Email correspondence from Bob Loux to Mark Guiton, September 6, 2002, regarding appropriations drafts (1 page)

FW: Appropriations Drafts Page 1 o f 2 Guiton, Mark From: Bob Loux [bloux@nuc.state.nv.us] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 8:02 To: Guiton, Mark Cc: Joe Strolin; Bob Halstead Subject: RE: Appropriations Drafts Mark, these look good, obviously we like the home run best, but I think they do the job. I'm going to forward this to Bob Halstead and Joe Strolin in my office to see if they have any other thoughts, and ask them to contact you directly, as I'm going to be out of the office Monday and Tuesday. Bo Original Message From: Guiton, Mark [mailto:Mark.Guiton@mail.house.gov] Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 2:51 PM To: Bob Loux Cc: Morana, Joseph Subject: FW: Appropriations Drafts Bob, i have a few more options for you to look at. what i am doing is trying to provide the congresswoman with a menu of options for her to use in negotiations with the subcommittee, tell me what you think, on berkle_006, i used the figure $8 million because it represents the smallest amount of money that i thought would be both acceptable to the appropriators and still symbolically valuable - it costs $8 million for the comprehensive regulatory testing of a truck cask, thanks, mark Original Message From: Forstater, Ira Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:50 PM To: Guiton, Mark Subject: Appropriations Drafts Mark: Your additional appropriation drafts are attached. ?BERKLE_002.PDF? ?BERKLE_003.PDF? ?BERKLE_004.PDF? ?BERKLE_005.PDF? ?BERKLE_006.PDF? As we discussed, each of the amendments 002-005 would be subject to a point of order under House Rule XXI, cl. 2(c) that it is legislation in an appropriations amendment. In 002 and 003, the word "hereafter" at the beginning is required to indicate that the provision would continue to apply even after the end of fiscal year 2003; it can be deleted if that is not your intent. The reference to section 180 of the NWPA in these 4 amendments is the provision that I mentioned that relates to cask design certification. Amendment 006 is drafted as an offsetting en bloc amendment under House Rule XXI, cl. 2(f). Because the amendment needs to revise more than just the aggregate dollar amount under the NRC account (since the NRC funds in the bill come from 3 different sources), you should also check with the Parliamentarians on whether this is allowed under clause 2(f). In addition, you will need to Jiave CBO prepare an analysis for the amendment to verify that it does not result in an increase in (' v outlays due to different^peridout'rates of the accounts involved. If there is a problem with the Amendment, CBO will be^bfe-totetFyou the amount by which you'll need to adjust the budget authority increase made. Let me know if you have questions about the drafts or need further revisions. 09/09/2002 FW: Appropriations Drafts Page 2 o f 2 Ira Ira B. Forstater Office of the Legislative Counsel U.S. House of Representatives 136 Cannon HOB Phone: 56060 Fax: 53437 Mailto:lra.Forstater@mail.house.gov 09/09/2002