Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4614, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4614, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - June 25, 2004)

Mr. McGOVERN. 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. McGOVERN. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 ½ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. 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.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT