Dave Hobson

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2004 Veterans Affairs/Housing and Urban Development (VA-HUD) and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill which was approved Monday by the House Appropriations Committee. Veterans' medical care has received generous funding increases over the last several years, an average of $1.6 billion a year over the past 5 years. This represents an almost 50 percent increase under Republican leadership since 1999. Building on that record, the fiscal year 2004 VA-HUD bill provides a $1.4 billion increase over the previous year, making a total of $27.2 billion available for Veterans' Health Administration. This brings veterans' health funding to the highest level in history. It also triples funding over last year to repair and replace aging VA medical facilities and fully funds the VA's request to expedite claims processing at the Veterans Benefits Administration, bringing total funding to $1 billion for this important initiative to reduce the backlog of claims for veterans' benefits. This record level of funding will maintain nursing home care and ensure that all needy veterans receive the health care they deserve. I am very pleased that the legislation also includes $500,000, for the preliminary planning of a new ambulatory clinic at the Defense Supply Center campus in Columbus, OH. The new clinic has been strongly supported by Rep. Deborah Pryce, Pat Tiberi (R-Columbus) and other Members of the Ohio delegation; I am pleased it has been included in this bill to improve health care for the thousands of veterans in Central Ohio. As a veteran, I am proud to support this legislation, which addresses the special needs of veterans across the country. Mr. Chairman, I join today with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, and urge the approval of this appropriation bill by the House.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to a very positive development in health care for the residents of Springfield and Clark County, which are in the 7th Congressional District of Ohio. Federal, state and local officials and representatives from our two local hospitals are set to break ground on a new outpatient regional cancer center. For years, I had heard from local health care providers and residents about how frustrating it was not having a local modern facility to perform outpatient cancer treatments. With two outstanding health care centers already available in Springfield, it seemed strange to many people who needed basic oncology services to have to drive to Dayton, Columbus or even Cincinnati. Traveling long distances to receive cancer treatment can be burdensome for a patient and his or her family, especially if they are elderly or have mobility problems. I was able to work with my good friend Congressman Ralph Regula of Navarre, who is the Chairman of the Labor/Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, to secure $1 million in federal funds for the establishment of this outpatient regional cancer center. This funding helped to lay the groundwork for the construction of this new facility to improve the level of health care for the citizens of Springfield and Clark County. This effort is a true public-private partnership that has brought together Mercy Health Partners, The Community Hospital, the Ohio EPA and the federal EPA. Until that great day when there is a simple and affordable cure for the scourge known as cancer, it is vitally important that communities like Springfield have the best possible infrastructure to provide care. This new cancer center will have a key role to play in our health care community and I was pleased to be able to support this worthwhile effort in Congress. As the Congressman who represents Springfield and Clark County in the U.S. House of Representatives, I offer my sincere congratulations on this great achievement and look forward to the day when we will be able to dedicate the finished facility.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Harley Coon who resides in Beavercreek in the 7th Congressional District. I have had the honor of meeting Harley at different community events over the years, and it is very appropriate that he was honored today on Capitol Hill by the Korean War Veterans' Association on the 50th anniversary of the armistice that ended the Korean War. At the age of 19, Harley Coon was captured on Nov. 17, 1950 while serving with the 25th Infantry Division in Korea. Over the next three years Mr. Coon suffered greatly as a prisoner of war from hunger, exposure, and brutal conditions in the various prison camps where he was detained. On Aug. 31, 1953, Harley Coon was released to U.S. Forces after 33 months and four days of imprisonment. After the war, Coon became a successful businessman, never forgetting how lucky he was to be around to enjoy his freedom. Coon was inducted into the Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame for all his, commitment and caring in Ohio. He continues to travel nationally and internationally as the National President of the Korean War Veterans Association. Harley received the Purple Heart, the Korean Service Medal with 10 battle stars, the U.N. Service Medal and the Presidential Unit Citation. As the Congressman who represents Beavercreek in the U.S. House of Representatives, I offer my sincere congratulations to Harley Coon for this public recognition of his service to our country.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Gen. Lester L. Lyles, United States Air Force, who will soon be retiring from the U.S. military after 35 years of distinguished service to our nation. Gen. Lester L. Lyles is currently the Commanding General of the Air Force Material Command, headquartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in the 7th Congressional District. The command conducts research, development, test and evaluation, and provides acquisition management services and logistics support necessary to keep Air Force weapons systems combat-ready. The general entered the Air Force in 1968 as a distinguished graduate of the Air Force ROTC program. He has served in various assignments, from the Headquarters of the U.S. Air Force, to the Air Force Systems Command (AFSC). The general became AFSC headquarters' Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Requirements in 1989, and Deputy Chief of Staff for Requirements in 1990. From 1992 to 1996, he served consecutively as: Vice Commander and then Commander of the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, and then commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center at Los Angeles Air Force Base in California. The general became the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in 1996, which is certainly one of the most politically charged offices in the Pentagon. In May 1999, he was assigned as Vice Chief of Staff at Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. He assumed his current position in April 2000. I have had the privilege to work with the General on many occasions, since we have the mutual goal of seeing the Air Force (and Wright- Patterson Air Force Base) maintain its role as the preeminent leader in aerospace and advanced technology research. General Lyles has always understood what has needed to be done, and we have worked very well together to maintain a robust research atmosphere at Wright-Pat. In addition to being a great leader and administrator, General Lyles is also the only African-American four- star general in the Air Force. This makes him an outstanding role model for the youth of today as an example of what can be accomplished through hard work and perseverance. In fact, in February of this year, General Lyles received the Black Engineer of the Year Award for lifetime achievement. This award is presented on behalf of the Council of Engineering Deans of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Lockheed Martin, Daimler Chrysler and U.S. Black Engineer & Information Technology Magazine. As befitting a leader of his stature, General Lyles has an impressive academic background including: a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from Howard University in Washington, D.C., and a Master of Science degree in mechanical and nuclear engineering from the Air Force Institute of Technology Program at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. Through his advancement in military rank, he has also attended: the Defense Systems Management College, the Armed Forces Staff College, the National War College, and most recently he completed a National and International Security Management Course at Harvard University. And, like any successful person, General Lyles is supported by a strong family relationship with his wife of 33 years, Mina, and their four children. During my tenure in Congress, it has been my honor to work with several consecutive commanding generals of the Air Force Material Command. Each one has been professional, dedicated and a credit to the caliber of general officers in the U.S. Air Force. However, General Lyles has greatly impressed not only myself, but also many business and community leaders in the Miami Valley. When General Lyles retires, we will be sorry to lose the man I consider to be the best leader in the distinguished history of the command. As the Congressman who represents Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in the U.S. House of Representatives, I offer my sincere congratulations to Gen. Lyles on his well-deserved retirement and on behalf of the 7th Congressional District and thank him for all he has done to preserve our freedoms.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert and Marguerite Steele who reside in Xenia, Ohio in the 7th Congressional District, who have received the ``Parents of the Year'' Award for 2003 by the National Parents' Day Council. Mr. and Mrs. Steele have worked very hard to be both responsible parents to their children, while helping the larger ``family'' of the local community. Robert Steele has served in the military and is active with the local American Legion. Through his work with the Legion, the couple has instituted community programs for the less fortunate, where area children can participate in life-enhancing and educational activities. The Steeles' outreach efforts have helped bring about better cooperation and understanding between racial groups in the community. This honor exemplifies Robert and Marguerite's commitment to strengthening the concept of family, which we Americans value above virtually all other things. Their community work and involvement in the lives their own children are ample justification for this award. As the Congressman who represents Xenia, Ohio in the U.S. House of Representatives, I offer my sincere congratulations to Robert and Marguerite Steele for this achievement. It is an honor to recognize their outstanding leadership and the exemplary character they have shown as parents.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to submit to the House for consideration the fiscal year 2004 energy and water development appropriations act. I want to first thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for working with me on this bill. I want to thank his staff. I also want to thank my staff, who has worked very hard on this bill. This is the first time I have actually done the full bill on the floor, and I appreciate the tutorial from everybody on this bill. I also want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the full committee. I also particularly want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), my overall chairman, who has worked with me on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I have a rather long speech here this morning to give; but I am not going to give it, because I know a lot of Members want to go home, so I am going to submit it for the Record. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to submit to the House for its consideration the fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. On Tuesday, July 15th, the Appropriations Committee unanimously approved the bill, and I believe it merits the support of the entire membership of the House. I want to thank all the members of the subcommittee for their help in bringing the bill to the floor today. I particularly want to thank Mr. Visclosky for his help and cooperation. I also want to thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young, and the ranking minority member, Mr. Obey for allowing us to move forward in such an expeditious manner. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide variety of programs, which include such diverse matters as maintenance of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, navigation improvements, environmental cleanup, flood control, advanced scientific research, and nuclear waste disposal. Total spending in the fiscal year 2004 Energy and Water Development Bill is $27,080,000, the same as the subcommittee's 302b allocation. This is an increase of $942 million over fiscal year 2003 and $134 million over the President's budget request. The bill I present to the House today is fiscally responsible, and meets the major needs of the members of the House. Title I of the bill provides funding for the civil works programs of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Formerly Used Sites Remedial Action Program. The Committee has recommended a total of $4.48 billion for Title I, $288 million above the budget request, but $156 million below the amount appropriated last year. The Committee concentrated the limited resources it had for the Corps on ongoing projects and did not include funds for new studies or construction projects. Mr. Chairman, even though we were able to provide an increase over the budget request for the Corps of Engineers, I am very concerned that we, and that includes the Congress and the Administration, are not spending enough on our water resources infrastructure. This infrastructure supports much of the Nation's commerce and provides a physical safety net against natural disasters for many of our citizens. The Administration's budget request underfunds most of the ongoing Corps of Engineers construction projects. While we have added funds for a number of those projects, those funds are not adequate to keep the projects on their most efficient schedules. The result is higher costs and a delay in receiving the benefits that the projects will provide. I hope to begin an active dialog with the Administration in an attempt to convince them of the need to increase funding to support the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers. One program of the Corps of Engineers which is of great interest to me is the restoration of the Everglades, which is a partnership between the Federal government and the State of Florida. In very simple terms, the State is charged with cleaning up the water that enters the Everglades, and the Federal government is responsible for fixing the plumbing. We fully funded the Administration's request of $145 million for activities related to restoration of the Everglades; however, I am concerned that recent actions taken by the State may signify a lessening of its resolve to live up to its part of the bargain. I have written to the Governor and have spoken to him to let him know of my concerns. Because of those concerns, we have included language in the Bill that would deny the use of funds for Everglades restoration if the State does not meet court ordered water quality standards. I intend to monitor this situation very closely. Funding for Title II of the bill, which includes the Central Utah Project Completion Account and the programs of the Bureau of Reclamation, is $947.9 million, $24.3 million below the amount appropriated last year and $25.7 million above the budget request. The Committee did not provide the $15 million requested by the Administration for the CALFED Bay-Delta program. The authorization for this program expired in fiscal year 2000 and it has not been reauthorized. Today funding for Title III, the Department of Energy is $22 billion, $1.18 billion above fiscal year 2003 and $147 million below the budget request. Mr. Chairman, my top priority within the Department of Energy is Yucca Mountain. It is essential that we have this repository ready to accept spent nuclear fuel as soon as possible for two very important reasons--energy security and homeland security. Nuclear energy currently generates about 20 percent of the Nation's electricity without emitting any greenhouse gases. That percentage could grow, but it will not until there is a place for safe, long-term storage of the waste that is generated. That place is Yucca Mountain. With regard to homeland security, the events of September 11th have taught us that spent nuclear fuel currently stored at reactor sites around the country might not be as secure as we once thought. Therefore, we have included an additional $174 million above the budget request for the Department of Energy to begin work on a rail line in Nevada that, and this is important, will avoid Las Vegas, on the national transportation system, and on improved containers and early acceptance of spent fuel presently stored at reactor sites. These items have not been addressed in the past because the other body has routinely cut the President's budget, and the Department has had to concentrate all its resources on the license application it is scheduled to submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in December of 2004. For fiscal year 2004, the other body has recommended $425 million, $166 million below the budget request. We also provide $30 million for impact assistance to the affected counties in Nevada so the people there can see the economic advantage that the repository will bring. Another priority in this Bill is advanced scientific computing. By a number of key measures of computing power, the United States is now in second place behind Japan. For the sake of our scientific leadership, for our national security, and for economic competitiveness, we cannot afford to stay in second place. We have provided an additional $40 million for DOE's Advanced Scientific Computing Research program to procure additional state-of-the-art computers in the near term and to begin an interagency effort to develop a next-generation computer architecture that will leapfrog ahead of current designs. Mr. Chairman, another area of concern is the portion of the Department of Energy's budget request that deals with the nuclear weapons complex. The Department continues to ask Congress to fund a Cold War nuclear arsenal, and the infrastructure necessary to maintain that arsenal, even though we no longer face a Cold War adversary. As President Bush said when he announced reductions to the nuclear stockpile on November 13, 2001, ``The United States and Russia have overcome the legacy of the Cold War.'' AT that time, he pledged that the United States would reduce our stockpile to 1,700 to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads over ten years because, as he said, ``the current levels of our nuclear forces do not reflect today's strategic realities.'' I couldn't agree more. We do not need thousands of warheads to deter a nuclear attack anymore, but the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense want Congress to continue to pay for a Cold War stockpile. It is time the DOE and the DOD begin to shrink the footprint of the nuclear weapons infrastructure to reflect the President's decision to reduce our nuclear arsenal. DOD is rethinking the kinds of forces it needs to respond to the threats of the new century, and will go through another round of BRAC to bring down its footprint. The National Nuclear Security Administration should go through a similar process and take a hard look at its workforce and facility needs for a smaller stockpile. Accordingly, we have not approved all of the increase requested for weapons activities in fiscal year 2004. Mr. Chairman, in this Bill we have also attempted to send a signal to the Department of Energy and the Russian government with regard to the Nuclear Nonproliferation program. At the end of May of this year, the Department had unobligated balances in this program of almost $600 million. That is money just sitting at DOE headquarters. In addition, by this fiscal year, the Department estimates that it will have uncosted balances of over $1.1 billion. I view this as poor management. We are fully supportive of the nuclear nonproliferation mission, but we have to question whether we are achieving the program goals when over a billion dollars goes unspent. We need to figure out what is wrong and fix it before this issue endangers support for the program. Lastly, one of the key changes I want to make in the Department of Energy is to change the culture about contract competition. There are a number of DOE lab contracts that were initially awarded without competition back during World War II and have never been competed since. That has to change. I am firmly convinced of the benefits of competition, and we have included language in the bill effectively requiring the Secretary of Energy to compete all M&O contracts that have not been competitively awarded within the past 50 years. Funding for Title IV, Independent Agencies, is $138.4 million, a decrease of $68.2 million from last year and $9.5 million below the budget request. We have funded the Appalachian Regional Commission at the budget request level of $33,145,000. I realize that a number of members are concerned about this level of funding, which is $37 million below last year's level. However, our allocation did not permit us to provide an increase above the budget request. The other body has provided $ for the ARC and we can address this when the bill is in conference. Mr. Chairman, before I conclude I would also like to thank the staff for their help in getting me up to speed on the complex issues we have in this bill. The Subcommittee staff includes Bob Schmidt, Kevin Cook, Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, Tracy LaTurner, and our detailee from the Corps of Engineers, Robert Pace. I also want to thank Kenny Kraft of my staff. Mr. Chairman, I know that not everyone is happy with everything we have done in this bill, but I think we have produced a fair and balanced product and I hope the members will unanimously support what we have done. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY03.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY03.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH18JY03.003 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentleman yielding to me, and I want him to know that I am aware of the needs of his district and many others around the country, frankly. In my prepared remarks, which I did not give today, I list some problems. The Operation and Maintenance backlog is nearly $1 billion and growing every year, and I talk about that. I also talk about the fact that OMB has got to work with us on a long-term basis because every year we go on, this aging infrastructure, we need to make an investment, and I want to make that investment. And what I am going to try to do in this bill, and this is my first time doing this, and I have a very able ranking member, when we sit down with the other body in conference, I am going to try to increase the money available for Operation and Maintenance, and I will try very hard to get the OMB to work with us to be more realistic in the future about this, because I do not think it is realistic. We need to help the Corps of Engineers so that we do not make so many hard choices in support of our economic, environmental and recreational infrastructure. I want to assure the gentleman and everybody else in here we have got a real problem here. This affects our economy. We have to maintain these facilities and make sure they are up to date because it has a detrimental effect on our economy and on our environment. And I would appreciate if the gentleman would withdraw his amendment, but I want him to know I am very sincere about trying to get this account up not only now, but in the future.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. The deepening of the Delaware River is considered by many to be vital to the future of commerce in the northeast. The Corps of Engineers believes that it is an economically viable project. It was authorized in 1992. They have already spent more than $17 million to date on its study and design. The ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and I have been contacted by the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Honorable Ed Rendell, who urged us to oppose any amendment to reduce the level of funding for this project. His letter contains a long list of labor and business interests who are in strong support of this project which he calls ``essential to maintaining a competitive port.'' Therefore, I am opposed to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time for his control to my ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

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

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

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I think we provided very generous funding for renewable energy sources, and I strongly object to any reductions in the funding for Yucca Mountain repository. Let me explain what our bill really does for renewable energy resources. The enacted funding levels for renewable energy resources for fiscal year 2003 was $419.5 million. The request for fiscal year 2004 was $444.2 million. However, subsequent to submission of the budget request, the Secretary of Energy proposed transferring $73.6 million from renewable energy to a new Office for Electricity Transmission and Distribution. The House recommendation for renewables is $330.1 million, an apparent reduction of $89.3 million from the current year. I say apparent because $73.6 million of this apparent reduction represents the transfer to the new electricity office. Therefore, the real reduction for renewable energy is only $16 million compared to the current fiscal year. Our fund funds the mainstream renewable programs for solar power, wind power, biomass, and geothermal energy exactly at the requested levels. We fund the International Renewable Energy Program, tribal energy activities, and the Renewable Energy Production Incentives all at the requested levels. That sounds like renewable energy does pretty well in our bill, and it does. We made a few specific funding reductions and with good reason. The administration wanted to double the funding for hydrogen from $39.7 million to $88 million. We cut that increase by $20 million, partly because the Department has not convinced us that it can spend that large of an increase constructively, and also because we learned that the Department intended to keep much of that funding within the national laboratories, rather than make it available competitively for industry and university research. We have eliminated the request for $15 million of the National Climate Change Technology Initiative not because we opposed the research on this important topic, but because we opposed the Department's proposal to pull funding from our bill and the Interior appropriations bill into a single program. Such pooling is unwise and unnecessary. The Department presently spends over $1.6 billion annually on climate change research. Over $1.1 billion of that is in the energy and water development bill. We do want the Department to seek out good technology ideas from the private sector and universities, but it can certainly accomplish that goal by simply making competitive awards of a greater portion of the $1.6 billion available for climate change research. We make several other minor reductions, but we also added $4.9 million to start construction of a new research facility at the National Renewable Energy Laboratories. I think we treated the renewable energy programs very fairly in the bill. What I do not think is fair and sound policy is a proposal to cut back funding for the Yucca Mountain repository. The majority of Members of this Chamber voted last year to designate Yucca Mountain as the site for the repository. I am sure the majority of Members of this Chamber believe that the Department of Energy is now moving forward aggressively to get the repository built and operational. I am here to tell you that is not so. This program has been starved for funding practically every year by the actions of the other body. The result of these persistent funding cuts is that the Department has had to defer much of the essential work that will be required to get this repository open by 2010. Let me tell you, 2010 is a pipe dream at the requested funding level. It simply will not happen unless we provide more funding for these essential tasks. Our bill provides $174 million for these tasks. In particular, we provide $70 million so the Department can begin planning for a rail line to Nevada. And we prohibit the Secretary from routing this line close to Las Vegas, which has been used by everybody as a political football. We restore $9 million for funding for external oversight by the State and affected counties, and we provide $30 million of impact assistance to the affected Nevada counties. In total $129 million of these additional funds are to be spent in Nevada for the citizens of Nevada. It is hard to argue that this additional funding harms the State of Nevada. It is an economic development tool whether Yucca Mountain opens or never opens. It is a great economic tool for Nevada, and I cannot understand why Nevada Members would stand up here and want to hurt the economy of Nevada. I also want to remind Members that many of you have operating reactors, closed reactors and DOE clean-up sites in your district. I do not believe you want this spent fuel and high-level waste to stay in your districts indefinitely. Rate-payers in every State that uses nuclear power have paid over $16 million into the nuclear waste fund. It is time for the government to fulfill its statutory responsibilities and deliver an operational repository by the end of the decade. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we cannot continue to allow the opponents of the repository to continue to delay this vital project. Therefore, I strongly oppose the amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I was the Speaker's delegate to the budget when we balanced the budget. I am very aware of budget priorities. I am also an appropriator. I have great difficulty with everybody saying the administration's decisions are right. We had a discussion earlier which I agreed with that we have great infrastructure problems in this country that are not being taken care of and will cost more money if we do not fix them in the future. It is very interesting to me that the gentleman picked the Appalachian Regional Commission to mention, because if I had my way, I would have zeroed it all out, but I cannot tell the Chairman how many Members of Congress have come to me and complained to me about the fact that I went with, not my wish, but I went with what the President and the OMB, what their provision was in the bill. I cannot tell how many Members have come and said, this is death. This is the end of the world. So $331,000 may not sound like much, but I can tell the Chairman that to the Members that have all come to me, they want it increased dramatically. They want me to double the money; and the Senate is at about $71 million, which shows what I am up against when I go to conference on this bill. Frankly, they are $220 million above this bill when we go to deal with them, so I think we have been pretty good with our 302(b) allocation. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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