Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2005

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (Extensions of Remarks - July 07, 2004)

SPEECH OF
HON. HEATHER WILSON
OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 2004

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

Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address serious problems with this bill and particularly with its
Report, which cannot be fully remedied by the amendment I propose.

The problem is not so much with the bill, which we have before us, but with the directive report language that goes along with it.

As members, we rarely focus on report language and our vote in favor of the bill doesnot approve the report language.
Usually, report language tracks the provisions of the bill. In the case of this appropriations measure, the report language goes far beyond the authority of the appropriations committee, directly contradicts recorded votes taken by this House, and is inconsistent with the FY05 Defense Authorization Act which the House has passed.

I will vote for this Bill, which in itself generally provides funds necessary for Department of Energy to execute its important responsibilities in scientific research, energy, and national security. In fact, I applaud its increase in research funding for the Office of Science.

But with my "yes" vote today, I also feel compelled to speak in favor of the majority in this House and put in the record our well documented objection to a number of directions to the Department of Energy in the accompanying Report.

The Report language seeks to undermine initiatives supported by recorded votes in the Defense Authorization bill for the past two years, supported by votes on the House floor for two years, and sustained in the other body for two years.
These initiatives have been advocated by the House majority in a policy statement; have been supported and requested by the Department of Defense and the Defense Science Board; and have been a sustained part of this Administration's development of a strategic forces policy for the 21st century consistent with reducing our nuclear forces to the lowest levels possible.

Mr. Chairman, we all know that Committee Staff sometimes overreach in reports, and I would bet a dozen Krispy Kreme Donuts that fewer than half a dozen members of this House are even aware of what has been included in the report accompanying this bill in very prescriptive terms. But this report seeks to give legitimacy to policy positions directly contravened by recorded votes in this House and we cannot allow there to be any confusion about where we stand.

The Bill appropriates $6,514,424,000 for Weapon Activities. The Report seeks to give the appearance that the House has limited funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. But we have not. We will vote today to spend those funds and we voted in the FY05 Authorization bill on May 20th of this year to authorize $6,577,953,000, including $27.6M for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator study, approving that bill by a vote of 391-34. An amendment to explicitly remove authorization for this study failed on that same day by a vote of 214-204.

The Report seeks to give the appearance that we would like to restrict Laboratory Directed Research and Development at Department of Energy Laboratories. But we have not. We will vote today to fund out laboratories. Only the House Armed Services Committee can pass legislation to limit the LDRD program. On May 20 we passed the FY05 Defense Authorization Act that continued the previously authorized LDRD program at our laboratories.

After September 11, 2001, we were grateful that those Laboratories had been doing this kind of exploratory research under the LDRD program. The fact they have done so has helped secure our homeland and aid our troops in the field.
To chill such research would be unwise.

Further, the Report would have you believe that we are voting to restructure the future LDRD program. But we have not. This bill does not change the LDRD program in any way.

Further, the Report language would have you believe that we are voting to have the NNSA focus solely on its missions of life extension of the existing stockpile and the current stockpile stewardship program. But we are not. The bill does nothing of the sort. In fact, if we were to pay any attention to the report language, we would be threatening those priorities. The Report suggests that we make major reductions in one Life Extension Program unsupported by an assessment of the impact and risks this would imply. It would also require a higher priority for dismantlement activities in a way that will likely come at the expense of meeting current Life Extension milestones for the Department of Defense. It would make significant reductions to numerous areas of the stockpile stewardship program that were designed by the NNSA to address technical needs to assess with adequately small uncertainty the safety, reliability, and performance of our weapons without nuclear tests.

None of this makes any sense and the report language would not stand up to any serious review by elected Members of Congress.

The Report suggests that by voting for this bill we are changing the way NNSA operates with other entities within the DOE. But it does not. The report suggests that we are adding a burdensome procedure for approval of NNSA activities at the request of, other elements of the DOE, and would hold hostage numerous unique activities of the NNSA labs within these energy and science programs.

The Report would suggest that we are approving a review of future requirements for the weapons complex development plan, to be conducted only by people with no experience in doing that work. That would be silly and the bill includes no such thing.

The reason we cannot vote to amend report language under the rules of the House is because report language is not law and does not have the authority of law. The law we are voting on is in the bill before us. In most cases, report language explains and supports the bill.

In this case, those writing the report went far beyond any reasonable authority as staff members and I think we need to make it clear that the measures included in the Report are inconsistent with statute, inconsistent with the FY05 Defense Authorization Act, inconsistent with recorded votes taken by this House and have no force or authority whatsoever. An error of this magnitude must be jettisoned in the conference committee so that agencies affected are not confused by the mixed messages sent here.

Mr. Chairman, the problems in this Report are many. I felt it important to clarify for the record that members of the House are approving the text of the Bill. We do not approve of the Report language, which is replete with practical problems and inconsistent with the law.