Congressional Record Weekly UpdateOctober 20-24, 2003Return to the Congressional Report Weekly. 1A) H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2003 – Intention to Offer Motion to Instruct Conferees Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. MARKEY moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 6 be instructed to insist upon the provisions contained in-- (1) section 14011 of the House bill relating to secure transfer of nuclear materials; (2) section 14012(d) of the House bill relating to nuclear facility threats, directing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue regulations, including changes to the design basis threat, to ensure that nuclear facilities licensed by Commission address the threat of a terrorist attack against such facilities; and (3) section 14013 of the House bill requiring the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, before entering into any agreement of indemnification with respect to a utilization facility under section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, to consult with the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security (or any successor official) with respect to that facility concerning whether the location of the facility and the design of that type of facility ensures that the facility provides for the [Page: H9708] GPO's PDF adequate protection of public health and safety if subject to a terrorist attack, and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission also consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security before issuing a license or a license renewal for a sensitive nuclear facility concerning the emergency evacuation plan for the communities living near the sensitive nuclear facility.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The notice will appear in the RECORD. 1B) H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2003 – Floor Debate on Motion to Instruct Conferees Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The Clerk will report the motion. The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. MARKEY moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 6 be instructed to insist upon the provisions contained in-- (1) section 14011 of the House bill relating to secure transfer of nuclear materials; (2) section 14012(d) of the House bill relating to nuclear facility threats, directing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue regulations, including changes to the design basis threat, to ensure that nuclear facilities licensed by Commission address the threat of a terrorist attack against such facilities; and (3) section 14013 of the House bill requiring the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, before entering into any agreement of indemnification with respect to a utilization facility under section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, to consult with the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security (or any successor official) with respect to that facility concerning whether the location of the facility and the design of that type of facility ensures that the facility provides for the [Page: H9778] adequate protection of public health and safety if subject to a terrorist attack, and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission also consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security before issuing a license or a license renewal for a sensitive nuclear facility concerning the emergency evacuation plan for the communities living near the sensitive nuclear facility.
Mr. MARKEY (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in the RECORD. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am offering this motion today to address one of the most inexplicable and indefensible decisions made by the House and Senate Republican energy conferees in their closed-door meetings. I am talking about the decision that has apparently been made by the Republican majority to weaken critical nuclear security provisions Democrats had earlier attached to the energy bill, H.R. 6, in order to better secure our Nation's 103 currently operating civilian nuclear power plants from the threat of terrorist attack. Remember less than 2 years ago, President Bush told the Nation in his State of the Union address, quote, our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worst fears and showed us the true scope of the task ahead. We have seen the depths of our enemies' hatred in videos where they laugh about the loss of innocent life and the depth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the destruction they design. We have found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities, detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of American cities and thorough descriptions of landmarks in America and throughout the world. So we know that nuclear power plants are at the very top of al Qaeda's list of potential targets in the United States. Despite this fact, the Republican conferees have apparently decided to weaken the nuclear security language in the energy bill. My motion covers three of the major weakening changes that have been made in the nuclear antiterrorism provisions in the energy bill. The first part of my motion addresses the decision by the House Republican conferees to eliminate the requirement for a mandatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission rulemaking to upgrade nuclear security regulations. Section 14012 of the House bill entitled Nuclear Facility Threats requires the NRC to issue regulations, including changes to the design basis threat, to ensure that licensees addressed the threats of a terrorist attack against a nuclear power plant in the United States. Under the provision, these new rules are required to be issued not later than 270 days after the submission of a detailed report by the President assessing the nature of the terrorist threat to the nuclear facilities in the United States or a year after enactment. The Republican conferees have now weakened this provision so that it no longer mandates a new NRC rulemaking, but instead merely authorizes the NRC to make such revisions to the design basis threats promulgated before the date of enactment of this section as the commission deems appropriate, based on the summary and classification report. There is no deadline. There is no requirement for any formal Nuclear Regulatory Commission rulemaking. This language guts the entire section and appears to allow the NRC to deem the interim orders that it has already adopted since the September 11 attacks to be sufficient and take no further action. This new language reflects what the NRC and the nuclear industry have always wanted, no action by Congress to require them to do anything more than that which they have already done on nuclear security. But is that the position that this body, which has twice voted to mandate Nuclear Regulatory Commission nuclear security rulemaking, really wants to take? You might say, perhaps the NRC has already addressed the problem in its secret orders. No, it has not. The NRC orders are classified and were prepared following closed-door consultations with the nuclear industry and no opportunity for public comment. I have read the NRC orders very carefully. And while I cannot discuss them in a public forum due to their security classification, I can tell this House that the NRC's orders are inadequate in several respects and fail to address the kind of threats that we now must be prepared for in a post-September 11 environment. I would suggest to the Members that if they took the time to read these orders and to consult with anyone with any real expertise on security matters, they would share my concern that the NRC has failed to do enough to beef up security at our Nation's nuclear facilities.
[Time: 14:30] But despite the President's warnings, the Republican energy conferees have now decided not to even require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to undertake a rulemaking to tighten up security at these sensitive facilities. The second part of my motion addresses the Republican conferees' decision to weaken the House-passed requirements for full consultation with Homeland Security regarding nuclear security risks. Section 14013 of the House bill, ``Unreasonable Risk Consultation,'' requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consult with the Department of Homeland Security concerning whether the location of a new nuclear power plant or its design provides for adequate protection of public health and safety if subject to a terrorist attack before Price-Anderson liability indemnification is provided to the plant. This provision originated as an amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) to last year's Price-Anderson bill, which this year was attached to the base text of H.R. 6. It also requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consult with the Department of Homeland Security before issuing or renewing a license to operate a new or existing nuclear power plant to determine the adequacy of the emergency evacuation plan for communities around the plant. This provision originated as an amendment that I authored. We have also been informed that they are preparing to eliminate the requirement for consultation prior to a relicensing of an existing power plant, although the Republican conferees have yet to share this new language with us in this bill. The Republican conferees have now de-linked the Waxman amendment's consultation requirement from Price-Anderson's liability indemnification and eliminated the Markey amendment's requirement for consultation regarding adequacy of emergency evacuation plans. We have also been informed that they are preparing to eliminate the requirement for consultation prior to a relicensing of an existing power plant, although the Republican conferees have yet to share this new language with the Democrats. The elimination of the Waxman amendment's linkage between NRC consultation with Homeland Security and Price-Anderson indemnification takes all of the teeth out of the Waxman provision. Instead of mandating a consultation aimed at determining whether the design or location of a nuclear facility poses an unreasonable risk before giving the owner government-subsidized insurance, we are now merely calling for such consultation to take place. Moreover, tying consultation to the initial licensing of a plant, and not recovering relicensing of the 103 currently-operating nuclear power plants, greatly narrows the application of the amendment since no new nuclear power plant has been successfully ordered since 1973 and no new nuclear power plants are likely to be ordered for decades, if ever. If this change is made, there would be no mandatory consultation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with the Department of Homeland Security for any of the existing nuclear power plants in this country, not for Seabrook, not for Pilgrim, not for Indian Point, not for Diablo Canyon, for none. Finally, eliminating the specific requirement for consultation regarding [Page: H9779] the adequacy of emergency evacuation plans in the event of a successful terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant means that we are failing to do what is needed to ensure that citizens living near plants such as the Indian Point reactor right outside of New York City are fully protected against the threat of a terrorist attack. And third and finally, my amendment addresses the decision to weaken nuclear materials transportation requirements: section 14011 of the House-passed bill, requiring the NRC to establish a system to better ensure the security of nuclear materials transferred to, from, or within the United States. This provision originated as an amendment I authored that has now passed the House twice in H.R. 6 in this Congress and as part of Price-Anderson reauthorization last year. The latest Republican conference report draft, in contrast, limits the NRC's regulations to the security of imports or exports of nuclear materials, failing to cover the transportation of these materials within our own country. This limitation is inexplicable in light of the fact that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told Congress in 2002 that there are 2 million radioactive sources in the United States and that each year there are on average 300 reports of lost or stolen or abandoned radioactive materials. The NRC also reported at that time that in the past 5 years, there have been 1,495 reports of lost, stolen, or abandoned radioactive materials; 835 these have not been found. According to the NRC, a radioactive source as small as 1Curie, if dispersed by a bomb, ``could spread low-level contamination over an area up to several city blocks, possibly resulting in restriction of the area until the area was surveyed and decontaminated.'' But the Republican energy conferees have exempted transfers of these radioactive materials within the country from the new nuclear security requirements. That makes no sense. I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion today and send a strong message to the House and Senate Republican energy conferees that this body insists on tougher protections against a terrorist attack on our Nation's nuclear facilities; that this body insists on tougher protections against the threat of a radiological dirty bomb; and that this body rejects secret, back-room talks that result in the weakening of critical antiterrorism protections. I heard the majority leader earlier make reference to the fact that a motion to instruct might just reflect what the Members in this body are feeling that day. That is not what the provisions that we are talking about reflect. They reflect what has happened on this House floor several times with the Members voting for it. In fact, taking it out reflects what, in my opinion, a small number of Members and nuclear industry officials might feel on any particular day. But they do not capture what the consensus was that was reached by House Members and the general public about what must be done to enhance nuclear security. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are not going to oppose the Markey motion to instruct conferees. I have listened to his comments closely and would say that they do reflect the changes as outlined. I would point out that while the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is absolutely correct that the House has passed twice the issues that he refers to in his comments in the Senate conference with the House last year, Senate conferees, which at that time were a majority of Democrats, voted to strip all the provisions out that he has just alluded to and that the energy bill that we went to conference with with the Senate this year had none of these provisions in; and the provisions that he alluded to in his motion to instruct, section 14011, 14012(d), and 14013, are in the conference report. They have been changed in the ways that he said. Section 14011 did apply to domestic and international shipments. In the conference report, it does only apply to international; so he is correct on that. 14012(d), the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) amendment that has passed the House did say ``shall'' and the conference report will come back with ``may''; so he is correct on that. And section 14013, the Department of Homeland Security as passed by the House did require a consultation before the grant of a Price-Anderson indemnification agreement. And also before the issuance of a license for a new facility, as it is going to come out of conference, it will apply only to those issuances of a new license. So he is right in his characterization of the changes. So we get down to a situation, is the glass half full or half empty; and since the Senate had none of these provisions last year or this year, as a conferee, I would suggest to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) that the glass is half full as opposed to the glass is half empty. Changes have been made; but we still have the issues in play, not as strong as he would wish them to be, but they are still in the bill, and it will be good public policy to make these changes that he supports. So I would hope that, while we support the motion to instruct conferees, the truth of the matter is that most of the conferring has been done. We expect to have this bill on the floor sometime next week. It is very unlikely we are going to reopen the conference; but certainly if it were to be reopened, we would support the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) motion because since the House has already passed what the motion is instructing us to support, we have every reason to continue to support it knowing that it is a bicameral body and that the House does not always get everything it wants when we are negotiating with the Senate. So I support the motion to instruct and commend my friend for all his good work in this area over many years and pledge that we will continue to work together not just on this conference report but on future bills to make our nuclear facilities the best and the safest in the world. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush). (Mr. RUSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, as a conferee to the energy bill, I rise in strong support of the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) motion to instruct conferees, and I want to commend him for his long history of leadership on the issue of nuclear security, which is the subject of this motion. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to hear the chairman of the subcommittee accept the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) motion, but I do want to make two points: point one, that this motion should be accepted because of the substance of the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) amendment; and, two, because of the process. Madam Speaker, on substance, the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) motion is right on the money. The House-passed version of the energy bill contained important language pertaining to nuclear security. This language in H.R. 6 addresses a chronic failure on the part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to tighten up security at our nuclear power plants around the country. This language passed the House and was marked up in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It is important that this language remains in the bill as a critical national security plank to protect our citizens from a terrorist attack. The fact that the latest draft of the conference report significantly weakens these security requirements is very disturbing and very perplexing. I know that the ranking member of the committee indicated that there was an acceptance on the part of the Republican conferees to accept this language. However, Madam Speaker, I just want to emphasize the fact that this was not done in a way that we can be proud of here in the House in regards to how this event came about. Madam Speaker, I just want to say that the second reason to vote for the motion is the lousy process that has infected this entire conference committee. The Republican conferees altered these important nuclear security provisions behind closed doors and without any input from Democratic conferees who sit on the committee of jurisdiction. And it is inexcusable that [Page: H9780] the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), myself, and other Democratic members, especially from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, had no opportunity to discuss this important matter with our Republican counterparts.
[Time: 14:45] For this reason alone, and in the name of a rational and deliberative process, I urge the Members of the House to accept this motion to instruct. Let us send a message that this bill is far too important to be discussed behind closed doors, without any input from the minority members of the conference committee. Madam Speaker, I add that it is really shameful and harmful to the democratic process for the Democratic conferees to not be included in the full deliberations of the conference committee. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, just to reiterate that we do not oppose the motion to instruct, and we support the gist of the gentleman's motion to instruct in terms of the policy. The House has already supported it twice, and the committee supported it twice. We just have to get the other body to support it, which, unfortunately, they have been unwilling to do in its totality. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Members will refrain from characterizing action or inaction of the other body, including urging the Senate to take a specific action. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I said ``the other body.'' What did I say wrong? The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will refrain from characterizing the other body. Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in order to conclude this debate. Madam Speaker, without question, back in 1787 when a deal was being cut on the construction of the Union and the small States demanded that, rather than equal representation for all States, that another body be created in order to represent them, that other body that was created at the time has developed peculiar characteristics that, unfortunately, are manifesting themselves here on the House floor today. There are many who look back with regret that that deal was ever cut, the grand compromise in the Constitution, allowing for that disproportionate influence, and I see nodding bipartisan agreement on the Republican side on this subject. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I think that agreement that the gentleman alluded to in the Constitution was one of the biggest mistakes in the Constitution. Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much. I regret that Texas was not part of the Union at the time. Perhaps they could have exercised some influence in that final decision making. But the other body, as it likes to be called, and I understand why in many instances, this is a good example of where anonymity is something to be much desired and sought, that the other body here, according to the majority, is calling all the shots in terms of nuclear security, which is a premise which I doubt is actually accurate. I do believe that it was a bicameral Republican decision to take out the nuclear security issues, since we know that the Democrats in the Senate, like the Democrats in the House, are searching the corridors of this building trying to find where the meetings are taking place. We have no idea. We do know this though, that reports are rampant that the bill, when it comes out on the House floor, is going to be loaded with billions of dollars of subsidies for the nuclear industry. I understand it is that time of the year where the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries just really think that they deserve billions of dollars in subsidies for each one of their industries from the taxpaying public, even though they are the wealthiest industries in the United States. But, it seems to me, the least that the nuclear industry should be willing to accept are antiterrorism provisions that are attached to the nuclear gifts which it appears the Republican House and Senate and White House is willing to, and I am sorry I said ``Senate,'' I meant the other body, that they appear willing to confer upon them. They should accept those additional safety measures, because the public, without question, gave an additional measure of wholehearted support to the President in his campaign to eradicate the threat of Saddam Hussein to the world because of his nuclear mujahideen, because of the contention he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. Here, domestically, we know that nuclear power plants are similarly at the top of the terrorist target list for al Qaeda, and it seems to me the nuclear industry is acting in an irresponsible fashion in not accepting reasonable measures being adopted which guarantee that terrorists cannot be successful in using domestic nuclear materials to terrorize our country. So I regret that that language has been removed, and at this point I urge an ``aye'' vote on this motion to instruct. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that it is not in order to characterize the actions or inactions of the Senate. The Chair would clarify for all Members that referring to the Senate as ``the other body'' does not cure such an infraction in debate. Without objection, the previous question is ordered. There was no objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it. Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
1C) Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 6 – Extension of Remarks SPEECH OF HON. NITA M. LOWEY OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2003
1D) Foreign Ops, Export Financing and Related Appropriations SA 1965. Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2800, making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes; as follows: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, namely: ******************** ASSISTANCE FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND THE BALTIC STATES (a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, $445,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005, which shall be available, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for assistance and for related programs for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this heading that are made available for assistance for Bulgaria, $3,000,000 should be made available to enhance safety at nuclear power plants: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, up to $1,000,000 should be made available for a program to promote greater understanding and interaction among youth in Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro and Macedonia: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, and under the headings ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' and ``Economic Support Fund'', not less than $50,000,000 shall be made available for programs for the prevention, treatment, and control of, and research on, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. (b) Funds appropriated under this heading or in prior appropriations Acts that are or have been made available for an Enterprise Fund may be deposited by such Fund in interest-bearing accounts prior to the Fund's disbursement of such funds for program purposes. The Fund may retain for such program purposes any interest earned on such deposits without returning such interest to the Treasury of the United States and without further appropriation by the Congress. Funds made available for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects and activities. (c) Funds appropriated under this heading shall be considered to be economic assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for purposes of making available the administrative authorities contained in that Act for the use of economic assistance. (d) With regard to funds appropriated under this heading for the economic revitalization program in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and local currencies generated by such funds (including the conversion of funds appropriated under this heading into currency used by Bosnia and Herzegovina as local currency and local currency returned or repaid under such program) the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development shall provide written approval for grants and loans prior to the obligation and expenditure of funds for such purposes, and prior to the use of funds that have been returned or repaid to any lending facility or grantee. (e) The provisions of section 629 of this Act shall apply to funds made available under subsection (d) and to funds appropriated under this heading: Provided, That notwithstanding any provision of this or any other Act, including provisions in this subsection regarding the application of section 629 of this Act, local currencies generated by, or [Page: S13214] converted from, funds appropriated by this Act and by previous appropriations Acts and made available for the economic revitalization program in Bosnia may be used in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States to carry out the provisions of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Support for East European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989. (f) The President is authorized to withhold funds appropriated under this heading made available for economic revitalization programs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, if he determines and certifies to the Committees on Appropriations that the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina has not complied with article III of annex 1-A of the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina concerning the withdrawal of foreign forces, and that intelligence cooperation on training, investigations, and related activities between state sponsors of terrorism and terrorist organizations and Bosnian officials has not been terminated. ******************** ASSISTANCE FOR THE INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION (a) For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of chapters 11 and 12 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the FREEDOM Support Act, for assistance for the Independent States of the former Soviet Union and for related programs, $596,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That the provisions of such chapters shall apply to funds appropriated by this paragraph: Provided further, That of the funds made available for the Southern Caucasus region, notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds may be used for confidence-building measures and other activities in furtherance of the peaceful resolution of the regional conflicts, especially those in the vicinity of Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabagh: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, $20,000,000 shall be made available solely for assistance for the Russian Far East: Provided further, That not less than $3,000,000 shall be made available for programs and activities authorized under section 307 of the FREEDOM Support Act (Public Law 102-511): Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds appropriated under this heading in this Act or prior Acts making appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and related programs, that are made available pursuant to the provisions of section 807 of Public Law 102-511 shall be subject to a 6 percent ceiling on administrative expenses. (b) Of the funds appropriated under this heading that are made available for assistance for Ukraine, not less than $20,000,000 shall be made available for nuclear reactor safety initiatives, of which $14,000,000 should be for simulator-related projects; and not less than $2,000,000 shall be made available for coal mine safety programs. (c) Of the funds appropriated under this heading, $75,000,000 should be made available for assistance for Georgia. (d) Of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than $75,000,000 shall be made available for assistance for Armenia. (e)(1) Of the funds appropriated under this heading that are allocated for assistance for the Government of the Russian Federation, 60 percent shall be withheld from obligation until the President determines and certifies in writing to the Committees on Appropriations that the Government of the Russian Federation: (A) has terminated implementation of arrangements to provide Iran with technical expertise, training, technology, or equipment necessary to develop a nuclear reactor, related nuclear research facilities or programs, or ballistic missile capability; and (B) is providing full access to international non-government organizations providing humanitarian relief to refugees and internally displaced persons in Chechnya. (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to-- (A) assistance to combat infectious diseases, child survival activities, or assistance for victims of trafficking in persons; and (B) activities authorized under title V (Nonproliferation and Disarmament Programs and Activities) of the FREEDOM Support Act. (f) Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act shall not apply to-- (1) activities to support democracy or assistance under title V of the FREEDOM Support Act and section 1424 of Public Law 104-201 or non-proliferation assistance; (2) any assistance provided by the Trade and Development Agency under section 661 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2421); (3) any activity carried out by a member of the United States and Foreign Commercial Service while acting within his or her official capacity; (4) any insurance, reinsurance, guarantee or other assistance provided by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation under title IV of chapter 2 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2191 et seq.); (5) any financing provided under the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945; or (6) humanitarian assistance. ******************** NONPROLIFERATION, ANTI-TERRORISM, DEMINING AND RELATED PROGRAMS For necessary expenses for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs and activities, $385,200,000, to carry out the provisions of chapter 8 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for anti-terrorism assistance, chapter 9 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, section 504 of the FREEDOM Support Act, section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act or the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for demining activities, the clearance of unexploded ordnance, the destruction of small arms, and related activities, notwithstanding any other provision of law, including activities implemented through nongovernmental and international organizations, and section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for a voluntary contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and for a United States contribution to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Preparatory Commission: Provided, That of this amount not to exceed $35,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be made available for the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to promote bilateral and multilateral activities relating to nonproliferation and disarmament: Provided further, That such funds may also be used for such countries other than the Independent States of the former Soviet Union and international organizations when it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading may be made available for the International Atomic Energy Agency only if the Secretary of State determines (and so reports to the Congress) that Israel is not being denied its right to participate in the activities of that Agency: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, $19,300,000 shall be made available for a United States contribution to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Preparatory Commission: Provided further, That notwithstanding the previous proviso, funds earmarked in the previous proviso that are not made available during fiscal year 2004 for a contribution to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Preparatory Commission shall be made available for a voluntary contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency and shall remain available until September 30, 2005: Provided further, That of the funds made available for demining and related activities, not to exceed $690,000, in addition to funds otherwise available for such purposes, may be used for administrative expenses related to the operation and management of the demining program: Provided further, That the Secretary of State is authorized to provide not to exceed $250,000 for public-private partnerships for mine action by grant, cooperative agreement, or contract. ******************** FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS) For expenses necessary for grants to enable the President to carry out the provisions of section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act, $4,384,000,000: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than $2,160,000,000 shall be available for grants only for Israel, and not less than $1,300,000,000 shall be made available for grants only for Egypt: Provided further, That the funds appropriated by this paragraph for Israel shall be disbursed within 30 days of the enactment of this Act: Provided further, That to the extent that the Government of Israel requests that funds be used for such purposes, grants made available for Israel by this paragraph shall, as agreed by Israel and the United States, be available for advanced weapons systems, of which not less than $568,000,000 shall be available for the procurement in Israel of defense articles and defense services, including research and development: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated by this paragraph, $206,000,000 shall be made available for assistance for Jordan: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated by this paragraph, $2,500,000 shall be made available for assistance for Armenia: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated by this paragraph, $15,000,000 shall be transferred to and merged with funds appropriated under the heading ``Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs'', and made available, in addition to amounts otherwise available for such purposes, as follows: $10,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be made available to carry out the provisions of section 504 of the FREEDOM Support Act for the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to promote bilateral and multilateral activities relating to nonproliferation and disarmament; $2,000,000 shall be made available to carry out the provisions of chapter 8 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for the Small Arms/Light Weapons Destruction program; and $3,000,000 shall be made available as an additional contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated by this paragraph, not less than $17,000,000 shall be transferred to and merged with funds appropriated under the heading ``Andean Counterdrug Initiative'' and made available for aircraft and related assistance for the Colombian National Police: Provided further, That funds appropriated by this paragraph shall be nonrepayable notwithstanding any requirement in section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further, That funds made available under this paragraph shall be obligated upon apportionment in accordance with paragraph (5)(C) of title 31, United States Code, section 1501(a). None of the funds made available under this heading shall be available to finance the procurement of defense articles, defense services, or design and construction services that are not sold by the United States Government under the Arms Export Control Act unless the foreign country proposing to make such procurements has first signed an agreement with the United States Government specifying the conditions under which [Page: S13217] such procurements may be financed with such funds: Provided, That all country and funding level increases in allocations shall be submitted through the regular notification procedures of section 615 of this Act: Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under this heading shall be available for assistance for Sudan, Guatemala and Liberia: Provided further, That funds made available under this heading may be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, for demining, the clearance of unexploded ordnance, and related activities, and may include activities implemented through nongovernmental and international organizations: Provided further, That the authority contained in the previous proviso or any other provision of law relating to the use of funds for programs under this heading, including provisions contained in previously enacted appropriations Acts, shall not apply to activities relating to the clearance of unexploded ordnance resulting from United States Armed Forces testing or training exercises: Provided further, That the previous proviso shall not apply to San Jose Island, Republic of Panama: Provided further, That only those countries for which assistance was justified for the ``Foreign Military Sales Financing Program'' in the fiscal year 1989 congressional presentation for security assistance programs may utilize funds made available under this heading for procurement of defense articles, defense services or design and construction services that are not sold by the United States Government under the Arms Export Control Act: Provided further, That funds appropriated under this heading shall be expended at the minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for defense articles and services: Provided further, That not more than $40,500,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading may be obligated for necessary expenses, including the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for replacement only for use outside of the United States, for the general costs of administering military assistance and sales: Provided further, That not more than $361,000,000 of funds realized pursuant to section 21(e)(1)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act may be obligated for expenses incurred by the Department of Defense during fiscal year 2004 pursuant to section 43(b) of the Arms Export Control Act, except that this limitation may be exceeded only through the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That foreign military financing program funds estimated to be outlayed for Egypt during fiscal year 2004 shall be transferred to an interest bearing account for Egypt in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York within 30 days of enactment of this Act. ******************** LIMITATION ON CALLABLE CAPITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS The United States Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development may subscribe without fiscal year limitation to the callable capital portion of the United States share of such capital stock in an amount not to exceed $122,085,000. contribution to the international fund for agricultural development For the United States contribution by the Secretary of the Treasury to increase the resources of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, $15,004,000, to remain available until expended. international organizations and programs For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of section 301 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and of section 2 of the United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973, $314,550,000: Provided, That of the funds appropriated under this heading, $120,000,000 shall be made available for a contribution to the United Nations Children's Fund, $11,428,500 shall be made available for a contribution to the United Nations Environment Program, $5,465,875 shall be made available for the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, $3,621,250 shall be made available for the Organization of American States Fund for Strengthening Democracy, $1,937,975 shall be made available for International Contributions for Scientific, Educational and Cultural Activities, $1,000,000 shall be made available for the United Nations Center for Human Settlements, $1,500,000 shall be made available for the United Nations Fund for Human Rights, $6,732,750 shall be made available for International Conservation Programs, and $5,600,000 shall be made available for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated under this heading may be made available to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). ******************** PROHIBITION ON FINANCING NUCLEAR GOODS SEC. 606. None of the funds appropriated or made available (other than funds for ``Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs'') pursuant to this Act, for carrying out the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, may be used, except for purposes of nuclear safety, to finance the export of nuclear equipment, fuel, or technology. ******************** PROHIBITION AGAINST DIRECT FUNDING FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES SEC. 607. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, or Syria: Provided, That, for the purposes of section 501 of Public Law 106-570, the terms ``areas outside of control of the Government of Sudan'' and ``area in Sudan outside of control of the Government of Sudan'' shall, upon conclusion of a peace agreement between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement, have the same meaning and application as was the case immediately prior to the conclusion of such agreement: Provided further, That for purposes of this section, the prohibition on obligations or expenditures shall include direct loans, credits, insurance and guarantees of the Export-Import Bank or its agents. ******************** INDEPENDENT STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION SEC. 617. (a) None of the funds appropriated under the heading ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' shall be made available for assistance for a government of an Independent State of the former Soviet Union-- (1) unless that government is making progress in implementing comprehensive economic reforms based on market principles, private ownership, respect for commercial contracts, and equitable treatment of foreign private investment; and (2) if that government applies or transfers United States assistance to any entity for the purpose of expropriating or seizing ownership or control of assets, investments, or ventures. Assistance may be furnished without regard to this subsection if the President determines that to do so is in the national interest. (b) None of the funds appropriated under the heading ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' shall be made available for assistance for a government of an Independent State of the former Soviet Union if that government directs any action in violation of the territorial integrity or national sovereignty of any other Independent State of the former Soviet Union, such as those violations included in the Helsinki Final Act: Provided, That such funds may be made available without regard to the restriction in this subsection if the President determines that to do so is in the national security interest of the United States. (c) None of the funds appropriated under the heading ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' shall be made available for any state to enhance its military capability: Provided, That this restriction does not apply to demilitarization, demining or nonproliferation programs. (d) Funds appropriated under the heading ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' for the Russian Federation, Armenia, Georgia, and Ukraine shall be subject to the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations. (e) Funds made available in this Act for assistance for the Independent States of the former Soviet Union shall be subject to the provisions of section 117 (relating to environment and natural resources) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. (f) Funds appropriated in this or prior appropriations Acts that are or have been made available for an Enterprise Fund in the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union may be deposited by such Fund in interest-bearing accounts prior to the disbursement of such funds by the Fund for program purposes. The Fund may retain for such program purposes any interest earned on such deposits without returning such interest to the Treasury of the United States and without further appropriation by the Congress. Funds made available for Enterprise Funds shall be expended at the minimum rate necessary to make timely payment for projects and activities. (g) In issuing new task orders, entering into contracts, or making grants, with funds appropriated in this Act or prior appropriations Acts under the heading ``Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union'' and under comparable headings in prior appropriations Acts, for projects or activities that have as one of their primary purposes the fostering of private sector development, the Coordinator for United States Assistance to the New Independent States and the implementing agency shall encourage the participation of and give significant weight to contractors and grantees who propose investing a significant amount of their own resources (including volunteer services and in-kind contributions) in such projects and activities. ******************** PROHIBITION ON BILATERAL ASSISTANCE TO TERRORIST COUNTRIES SEC. 627. (a) Funds appropriated for bilateral assistance under any heading of this Act and funds appropriated under any such heading in a provision of law enacted prior to the enactment of this Act, shall not be made available to any country which the President determines-- (1) grants sanctuary from prosecution to any individual or group which has committed an act of international terrorism; or (2) otherwise supports international terrorism. (b) The President may waive the application of subsection (a) to a country if the President determines that national security or humanitarian reasons justify such waiver. The President shall publish each waiver in the Federal Register and, at least 15 days before the waiver takes effect, shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of the waiver (including the justification for the waiver) in accordance with the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations. ******************** PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS THAT EXPORT LETHAL MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO COUNTRIES SUPPORTING INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM SEC. 643. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be available to any foreign government which provides lethal military equipment to a country the government of which the Secretary of State has determined is a terrorist government for purposes of section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act. The prohibition under this section with respect to a foreign government shall terminate 12 months after that government ceases to provide such military equipment. This section applies with respect to lethal military equipment provided under a contract entered into after October 1, 1997. (b) Assistance restricted by subsection (a) or any other similar provision of law, may be furnished if the President determines that furnishing such assistance is important to the national interests of the United States. (c) Whenever the waiver authority of subsection (b) is exercised, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report with respect to the furnishing of such assistance. Any such report shall include a detailed explanation of the assistance to be provided, including the estimated dollar amount of such assistance, and [Page: S13223] an explanation of how the assistance furthers United States national interests.
IRAQ/IRAN/LIBYA/SYRIA AND WMD *********************************** 4A) Inaccurate Statements in the Record Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise to a question of privileges of the House, offer a resolution, and ask for its immediate consideration. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: RESOLUTION Correcting the Record of Tuesday, January, 28, 2003.
Resolved, That an asterisk be placed in the permanent Record of Tuesday, January 28, 2003, noting that the following statements contained in the State of the Union Address by the President of the United States are inaccurate: (1) ``The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'' (2) ``Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.'' (3) ``From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspections sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves.'' (4) ``Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will hear argument on the question of whether the resolution constitutes a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized. Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, October 16, I gave notice of my intention to raise a question of privileges of the House. Mr. Speaker, the first definition of rule IX(1) is ``affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.'' Rule IX is designed to give Members of the House the means to protect the dignity and integrity of this body, and that is what my resolution seeks to do. I believe that our rights, our dignity, and our integrity are affected and are harmed when inaccurate statements are made in our Chamber and recorded in our official proceedings without note being taken that they are inaccurate. I believe that the integrity of the Congressional Record is harmed and the dignity of the body issuing the RECORD is harmed. I am aware that it is conceivable that Members of this body may, at least in theory, at times make statements on the floor that might be shown to be inaccurate. When this occurs, however, other Members have the opportunity and the responsibility to engage in debate to identify the offending statements. Readers of the Congressional Record, citizens, future historians, have the opportunity to learn from our debate what is and is not accurate. When the four statements I have identified were made in this Chamber on January 28, there was no such opportunity to engage the person making these statements in debate in order to identify the statements as inaccurate as there is normally in the House. Unless we act today, when future historians go back to examine our proceedings, they will find these four statements presented in the RECORD unchallenged. Normally, dubious statements in the RECORD are not unchallenged. Normally, we collectively take responsibility for the accuracy of the statements made in the RECORD through our debate and discussion. The statements of January 28 were made outside the normal process Congress uses to identify inaccurate statements. Therefore, the only opportunity Congress has to protect the integrity of its proceedings is to identify in the RECORD the statements that are inaccurate. I believe that the integrity of our proceedings, as protected under rule IX, requires the House to consider my resolution. To fail to consider this resolution would leave the implication that these statements were of no consequence, or that this body did not care to identify them as inaccurate. I do not think we can afford to leave that impression in a journal that will be examined in the future as a basis for writing the history of our entrance into the war. Mr. Speaker, for that reason, I ask that we consider this resolution at this time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule. The resolution alleges certain inaccuracies in the address of the President of the United States before a joint session of the two Houses earlier in this Congress and resolves that those precise statements be footnoted by asterisks in the permanent Congressional Record. The Chair has examined precedents permitting questions of the privileges of the House to address the accuracy and propriety of the Congressional Record. In each of these occasions where questions of privilege have been permitted, it was alleged that a Member had been proceeding out of order, that remarks were improperly transcribed, or that unauthorized matter was inserted in the RECORD. On several occasions, the Chair ruled that where remarks that were made in order were printed in the RECORD, collateral challenges under the guise of questions of privilege were not in order. (See Hinds V, 6974; Cannon's [Page: H9705] GPO's PDF VIII, 3469, 3498). While the Chair is not aware of any precedent with regard to the accuracy of an address by the President of the United States in a joint session, the Chair rules that allegations of factual inaccuracy in the contents of a speech, as opposed to the fidelity of its transcription, whether by the President or by a Member, are matters for subsequent proper debate and do not give rise to a question of the privileges of the House. To rule otherwise would be to permit collateral challenges under the guise of a question of privilege to the factual correctness of every word uttered, whether or not alleging the unauthorized inclusion of those remarks on the RECORD. The Chair, therefore, rules that the resolution does not constitute a question of the privileges of the House under rule IX. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry. Mr. McDERMOTT. Is the effect of your ruling that whatever the President says must be considered correct since we have no chance to debate him, we have no chance to question him? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has ruled that debate over the next weeks or months in the House can go to the question of the factual accuracy of the previous statements of the President; but it would not be proper to do so in this type of resolution or in this form. Mr. McDERMOTT. So the body does not have a way to deal with the statements made in the State of the Union message? We must accept it, and there it is? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House has the right and the responsibility to
respond to the President's address during subsequent debate.
|