On the recordOctober 21, 2003
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.
Source
govinfo.gov




