[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 70 (Tuesday, May 24, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H3780-H3795]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 291 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2419.
{time} 1120
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water development for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Goodlatte in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (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 its
consideration H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2006.
The Committee on Appropriations approved this bill unanimously on May
18, and I believe it is a good bill that merits the support of the
entire House.
Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide range of
Federal programs including such diverse matters as flood control,
navigation improvements, environmental restoration, nuclear waste
disposal, advanced scientific research, applied energy research,
maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear non-proliferation.
Total funding for energy and water development in fiscal year 2006 is
$29,746,000,000. This funding amount represent a decrease of $728,000
below the budget request and $86.3 million below the current fiscal
year. This bill is right at our subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and
provides adequate funds to meet the priority needs of the House.
Title I of the bill provides for the Civil Works Program of the Army
Corps of Engineers; the Formally Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program, which is executed by the corps; and the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The Committee
recommends a total of $4.746 billion for title I activities, $294
million below the current year and $414 million above the current
budget request.
I want to explain a couple of things about the corps as we go through
this and take a little time on this because some of this is a change.
For a number of years, the corps Civil Works Program has been
oversubscribed where Congress kept giving the corps more and more
projects to do but not enough money to do them. We took steps last year
to put the corps on the road to fiscal recovery by eliminating the
number of new starts and concentrating resources on the completion of
ongoing construction projects. We also asked OMB to adopt a new
approach to future corps budget requests so that we can use our limited
resources to complete the most valuable projects efficiently, instead
of spreading those resources very widely to make incremental progress
across a large number of projects.
The fiscal year 2006 budget request adopts such a performance-based
approach for the corps budget. Proposing to use the ratio of remaining
costs to remaining benefits is the primary determinant of which
construction projects should receive priority consideration for
funding. While this ratio may not be a perfect measure of merit of all
the projects, the budget request represents good faith from the OMB to
concentrate the corps' limited resources on finishing the most
worthwhile projects that are already under construction.
Until we begin to clear out the enormous backlog of ongoing work, we
are reluctant to start new projects; therefore, we did not include any
new starts again this year in this bill.
One consequence of adopting this new performance-based approach to
the corps is that the funds available for member adds for corps
projects are very limited this year. In part, this is because for the
first time in years we received a budget request in which many
congressional priorities are already at the funded level. I think this
is an improvement. However, even with that request as a good starting
point, the total amount that we can provide for the corps is less than
what the House passed in fiscal year 2005.
With a healthy base request and a lean 302(b) allocation, we did not
add as much for Member projects as we have in previous years. We were
harsh, but fair, in how we dealt with these Member projects.
Our fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water bill makes major strides to
improving the corps' project execution reprogrammings and continuing
contracts. For a workload of approximately 2,000 projects, the Chief of
Engineers recently told me that the corps had 2,000 projects, but they
had 20,000 reprogrammings. We think this is not good management, and we
have done a lot in our bill to try to focus the corps on these
continuing contracts.
The problem is that the corps has done a lot of reprogrammings. They
have moved funds around. We believe this is a case management problem.
We have taken extensive efforts to try to reform this program because
we think that they may not have the money to restore what they should,
and if there is a big plume in all of this, that they cannot really
tell us what it is all about.
Another area that we have a problem with is in the continuing-
contract area. Some people would like to get rid of continuing
contracts. I do not happen to believe that. I think it is a tool that
they need, but we need to make sure that they are not using them to
excess and they are not using them to do things that either the
administration did not want to fund, we did not want to fund, or the
Senate did not want to fund; and that this money is not being shifted
around or execution is being done that would inhibit our ability in
future years to fund programs by the original funding by the corps.
The Department of Energy received a total of $24.318 billion in the
Energy and Water bill. That is an increase of $105 million over the
budget request, about $101 million less than the fiscal year 2005
level. As with the corps, we asked the Department of Energy to begin
preparing 5-year budget plans, first for individual programs and then
an integrated plan for the Department. I think this is just good money
management within these Departments. We need 5-year plans. We actually
need longer visions in these programs so that we know what we are going
to end up with in the waterways in the future and we know what the
Department of Energy's plans are in the future.
The committee has several important new initiatives for the
Department of Energy. DOE presently has significant quantities of
weapons-usable special nuclear materials, plutonium and highly enriched
uranium, scattered around its complexes. Unfortunately, even with the
heightened attention to homeland security after the 9/11 attacks, the
Department has done little to consolidate these high-risk materials. We
[[Page H3781]]
have provided additional funds for material consolidation initiative
and direct DOE to take aggressive action to consolidate its weapons-
usable uranium and plutonium into fewer, more secure sites.
We think this is not only a security problem, but it costs us a lot
of money and we think we can do better.
We also propose a spent fuel recycling initiative to stimulate some
fresh thinking on how this country deals with its spent nuclear fuel. I
want to state that I fully support the Yucca Mountain Repository, and
our bill fully funds the request for Yucca Mountain in fiscal year
2006. It is critical that we get Yucca Mountain done and done right and
done soon. However, we continue to be frustrated by the delays in
getting the repository open, and we are concerned about what will
happen after that first repository is built.
The Department of Energy estimates that each year of delay on Yucca
Mountain costs the government an additional billion dollars, half from
the legal liability for DOE's failure to begin accepting commercial
spent fuel beginning in 1988, as required by the law, and the other
half from the costs. In addition, the authorized capacity of Yucca
Mountain will be fully utilized by the year 2010 with no place to
dispose of spent fuel generated after that date.
It is time to rethink our approach on spent fuel. We need to start
moving spent fuel away from reactor sites to one or more centralized,
above-ground interim storage facilities located at DOE sites. If we
want to build a new generation of nuclear power reactors in this
country, we have got to demonstrate to investors and the public that
the Federal Government will live up to its responsibilities under the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act and to take title to commercial spent fuel.
{time} 1130
I would note that we are already storing foreign reactor fuel on DOE
sites. It is time we do the same for our domestic spent fuel. This may
help to limit the billions of dollars of legal liability facing the
Federal Government for its failure to accept commercial spent fuel for
disposal.
It is also time to think about our reluctance to reprocess spent
fuel. The Europeans are doing this very successfully, and there are
some advanced reprocessing technologies in the research and development
phase that promise to reduce or eliminate some of the disadvantages of
the current chemical process.
We add funds to the Nuclear Waste Disposal account and direct the
Secretary to begin accepting commercial spent fuel in fiscal year 2006
for interim storage at one or more DOE sites. We also include
additional funds and direction within the Nuclear Energy account for
the Secretary to select an advanced reprocessing technology in fiscal
year 2007 and to establish a competitive process to select one or more
sites for an advanced fuel recycling facility.
Lastly, the committee recommends a new Sustainable Stockpile
Initiative to ensure the future of our Nation's nuclear deterrent. The
committee provides additional funds for the Reliable Replacement
Warhead that we initiated in last year's conference report. We placed
the Reliable Replacement Warhead in the context of a larger Sustainable
Stockpile Initiative, which we view as a package deal with several key
components.
First, the Reliable Replacement Warhead is a program to reengineer
existing warheads to be safer, more secure, cheaper to maintain, easier
to dismantle and, more importantly, easier to certify without
underground testing.
Secondly, we propose a modest slowdown of Life Extension work on the
old warheads in preparation for a shift to the newer replacement
warheads. This is coupled with a significant increase in dismantlement
rates to bring down the stockpile to match the President's decision
about the size of the stockpile by the year 2012. Frankly, in the long
run, I am hopeful the Secretary's task force on the Nuclear Weapons
Complex will propose some sensible steps to modernize the DOE Weapons
Complex and bring it into line with these coming changes in the size
and composition of the stockpile.
The committee provided for an aggressive nuclear nonproliferation
program within the National Nuclear Security Administration. We
provided an additional $65 million to keep the plutonium producing
reactor shutdown program with the Russians on track to have all three
reactors closed by 2011. The committee also provided $85 million
additional for the Russian material protection program to secure
nuclear materials overseas.
We made a significant reduction to the domestic MOX plant because of
the large unexpended prior-year balances in that project, caused by the
continued liability dispute with the Russians. Given the constrained
budget environment, the committee cannot continue to appropriate
hundreds of millions of dollars for a construction project that has
been delayed for 3 years.
I believe this is a responsible bill that makes sound investment
decisions for the future of our agencies. Members will not receive as
many water and energy projects as they may have liked, but we did take
care of their top priorities. Hopefully, we did that everywhere.
I want to thank all the Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development, and Related Agencies for helping to bring this bill
to the floor today. I especially want to thank my ranking member, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for his extraordinary
cooperation this past year. In my opinion, this is truly a bipartisan
bill that represents a hard-fought but ultimately fair and balanced
compromise. This is the way I believe our constituents expect their
Representatives to work together.
I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the ranking minority
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their support and
for allowing us to move this bill forward in such an expeditious
manner.
Lastly, I want to thank the staff of the committee: Kevin Cook, our
clerk; John Blazey, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowski, and Tracy
LaTurner for their work on this bill. I also want to thank Dixon Butler
of the minority staff and Kenny Kraft, from my office, and Peder
Moorbjerg from the Visclosky office.
I want to especially acknowledge our agency's detailees, Taunja
Berquam and Felicia Kirksey, for their invaluable assistance in putting
this bill and report together.
It is a shared bill. We all work together and talk to each other, and
I want to thank everybody for working together to get this bill this
far.
Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to submit to the House for its
consideration H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2006. The Appropriations Committee
approved this bill unanimously on May 18, and I believe this is a good
bill that merits the support of the entire House.
Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide range of
Federal programs, including such diverse matters as flood control,
navigation improvements, environmental restoration, nuclear waste
disposal, advanced scientific research, applied energy research,
maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear nonproliferation.
Total funding for energy and water development in fiscal year 2006 is
$29.746 billion. This funding amount represents a decrease of $728,000
below the budget request and $86.3 million below the current fiscal
year. This bill is right at our subcommittee's 302(b) allocation, and
provides adequate funds to meet the priority needs of the House.
Title I of the bill provides funding for the Civil Works program of
the Army Corps of Engineers, the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial
Action Program, which is executed by the Corps, and the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The committee
recommends a total of $4.746 billion for title I activities, $294
million below the current year and $414 million above the budget
request.
For a number of years, the Corps Civil Works program has been
oversubscribed, where Congress kept giving the Corps more and more
projects to do, but not enough money to do them all. We took steps last
year to put the Corps on the road to fiscal recovery, by limiting the
number of new starts and concentrating resources on the completion of
ongoing construction projects. We also asked the Office of Management
and Budget to adopt a new approach to future Corps budget requests, so
that we can use our limited resources to complete the most valuable
projects efficiently, instead of spreading those resources very widely
to make incremental progress across a large number of projects.
[[Page H3782]]
The fiscal year 2006 budget request adopts such a performance-based
approach for the Corps budget, proposing to use the ratio of remaining
costs-to-remaining benefits as the primary determinant of which
construction projects should receive priority consideration for
funding. While this ratio may not be the perfect measure of merit for
all projects, the budget request represents a good-faith effort from
the Office of Management and Budget to concentrate the Corps' limited
resources on finishing the most worthwhile projects that are already
under construction. Until we begin to clear out the enormous backlog of
ongoing work, we are very reluctant to add new projects to the
pipeline. Therefore, we did not include any new starts or new project
authorizations for the Corps in this House bill.
One consequence of adopting this new performance-based approach to
the Corps budget is that the funds available for Member adds for Corps
projects are very limited. In part, this is because, for the first time
in years, we received a budget request in which many congressional
priorities are already funded at a reasonable level. However, even with
that request as a good starting point, the total amount that we can
provide for the Corps is less than what the House passed in fiscal year
2005. With a healthy base request and a lean 302(b) allocation, we did
not add as much for Member projects as we have in previous years. We
were harsh but fair in how we dealt with these Member requests.
Our fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water bill makes major strides toward
improving the Corps' project execution, reprogrammings, and continuing
contracts. Let me talk for a moment about these interrelated issues.
For a workload of approximately 2,000 projects, the Chief of Engineers
recently told me that the Corps does about 20,000 reprogrammings each
year. We have GAO reviewing the Corps reprogrammings, and they tell us
that the Corps has reprogrammed funds for amounts as small as 6 cents.
This is not sound financial management, and suggests that the Corps is
more focused on moving money around frequently to meet the Corps'
determination of project needs, irrespective of the allocations
provided in annual appropriations. Instead, the Corps should be
managing its workload within the project allocations provided by
Congress. Much of this problem is driven by the Corps' misplaced
emphasis on expending 99 percent of their funding every year, and they
move money around freely between projects to meet that goal. We take
steps to tighten up the reprogramming guidelines and to limit the
Corps' ability to make such frequent funding shifts. We expect the
Corps to execute the program that Congress gives them, not simply take
the funds that Congress appropriates and then shuffle the money around
to the Corps' own priorities.
Continuing contracts are a related problem. Under this mechanism, the
Corps can obligate the Federal Government for funding future fiscal
years. In some cases, the Corps is awarding continuing contracts for
projects that received no appropriation in fiscal year 2005, or have
not been included at all in the budget request for fiscal year 2006.
Also, the Corps uses accelerated earnings on continuing contracts to
pay its contractors more than is appropriated for a project in the
current fiscal year. In part, these accelerated earnings on continuing
contracts are one of the drivers for the Corps extensive
reprogrammings, and also one of the mechanisms the Corps uses in its
pursuit of the 99 percent expenditure goal. This practice has to stop,
and we include language limiting the Corps' ability to obligate the
government in excess of appropriations.
The Department of Energy receives a total of $24.318 billion in the
Energy and Water Development bill, an increase of $105 million over the
budget request but $101 million less than the fiscal year 2005 level.
As with the Corps, we task the Department of Energy to begin preparing
5-year budget plans, first for individual programs and then an
integrated plan for the entire Department. This plan must include
business plans for each of the DOE laboratories, so we understand the
mission and resource needs of each laboratory.
The committee includes several important new initiatives for the
Department of Energy. DOE presently has significant quantities of
weapons-usable special nuclear materials, plutonium and highly enriched
uranium, scattered around the complex. Unfortunately, even with the
heightened attention to homeland security after the 9-11 attacks, the
Department has done little to consolidate these high-risk materials. We
provide additional funds for a Material Consolidation Initiative and
direct DOE to take aggressive action to consolidate its weapons-usable
uranium and plutonium into fewer, more secure sites.
We also propose a Spent Fuel Recycling Initiative to stimulate some
fresh thinking on how this country deals with its spent nuclear fuel. I
continue to support the Yucca Mountain repository, and our bill fully
funds the request for Yucca Mountain in fiscal year 2006. It is
critical that we get Yucca done right, and done soon. However, we
continue to be frustrated by the delays in getting that repository
open, and we are concerned about what happens after that first
repository is built. The Department of Energy estimates that each year
of delay on Yucca Mountain costs the government an additional $1
billion, half from the legal liability for DOE's failure to begin
accepting commercial spent fuel beginning in 1998, as is required by
law, and the other half from the costs. In addition, the authorized
capacity of Yucca Mountain will be fully utilized by the year 2010,
with no place to dispose of spent fuel generated after that date. It is
time to rethink our approach to dealing with spent fuel. We need to
start moving spent fuel away from reactor sites to one or more
centralized, above-ground interim storage facilities located at DOE
sites. If we want to build a new generation of nuclear reactors in this
country, we need to demonstrate to investors and the public that the
Federal Government will live up to its responsibilities under the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act to take title to commercial spent nuclear
fuel. I would note that we are already storing foreign reactor fuel on
DOE sites--it is time we do the same for our domestic spent fuel. This
may help to limit the billions of dollars of legal liability facing the
Federal Government for its failure to accept commercial spent fuel for
disposal.
It is also time that we think again about our reluctance to reprocess
spent fuel. The Europeans are doing this successfully, and there are
some advanced reprocessing technologies in the research and development
phase that promise to reduce or eliminate some of the disadvantages of
the current chemical processes. We add funds to the Nuclear Waste
Disposal account and direct the Secretary to begin accepting commercial
spent fuel in fiscal year 2006 for interim storage at one or more DOE
sites. We also include additional funds and direction within the
Nuclear Energy account for the Secretary to select an advanced
reprocessing technology in fiscal year 2007 and to establish a
competitive process to select one or more sites for an advanced fuel
recycling facility.
Lastly, the committee recommends a new Sustainable Stockpile
Initiative to ensure the future of our Nation's nuclear deterrent. The
committee provides additional funds for the Reliable Replacement
Warhead, which we initiated in last year's conference report. We place
the Reliable Replacement Warhead in the context of the larger
Sustainable Stockpile Initiative, which we view as a package deal with
several key elements. First, the Reliable Replacement Warhead is a
program to re-engineer existing warheads to be safer, more secure,
cheaper to maintain, easier to dismantle, and most importantly, easier
to certify without underground nuclear testing. Second, we propose a
modest slow-down of Life Extension work on the old warheads in
preparation for a shift to the newer Replacement Warheads. This is
coupled with a significant increase in dismantlement rates to bring
down the stockpile to match the President's decision about the size of
the stockpile by the year 2012. In the long run, I am hopeful that the
Secretary's Task Force on the Nuclear Weapons Complex will propose some
sensible steps to modernize the DOE weapons complex and bring it into
line with these coming changes to the size and composition of the
stockpile.
The committee provided for an aggressive nuclear nonproliferation
program within the National Nuclear Security Administration. We
provided an additional $65 million to keep the plutonium producing
reactor shutdown program with the Russians on track to have all three
reactors closed by 2011. The committee also provided $85 million
additional for the Russian material protection program to secure
nuclear material overseas. We made a significant reduction to the
domestic MOX plant because of the large unexpended prior year balances
in that project caused by the continued liability dispute with the
Russians. Given the constrained budget environment, the committee
cannot continue to appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars for a
construction project that been delayed for 3 years.
I believe this is a responsible bill that makes sound investment
decisions for the future of our agencies. Members will not receive as
many water or energy projects as they might like, but we did take care
of their top priorities.
I want to thank all the members of the Energy and Water Development
Subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the floor today. I
especially want to thank my Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky of Indiana,
for his extraordinary cooperation this past year. This is truly a
bipartisan bill that represents a hard-fought but ultimately fair and
balanced compromise. This is why I believe our constituents expect
their representatives to work together. I also want to thank the
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis, and the Ranking
Minority Member, Mr. Obey, for their support and for allowing us to
move this bill forward in an expeditious manner.
Lastly, I would like to thank the staff of the Subcommittee--Kevin
Cook, John Blazey,
[[Page H3783]]
Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowki, and Tracey LaTurner--for their hard
work on this bill. I also want to thank Dixon Butler of the minority
staff, and both Kenny Kraft from my office and Peder Maarbjerg of Mr.
Visclosky's office. I especially want to acknowledge our agency
detailees, Taunja Berquam and Felicia Kirksey, for their invaluable
assistance in putting this bill and report together.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I want to pick up where my chairman, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Hobson), left off and also personally thank the staff,
because without their able assistance, we would not be here today and
the product before this Chamber would not be of the quality that it is.
So I do want to personally thank Terry Tyborowski and Tracy LaTurner
of the majority staff, as well as John Blazey, Scott Burnison, and
Kevin Cook. On the minority side, although again, as the chairman
pointed out, this was a bipartisan effort, Dixon Butler.
We have core detailees: Felicia Kirksey and Taunja Berquam, and I
appreciate very much their help, as well as Kenny Kraft from the
Chairman's office, and Peder Moorbjerg from mine.
Mr. Chairman, I would want to thank Chairman Hobson, first of all,
for his very good work; as I mentioned in subcommittee and full
committee, his fairness, his judicious temperament, the fact that he is
a gentleman, and also that he has exercised a great deal of foresight
and leadership over the last 3 years as chairman of the subcommittee.
I certainly feel that the chairman has outlined the elements of the
value of the legislation before us very fairly. I would prefer to take
somewhat of a different tack, this being my seventh bill as a ranking
member, and illustratively point out the three areas of the bill where
over the last 3 years the chairman has had a direction, he has
exercised leadership and courage, and has provided us with an excellent
work product.
The first area is the area of high-performance computing, an area
where the United States invented the field and long held undisputed
leadership in the world. Several years ago, however, that leadership
was challenged. In the House bill for fiscal year 2004, the committee
recommended an increase in funding to enable the Department of Energy
to acquire additional advanced computing capability and to initiate
longer-term research and development. The Department used $25 million
of these funds to engage a team, including Oak Ridge National Lab and
Cray Computer, to pursue a leadership-class supercomputer and the next-
generation computer architectures.
Despite being faced with budget constraints, the Department of Energy
Office of Science sustained this increase in 2005. However, pursuing a
$100 million-plus leadership-class machine with level funding was not
going to put us back in the lead. So, once again, the committee
recommended an increase to the request to support the Office of Science
initiative to develop the hardware, software, and applied mathematics
necessary for a leadership-class supercomputer to meet scientific
computational needs.
This year, the President's request for fiscal year 2006 pulled back
from the strong support favored by the Congress, and such a cutback
would tend to undermine the progress towards actually achieving a
leadership-class U.S. supercomputer. So the recommendation before us
today increases funding for advanced scientific computing research by
$39 million: $25 million for hardware, $5 million for computational
research, and $9 million for competitive university grants to restore
the ongoing level of core research in this area that the President's
budget recommendation cut.
By taking the long-term perspective of the last 3 years and
sustaining support for a highly desirable outcome, the chairman and the
committee and all of its members are doing their part to ensure that
the U.S. reasserts its technological leadership.
The second area that has been a subject of concern for a number of
years, in an area where we reduced funding, is Laboratory Directed
Research and Development. It is an area that grew out of all proportion
to its value at the beginning of this decade. This area also raised
concerns of financial oversight and the use of Federal funds for
purposes for which it was not appropriated.
As an initial effort to get its arms around this program, which
reached an aggregate funding level in fiscal year 2003 of $365 million,
the committee mandated a comprehensive report on projects from the
Department of Energy and initiated a GAO investigation. In developing
recommendations for last year's bill, the committee based its guidance
and statement of concerns on the results of those investigations and
reports.
This year, the President's budget, recognizing the concerns of the
committee and the constraints on funding, reduced the percentage
allowed for lab-directed research at weapons labs from 6 percent to 5
percent. The committee today is recommending that lab-directed research
be limited explicitly to $250 million for 2006, to be allocated to the
labs by the Department of Energy. A quarter billion dollars is a
healthy level of funding that could be used to fix many problems in
energy research and water infrastructure, to name but two.
As we state in the report, the committee recognizes the value of
conducting discretionary research at the national laboratories, but we
have now brought the funding level to this research back within reason
and given it a sense of direction.
And my last illustration, if you would, of a sense of direction that
we have had over the last 3 years is in the area of nuclear weapons. It
is the most sensitive area of activities under the Energy and Water
Development appropriations.
Here, under Chairman Hobson's courageous leadership, denial of
funding has been effectively used to chart a safer and more efficient
course for the future of our nuclear deterrents. In particular, coming
into fiscal year 2004 appropriations, the President was asking for
funds for a robust nuclear earth penetrator, for studies of new nuclear
weapons potentially for new missions, for funds to proceed with the
preparation of a modern pit facility to manufacture 450 plutonium
triggers, and a shift to an 18-month readiness posture for a return to
underground nuclear testing. Taken together, these policy initiatives
signaled a shift in nuclear weapons policy.
In 2004, the committee, among other things, reduced funding for the
robust nuclear earth penetrator to $5 million from $15 million,
ultimately agreeing to $7.5 million in conference; zeroed out funds for
proceeding with the modern pit facility; and held the test readiness
posture at 24 months.
Most significantly, in 2004, $4 million of the funds for advanced
weapons concepts were fenced so that they could not be spent until the
administration delivered a nuclear weapons stockpile plan. Without this
action, there is no doubt that the plan would not exist. Today, it
does.
In fiscal year 2005, the committee went further and zeroed funding
for the earth penetrator, while maintaining a 24-month test readiness
posture.
The committee has taken a constructive approach in trying to
positively influence better policies. At the insistence of the
committee, reasonable new approaches have been funded, including a
reliable replacement warhead. In this year's bill, the committee is
solidifying the progress made last year and in the previous year.
First, advanced concepts was missing from the President's request and
is essentially no longer under consideration. Secondly, the earth
penetrator funding is again zero in the committee recommendation, and
third, test readiness posture is held to 24 months. Finally, the
reliable replacement warhead concept was included in the President's
request. The committee is working to accelerate the implicit
transformation of the newest nuclear deterrent stockpile by increasing
funds to $25 million, while slowing programs extending the life of old
weapons.
Essentially, in this bill as well, Mr. Chairman, we are taking an
advanced look. We have called for the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Bureau of Reclamation, as well as the Department of Energy to undertake
5-year plans in programs.
This is an exceptional piece of legislation, and I would ask my
colleagues to support it.
[[Page H3784]]
I recommend that all members join me in supporting this bill. Its
preparation has been bipartisan and the Chairman has been fair
throughout its preparation. I would add my appreciation to the staff
led on the majority side by Kevin Cook. He is joined by Terry
Tyborowski, John Blazey, Scott Burnison, and Tracy LaTurner. They are a
strong team. On the minority staff, I would thank Dixon Butler. This
year we have two fine detailees from the Army Corps: Taunja Berquam
helping the majority and Felicia Kirksey helping the minority. I would
also thank Kenny Kraft on Chairman Hobson's staff and Peder Maarbjerg
on my staff.
This is my seventh year as ranking member on the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Subcommittee. In a few professions in our
society seventh years are sabbaticals and times for reflection. In the
Congress, we can't take a year off, but I feel compelled to reflect.
During my years on this Committee it has been my privilege to serve
with five subcommittee chairmen, and now, it has been my pleasure to
serve with Dave Hobson for three years. During this time, Chairman
Hobson has led our subcommittee to take a long-term perspective on a
number of important issues and this is resulting in some profound and
positive changes. Here are three examples.
High Performance Computing is an area where the United States
invented the field and long held undisputed leadership in the world.
Several years ago, that leadership was challenged by Japan with their
development of the Earth Simulator. In the House bill for FY 2004, the
Committee recommended an increase of $40 million to enable DOE to
``acquire additional advanced computing capability . . . and to
initiate longer-term research and development on next generation
computer architectures.'' Ultimately, $30 million of this increase was
included in the final conference report. The Department used $25
million of these funds to engage a team including Oak Ridge National
Lab and Cray Computer to pursue a leadership-class super computer and
next generation computer architectures.
Despite being faced with budget constraints, the DOE Office of
Science sustained this increase in the President's FY 2005 budget.
However, pursuing a $100 million plus leadership-class machine with
level funding of $25 million per year will never put the United States
back in the lead. So once again, the Committee recommended an increase
of $30 million to the request ``to support the Office of Science
initiative to develop the hardware, software, and applied mathematics
necessary for a leadership-class supercomputer to meet scientific
computation needs.'' It must be noted that the Committee insisted that
at least $5 million of this increase be reserved for computational
research and not allow additional funds to go to hardware alone.
In the face of an even more constrained funding environment, the
President's request for FY 2006 pulled back from the strong support
favored by the Congress. Such a cutback, if sustained, would tend to
undermine the progress toward actually achieving a leadership-class US
supercomputer. So, the recommendation before us today increases funding
for advanced scientific computing research by $39 million--$25 million
for hardware, $5 million for computational research, and $9 million for
competitive university grants to restore the on-going level of core
research in this area that the President's budget recommended for cuts.
By taking the long-term perspective and sustaining support for a highly
desirable outcome, the Committee is doing its part to ensure that the
U.S. reasserts it technological leadership in the area of
supercomputing--a technical capability that underpins our ability to
invent the future.
Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) is an area that
grew out of all proportion to its value at the beginning of this
decade. This area also raised concerns of financial oversight and the
use of federal funds for purposes for which it was not appropriated. As
an initial effort to get its arms around this program, which reached an
aggregate funding level in FY 2003 of $365 million per year, the
Committee mandated a comprehensive report on LDRD projects from DOE and
initiated a GAO investigation of LDRD. In developing its
recommendations for FY 2005, the Committee based its guidance and
statement of concerns on the results of the GAO investigation and what
had been learned from reviewing the extensive DOE reports. The FY 2005
Committee report directs DOE to shift to direct requests for LDRD.
The President's budget request for FY 2006, recognizing the concerns
of the Committee and the constraints on funding, reduced the percentage
allowed for LDRD at Weapons Labs from 6% to 5%. The Committee is today
recommending that LDRD be limited explicitly to $250 million in FY
2006, to be allocated to the labs by DOE. A quarter billion dollars is
a healthy level of funding that could be used to fix many problems in
energy research, water infrastructure, etc., so the ``Committee [truly]
recognizes the value of conducting discretionary research at DOE's
national laboratories'', but has now brought the funding level for this
research back within reason and given it a sense of direction.
Nuclear Weapons is the most sensitive area of activity under the
Energy and Water Development appropriation. Here, under Chairman
Hobson's courageous leadership, the denial of funding has been
effectively used to chart a safer and more efficient course for the
future of our nuclear deterrent. In particular, coming into the FY 2004
appropriations process, the President was asking for funds for a robust
nuclear earth penetrator (RNEP), for studies of new nuclear weapons
potentially for new missions, for funds to proceed with preparation of
a Modern Pit Facility to manufacture 450 plutonium triggers per year,
and a shift to an I8-month readiness posture for a return to
underground nuclear testing. Taken together, these policy initiatives
signaled an alarming shift in nuclear weapons policy and accordingly,
many here and abroad reacted with alarm. Each of these policies was a
bad idea, an idea run amok. This situation developed in part because of
the absence of an approved nuclear weapons stockpile plan.
The House report accompanying the FY 2004 Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill states, ``The fiscal year 2004 budget request is
the second budget request delivered to the Committee that is loosely
justified on the requirements of the Nuclear Posture Review policy
document but lacking a formal plan that specifies the changes to the
stockpile reflecting the President's decision [on the Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile Plan].'' The Committee reduced funding for the RNEP to $5
million from $15 million (ultimately agreeing to $7.5 million in
conference), zeroed funds for proceeding with a Modern Pit Facility,
and held the test readiness posture at 24 months. Most significantly,
$4 million of the funds for advanced weapons concepts were fenced so
that they could not be spent until the Administration delivered a
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan. Without this action, there is doubt
that this Plan would yet exist.
In FY 2005, the Committee went further and zeroed funding for the
RNEP while maintaining the 24-month test readiness posture and
continuing to defer the Modern Pit Facility. But, the Committee is a
constructive influence and seeks to support better policies. At the
insistence of the Committee, the dangerous advanced concepts approach
was scrapped and a reasonable new approach was funded--the reliable
replacement warhead (RRW).
In FY2006, the Committee is solidifying the progress made last year.
First, advanced concepts was missing from the President's request and
is essentially no longer under consideration. Second, RNEP funding is
again zero in the Committee's recommendation. Third, test readiness
posture is held to 24 months. Fourth, the RRW concept was included in
the President's request. The Committee is working to accelerate the
implicit transformation of the U.S. nuclear deterrent stockpile by
increasing funds to $25 million while slowing programs extending the
life of old weapons. The promise of the RRW is that the U.S. will never
need to resume nuclear weapons testing and will be able to sustain our
deterrent with a smaller, less-expensive complex.
In light of these examples where taking a longer-term perspective is
showing results, I fully support the efforts in this FY2006 Energy and
Water Development Appropriation to get all three principal agencies
funded in this bill to adopt and communicate 5-year plans for their
programs. Further, we have long under-invested in the water
infrastructure of our nation, and although this year is no exception,
the bill undertakes significant efforts to help the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers get effective control over management, particularly fiscal
management of projects. Management improvements prepare the way for the
most effective use of whatever level of funding can be supplied in the
future. Concentrating funding on high-priority water projects to get
them done should significantly improve the overall benefits of
investment through the Corps and Bureau of Reclamation, and so, I
support this painful approach as well.
The Chairman and I are taking steps to involve all members of the
Subcommittee in the oversight of the programs we fund. Everyone is
being asked to concentrate on two subsets of our work. This also takes
the long-term perspective as it will prepare our capable colleagues for
future roles as chairs and rankings of appropriations subcommittees
while strengthening our current work as appropriators.
So, upon reflection, I am pleased with the positive effects of the
last three years of Energy and Water Development Appropriations bills.
Far more has been accomplished than the simple funding of government
programs and the accommodation of congressional priorities. The nation
and the world are better and safer as a result. What a privilege and
pleasure to participate!
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H3785]]
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen)
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Energy and Water
appropriations bill. First, let me thank and commend Chairman Hobson
and Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard work in crafting a bill
that addresses so many complex national energy and water infrastructure
needs. They make a good team.
Our bill includes essential funding for energy programs that seek to
make our country more efficient and less dependent on traditional
fossil fuels and foreign oil. As a nation, we are facing an energy
crisis which does not allow us to put off significant policy changes as
to how we can invest our energy infrastructure dollars any longer.
This year, we have made a significant investment in nuclear energy
technology. This energy provides a clean, renewable energy source
already capable of providing an alternative source of electricity to
fossil fuels. Nuclear energy already provides 20 percent of our
Nation's electricity and, in my home State of New Jersey, nearly 50
percent of the electrical capacity.
{time} 1145
I am also pleased that our subcommittee continues to fund fusion
science. Our committee has been a leader in advancing fusion so that
some day we will be able to realize the promise of the cleanest of
energy sources. Thirty years ago the first power produced in a
laboratory from fusion was barely enough to light a small light bulb.
Today, our DOE labs are capable of creating enough power from fusion to
light a small town.
Mr. Chairman, I credit the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the
ranking member for grappling with some tough policy decisions in this
bill. For example, Yucca Mountain, which is facing delays, this bill
includes money, $660 million for Yucca Mountain, in anticipation of a
licensing agreement being signed.
This bill also prioritizes the Army Corps' work on a number of
essential navigation and flood control projects to ensure that such
construction projects authorized by Congress are actually completed.
But most importantly to me and to the New York-New Jersey region, in
the Army Corps' portfolio, this bill reflects our committee's continued
recognition of the value of our Federal investment in the New York-New
Jersey harbor deepening project. This project has been recognized as
one of five national priorities by the President. It is not only an
issue of national security; it is an issue of economic security. The
economic return on keeping open our Nation's third largest port to
larger container ships is huge. I note that the Army Corps itself has
listed this deepening project as one of its highest return investments.
I cannot overstate the economic importance of the port which is the
third largest in the United States. Every day thousands of goods come
through the port of New York and New Jersey, and through its terminals
many other goods are exported to the rest of the world. Those goods and
the assets that protect them allow our Nation to proceed and keep its
economy going. Therefore, I rise in support of the bill and urge other
Members to do so as well.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as Members of this House know, when I have
objections to the content of a bill, I am not shy in stating them.
There are certainly portions of this bill with which I do not agree,
but I want to say that it is very unusual and it is a very pleasant
experience to see a piece of legislation brought to the floor which is
not so much a product of politics as it is a product of legislative
craftsmanship. I think that is the case with this bill.
I think that the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Indiana
working together in an absolutely bipartisan fashion have produced a
bill which is obviously based on some intellectual decisions about how
to approach problems rather than being based simply on political
judgments, and that means that this place is performing as it should
perform. It is not just being a political institution; it is also being
a legislative institution. That is happening in no small measure
because of the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).
That does not mean that I do not think this bill does not fall short
in some areas. I think that the budget resolution has made it
impossible for this committee to do a number of things that it ought to
be doing in the area of energy research. Lord knows, that is important
these days with rising gas prices and all of the rest; but I just want
to say in my view, despite those shortcomings, this bill demonstrates
that good government is good politics.
The gentleman has brought to the floor a bill which is extremely
responsible in terms of the way it deals with the nuclear weapons
issues that were referenced by the gentleman from Indiana. It is an
extremely bipartisan product. While I have feelings about nuclear power
that are very different than some other Members in this Chamber, I want
to say I think the gentleman has produced, with the assistance of the
gentleman from Indiana, a very responsible bill; and I fully intend to
support it.
I hope as the process goes along we will wind up having more
resources to deal with some of the problems that are shortchanged. But
with that exception, I do not think we can ask for a better legislative
product; and as someone who appreciates the traditions of this House, I
want to extend my personal gratitude to the gentleman from Ohio for his
contribution in making this the fine product that it is.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his
kind comments. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is the scholar
of the House. He reads these things and understands them, and I very
much appreciate his remarks on the bill on behalf of both myself and
the ranking member.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I want to make some brief comments and then engage in some
colloquy with the chairman.
Not to repeat anything that has been already said, but just to
highlight why I can believe this is such an excellent work product,
really three reasons: one, this chairman over the last 2\1/2\ years has
gone out into the country, both on the water side and on the energy
side, gone into the depths of very complex places like our nuclear
weapons complex, gone into our scientific research institutions, energy
research, gone and seen demonstrations and the advancement of
technology, and tried hard to understand what needs to be proposed.
This chairman deserves tremendous credit. At no time in my 9 years on
the Committee on Appropriations have I seen this kind of diligence that
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) has shown.
Secondly, it has been very fair and very bipartisan all along the
way.
Third, this is one of the greatest assimilations of professional
staff on both sides of the aisle, people with expertise and experience
coming to the same subcommittee at the same time at a very important
time. My hat is off to all of these individuals for their diligence.
Mr. Chairman, if I may engage in a colloquy, I would like to say a
few words on the importance of fielding a leadership-class computer for
open science. For the past 2 years under your leadership, this
subcommittee has provided additional funds to achieve this goal, and I
thank you for this commitment. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory and
its partners were competitively selected to carry out this effort. With
the additional funds provided by this bill, they will continue down
that path. The $25 million for hardware will enable the Center For
Computational Science at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to upgrade
the existing system to 50 teraflops. This will get us halfway to the
goal of a leadership-class computer which is a 100 teraflop
[[Page H3786]]
system. The remaining funds will help support the operations and
software.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's support of this
important program, and I share his goal in this field. I am
disappointed that the Department's fiscal year 2006 budget request did
not preserve the increases that this subcommittee provided for this
purpose during the past 2 fiscal years. Because of the Department's
disregard for congressional intent, the committee provides $30 million
of the increase for the Center of Competition Science at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory which was selected competitively to build this
leadership-class supercomputer.
The committee expects the Department to make full use of this
laboratory industry capability. Finally, I agree with the gentleman of
the importance of this effort and encourage the Department of Energy to
make the necessary budget requests in the future to continue this very
important effort.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. In the subcommittee
bill in the area of fusion energy sciences, the subcommittee offered a
very reasonable approach to funding fusion science, given the
uncertainty surrounding the thermonuclear experimental reactor
equipment. As the subcommittee report notes: ``If the United States
expects to be a serious contributor to international fusion research in
general, and ITER in particular, the Nation needs to maintain strong
domestic research programs and user facilities to train the next
generation of fusion scientists and engineers.''
I think that is exactly right, and I want to commend the gentleman
and subcommittee staff for putting that strong statement in our report.
Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight one area in particular that we fund
and ask for the gentleman from Ohio's comments. Our bill provides $5.1
million for ``compact stellarators and small-scale experiments.'' I
understand that to be a reference to experiments such as the quasi-
polloidal stellarator, or QPS, that is being developed by the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Ohio, is my understanding
correct?
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
the gentleman's understanding is correct.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me
this time, and I commend him and the chairman of the subcommittee for
producing a very good appropriation bill. I echo the sentiments that
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just gave on the floor and
appreciate the hard work that has gone into it.
I think the rule, however, could have been a little stronger if the
Schwartz amendment would have been made in order so we could have had
further discussion about the need for increased investment in
alternative and renewable energy technologies. I do not think that the
energy bill that is working its way through Congress goes far enough,
and this was another appropriation measure that could have been a
vehicle for that increased investment.
I do appreciate the work that is being done on the Yucca Mountain
funding, however. We have two nuclear facilities that are storing a lot
of nuclear waste in the upper Mississippi River region right now. Many
of us feel it makes sense to have a single, isolated nuclear waste
repository in this country, and the studies that have gone into Yucca
Mountain and the funding that this committee is providing, it seems to
me to be a reasonable and practical approach dealing with the nuclear
waste issue.
I especially want to commend the committee for the full support they
have given to a very important program for the upper Mississippi River
basin, the Environmental Management Program. This was a program that
was created in the mid-1980s to strike balance on the multiple uses of
the Mississippi region in the upper States. It is a multiple-use
resource. It is incredibly valuable economically, quality of life,
recreation and tourism. We have commercial navigation that uses the
upper Mississippi along with the important recreation and tourism
aspect, and the Environmental Management Program really has a twofold
mission. One is habitat restoration for the upper Mississippi basin and
the other is long term resource monitoring, to monitor the effects that
sediment and nutrients are having in the basin.
One of the first things I did as a new Member of Congress was help
form a bipartisan Mississippi River Caucus so we could work together
from both the North and the South in order to draw attention to the
resources that are needed along the Mississippi River.
We have made substantial progress, and I commend the committee's
recognition that full funding of the EMP is appropriate at $33 million.
This is a program that has received wide bipartisan support, multi-
state support. The five upper States of the Mississippi River basin
have been fully supportive of this program, as have the Governors and
the respective legislatures, and I commend the administration who has
consistently submitted their budget requests calling for full funding
of the Environmental Management Program.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would commend to my colleagues and include
for the Record an article that just appeared in the Washington Post
Sunday edition under the Travel section called ``Lolling on the
River.'' It describes the quality of life and unique beauty that the
upper Mississippi River basin has for all of us in that region.
In it the author of the article, Bill O'Brian writes: ``The
Mississippi, the river of Mark Twain, who once wrote, `It is not a
commonplace river, but on the contrary is in all ways remarkable.' The
river of LaSalle, Marquette and Joliet, of B.B. King, Bob Dylan and the
Doobie Brothers. Of Faulkner, Fitzgerald and T.S. Eliot. Of historian
Stephen Ambrose who not long ago wrote, `The river is in my blood.
Wherever, whenever, it is a source of delight. More, it is the river
that draws us together as a Nation.' ''
EMP is a small part of the importance of this great natural resource
which is of vital importance to our Nation. I commend the subcommittee
and work they have done in recognizing by fully funding EMP the
importance of this vital natural resource.
[From the Washington Post, May 22, 2005]
Lolling on the River: Following the Upper Mississippi by Land
(By Bill O'Brian)
If you think the prairie of Wisconsin and Minnesota is
nothing but nondescript flatlands and farms, Buena Vista Park
in Alma, Wis., is the place for you. Specifically, the bluff
in the park more than 500 feet above the Mississippi River,
which forms the border of the two states.
From that bluff on a clear day, you can see one of the most
awe-inspiring panoramas in all of North America. I've been to
the Grand Canyon. To Yellowstone. To Jackson Hole. To Lake
Louise. To Niagara Falls. To the Oregon, Maine, Carolina and
California coasts. To the interior of Alaska. To the top of
numerous skyscrapers. The vista from the bluff in Alma on a
clear day can compete with any of those places.
From that precipice, you can see for miles into the
Minnesota countryside below. You can gaze upon the lush
greenery of the Dorer Memorial Hardwood State Forest and the
dark, rich soil of the northern portion of what schoolbooks
call the breadbasket of America. As the Mississippi zigzags
through that bottomland, you can see that the waterway is as
unruly as it is majestic, as undisciplined as it is immense.
It is clear that, left to its own devices, the river would
follow no laws other than those of physics, which state that
water flows from higher elevation to lower via the path of
least resistance.
From that bluff in Alma, you can immediately understand
what Wisconsin outdoors journalist Mel Ellis meant half a
century ago when he wrote, ``If you haven't fished Ol' Man
Mississipp, forget about any preconceived notions you may
have as far as rivers are concerned. Because Ol' Man River
isn't a river at all. In fact, he's a hundred rivers and a
thousand lakes and more sloughs than you could explore in a
lifetime.''
Northeasterners by birth and temperament, my wife, Sue, and
I knew almost nothing firsthand about life along the upper
Mississippi.
The Mississippi--the river of Mark Twain, who once wrote,
``It is not a commonplace river, but on the contrary is in
all ways remarkable,'' The river of La Salle, Marquette and
Joliet. Of B.B. King, Bob Dylan and the Doobie Brothers. Of
Faulkner, Fitzgerald and T.S. Eliot. Of historian Stephen
Ambrose, who not long ago wrote, ``The river is in my blood.
Wherever, whenever, it is a source of delight. More, it is
the river that draws us together as a nation.''
So, from the point just outside East Dubuque, Ill., where
the Illinois-Wisconsin border meets the Mississippi about 175
miles
[[Page H3787]]
west of Chicago, Sue and I had set out northward on the Great
River Road to see what--and whom--we might find. The river
road is a federally designated scenic byway that stretches
from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada. We covered a minuscule
portion of it, a couple of hundred miles mostly in
southwestern Wisconsin, primarily along State Route 35. We
had no itinerary per se. We pulled off the road when the
spirit, or hunger or curiosity, moved us. It was a drive-
by--a lazy, three-day upper Mississippi River drive-by.
On the first day, at a boat landing near the town of
Cassville, Wis., we stopped to chat with Dwayne Durant, a
fortysomething Iowan. Dressed in camouflage hunting gear, he
was standing on the riverbank in the Upper Mississippi River
National Wildlife and Fish Refuge with his dog, Sidney.
Durant had the satisfied countenance of a man who'd just
bagged his limit for the day. He welcomed us to the river,
patiently explained the intricacies and the appeal of duck
hunting, proudly showed us his fresh kill (two wood ducks,
two teal ducks and two mallards), then humbly thanked us for
visiting his corner of the world.
The next morning, at Withey's Bar in Lynxville, Wis. (pop.
176), we introduced ourselves to a soft-spoken gentleman in a
flannel shirt sitting on a stool at the end of the bar. Les
Neefe told us that he was born 77 years ago in a Wisconsin
cheese factory (``not in a hospital, not in the hallway of
the cheese factory, in the cheese factory . . . in a room
above the boiler''). Over coffee, Neefe rhapsodized about the
pleasures of living in a houseboat docked on the Mississippi
six months a year, and he made two recommendations. First, he
suggested that, to get a real taste of Wisconsin, we should
go to the cheese shop up the road in Ferryville and buy some
``sharp cheddar, old sharp cheddar.'' Then, to get a real
taste of river life, we should stop by P&M Concessions next
to Blackhawk Park in De Soto.
We did both. The cheese, a nine-year cheddar, was rich,
creamy and sharper than sharp. Along with apples and
crackers, a block of the cheddar made a memorable watchin'-
the-river-flow picnic lunch.
Outside the P&M Concessions stand was a sign that read,
``Welcome to the River--Sit Long, Talk Much, Fish A Lot.''
Behind the counter was 34-year-old Amy Kroning, whose father
is the proprietor of the bait/tackle/refreshment/boat rental
shop.
``I can't think of anywhere I'd rather be than right
here,'' said Kroning, a mother of five who was born and
raised in De Soto. ``If I get more than an hour from the
river, I get depressed. Really. I'm not kidding. We go to a
Cubs game once a year [in Chicago], and I'm a nervous wreck
the whole time.''
So, what is the allure of the Mississippi?
``It has a calming affect. It's relaxing,'' Verdetta Tusa
said later that day as we stood watching for more than an
hour while an enormous tow barge squeezed, wheezed and
creaked its way through the lock at the town of Genoa, Wis.
``It's the history, too,'' said the 56-year-old lifelong
Minnesotan. ``They've been doing it this way, basically, from
the beginning.''
The lock at Genoa is one of 29 on the upper Mississippi.
Watching tow barges come out of the sharp curves of the river
and negotiate the locks with pinpoint precision is a pastime
unto itself. Typically 15 barges are connected together in
front of one pilot boat. They transport grain, steel, road
salt, fertilizer, coal, petroleum products and other
nonperishable goods up and down the Mississippi most of the
year. It takes a barge about 10 days to get from Minneapolis
to St. Louis, but one 15-unit tow can carry as much grain as
225 rail cars or 870 semi-trucks at a fraction of the cost.
As a barge passes through a lock, you can get close enough
to chat with the stevedores on board. One deckhand told us
that sometimes he stays out on the river for 60 to 80 days at
a time. And that he'd rather toil on the upper Mississippi
than on the lower, especially in the dead of summer, because
down near New Orleans and Memphis, ``it's too hot, and the
skeeters are bigger than I am.''
An hour north of Genoa on State Route 35, not far past La
Crosse, Wis., we came to Perrot State Park, a verdant 1,400-
acre refuge. There, an information marker on a small bluff
overlooking braided channels of the river reminded us just
how remarkable the Mississippi is. It's 2,350 miles long;
it's home to 100 species of fish (most notably walleye,
sturgeon and catfish in these parts); it drains all or part
of 31 states and two Canadian provinces.
``From Red Wing down to Iowa is the most beautiful part of
the river, with all the bluffs and trees. It's almost a
fantasyland,'' said Bob Schleicher. ``It's a place of
mystery. It's got so much folklore. Some of it's true; some
of it's not.''
We met Schleicher, a 65-year-old retired car salesman, at
the municipal marina in Red Wing, Minn., the final town on
our river drive, directly across the bridge from Hager City,
Wis. Captain Bob, as he likes to call himself, told us that
he has navigated the Mississippi from St. Paul, Minn., to its
mouth in Louisiana. He explained that part of the appeal is
that ``you can be whoever you want to be on the river.'' He
told tales of river-running bootleggers, past and present. He
explained how the upper Mississippi differs from the lower--
it is less crowded; it has more islands, beaches and marinas;
its currents are less dangerous; its water is less sandy.
But, he said with a smile, river people have a ``mutual bond,
whether you're a Confederate or a Yankee.''
Schleicher talked for a while about the river's importance
to birds. Forty percent of all North American waterfowl and
326 bird species--including hawks, eagles, falcons, herons
and swans--use the river as a flyway, according to the
Audubon Society. We had seen a handful of bald eagles soaring
over or perched along the river, and Schleicher beamed as he
spoke of the resurgence of that ornithological American icon
on the bluffs near Red Wing.
Then he suggested that, after spending a couple days
driving along the river, Sue and I might want to spend some
time on the river. For $10 apiece, he offered to take us on a
leisurely two-hour cruise in his old military flatboat-
turned-riverboat.
Once we cleared the dock, Schleicher allowed each of us in
the small group on board to take a turn piloting the boat for
a few minutes. As I stood at the helm, guiding the boat
around the river's trademark sweeping bends, minding the red
and green buoys that mark the shipping channel, passing huge
tow barges, I suddenly understood what Schleicher meant when
he said you can be who you want to be on the river.
At that moment, as we glided past the tree-lined banks,
pushed along by the gentle current, the serenity was
overwhelming. And the history palpable. At that moment, I was
every riverman who's ever skippered a slow boat on Ol' Man
Mississipp.
{time} 1200
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Latham), a member of the committee.
Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to, first of all, express what an honor and
privilege it is to work on a subcommittee that works in such a
bipartisan way with the great leadership of the chairman and the
ranking member. It is really a pleasure to actually get into policy
discussions rather than a lot of the politics that we hear around here.
It is very much appreciated.
Also, the tremendous staff that we have on this subcommittee. I think
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) mentioned the great
professionalism that they have on both sides of the aisle. It is a real
pleasure.
This bill is a really good bill under an allocation that could always
be larger. We have worked out, I think, everything possible we can with
the dollars available. I am very appreciative of the fact that we have
focused on renewable energy, the kind of important work that we do on
the river, on the Mississippi, and other projects that are involved
also.
I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member and urge
support of this very, very good bill.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I feel like the skunk at the office party,
but I rise to oppose the funding for the Yucca Mountain project
contained in this bill. This bill shortchanges water projects and
energy technology research and development, research into technologies
to harness the sun and wind and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Yet there is 15 percent more funding for Yucca Mountain than there was
in last year's bill despite the fact that this project is unsafe and
riddled with problems and, in my estimation, can and never will be
built.
I want to update my colleagues on the recent developments regarding
Yucca Mountain, and I sincerely hope that they listen.
Last month, the Department of Energy revealed that scientists from
the U.S. Geological Survey who were working on the water infiltration
and climate studies at Yucca Mountain actually falsified documentation.
Water infiltration and climate are two of the most fundamental factors
involved in establishing whether or not the proposed repository can
safely isolate radioactive waste and prevent groundwater contamination.
In all my years fighting this project, I knew Yucca Mountain was not
scientifically sound, but I never dreamed and never thought that
Federal employees would purposely falsify documents to cover up the
lack of basic science. In 90 pages of e-mails, the USGS employees
fabricated dates and names of programs used in modeling for quality
assurance audits and deleted information that did not fit favorable and
hoped-for conclusions. The employees made it clear that quality
assurance was not a priority of this project, but rather, an obstacle.
Let me share with my colleagues some of the comments made by these
[[Page H3788]]
employees, and I quote: ``Don't look at the last four lines. Those
lines are a mystery. I've deleted the lines from the official QA
version of the files. In the end, I keep track of two sets of files,
the ones that will keep the QA happy and the ones that were actually
used.''
Another e-mail says, ``Like you said all along, the Yucca Mountain
project has now reached a point where they need to have certain items
work no matter what, and the infiltration maps are on that list. If
USGS can't find a way to make it work, someone else will.''
And finally, ``I don't have a clue when these programs were
installed. So I've made up the dates and names. This is as good as it's
going to get. If they need proof, I will be happy to make up more
stuff.''
No one better dare say to me on this floor that Yucca Mountain is
based on sound science. It is not. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals
ruled that the radiation standards for the proposed repository did not
follow recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and would
not protect the health and safety of our Nation. The difference between
the findings and the radiation standards set by the EPA, a mere 290,000
years.
Mr. Chairman, the DOE has known for some time that this project was
fatally flawed, that corners were cut, that the science did not support
the conclusions and that the data were doctored. That the DOE continues
to move forward with the complicity of this Congress is nothing short
of insanity, dangerous and insane. Employees who have raised concerns
have been intimidated into silence, and the workers were purposely
exposed to hazardous conditions by contractors eager to win hefty cash
bonuses. Science has been manipulated to fit predrawn conclusions, and
public safety and the environment have been sacrificed upon the altar
of political expediency and greed.
Yucca Mountain is a disaster waiting to happen. When you build a weak
foundation, your building collapses, and that is why Yucca Mountain is
collapsing before our eyes. DOE is building Yucca on a weak foundation
based on lies, fraud, intimidation, deception and nonexistent science.
We should be pouring our resources into renewable energy, harnessing
the sun, harnessing the moon, not sticking our valuable resources into
a hole in the Nevada desert.
If my colleagues think that nuclear waste is so safe, let them keep
it in their own States, let them keep it in their districts, by their
children, by their children's schools, by homes and hospitals,
synagogues and churches; and do not travel across this country in order
to stick it in a hole in the middle of the Nevada desert.
I urge us to reconsider this. Let us change our direction before we
go into something that is so disastrous and dangerous that we will
never forgive ourselves and never be able to be forgiven by future
generations of Americans.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Doolittle), a member of the committee.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, this is a vital bill for the future of
our country, and this bill provides a very balanced approach to
research in the scientific areas and to energy development and, indeed,
renewable energy as well as vital water projects and infrastructure for
this country to keep us economically sound. I would particularly like
to commend the chairman and the staff in working with both sides here
on this bill. It could do more if the resources were available; but
given that they are not, we are making the best, I think, of what we
have.
I would like to single out the energy supply and conservation account
which funds renewable energy, energy efficiency, nuclear energy,
nondefense environment, safety and health programs and energy
conservation. These are funded at $1.7 billion. Over $360 million is
provided for hydrogen and fuel cell research. This funding supports and
expands the President's hydrogen initiative and promotes the Freedom
CAR project. Hydrogen is the fuel source of the future and funding in
this bill moves us closer to that goal.
Thirdly, the committee recommends $3.6 billion for the Office of
Science, an increase of $203 million over the budget request.
Additional funds are provided for priority work on advanced scientific
computing, high energy physics and operation of user facilities.
Lastly, Office of Science funding provides for the basic building
blocks of science and is the gateway to future scientific
breakthroughs. We must keep America's scientific knowledge strong and
on the cutting edge. Advanced scientific computing allows the U.S. to
keep up with the rest of the world. We cannot allow other countries to
surpass the U.S.'s knowledge.
I commend the chairman and I urge the passage of the bill.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Indiana for yielding me this time.
I want to urge strong support for the fiscal year 2006 energy and
water bill. This legislation provides investment in water
infrastructure essential not only to our country but to the Texas
economy. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and also the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards) for their assistance on these projects,
particularly two flood projects, Hunting and Greens Bayous in my
district. Thousands of my constituents' homes and businesses are at
risk from catastrophic flooding in these areas, and the funding in this
bill, $500,000 and $150,000 each, keeps these projects on track.
I would also like to express my strong support for the $26 million
included for the Houston ship channel deepening and widening project.
This funding means we are on track to complete the deepening and
widening this year and begin the barge lanes and environmental
restoration. However, the tough operations and maintenance budget of
the Corps could have counterproductive effects. The Houston ship
channel budget is $5 million under capability for 2006. If we cannot
maintain our channels to the right depth, then modern ships will not be
able to take advantage of this new project. The project will also
suffer as millions taken out through reprogramming are not returned as
promised by the Corps.
The new policy to rein in reprogramming by requiring committee
approval over $1 million is very sound. Reprogramming goes against the
letter, number and intent of Congress. Financial stability is essential
and large investments are made on the basis of congressional
appropriations. More market risk equals higher cost for all the
projects.
We should note a few brief points about projects that have been lost
to reprogramming in the past and need to be made whole. It seems unjust
that the solution to restore the letter and spirit of the law falls on
the backs of the most recent victims of reprogramming such as our
Houston ship channel who had reprogrammed dollars not returned.
Mr. Chairman, I include for printing in the Record written
commitments from the Corps under two administrations. The word and
spirit of these commitments are to honor congressional appropriations
law. Congressional and Corps promises deserve to be honored. That is
the same principle behind the extremely wise reprogramming policy of
the future in this bill. However, we should allow the Corps to fulfill
its past commitments.
Again, I would like to thank the Chair and the ranking member of the
subcommittee and the full committee for making this bill possible.
Department of the Army, Southwestern Division, Corps of
Engineers,
Dallas, TX, September 18, 2001.
Hon. Gene Green,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Green: Thank you for your letter dated August 29,
2001, concerning the Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels,
Texas project.
I regret that members of my staff were not able to meet
with you on September 12, 2001, to discuss this project in
more detail. Based on conversations with your office and Mr.
William Dawson of my staff, the following information will
address your primary concern.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers remains fully committed to
completion of this project based on the optimal construction
schedule. I can further assure you that we will reprogram up
to $20 million in construction funds as required to this
project to ensure that this schedule is maintained
irrespective of any shortfall in the fiscal year 2002
Congressional appropriation.
[[Page H3789]]
I continue to appreciate your patience and willingness to
work with us on this matter. Please do not hesitate to
contact me if you have any further questions about the
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels project.
Sincerely,
David F. Melcher,
Brigadier General, U.S. Army Commanding General.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, August 29, 2001.
General David F. Melcher,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division, Dallas,
TX.
Dear General Melcher: I am writing you today with my
concerns about the FY 2002 Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
allocation for the Houston-Galveston Navigation Channel. This
project, funded by the Corps at $28.785 million,
realistically requires $46.8 million to keep it on an optimal
construction schedule.
Over the past several years, funding totaling at least $20
million has been reprogrammed from this project to other
Corps projects. Given the discrepancy between the FY 02 Corps
budget and the amount of funding required to keep this
project on schedule, I am requesting that the Corps return
the full amount of reprogrammed money to this project in its
FY 02 budget. I have enclosed correspondence from the Corps
that my office received at the time when these funds were
reprogrammed for your review.
I would also like to request a meeting with you in my
Washington, DC office, along with Congressman Chet Edwards,
during the second week in September to discuss this issue. If
you have any questions on this matter, please contact Bob
Turney in my Washington office at (202) 225-1688. Thank you
for your prompt attention to this request.
Sincerely,
Gene Green,
Member of Congress.
____
Department of the Army, Southwestern Division, Corps of
Engineers,
Dallas, TX, March 11, 1999.
Hon. Gene Green,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Green: This letter is in response to your
concerns regarding the proposed reprogramming of funds from
the Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas project.
I am aware of, and fully appreciate the importance of the
Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels project to the economy
of this region and the nation. The Corps of Engineers,
Southwestern Division, is fully committed to completion of
the project based on the most optimal construction schedule.
I have made the recommendation to reprogram funds from this
project only after being personally convinced that the
project schedule cannot be advanced beyond what has currently
been scheduled to be accomplished this fiscal year. Based on
this analysis, I have determined that these funds are truly
excess to this year's project needs. The proposed
reprogramming is to be a temporary reallocation of funds to
maximize their use. They will be restored to the project when
they are required to ensure that we will maintain the optimal
construction schedule.
I am providing an identical letter to the Honorable Chet
Edwards, Honorable Nick Lampson, and the Honorable Ken
Bentsen. Thank you for your involvement in the development of
the water resources infrastructure within the State of Texas.
If I can be of assistance on any other matter, please feel
free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Edwin J. Arnold, Jr.,
Brigadier General, U.S. Army Commanding General
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, February 26, 1999.
Mr. Gary A. Loew,
Chief, Civil Programs Division, Southwestern Division, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Dallas, TX.
Dear Mr. Loew: For two consecutive years, the Congress
appropriated sufficient funds in the Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill to permit the completion of
the navigational features of the Houston Ship Channel project
in four years. Maintaining this optimal construction schedule
is a priority for us because it will add an additional $281
million to the project's return on investment and save
taxpayers $63.5 million in increased escalation and
investment costs.
We appreciate the efforts you have made to fully inform us
about the need to reprogram $2.2 million to the GIWW-Aransas
National Wildlife Refuge project, as well as your
understanding of our concerns. In the spirit of cooperation,
we and the Houston Port Authority are willing to support the
Corps request to reprogram funds from the Houston-Galveston
Navigation project. However, we would first ask to receive
assurance in writing that the Corps will reprogram other
funds to the Houston project to replace those lost. Further,
our understanding is that funds will be reprogrammed back to
the Houston Ship Channel project by FY 2001. In addition, if
the dredging project suddenly moves ahead of schedule, the
Corps must do everything possible to ensure that a delay does
not occur.
We look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Gene Green,
Member of Congress.
Chet Edwards,
Member of Congress.
Ken Bentsen,
Member of Congress.
Nick Lampson,
Member of Congress.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I note that the gentleman from Ohio
included in the committee report a provision directing the Secretary of
Energy to begin moving commercial spent nuclear fuel into interim
storage at one or more Department of Energy sites. I want to be sure
that your intent is for the Secretary to focus his attention on
existing DOE sites and not go looking for private sites that might be
used for interim storage.
Is my understanding of the gentleman's intent correct?
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. The gentleman's understanding is correct.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. So the gentleman does not see any reason the
Secretary would consider a non-DOE site for interim storage?
Mr. HOBSON. I do not see any reason for the Secretary to consider
making a private site, or a site on tribal land, into a DOE site for
interim storage. My intent is for the Secretary to evaluate storage
options at existing DOE sites.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for
his hard work and his courtesy.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member
and the chairman of the subcommittee for their work on this bill. This
is hard work.
This particular appropriations bill goes to the very heart of many of
our congressional districts. I appreciate very much the $4.7 billion in
funding provided to the Army Corps of Engineers, but let me express my
disappointment that we have not been able to stretch the dollars to
provide work on new projects. I am speaking particularly about Sims
Bayou, Greens Bayou, White Oaks Bayou and Braes Bayou.
More importantly, having worked on legislation dealing with inland
flooding, I can tell you that flooding is a very serious issue in my
district. I look forward to working with this appropriations
subcommittee through the coming session to be able to provide greater
assistance.
Might I also acknowledge my concern on the funding for
nonproliferation in nuclear weapons. While I wish we had been able to
include more dollars in this area, I am pleased that we were able to
increase their funding by $8 million over last year. Unlike previous
years, due to the appropriations subcommittee reorganization, the bill
funds several renewable energy programs, clean coal technology, and the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Such programs greatly enhance the lives
and security of my constituents.
I am very pleased that the Appropriations Committee rejected the
administration's proposal to prioritize Army Corps of Engineers water
projects based on the projected revenue they would bring to the
government. I want to join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) as
relates to our port in Houston, a very important economic arm, but also
an entity that needs a great deal of oversight and funding for security
and also operation. I am disappointed that the maintenance and
operation funding is not as much as it should be.
I also wish there could have been added funds for new projects.
Obviously, the needs of this Nation change on a daily basis. Saying
that this year we will not start any new projects is a bit illogical.
New projects are extremely efficient in job creation and there are many
competitive projects across the Nation.
One portion of the bill I am concerned about is the underfunding of
the National Nuclear Security Administration, $136 million less than
the President's request. I understand that some of this withheld money
would have
[[Page H3790]]
gone to the robust nuclear earth penetrator. I agree with the Committee
that we need to think long and hard before we start creating new
nuclear weapons when we are pushing the rest of the world.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this and hope that we
can do something more about the Yucca Mountain project by not funding
it, without further study and consideration of other opinions. The
people of Nevada deserve no less.
Mr. Chairman, let me first say thanks to you and the ranking member
for your work on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, let me raise an issue of concern for my constituents. I
appreciate very much the $4.7 billion in funding provided to the Army
Corps of Engineers, but let me express my disappointment that we have
not been able to stretch the dollars to provide work on new projects. I
am speaking particularly about Sims Bayou, Greens Bayou, White Oaks
Bayou and Braes Bayou. More importantly, having worked on legislation
dealing with inland flooding, I can tell you that flooding is a very
serious issue in my district, and I would look forward to working with
this appropriations subcommittee through conference to be able to
provide some greater assistance.
Mr. Chairman, might I also acknowledge my concern on the funding for
nonproliferation in nuclear weapons. While I wish we had been able to
include more dollars in this area, I am please that we were able to
increase their funding by $8 million over last year's levels.
I would like to commend the chairman and ranking member of the Energy
and Water Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee for their
excellent work on crafting this bill. There are several elements of
debate between the majority and the minority, and between the House and
the administration, but in general it seems that a fair compromise has
been reached. Unlike previous years, due to the Appropriations
subcommittee reorganization, the bill funds several renewable energy
programs, clean coal technology, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Such programs greatly enhance the lives and security of my
constituents.
I am very pleased that the Appropriations Committee rejected the
administration's proposal to prioritize Army Corps of Engineers water
projects based on the projected revenue they would bring to the
government. This prioritization plan would have essentially eliminated
some, while much needed, less profitable projects. I support the $4.7
billion provided for the Corps, 9.5 percent more than the President's
request. This is a smart investment. I wish there could have been added
funds for new projects. Obviously, the needs of this Nation change on a
daily basis. Saying that this year, we will not start any new projects
is a bit illogical. New projects are extremely efficient in job
creation. There are many competitive projects across the Nation and in
my district, which should have been provided for. However, at least
this bill is not a step backwards, like the administration's request. I
commend the committee for its leadership on this issue.
One portion of the bill I am concerned about is the under-funding of
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), $136 million less
than the president's request. I understand that some of this withheld
money would have gone to the ``robust nuclear earth penetrator.'' I
agree with the Committee that we need to think long and hard before we
start creating new nuclear weapons, when we are pushing the rest of the
world to put aside such implements of violence and destruction. We are
being accused on every front of employing double standards: as we march
on in war and talk about peace in the Middle East; as we spurn our own
neighbors in Cuba but ask people in the occupied territories or in
Korea or in South Asia, to forgive and forget; as we talk about
liberating people but allow tens of millions to die from HIV/AIDS in
Africa. We do not need to further degrade our own standing as a beacon
of liberty and justice by creating such violent and polluting weaponry
now. So, I am pleased that this bill does not provide for the nuclear
earth penetrator. But, I hope we can all work together to ensure that
other critical non-proliferation work done by the NNSA will be fully
provided for in the years to come.
Through my work on the Science Committee I have come to understand
the amazing new technologies on the horizon that will decrease our
reliance on foreign sources of fossil fuels, and help preserve our
environment for generations to come. It is good to see that this bill
has allotted $3.7 billion, 6 percent more than the administration's
request for Science programs. However, of the energy research out
there, hydrogen fuels and fuel cells are some of the most promising
areas that need to be developed. The Science Committee has encouraged
strong support of these programs, and the administration also has
recognized their value. But this appropriations bill provides for less
than half of what the administration has requested for hydrogen
technology research. I represent Houston, the energy capital of the
world. I understand the needs of this Nation for ample and affordable
energy. As gas prices take a slow decline, we are realizing that we
depend too much on countries that are either directly or indirectly
hostile towards us. It seems irresponsible to under-invest in these
next-generation technologies. Perhaps this is something that can be re-
visited in conference.
Again I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on
this bill. The lagging economy of the past 3 years, and huge deficits
that have been created by our fiscal policies, have made budgets very
tight. I wish this were not the case. But considering the box we are
in, I believe our appropriators have done an admirable job here to fund
important priorities and serve the Nation's energy and water needs.
Yet I am very disappointed in the support for the Yucca Mountain
Nuclear Waste Respository at an amount of an additional $310 million.
The project needs more consideration and more study, there is much
opposition in Nevada and the people of that great State deserve better
from this Congress.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
{time} 1215
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio
(Chairman Hobson) for his leadership in delivering a comprehensive and
bipartisan appropriations bill to the floor today. He has taken the
responsibility as chairman of the subcommittee very seriously. He has
been to New Jersey, to our home State. He has seen the channel
deepening project, and he takes a real interest in the projects found
in his bill, and I thank him very much for his leadership.
On a more personal note, I also want to thank the chairman for
supporting the Green Brook Flood Control Project, which is in my
district in New Jersey. My constituents in New Jersey thank him for his
commitment to this project.
I would also be remiss if I did not mention the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). For more than 5 years, the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), as a member of the Committee on
Appropriations, has been a champion for the Green Brook Flood Control
Project. He deserves significant credit for its success and the thanks
of thousands of residents whose safety and livelihood in our area of
New Jersey are very much at stake with the success of this project.
The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and every member of the
Committee on Appropriations has a considerable task and responsibility
of prioritizing local projects. There are no easy decisions,
particularly in a difficult and a tight budget year like this year. The
Green Brook Flood Control Project is saving homes and businesses and
lives. It is equally vital that our Senators from New Jersey take up
the fight for this important project and finish the work that we have
begun here in the House.
Again I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson), and
I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for
their compassion and their vision and their leadership and commitment
to this issue.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Feeney) for a colloquy.
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time. We appreciate the chairman and the committee's hard work on this
bill.
I want to specifically highlight the Rose Bay Ecosystem Project in
Florida's 24th Congressional District, which I represent. Here local,
county, and State agencies have worked for 10 years now and have spent
more than $30 million to restore our natural aquatic ecosystem of Rose
Bay. Now this project has stalled, understandably, due to limited funds
at a time of war. In the 1940s, Rose Bay was a productive estuary and
shellfish harvesting area on the Halifax River in Volusia County. Since
the 1990s, local engineers and cities have anted up to their
responsibility, and we would hope that the Army Corps of Engineers
would live up to the agreed-upon 5-point plan to restore Rose Bay.
[[Page H3791]]
I would ask the chairman's help, along with the committee's, to do
everything we can to get this project back on the appropriate steps
forward.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Florida is aware, the
budget is very tight this year; and due to the lack of Federal funds,
many projects the committee supported in the past did not receive
appropriations this year. Because money is tight, locals will need to
do more with less and finish this with other local money. As the
gentleman knows, I have got three grandchildren living in Florida; so I
am interested in the State of Florida, and I appreciate the gentleman's
bringing this to our attention.
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I simply again thank the chairman for his leadership, for being a
gentleman, and for being a friend; and I recommend the legislation to
my colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me close and say I want to thank my ranking member because we
have worked together on this bill. It is a very comprehensive and
detailed bill in a lot of scientific ways. We do take some visions for
the future of this country which I think are very important when it
comes to the waterways and we get the increased plume, which results
from not finishing these projects, completed. I think also as
important, if not more so, is the vision for the corps and the
waterways in the future. Also the vision for the Department of Energy
both in the weapons area and in the area of future cost-effective power
for this country so that this country can compete in the world in the
future are both dealt with in various stages in this bill.
So I hope that everyone will support this bill.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I ask my Colleagues to join us today in
defeating the previous question so that we can bring back a rule that
will allow us to debate an amendment that would increase funding for
research and development for new energy technologies by $250 million.
Yesterday, Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz of Pennsylvania, requested
a waiver from the Rules Committee so that she could offer this
amendment on the floor, but she was denied that opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, for 4 years now, the Republicans in Congress have
brought us an energy policy bill that provides billions in subsidies to
traditional energy industries already reaping record profits. According
to the New York Times, the top 10 biggest oil companies earned more
than $100 billion last year, and their combined sales are expected to
exceed $1 trillion, which is more than Canada's gross domestic product.
Just a few weeks ago, Republican leaders brought to the House floor
an energy bill that devoted 93 percent of its tax incentives to oil,
gas and other traditional energy industries, and only 7 percent for
renewable energy and investments in new technologies.
It is time for a new direction. A Democratic energy plan would set us
on a faster course toward energy independence by investing more of our
valuable resources in clean, renewable energy resources, promoting new
emerging technologies, developing greater efficiency and improving
energy conservation.
Today, we are fortunate to have a number of promising technologies
that offer new ways to generate energy and improve energy efficiency.
But these investments are just a beginning, and will need our
commitment in future years to sustain the innovations and investment
levels needed to truly establish a sound energy economy for the 21st
Century.
The hydrogen economy may be a worthy goal, but its benefits may not
be realized until mid-century. And while hydrogen may eventually play a
major role in replacing gasoline in our cars and trucks, the sources of
energy to generate hydrogen must begin accelerated development now.
The Schwartz amendment would not choose any particular type of
technology. Instead, it would distribute resource across multiple
technologies and use them to generate multi-year development and
deployment projects, support research and development competitive
grants, and increase deployment of existing and new energy conservation
measures.
For example, the National Academy of Sciences examined the possible
benefits of an aggressive investment in solid state lighting. Today,
lighting constitutes 30 percent of all energy use in buildings in the
United States. The Academy study found that an investment of $50
million a year for 10 years would result in a $50 billion savings
between now and 2050. That is a return of 100 to one for the U.S.
economy.
Another excellent example--fuel cells--offer potential benefits in
vehicles and stationary applications. Fuel cells are essential to a
hydrogen energy economy and also have a vital role to play in other
areas. Again, the National Academy of Sciences study found that a
sustained investment of roughly $500 million over the coming decade is
likely to produce benefits as much as $40 billion through 2025.
The government has an essential role to play in research and
development. Unless a business can make a reasonable return on its
research investment, it cannot afford to invest in R&D. And unless the
business is a monopoly, this requires the R&D to lead to a patent on a
device or a process that can be marketed. Applied research yields
benefits that are too diffuse to be captured by anyone company.
So the federal government collects funds from a broad base of
beneficiaries--the taxpayers--and invests in research and development
that otherwise would never happen. Almost all such funding is through
appropriation bills--the Energy and Water bill being one good example.
Mr. Chairman, we are the world leader in technical innovation.
From the light bulb to the space program to the Internet, the U.S.
has led the way. We have built the world's largest economy on the
inventiveness of our citizens and our willingness to make the
investment needed to advance our society. The fundamental nature of our
free society has always been the key to our achievement.
Science, engineering, and technology have enabled us to build our
modern nation, and now we need to use these tools aggressively to
increase our energy security, improve the lives of our citizens, and
power us in the 21st Century.
I call on Members to defeat the previous question so we might
consider an alternative rule that would allow Congresswoman Schwartz to
offer her amendment during the debate on funding energy priorities
today.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge funding to
redraw the flood plain maps that would assist in addressing flood plan
management problems along the Missouri River. The States of Iowa,
Nebraska, South Dakota, and Missouri, as well as all cities and
counties bordering the river, have an immediate need for improved flood
plain information along the Missouri River. The lack of incomplete data
hampers the way that communities plan for their economic future and
interact with state and federal agencies. The existing data is
approximately 30 years old. Coupled with that, is the fact that the
recently completed Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency Study,
which includes the main-Lower Missouri below Gavins Point Dam, resulted
in significant change to the existing hydrology and hydraulics along
the river. This indicates that current flood plain management for the
Missouri River is inaccurate and does not support the regulatory
requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This need for new information is due to the changes in land use and
the pressure from development occurring all along the river. Improving
the flood plain mapping, which meets the requirements of the NFIP
(authorized by P.L. 86-645), can be developed working from the results
of the Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency Study. The new
flood plain information will allow development of water surface
profiles and Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) for regulating
current and future development of the 100-year and 500-year flood
plains as well as the floodway along this 313-mile reach of the river.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the language of this bill, which
appropriates $310 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund ``to carry out
the purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982'' does not on its
face present policy concerns. While the Yucca Mountain repository
program faces funding problems, this is not the bill in which to
address those issues and this appropriation more than meets the
Administration's FY 2006 request.
The language of the committee report, however, is an altogether
different matter and strays across the line from appropriating into
authorizing. It does so by directing the Department of Energy (DOE) to
undertake actions inconsistent with its authority under the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act. Specifically, the report directs DOE to ``begin the
movement of spent fuel to centralized interim storage at one or more
DOE sites within fiscal year 2006.''
Now, it is elementary that report language does not constitute a
statutory mandate. As
[[Page H3792]]
the U.S. Supreme court ruled in its 1993 opinion, Lincoln v. Vigil,
``It is a fundamental principle of appropriations law that where
Congress merely appropriates lump-sum amounts without statutory
restriction, a clear inference may be drawn that it does not intend to
impose legally funding restrictions, and indicia in committee reports
and other legislative history as to how the funds should, or are
expected to, be spent do not establish any legal requirements on the
agency.''
Nonetheless, report language that conflicts with an agency's
statutory responsibilities warrants a response. The committee report
directs DOE to do something the Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not
permit--to establish one or more centralized interim storage facilities
for commercial spent fuel, to take title to ``some'' commercial spent
fuel, and to consider altering the order in which utility fuel is
scheduled to be removed from utility sites.
What would adoption of this ``interim storage'' proposal mean?
First, it would mean that some State other than Nevada, which
Congress ratified as the sole candidate for licensing a permanent
repository, would ``win'' the lottery for hosting an interim storage
facility that would open in 2006. The report language helpfully notes
that three DOE sites in the States of Idaho, South Carolina, and
Washington, could be selected. It notes as well, however, that other
Federal sites, including closed military bases, could be picked.
This would not be permitted under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
Second, the proposed interim facility would not be subject to
licensing by the NRC. It is not clear that the National Environmental
Policy Act would even apply. If you think licensing a repository at
Yucca Mountain will be a demanding process, as it should be, the
uncertainties surrounding an unlicensed interim storage facility should
give pause to potentially affected communities.
Third, since the proposal specifies no licensing process and no
statutory criteria for site selection, it is likely that pure
politics--not seismic conditions, not storage capacity, not even
security measures--would guide DOE in its selection of a fast track
candidate to begin storing waste in FY 2006. That should send a chill
up the spine of any state with a Federally-owned site, since the policy
proposed in the report would not provide protections equal to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements for storage of spent
fuel by utilities.
Fourth, ratepayers should be alarmed by the committee report's
interim storage proposal. They have paid over $22 billion into the
Nuclear Waste Fund since 1983 for the purpose of permanent disposal--
not interim storage--of commercial spent fuel. An interim storage
facility could add to costs in the long run, increasing ratepayers'
total payments to the Fund.
Fifth, utilities and the nuclear industry should be alarmed by this
interim storage proposal. While a few lucky companies' waste might get
moved before Yucca Mountain opens, the vast majority are likely to be
stuck holding their waste longer. Interim storage is likely to divert
DOE's funds and attention, just when the Department needs to focus on
submitting a license to the NRC and on getting Yucca Mountain up and
running.
I commend Representatives Spratt and Hobson for their colloquy
clarifying that the committee report's ``guidance'' to DOE interim
storage does not obviate the need for statutory changes to authorize
DOE to pursue this misguided policy. Yesterday, I sent DOE Secretary
Bodman a letter asking that and other questions, and I believe all
Members would be well served to consider the answers before considering
such substantial modifications to current law.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concerns with the
Army Corps of Engineers and my hope that language included in this bill
will rein their disregard for Congressional requests.
I concur with the committee's expressed dissatisfaction with the Army
Corps managing of water projects and their excessive transfer of funds
between projects. Many of us have long been frustrated with the Army
Corps is their mishandling of projects throughout the Nation. Although
Congress authorizes and appropriates specific projects, the Army Corps
repeatedly ignores these guidelines and sets their own priorities. This
has resulted significant delays that further distress the communities
near these uncompleted projects.
In the 12th Congressional District, the environmental restoration of
Grover's Mill Pond is a most egregious example of the Army Corps
disregard for congressionally mandated projects. Located at the site
made famous by Orson Wells' ``War of the Worlds'' radio broadcast,
Grover's Mill Pond is not only a historic site, but it is a recreation
destination within West Windsor Township and a vital link in the
Township's stream corridors and watershed area. Years of sediment
build-up and runoff from the watershed have caused the pond to become
overrun with aquatic weeds and algae.
This pond in its current condition is not only an eyesore for the
community and the residents that live near it, but gives off an
unpleasant odor in the summer. Completion of this project is long
overdue, and could have been completed had the Army Corps not
transferred almost all of the $500,000 that was specifically designated
by Congress for this project. Thankfully, the committee has once again
designated funding for this project, and I expect that the Army Corps
will follow Congressional designation and not once again shortchange my
constituents in favor of a project they deem more worthy.
Unfortunately, other unfinished projects in my district such as
McCarter's Pond and Rogers Pond did not receive additional funding in
this bill. I am hopeful that the strong and clear direction the
committee has given the Army Corps in this bill will force them to
complete such projects in the future and encourage them not to create
such unpleasant situations in the future.
I thank the committee for their desire to assist my constituents and
this nation by providing additional funds for unfinished projects and
expressing their severe dissatisfaction with the Army Corps management
of water projects. I hope this legislation will serve as an important
step in reforming this agency and ensuring that our communities receive
the environmental restoration assistance they desperately need.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the civil works program of the
Corps of Engineers provides water resources development projects that
are important to the Nation. I believe the restrictions on
reprogramming of funds and the constraints on the use of continuing
contracts contained in this bill will lead to the inefficient use of
appropriated funds and will disadvantage congressionally-added
projects.
Congress does not fully fund projects in a given fiscal year and the
schedule for constructing these large water resources projects is
subject to the weather, environmental conditions, and other dynamic
circumstances. As a result, reprogramming and continuing contacts are
important tools that allow for the efficient use of appropriated funds.
I share the concerns that the Appropriations Committee has for some
of the reprogramming activities of the Corps of Engineers and the way
they have used continuing contracts for some of their projects.
However, the constraints in this bill are too restrictive.
Section 101 only allows a reprogramming of $2 million or less per
project. This is not enough to allow the Corps to effectively move
money around among projects when projects are delayed or when they can
be accelerated.
Also, the bill earmarks nearly all available funding, which makes it
impossible for the Corps to pay back those projects that it took money
from in previous reprogramming.
I must disagree also with the restriction placed on continuing
contracts by this bill. While there may have been some unwise uses of
continuing contracts by the Corps, the restrictions in this bill are
too severe. They will lead to inefficient use of funds and a bias
against Congressional priority projects.
As a result of the constraints on reprogramming, a lot of money will
be carried over each fiscal year and work will have to be broken up
into many smaller units making projects more expensive.
Current law requires the Corps to use continuing contracts whenever
funds are provided in an appropriations act, but there is not enough
money to complete the project. Only funds for that fiscal year are
reserved, but the contractor can proceed with additional work with the
understanding that payment is subject to future appropriations.
Section 104 is inconsistent with current law in that it restricts the
amount of work a contractor can do to only that which can be
accomplished with FY 06 funds. Under section 104, the contractor cannot
proceed at his own risk in anticipation of FY 07 and future year
funding. The contractor will have to stop work and wait for a new
contract the next year.
Section 104 is legislative in nature and I intend to make a point of
order that will strike it from the bill.
Section 105 further restricts the use of continuing contracts and has
the remarkable effect of restricting the Corps' ability to carry out
congressionally-added projects in this appropriation bill.
Section 105 states that none of the funds provided in FY 06 may be
used to award a continuing contract that extends into FY 07 unless the
Administration budgets for the project in FY 07.
This means that even if a Member has funding for a project in this
bill, for FY 06, not fully funded, there are three options: (1) Hope to
award a continuing contract before Administration comes out with its
budget in February of 2006, (2) award a single year contract for only
one increment of the project (resulting in increased costs), or (3)
wait until fiscal year 2008 to award a continuing contract for the
[[Page H3793]]
project (delaying project construction and project benefits).
These restrictions apply to on-going as well as new projects.
In Alaska, there are currently eight projects under construction
using continuing contracts. Seven of these are not in the President's
Budget. I expect that before this bill becomes law, it will contain
funding for all of these projects.
Nevertheless, under section 105 of the bill, a continuing contract
could not be used in FY 06, and the Corps will have to break the
projects into smaller pieces or wait until FY 08 to spend the FY 06
appropriated funds.
I believe the restrictions in this bill will delay these important
projects in Alaska and make them more expensive. This is a problem that
will be repeated for other Members for projects all over the country.
Finally, I want to applaud the Committee's efforts to get additional
information from the Administration during the budget process.
Information is needed for all projects, not just the ones in the
Administration's budget. In addition, I believe that a 5-year schedule
of spending for each project will allow the Congress to better
appropriate funding that can match the Corps capabilities for
individual projects.
Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky are to be commended for
their efforts to see that program management and budgeting at the Corps
of Engineers are put back on track. While I have reservations about the
effects of some of the measures required by this bill, I believe I can
work with the Committee leadership as this bill moves forward to see
that my concerns are addressed in Conference.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
I would first like to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr.
Hobson, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky, for their work in
putting together the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill.
I also want to thank both of them for including $48 million in the
bill to continue funding the Port of Oakland's 50-foot dredging project
in my district in California.
As the fourth largest container port in the country, the Port of
Oakland serves as one of our premier international trade gateways to
Asia and the Pacific.
The 50-foot dredging project will underpin an $800 million expansion
project funded by the Port that will improve infrastructure, expand
capacity and increase efficiencies throughout the distribution chain.
Once this project is finished, an additional 8,800 jobs will be
added, business revenue will increase by $1.9 billion, and local tax
revenues will go up by $55.5 million. Best of all, 100 percent of the
dredged materials will be reused for wetlands restoration, habitat
enhancement, and upland use within the San Francisco Bay Area.
I appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this project and I look
forward to continuing to work with the Chairman and Ranking Member to
complete it.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Appropriations
Committee, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water
Bill. I want to thank Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for
their hard work in drafting this bill. I also want to acknowledge both
the Majority and Minority staff for their dedication.
I can appreciate the tough choices that both Chairman Hobson and
Ranking Member Visclosky had to make with the tight allocation for this
bill. I believe they have made choices with the best interests of
improving U.S. water infrastructure and advancing energy programs in
mind. Those decisions were not easy, but this bill is the best we can
do under the budget constraints. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in
favor of the FY 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations Act.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this bill is not perfect. But it
provides appropriate funding for many important purposes, and I will
vote for it.
Subcommittee Chairman Hobson, ranking member Visclosky, and their
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee deserve our thanks for their
work on this legislation.
Their task was made harder by the restrictions imposed by the budget
resolution championed by the Republican leadership, and the bill does
not include some things that I think should have been funded. But I
think they have done a good job with the allocation of funds available
to them, and the bill does include some items of particular importance
to Coloradans.
In particular, I am very pleased that it will provide nearly $580
million to continue--and, I hope, complete--the cleanup of Rocky Flats.
Formed by the location of a facility for making key parts of nuclear
weapons, the Rocky Flats site is located just 15 miles from downtown
Denver and at one time was the location of large quantities of nuclear
materials and other hazardous substances. Because of its proximity to
our state's major metropolitan area, timely and effective cleanup and
closure of the site has been a matter of top priority for all
Coloradans.
With the funding provided by this bill and barring unforeseen
developments, the Department of Energy and its contractor, Kaiser-Hill,
should be able to complete the cleanup in the coming months--and while
the department will have ongoing responsibilities at Rocky Flats,
completing the cleanup will enable it to focus even more intently on
the cleanup work to be done at other sites. So, I strongly support this
part of the bill.
However, while we are taking care of the site, it is essential that
we also take care of those who worked there. Some of them were made
sick because of exposure to beryllium, radiation, or other hazards. It
was because of them, and those like them who worked at other sites,
that I worked with our colleagues from Kentucky and Ohio, Mr. Whitfield
and Mr. Strickland, as well as others in both the House and Senate, and
with Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson and his colleagues in the
Clinton Administration, to pass the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). I am proud to have been
able to help get this program enacted and I will continue working to
improve it for those who have worked at Rocky Flats and other sites.
And, we need to also remember the other workers at Rocky Flats as
well. As they near the completion of their jobs at the site, they are
understandably concerned about what will come next. Many have moved on
to other jobs, and others will do so. But many are facing uncertainties
about their futures. For all of them, it is essential that DOE acts
promptly to resolve remaining questions about the futures they can
expect when their work at Rocky Flats is finished.
For that reason, I recently wrote to ask Secretary Bodman to give
immediate attention to two important matters--(1) determining the
future administration of pension and health insurance plans for Rocky
Flats workers (and for those at other closure sites as well); and (2)
assuring the continued availability of medical benefits for Rocky Flats
workers who will not be eligible for full retirement at the time of the
site's closure.
I pointed out that DOE's Office of Legacy Management (LM) has stated
that it is developing a plan for the transition of pension and
insurance plans, as well as for record keeping and other matters for
which LM is responsible. However, I also noted that no such plan yet
exists, which means there is increasing concern among the Rocky Flats
workers about their future.
There now remain only a few months for these matters to be resolved
prior to closure. Time is of the essence. So, I was very glad to note
that the Committee Report accompanying this bill directs DOE to report
by September 30, 2005, on the Department's plan for a national
stewardship contract for administration of the pension and benefit
payments to former Environmental Management closure site contractor
employees. I applaud the committee for including this directive, and
urge the Administration to complete and submit this report as soon as
possible.
The bill also includes other matters of particular importance for
Colorado. It provides funding for several Bureau of Reclamation
projects in our state, including the Colorado-Big Thompson project and
the Fryingpan-Arkansas project as well as the ongoing construction of
the Animas-La Plata project. It also includes needed funds for
operation and maintenance of a number of reservoirs operated by the
Army's Corps of Engineers as well as for other Corps activities in
Colorado.
And I am very glad to note that the bill will provide funds for
completing construction of the new science and technology facility at
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
I am disappointed, however, that the bill shortchanges some of the
important clean energy programs at NREL. As co-chair of the Renewable
Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House, I have worked for
years to increase--or at a minimum, hold steady--funding for DOE's
renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development
programs.
Given the finite supply and high prices of fossil fuels and
increasing global demand, investing in clean energy is more important
than ever. DOE's renewable energy programs are vital to our nation's
interests, helping provide strategies and tools to address the
environmental challenges we will face in the coming decades. These
programs are also helping to reduce our reliance on oil imports,
thereby strengthening our national security, and also creating hundreds
of new domestic businesses, Supporting thousands of American jobs, and
opening new international markets for American goods and services.
For our investment in these technologies to payoff, our efforts must
be sustained over the long term. This bill does not do that. This bill
is $23 million less than last year's bill in the
[[Page H3794]]
area of renewable energy research. This includes cuts in biomass,
geothermal, and solar energy programs. I believe that the reductions in
funding levels for the core renewable energy programs are ill-advised
at a time when the need for a secure, domestic energy supply is so
crucial.
I am also concerned about the bill's deep cuts to energy efficiency
programs such as Industrial Technologies ($16 million) and State Energy
Program Grants (nearly $4 million) and a cut of nearly $5 million in
the Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability Program.
Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, my regrets about this bill are outweighed
by my appreciation for the good things that it includes, and so I urge
the House to pass this important appropriations bill.
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank
Chairman Hobson for his leadership in bringing this important
legislation to the floor, and I also thank him for his continued
commitment to the Yucca Mountain project. As a fiscal conservative, I
share his concerns regarding the federal government's liability as
result of project delays, and I would like to work with the Committee
to ensure the Department of Energy (DOE) fulfills its statutory and
contractual obligation to accept spent fuel for disposal. To resolve
this issue the Committee has recommended the Spent Fuel Recycling
Initiative (Initiative), which links interim storage to reprocessing.
I strongly believe interim storage of commercial spent fuel should
not take place a DOE sites like Savannah River. However, I do agree
that interim storage is an issue Congress and the DOE should examine.
One argument posed by opponents of this Initiative is that interim
storage would create a ``de facto'' permanent repository, which
undermines our national policy of disposing high-level radioactive
waste in a permanent deep, geologic repository. While I share the
concern, this argument only has merit if interim storage is dealt with
as a separate issue. But, the Committee's report expressly states the
Initiative has ``linked'' interim storage to reprocessing. Moreover,
this bill fully funds the Yucca Mountain project. These facts read
together clearly imply that the DOE implementation of the Initiative's
core elements should not undermine Yucca Mountain. As a result, I
strongly believe the DOE should carefully examine any unintended
consequences in its implementation report to ensure the Initiative
supports our national policy on nuclear waste disposal as set forth by
the Nuclear Waste Disposal Act.
Examining the merits of this Initiative also requires us to review
its other core element--reprocessing commercial spent fuel. The
Committee correctly notes prior to the mid-1970's, the Federal
government encouraged the reprocessing of commercial spent fuel and
even developed reprocessing facilities in several states including
South Carolina. Although opponents often cite proliferation concerns as
a reason not to reprocess spent fuel, the report states ``there is no
evidence that current [European] reprocessing operations pose a
significant proliferation risk.'' Equally as important, I agree with
the Committee that reduced volumes gained through reprocessing could
avert the need to expand Yucca or site a second repository. Finally,
reprocessing can also reduce the radiotoxicity of high-level waste,
which makes licensing Yucca Mountain a simpler proposition. As a
result, there is no question it is time for our nation to reexamine
this issue, and I believe the Savannah River Site's existing
reprocessing infrastructure should be considered as potential resources
that could be utilized for this purpose.
Although I agree the Committee's Initiative presents our nation a
possible solution to finally shipping high-level waste out of states
like South Carolina more quickly than anticipated, I do not believe the
Initiative could be implemented without further Congressional
authorization. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), the DOE's
authority to store commercial spent fuel on an interim basis at
existing DOE facilities expired January 1, 1990. Moreover, the NWPA
does not allow the DOE to construct a Monitored Retrievable Storage
(MRS) facility until Yucca Mountain receives a construction license.
Thus, if the DOE desires to implement the core elements of the
Initiative, I along with the Committee request the DOE provide to
Congress any necessary authority it may need to execute it.
I have no doubt Chairman Hobson's intentions with this Initiative are
to support the nuclear power industry by ensuring we have a permanent
repository for commercial spent fuel, and he is to be commended for
bringing this matter to the 109th Congress' attention. The issue of
nuclear waste disposal is complex, and it will require big ideas for
safe disposition of our high-level waste. The Spent Fuel Recycling
Initiative is one of those ideas, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues and my constituents to ensure it is the best policy to
pursue.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I am mindful of the limitations
that the Appropriations Committee is under when funding project
requests for the Army Corps of Engineers. I am also aware, however,
that the committee works closely with the Corps in this process, and
that funding decisions are based largely on the priorities put forward
by the Corps.
With this in mind, I am very disappointed that the Energy and Water
Appropriations bill that we approved today did not contain funding for
the cleanup of a logjam on Jacobs Creek in my district in Coffey
County, Kansas. I am disappointed because I have made it abundantly
clear to the Corps on numerous occasions that I hear more from
constituents about this project than any other Corps project in my
district. Further, I have asked the Corps to make it one of their
highest priorities when it comes to funds spent in my district.
This logjam began in 1973, but has only in recent years escalated to
such a problematic level. Currently, the logjam covers an expanse of
more than two miles. Along this stretch, boat docks are useless and
garbage is trapped in the sediment. The clog poses not only a health
and safety hazard to area residents, but it also threatens the economic
viability of the region.
If the Corps had given this request the priority it deserved, it
would have received funding. The absence of funding for this project in
the bill leads me to conclude that the Corps has once again looked the
other way.
I am disappointed that this crucial project has once again been
ignored and I call on the Corps to put their resources to work and
remedy this situation. I fully intend to continue working to see that
this project is funded in the final version of this bill.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, the measure before us today--the
appropriations act for Energy and Water Development--joins the early
wave of discretionary spending bills pursuant to the recently adopted
budget resolution for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95). As the name
suggests, this bill provides for the Nation's energy and water
development needs, with funding for all of the Department of Energy,
and select activities of the Departments of Defense and the Interior,
including the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. While
the government's overall energy strategy is now being discussed in a
conference on H.R. 6, the bill before us today provides a vital
additional component of the Nation's energy policies.
As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am pleased to note that this
bill complies with the budget resolution, and also reflects a
responsible set of budgetary choices. Although the Appropriations
Committee provided more funding that the President in certain areas,
they still achieved a modest but real reduction in total spending for
this bill, compared with fiscal year 2005.
Energy and Water Development
H.R. 2419 provides $29.7 billion in appropriations for fiscal year
2006. This is $410 million, or 1.3 percent, below the fiscal year 2005
level, and equal to the President's request. The bill complies with
section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of
bills in excess of an Appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation
of budget authority in the budget resolution.
The bill provides $23.8 billion in discretionary BA to the Department
of Energy [DOE], a reduction of $390 million from the 2005 enacted
level. Within the department, BA is reduced from the 2005 level by 2.6
percent for Environmental and Other Defense Activities ($203 million),
and 4 percent for the National Nuclear Security Administration ($365
million). But for Energy Programs, the bill provides a slight increase
of 1.3 percent, or $98 million.
H.R. 2419 provides $661 million for the Yucca Mountain repository, an
increase of $84 million above 2005 and $10 million over the President's
request.
Funding for the Department of the Interior totals $933 million and
discretionary spending for the Bureau of Reclamation holds flat
relative to 2005.
For the Corps of Engineers, the committee provided $4.7 billion, or
$396 million over the President's request, primarily through additional
construction and operations and maintenance spending, which together
make up two-thirds of total Corps of Engineers spending. Also, the
Appropriations Committee rejected an initiative to directly fund the
operations and maintenance costs through the Power Marketing
Associations' revenues.
H.R. 2419 does not contain any emergency-designated BA, which is
exempt from budgetary limits. While the budget resolution for fiscal
year 2006, H. Con. Res. 95, did allow for an advance appropriation in
the Elk Hills account, the Committee on Appropriations provided for it
with a current year appropriation.
The bill also defers $257 million in previously appropriated funds
for the Clean Coal Technology Initiative until fiscal year 2007,
providing $257 million in BA savings for 2006, and an equal increase in
2007. The administration proposed a rescission of this amount.
Additionally, the bill allows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC]
to recover 90 percent of its budget authority through licensing
[[Page H3795]]
and annual fees, less the appropriation derived from the Nuclear Waste
Fund. This will recover a projected $581 million in fiscal year 2006
with remaining 10 percent, or $65 million, funded from the General Fund
of the Treasury.
In conclusion, I would like to commend Chairman Lewis and the
Appropriations Committee on their steady work in bringing bills to the
floor that comply with H. Con. Res. 95 and wish them continued success
as they proceed through this appropriations season.
I therefore express my support for H.R. 2419.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support of the
House version of the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2006, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this
important measure.
I commend Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for their work
on this bill. I believe it is a good start for addressing our nation's
water infrastructure and energy research needs, especially given the
budget constraints.
As a farmer who works the land in Colorado's San Luis Valley, I know
and understand water issues, and I can't emphasize how important it is
to invest back into local water infrastructure. Without this
investment, I fear we will continue to see a decline in the management
of this irreplaceable resource--water is the lifeblood of our rural
communities.
The House Energy and Water Appropriations Bill would provide $29.7
billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation and
Department of Energy, a $329 million increase over last year's funding
level.
I am pleased the Committee included funding for three important
projects which I had requested back in March for the 3rd District of
Colorado. First and foremost, the Committee included $56 million in
funding for construction of the Animas-La Plata Project. This funding
level represents a $4 million increase over the President's budget
request and comes on the heels of a Colorado delegation letter which I
spearheaded back in March. I would also like to thank the Committee for
the inclusion of language which directs a larger percentage of program
funds towards construction, not administrative costs.
Completion of the A-LP will provide a much-needed water supply in the
southwest corner of our state for both Indian and non-Indian municipal
and industrial purposes. It will also fulfill the intent of a carefully
negotiated settlement agreement in the mid-1980s to ensure the
legitimate claims of the two Colorado Ute Tribes could be met without
harm to the existing uses of their non-tribal neighbors.
Since 2002, the Bureau of Reclamation has made much progress, and
work has been completed or initiated on many key project features. This
increased funding will allow the Bureau to move forward in a way that
will ensure timely completion of the A-LP and avoid costly delays.
The FY2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill also includes
$315,000 for the Arkansas River Habitat Restoration Project. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the City of Pueblo,
Colorado has completed 90 percent of the project including fish habitat
structures along a 9-mile section of the river below Pueblo Dam through
downtown Pueblo. This funding would be used to complete the project
which is an important environmental restoration project for the
project.
Finally, the Committee also provided a $1.021 million appropriation
for the Army Corps of Engineers to engage in operations and maintenance
at Trinidad Lake, Colorado; this amount represents almost a $100,000
increase from the FY2005 funding level. Trinidad Lake is a multipurpose
project for flood control, irrigation and recreation, and was
authorized by the 1958 Flood Control Act. The lake is located in
southern Colorado on the Purgatoire River, and bordered by the historic
Santa Fe Trail. The dam itself is an earthfill structure 6,860 feet
long and 200 feet high, and constructed with some 8 million cubic yards
of earth and rock.
Each project is an important part of improving water related
infrastructure. As this bill proceeds through the appropriations
process, I will continue the fight to preserve funding for the 3rd
District of Colorado.
Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2419)
making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________