy to demagogue an $87 billion request. It is easy to critique it, but tonight we have got to vote. I think it is difficult, difficult to vote no. If my colleagues have to hold their nose and vote yes tonight, do it. I am going to grit my teeth and vote yes tonight and say that we cannot afford to fail in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. And certainly I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) as this most important investment in Iraq worked its way through the full Committee on Appropriations. Our committee scrubbed this bill down and reduced it, streamlined it, built in much more accountability; and I think collectively Republicans and Democrats came together to do an important work to bring this bill to the floor, and I certainly rise in support of making this necessary investment.

I also want to say over the last 3 weeks it has been an interesting experience for me because I began to ask questions and look at ways to propose an amendment to make a portion of this investment, this reconstruction investment, a loan as opposed to a grant. That is a long story that I will not try to go back through except to say that when I met last week face to face with the President of the United States about whether this investment in Iraq should be a loan or a grant and he explained to me that negotiations were under way, I have to say that today at the United Nations with the resolution that our country achieved, what he told us last week is coming true, and that is support is building among other nations for making this necessary investment and for liberating on a permanent basis an Arab country.

And Iraq is a true test for freedom and opportunity for our allies and this great Nation, and I just want to come to the floor today to say, while I had differences of opinion about how to go about it, we need to come together as a Nation, as a people, and as a Congress on the fact that we must succeed in Iraq. At this point we have no choice but to go forward and finish what we have started. We cannot afford to fail; and the world must see us in a bold, successful move at this point in the history of the world to open up freedom in the Arab world, and what better place to do it than where tyranny and oppression were rampant.

Years ago I was a Member of this body and came to the floor with concerns about President Clinton's efforts in Eastern Europe, but I have also said in recent weeks that I was wrong and that that investment that our country made in resources and danger and peril for our troops to remove a genocidal murderer named Slobodan Milosevic was a very successful and necessary effort to promote freedom and better secure our country and so is this mission in Iraq, and we must not flinch.

We must invest the full amount. While I would love to see a portion of this made into a loan and I made my case and presented that argument; at the end of the day, those leaders in the executive branch in negotiations with the G-7 nations, our allies, others in the region from the Saudis to the Kuwaitis to the Qatars, they are talking about ways to write down this so-called debt; I call it bankruptcy debt. That debt that Saddam Hussein built up should not be payable, and I believe that the pressure is mounting for Germany and France and Russia and others to write that debt down dramatically. Ambassador Bremer told me that that is the goal, to have that debt written down or written off. And I do not want the U.S. taxpayer to invest a dime that might go to those other countries; and we built in conditions in this bill that would not allow that to happen.

But at the end of the day the bottom line, after we weigh in and have this debate and make our case and stand our ground and carry out our constitutional responsibility, is we need to do this. Whether one supported it from

the start or not, here is where we are today, and we have got to finish what we started and make the necessary investments. We cannot afford not to, and freedom comes with a huge price. For some brave Americans it is the loss of life, it is their limbs, it is going into harm's way on our behalf. For taxpayers, it is investments. We thank everyone for these investments; but the cost of freedom is high, very high today, but we cannot afford not to do it or invest it. We must finish what we started, and we must preserve our country with some preemptive action on the other end of the world. And I see it that way. I see Saddam Hussein as a threat, and terrorism is looking for a place to take root; and we cannot let it take root. We took decisive action, and now we have got to win the peace. And it is expensive, but we do not have any choice but to do this. And I hope everybody comes together to make this necessary investment.

We are all Americans, and we are at the waterfront. Democrats and Republicans, we are all patriots and we are standing with our country. Make one's case. At end of the day, support this necessary investment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

The reason the Pence amendment was given an hour of debate by the leadership is because this is the most important amendment I think considered on the loan proposal because it is really the only one that works. Even the amendment that is being considered in the other body today has got problems in the technicalities of whether it could even be done or carried out. And certainly we do not want to put U.S. tax dollars in the World Bank where we do not even have control of our own resources.

There is a workable proposal. I will say that the developments that happened with the administration in the United Nations today certainly show

me and prove to me that what the President told me last week when I deferred to him and withdrew this amendment at the full Committee on Appropriations is coming true, and that is we are convincing other countries and the United Nations to engage in Iraq. There is great agreement here among conservatives, among patriots and principled people that we have to finish what we started.

The only debate is whether or not we can secure the taxpayers, interest.

Let me just say this. I think we will be back here in a few months for more money. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) may be ahead of his time, but we have got to secure this funding over time for the U.S. taxpayers, and for that reason alone, this is an important debate to speak out to secure the U.S. taxpayers in the future.