[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 148 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H10058-H10065]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2419, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 539, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for 
energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2006, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 539, the 
conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
November 7, 2005, at page H9813.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HOBSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today 
the conference report on H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
  The amount of funding included in the Energy and Water conference 
agreement is $30.5 billion. This represents an increase of $663 million 
over the enacted level for fiscal year 2005, including supplementals 
and approximately $748 million over the budget requests. Much of this 
increase is dedicated to the Civil Works program of the Corps of 
Engineers with the Corps receiving approximately $1 billion over the 
budget request.
  The recent hurricanes have taught us a hard lesson about the dangers 
of neglecting the water resources infrastructure in this country. We 
have to make sure we provide sufficient funds to address the most 
pressing water resource needs in this country, and we have to make sure 
that the Corps follows the spending guides provided by Congress in 
executing those projects.
  We have focused on funding on the most important flood control, 
navigation and dam safety projects and on completing projects that are 
already under way. That means that our conference report includes only 
a limited number of new starts and project authorizations.
  Our conference agreement imposes stricter controls on the Corps over 
reprogrammings and continuing contracts. Within the Department of 
Energy, our conference agreement provides health funding levels for the 
major DOE programs. We advance initiatives on the recycling of spent 
nuclear fuel and on the Reliable Replacement Warhead, and we keep 
critical projects such as the Yucca Mountain Repository and the 
National Ignition Facility and the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication 
Facility moving forward.
  I really want to thank all my colleagues on the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee and in the Senate. I especially want to extend my 
appreciation to my ranking member and partner in this venture, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). He has been an exceptional 
partner in this effort, and I believe we are both proud of this very 
bipartisan bill. I also want to thank the staff on both sides of the 
aisle for their outstanding work this past year.
  I urge the unanimous support of the House for the adoption of the 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the 
conference report on H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006.
  The total amount of funding included in the Energy and Water 
conference agreement is $30.5 billion. This represents an increase of 
$663 million over the enacted level for fiscal year 2005, including 
supplementals, and approximately $748 million over the budget request.
  Title I of this conference report provides funding for the Civil 
Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and for the Corps' 
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. The conference 
agreement provides the Corps with $5.4 billion in fiscal year 2006, 
slightly below the current year when last year's emergency supplemental 
appropriations are considered, but approximately $1 billion over the 
budget request.
  The recent hurricanes in September and October should serve as a 
long-overdue wakeup call to both Congress and the Corps of Engineers 
about the importance of water resources infrastructure in this country. 
We have to make sure that we provide sufficient funds to address the 
most pressing water resource needs in this country, and we have to make 
sure that the Corps follows the spending guidance provided by Congress. 
We have to fund the right projects, we have to make sure the Corps 
completes those projects in a timely manner, and we have to make sure 
those projects perform as intended.
  To that end, our top priority in this conference was to provide 
additional funding for essential water projects around the country. Of 
the additional $749 million that was available to our conference over 
the amount requested by the Administration, we dedicated $634 million 
of that increase to the Corps of Engineers.

[[Page H10059]]

  As we have done in the last several fiscal years, we have attempted 
to focus those resources on the Nation's top water resources 
priorities. That means that we apply funds to projects that can be 
completed in fiscal year 2006. We asked the Corps to use its 
professional engineering judgment to provide us with a list of the top 
ten priority flood control needs around the country, and a list of the 
top ten navigation infrastructure needs as well. Unfortunately, the 
Corps was unable to provide us with anything other than the list of 
projects contained in the budget request, so we generally funded those 
critical flood control and navigation projects at the full amount of 
the request.
  As in previous years, we also limit the number of new starts and the 
number of project authorizations contained in this conference 
agreement. However, the most significant change is not in the funding 
levels or the individual projects, but rather in the way the Corps 
manages those funds and executes those projects. The Corps has operated 
its Civil Works program with a large amount of flexibility in the past, 
with the freedom to move funding around from project to project. 
Unfortunately, that practice got out of hand, to where the Corps was 
executing 20,000 reprogrammings a year for a workload of only 2,000 
projects. That is not sound financial management.
  The problem was compounded by the Corps' excessive reliance on 
continuing contracts, whereby the Corps can commit the Federal 
government to multi-year contracts in advance of having sufficient 
appropriations in hand. These two practices, reprogrammings and 
continuing contracts, meant that the Corps was playing a shell game 
with the funding we appropriated, moving money around from project to 
project to cover obligations they had made in excess of available 
appropriations.
  Our conference agreement brings that practice to an end, by imposing 
stricter controls over reprogrammings and continuing contracts. We put 
a lot of effort into negotiating sound allocations for water projects, 
and we expect the Corps to abide by those allocations in the future.
  Funding for Title II of the bill, which includes the Central Utah 
Project Completion Account and the programs of the Bureau of 
Reclamation, is $1.065 billion, $47 million above the amount 
appropriated last year and $114 million above the budget request.
  Total funding for Title III, the Department of Energy is $24.29 
billion, $129 million above fiscal year 2005 and $77 million below the 
budget request.
  Our conference agreement provides healthy funding levels for the 
major Department of Energy programs. Energy Supply and Conservation is 
funded at $1.83 billion, an increase of $24 million over the current 
year and $81 million over the request. This amount includes significant 
increases in weatherization assistance and research on nuclear energy 
and electricity transmission and distribution. Fossil Energy research 
and development programs are funded at $598 million, an increase of 
$107 million over the request. This amount includes $18 million for 
FutureGen and $50 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative.
  Non-defense environmental cleanup activities are funded at $353 
million, an increase of $3.3 million over the request. The Uranium 
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund receives $562.3 
million, an increase of $67 million over the current year and a 
decrease of $29 million below the request. Defense Environmental 
Cleanup programs are funded at $6.19 billion, an increase of $177 
million over the request. Of this amount, $157.4 million represents the 
cleanup of facilities of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(NNSA), initially proposed in the budget request for transfer from 
Environmental Management to the NNSA. The conference report provides 
$526 million for the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, 
a decrease of $100 million from the request.

  The conference agreement provides $3.633 billion for the DOE Office 
of Science, an increase of $33 million over the current year and $170 
million over the request. This amount includes an additional $30 
million for advanced scientific computing, to accelerate the 
development of a leadership-class supercomputer for scientific 
applications.
  For nuclear waste disposal activities, the conference agreement 
provides a total of $500 million, including $450 million for work on 
the Yucca Mountain repository and $50 million to initiate planning and 
a competitive site selection process for one or more integrated spent 
fuel recycling facilities. It is essential to continue development of 
the Yucca Mountain repository, but it is also essential to pursue 
alternative approaches to spent nuclear fuel so that we do not have to 
develop eight more repositories by the end of this century.
  The conference agreement provides a total of $9.2 billion for the 
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), an increase of $217 
million over the current year but a decrease of $201 million from the 
request. This decrease compared to the request results largely from the 
cleanup responsibilities for NNSA sites and facilities, which were 
proposed in the budget request for transfer to the NSSA but were 
retained in Environmental Management in the conference agreement.
  The conference agreement does not include funding for the Robust 
Nuclear Earth Penetrator but provides significant increases for the 
development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Additional resources 
are provided to accelerate the consolidation of special nuclear 
materials into a smaller number of secure sites, and to accelerate 
dismantlement of obsolete nuclear weapons. The conference agreement 
includes the requested amount of funding for construction of the 
National Ignition Facility.
  Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities are funded at $1.6 
billion, an increase of $138 million over the current year and $6 
million below the request. This amount includes sufficient funds for 
the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at Savannah River to proceed 
into construction in fiscal year 2006.
  Funding for Title IV, Independent Agencies, is $271.1 million, a 
decrease of $18.2 million from last year and an increase of $36.9 
million above the budget request. We have funded the Appalachian 
Regional Commission at $65.5 million, the same as the request. The 
Delta Regional Authority is funded at $12 million, an increase of $6 
million over the request and over the current year. The conference 
agreement provides $50 million for the Denali Commission, a decrease of 
$16 million below the current year and $47 million over the budget 
request. The conference agreement provides $734 million for salaries 
and expenses of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), an increase of 
$77 million over the current year and $41 million over the request. 
This additional budget authority is provided for NRC work on licensing 
new reactors and for increased security assessments.
  I want to thank my Senate counterpart, Chairman Pete Domenici, and 
his ranking minority Member, Senator Harry Reid, for their hard work 
during this conference. I especially want to extend my appreciation to 
my ranking member, the Honorable Pete Visclosky of Indiana, who was at 
my side during this entire process. I truly value his support and 
advice, and that of all the Members of our Energy and Water 
Subcommittee. I believe we are all proud of this bipartisan product.
  Mr. Speaker, before I conclude I would also like to thank the staff 
for their help in shepherding this bill through the House and through 
conference with the Senate. The Subcommittee staff includes Kevin Cook, 
John Blazey, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowski, Tracy LaTurner, and our 
detailee from the Corps of Engineers, Taunja Berquam. I also want to 
thank Kenny Kraft of my staff, and Dixon Butler of the minority staff, 
and Peder Maarbjerg and Felicia Kirksey of Mr. Visclosky's staff.
  I urge the unanimous support of the House for adoption of this 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I recommend that all Members join me in supporting this 
conference agreement. Its presentation has been bipartisan, and the 
chairman has been fair throughout his preparation. I would also join 
the chairman in adding 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 very strong team.
  On the minority staff, I would like to thank Dixon Butler. This year 
we have two of the finest detailees ever from the Army Corps, Taunja 
Berquam helping with the majority and Felicia Kirksey helping with the 
minority. I would also thank Kenny Kraft on Chairman Hobson's staff as 
well as Peder Maarbjerg on mine.
  Conference negotiations this year were protracted and their favorable 
resolution required both patience and firmness in pushing for positive 
reforms of the Corps of Engineers management practices.
  I want to thank Chairman Lewis as well as Ranking Member Obey for 
their steadfast support in getting this done.
  As I said in my remarks earlier this year, 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, including saner and safer policies on nuclear weapons, 
insistence on 5-year planning from the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of 
Reclamation, and the Department of

[[Page H10060]]

Energy; a focus on completing projects in management reforms, 
particularly at the Corps. On this side of the aisle I am pleased to 
have had the opportunity to support my chairman on these issues.

                              {time}  1245

  The conferees were given an allocation of $749 million larger than 
was available when the House developed its bill back in the spring. The 
tragic events that resulted from the hurricanes demonstrated that our 
Nation has crying needs in the areas served by the program of the 
corps, and we have devoted the increased funds to meet these needs 
along the Gulf of Mexico and across the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask for my colleagues' support of this conference 
agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I recommend that all members join me in supporting this 
conference agreement. Its preparation has been bipartisan and the 
Chairman has been fair throughout its reparation. 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 of the finest detailees ever 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.
  Conference negotiations this year were protracted and their favorable 
resolution required both patience and firmness in pushing for positive 
reforms of the Corps of Engineers management practices. I want to thank 
Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Obey for their steadfast support in 
getting this done.
  As I said in remarks earlier in the year, 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, 
including saner and safer policies on nuclear weapons, insistence on 5-
year planning from the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and 
Department of Energy, a focus on completing projects, and management 
reforms, particularly at the Corps. On this side of the aisle, I am 
pleased to have had the opportunity to support him on these issues.
  The conferees were given an allocation $749 million larger than was 
available when the House developed its bill back in the Spring. The 
tragic events that resulted from hurricanes Katrina and Rita 
demonstrated that our Nation has crying needs in the areas served by 
the programs of the Corps of Engineers, and we have devoted the 
increased funds to meeting these needs both along the Gulf of Mexico 
and across the Nation.
  The Energy and Water Development conference agreement had to work 
within the constraints that started with the President's budget request 
and its inadequate commitment of resources to the programs of the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers. The events of this year amply demonstrated the 
latent threats to our Nation from natural disasters and the failure of 
inadequate manmade structures. The Congress is doing the right thing in 
increasing spending on the Corps in FY 2006 by more than $1 billion 
over the request. Hopefully the Administration will now understand the 
level of investment needed and submit a budget for FY 2007 that 
sustains and extends this investment level for the water infrastructure 
of our Nation.
  An additional top priority within the Energy and Water appropriations 
is nuclear nonproliferation. While the overall level included in the 
conference agreement is slightly below the request, considerable funds 
have been shifted from a construction project with major unspent 
balances to support of high priority programs to help Russia protect 
and control its nuclear weapons material. The Russian side has signaled 
strong willingness in this area, and bureaucratic obstacles in the U.S. 
have been removed. We must seize this opportunity for the increased 
safety of us all.
  Alas, this conference agreement is limited by an overall constraint 
forced by allocation.
  Four fifths of the Energy and Water funding goes to the Department of 
Energy, but energy research, development and demonstration is only 10% 
of the Department. The cost of gasoline, natural gas, and home heating 
oil have exploded over the past 18 months. Only the Federal Government 
can invest in the long-term R&D needed and stimulate demonstration and 
deployment of new technologies through partnerships with the private 
sector.
  When our Nation faced high costs and uncertain supplies for energy in 
the mid-1970s, President Carter and Congress, made major investments in 
energy conservation and renewable energy along with unconventional 
sources of fossil fuels were funded. A comparable response today would 
require quadrupling our support for renewable energy and doubling our 
support for conservation R&D at DOE. As a start, Democrats advocated 
for creation of an energy independence fund of one-quarter billion 
dollars of new money at DOE at the time the House considered the Energy 
and Water appropriations bill.
  The prosperity of our Nation is built in part on preeminence in 
almost all areas of fundamental science research. The Department of 
Energy is the primary supporter of physical science research and 
provides state-of-the-art user facilities available to investigators 
from government, academia, and industry.
  The constraints on this conference agreement have allowed only one 
area of research and user support to be increased above the request--
high performance computing. This 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. For three years in a row, the 
Congress has had to increase support substantially in this area to 
sustain momentum in reachieving U.S. leadership.
  The conference agreement provides no increased support for the 
operations of DOE user facilities. Construction of these facilities 
represents a major investment. Before the recent run-up in energy 
prices, it was estimated that an additional $95 million was required to 
operate these facilities at full capacity. Operation of these 
facilities is energy intensive, and the FY 2006 operating levels are 
likely to be smaller than planned.
  Within the constraints of the conference allocation, the Energy and 
Water conferees have made good choices for our Nation. I ask for 
support for this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert).
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report.
  I rise in support of this bill, and I want to thank Chairman Hobson 
for working on behalf of the civilian research and development programs 
of the Department of Energy. Needless to say, I wish the bill could 
have been even kinder to those programs, but I know that Chairman 
Hobson pressed on their behalf.
  I want, though, to bring attention to one concern I have about the 
conference report. The conferees dropped House language preventing an 
agreement on ITER, the international fusion project, from being 
finalized before March 1. This language, which I offered and the House 
approved by voice vote, was designed to prevent the U.S. from moving 
ahead with ITER until we had a consensus on how to finance the billion-
dollar U.S. contribution.
  You'd think that would just be common sense in this period of fiscal 
austerity when we are talking about cutting programs that Americans 
rely on. But the House language has been replaced by weak report 
language calling for a study by the Government Accountability Office.
  I understand why, in the give and take of conference negotiations, my 
provision may have had to go away. But the issue is not going to go 
away.
  I want to make clear to everyone concerned that I will do everything 
in my power to kill the ITER project if there is not an agreement by 
March that the domestic fusion program has to be scaled back to pay for 
ITER.
  I am not going to allow the U.S. to enter into an international 
commitment that it cannot afford. I would rather kill the ITER project.
  The fusion community will have to be realistic. It cannot have all 
its current projects and ITER. And it will not.
  This year's appropriation already makes clear why this is so. Just 
about every area of activity under the DOE Office of Science sees a 
cut, especially if earmarks are excluded, except Fusion Energy 
Sciences. Fusion science is important and may be a key to our energy 
future, but it cannot consume the entire budget of the Office of 
Science. And that is what will happen if the domestic program is held 
harmless while ITER is constructed.
  So I look forward to working with my colleagues on Appropriations and 
all my colleagues to make sure that the U.S. handles its international 
commitments responsibly. No one should misread what happened in this 
conference. The ITER program is in grave danger, and I guarantee you 
that it will not be completed with U.S. participation unless there is a 
more realistic plan to fund it.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen).
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
conference report.

[[Page H10061]]

  First, let me commend Chairman Dave Hobson and Ranking Member Pete 
Visclosky for their hard work on this Conference report.
  In a year of fiscal constraint, extraordinary costs due to natural 
disasters, they have produced an excellent bill that addresses our 
national priorities and a wide range of Federal programs, including 
such diverse matters as flood control, navigation improvements, 
environmental restoration, nuclear waste disposal, advanced scientific 
research, maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear 
nonproliferation.


                                Katrina

  No policy discussion about the Corps of Engineers can take place in 
this body without the looming shadow of Hurricane Katrina and its huge 
devastation.
  This historic storm--encompassing 90,000 square miles in Louisiana, 
Mississippi and Alabama--raised issues that the Corps and the Congress 
must consider in the months ahead as we look to rebuild the Gulf Region 
and protect others susceptible to same kind of natural disaster.
  Let's be blunt. A Katrina could--and will--happen again and we must 
heed its ``lessons learned.''
  In the near term, we must be a careful steward of the taxpayers' 
dollars.
  In the long--term, Congress needs to revisit how we prioritize 
ongoing Corps water infrastructure projects in a way that allows flood 
control, navigation, beach erosion to be completed once they are begun.


                               The Coast

  The Army Corps of Engineers keeps our waterways open for business, 
prevents our communities from flooding and our beaches from eroding.
  In New Jersey alone, the Army Corps budget helps keep the 127 miles 
of New Jersey coastline open to visitors from across the country. 
Serving as one of New Jersey's greatest attractions, our beaches 
generate over 30 billion dollars for our State's economy each year, 
while providing over 800,000 people with jobs. This bill provides $71 
million dollars for beach preservation and restoration.


                                  Port

  One of the most important Army Corps projects is the Port of New York 
and New Jersey Harbor Deepening. For the third year in a row, President 
Bush's budget message recognized the dredging of this port as a 
national priority and it called for it to be one of five national 
navigational projects.
  It goes without saying that projects like the Port drive our national 
economy. The Port is a national asset. As the largest port in the 
northeast and a leading job center for the New Jersey/New York 
Metropolitan Region, we must continue to focus our efforts on deepening 
its major navigation channels so that the port is able to meet the 21st 
Century needs of our economy.


                                 floods

  Of course, the importance of the Army Corps budget is not limited to 
just navigational projects. In an effort to protect New Jerseyans, 
their homes, and their businesses from the destruction and devastation 
of flooding, this bill also provides the framework and the funding to 
purchase wetlands for natural storage areas, and to work with the local 
governments across northern New Jersey to develop long-term solutions 
to re-occurring floods. In New Jersey this means that important corps 
initiatives like the Jackson Brook Flood Control project in my own 
district and the ongoing acquisition of wetlands critical for the 
preservation of flood storage areas, among several other critical local 
projects have the funding to remain on track.


                                 energy

  Mr. Speaker, our country continues to benefit from advances in 
science, technology and engineering. We've discovered the potential for 
fusion energy, advanced renewable energy, and improved energy 
efficiency. Through cutting edge research and the development of these 
programs at the U.S. Department of Energy, we are rapidly advancing our 
scientific knowledge.
  Mr. Speaker, I have long supported funding for renewable energy 
sources. The Committee's investment of $1.2 billion in renewable energy 
resources will be integral to creating alternative energy solutions for 
our nation. The Department of Energy is pursuing other new technologies 
to meet future energy and environmental needs. These technologies will 
change how we use and produce energy.
  I am pleased that year after year this Committee continues to 
recognize the incredible potential of fusion energy by providing a $30 
million increase in funding for a total of $296 million in funding for 
the program--which will advance the vital work of the domestic fusion 
community to prosper at sites such as New Jersey's Princeton Plasma 
Physics Laboratory.
  The money in this bill for energy efficiency and renewable energy 
will fund continuing improvements in technology for programs I strongly 
support like hydro-electricity, wind and solar power. Since FY2000, the 
U.S. Congress, through this committee has invested over $3 billion in 
renewable energy.
  The Chairman and his staff have worked extremely hard to craft a good 
bill. Kevin Cook and his team deserve a lot of credit. For all of these 
reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).
  (Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Chairman Hobson and Ranking 
Member Visclosky for their diligent efforts in bringing the Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill to the floor.
  This legislation contains many important provisions for our Nation, 
including significant funding for dealing with spent nuclear fuel, 
including funding for the Yucca Mountain repository. I want to thank 
the chairman for being a leader in nuclear issues, and for moving 
forward aggressively to deal with the spent fuel issue. Regarding Yucca 
Mountain specifically, the funding level is lower than the $651 million 
requested by the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, 
but I understand this lower funding is a result of some challenges 
facing the project. With nuclear waste being stored at approximately 
100 sites around the Nation, it is important to move to a central 
repository as soon as feasible.
  I want to continue to see that this project moves forward and I look 
forward to when the Energy and Commerce Committee holds oversight 
hearings to ascertain the project's recent progress as well as DOE's 
plan for moving ahead at Yucca Mountain. I urge all of my colleagues to 
vote for this very important legislation.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg), a committee member.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Hobson) for his hard work and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) as well.
  The current energy crisis has caused us to refocus on future energy 
needs, how we can become more efficient and produce more energy from 
the same resources with less pollution.
  Funds have been correctly appropriated in this bill to research 
initiatives that will speed up the deployment of hydrogen fuel cells, 
coal gasification technologies, advanced turbine research, next 
generation fuels, and environmental controls.
  In this bill, you will see Future Gen. Future Gen is a Department of 
Energy collaboration with private industry to develop a near-zero 
emissions power plant. Unlike traditional coal-fueled generation 
facilities, sulfur and mercury will be removed before combustion, and 
the carbon dioxide will be safely sequestered underground, making 
Future Gen the most environmentally friendly coal-fired generation 
facility in the world.
  The success of this venture requires government support to cost-share 
substantial private investments. This conference report sends a 
powerful message that the United States is prepared to move forward and 
construct such a facility.
  I support these efforts and would like to again thank Chairman Hobson 
and Ranking Member Visclosky, and I look forward to seeing these 
research initiatives becoming a reality.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was one of 416 Members of this 
body who voted back in May for a different and better energy and water 
appropriations bill.
  But then a funny thing happened on the way to the conference 
committee. Although the House- and Senate-passed bills both funded one 
of this Nation's most important analytical research projects, the 
Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, which is operated by the Department of 
Energy's world-class Brookhaven National Laboratory, which I am very 
proud to represent, somehow this breakthrough research was cut 
dramatically in conference.
  As a result, the RHIC, as it is known, could lay dormant, unused, for 
47 weeks out of the year. Why is this project so important? It is 
designed to recreate conditions of the Big Bang

[[Page H10062]]

from which the universe was born and life created.
  The Federal Government has already invested more than $1 billion, 
that is $1 billion, in the construction of this facility; and it simply 
makes no sense to let such an investment go unused. I do not know about 
my colleagues, but this is like buying a Porsche and letting it sit in 
your driveway because you will not buy the gas.
  I ask, is there a more important basic research project in progress 
anywhere else in the country? How did we justify disinvesting in this 
project, as well as BNL's research into translational neuroimaging and 
functional nanomaterials?
  Could this be an example of the kind of cuts we are beginning to 
witness as a result of the misguided priority of the budget 
reconciliation legislation?
  That said, I am deeply grateful for the support of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the chairman of the subcommittee, who visited the 
lab earlier this year, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), 
the ranking member, who has consistently advocated this research.
  I look forward to their continued support and working with them to 
restore this funding and protect the jobs at BNL, some 200 of which 
might be lost, ideally within these first few months of fiscal year 
2006, and upon their approval of reprogramming existing funds within 
the Department of Energy.
  Until that happens, Mr. Speaker, I, therefore, must reluctantly 
oppose this conference report.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  (Mr. SIMPSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference 
report.
  Once again this year, the bill before us is the result of a bi-
partisan atmosphere in the Energy and Water Subcommittee that is 
fostered by Chairman Hobson and his ranking member--Mr. Visclosky. I 
want to thank both of them for the manner in which they approach the 
many issues before the committee and for producing a bill that will 
pass today with little or no opposition.
  First, the Energy and Water bill begins a new chapter in the history 
of the Army Corps of Engineers which will lead to better budgeting, 
more accountability, and the completion of high-priority projects in a 
quicker timeframe.
  I want to commend Chairman Hobson for his insistence on reforms to 
the Corps budgeting process and for demanding greater accountability 
from the Corps to Congress and the American people.
  Second, the bill makes tremendous investments in our nation's science 
and energy-related programs. Our National Laboratories, under this 
bill, will continue and expand their cutting edge work on the many 
pressing scientific challenges facing our Nation. Perhaps even more 
important in a time of high energy prices, this bill will expand our 
Nation's efforts to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.
  For my home state of Idaho, this bill will provide a boost to the 
Idaho National Laboratory's ongoing work to design and build a new 
generation of nuclear reactors, close the nuclear fuel cycle, protect 
our Nation's critical infrastructure from cyber-based attacks, and 
secure radioactive nuclear materials from those who would do us harm.
  Finally, this bill continues our Nation's efforts to establish a 
long-term repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear 
waste at Yucca Mountain. While the Yucca Mountain funding in the bill 
represents an overall decrease from last year, it still provides $500 
million to move the project forward toward a license application and 
construction.
  I'm committed to seeing Yucca Mountain finalized and I know Chairman 
Hobson is as well. I remain hopeful that the current challenges facing 
the program will soon be overcome and that an aggressive schedule for 
completion of the project can be adopted in the very near future.
  In closing, I want to again recognize the bi-partisan manner in which 
this bill was written and acknowledge the tremendous work of all of the 
staff on the Subcommittee.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).
  (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and I rise in support 
of the conference report.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy has been working for the past 
year on answering questions about challenges on construction of the 
waste treatment plant at the Hanford cleanup site, with only limited 
information being shared with Congress, the State of Washington, or the 
local community.
  Just yesterday, the Department officially notified Congress that the 
costs of constructing the waste treatment plant have increased by more 
than 25 percent.
  We were not told what caused the increase, what the Department's 
planned path forward is for the waste treatment plant, or what the 
ultimate cost and completion date will be. We know only that costs have 
increased by over 25 percent, and more information is promised in the 
summer of next year.
  Waiting until next summer for answers is simply not acceptable to me. 
Is that also the view of the chairman?
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my view. My visit to Hanford last year 
gave me a real appreciation for the need to treat the tank wastes at 
Hanford and protect the Columbia River from the groundwater 
contamination.
  The Department must be more forthcoming with information on its plans 
for the waste treatment plant, and this conference agreement requires a 
report on their actions to date by December 1 and quarterly reports 
beginning on January 1.
  So the gentleman has my assurance that we are on this; and, frankly, 
had I not visited and seen the problem firsthand, I might not have been 
as active and as strong on this; but I want to assure the gentleman and 
his State that we are going to be on top of this.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this 
reporting requirement, in my mind, is fully justified and delivers a 
strong message that the Department must be more direct, open, and 
prompt in sharing details on its path forward for the waste treatment 
plant. I want to thank the gentleman for his continued commitment to 
the environmental management program within the Department of Energy.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle).
  (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Energy and Water 
Development rule/conference report on the floor today and urge my 
colleagues support it.
  The Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 
2006 total $30.5 billion.
  Title I of the bill provides $5.4 billion for the programs of the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, an increase of $57 million above the 
fiscal year 2005 enacted level and $1.2 billion over the budget 
request.
  Title II provides $1.07 billion for the Department of the Interior 
and the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of $113.9 million above the 
budget request. The committee recommended $1.03 billion for the Bureau 
of Reclamation.
  Title III provides $24.2 billion for the Department of Energy, DOE, a 
decrease of $129 million from fiscal year 2005 and $76 million less 
than the budget request. All Department of Energy programs are funded 
within this bill. The committee funds new initiatives on the 
consolidation of special nuclear materials, the interim storage and 
integrated recycling of spent nuclear fuel, and on creating a 
sustainable nuclear stockpile and the DOE complex necessary to support 
that stockpile.


                      california specific funding

  Over $300 million for Corps projects in California. These include 
flood control, water supply and navigation.
  Over $200 million for Bureau of Reclamation projects in California. 
These include water supply, water reuse, and desalination.
  $37 million for CALFED projects. The committee has redirected the 
funding for higher

[[Page H10063]]

priority projects that will support the implementation of the CALFED 
program. The funded projects will produce increased sources of water 
for the State of California, otherwise known as ``firm yield'' 
projects, improve drinking water quality, and improve water delivery 
flexibility.
  $6 million for Sacramento Area water conservation projects.
  $1 million for an economic analysis update for Auburn Dam.
  $2 million for the American River Pump Station.
  $1 million for the El Dorado Irrigation District Temperature Control 
Device.
  $1 million for the Sacramento River diversion Study.
  $40 million for the American River flood control projects, including 
$10 million for a permanent bridge below Folsom Dam.
  The bill fully funded the President's request for the National 
Ignition Facility, the premier U.S. facility for inertial confinement 
fusion, and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, a high energy 
physics lab. High energy physics is the cornerstone of our 
understanding of the physical universe. These two outstanding 
California facilities are on the cutting edge of research.
  The bill also provides continued funding for Lawrence Berkeley 
Laboratory to continue basic science research and advanced scientific 
computing, which allows the U.S. to compete with the rest of the world 
in important scientific fields.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina taught 
us again the importance of investing in our Nation's water 
infrastructure. While I believe that significant changes need to be 
made in the operations and management of the Army Corps of Engineers, I 
support this legislation which acknowledges the lack of prioritization 
process for Corps projects. I support language in the bill that directs 
the National Academy of Public Administration to study and recommend 
factors to be used in determining the allocation of the Corps' limited 
resources.
  I also strongly support funding contained in the bill that will 
benefit my constituents and the Pacific Northwest environment. I 
appreciate the funding included for floodplain restoration on Johnson 
Creek, which will enable the Corps to undertake a cost-effective 
environmental improvement within an area slated for industrial 
development and will help leverage private development by proactively 
addressing important stream corridor needs. I am also pleased that the 
conferees chose to fund an energy conservation program at the Armory 
Theater in Portland and a Solar Photovoltaic Test Facility System at 
Portland State University. The conference report also contains 
important funding, although not nearly the amount necessary, for the 
St. Johns Landfill Dike Stabilization, which will help prevent 
municipal and industrial waste from contaminating sensitive wetlands. 
Finally, I appreciate the funding in the bill directed towards 
dredging, maintenance, and environmental restoration on the Williamette 
and Columbia Rivers.
  However, I am strongly opposed to language in the conference report 
directing the Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, to cease funding of 
an important independent scientific research center based in Portland, 
OR, known as the Fish Passage Center, FPC. For over 20 years, the FPC 
has been vital in ensuring that State and tribal fishery managers are 
armed with the best available scientific information about the status 
of salmon populations. In this role, the FPC fulfills a legal 
obligation under the Federal Northwest Power Act and under tribal 
treaties.
  Without the Fish Passage Center, the myriad of Federal, State, and 
tribal agencies responsible for Pacific salmon recovery could lack 
valuable data and information on what works and what doesn't to recover 
salmon. Federal efforts to recover Columbia and Snake River salmon are 
currently in flux after a recent Federal district judge overturned the 
most recent Salmon plan. With so much uncertainty surrounding future 
recovery efforts, now is not the time to reduce access to the best 
available scientific information.
  Although the language in the conference report directs PBA and the 
Northwest Power and Conservation Council to transfer the functions of 
the FPC to ``existing and capable entities,'' I am concerned that it 
does not provide enough direction about how this should take place and 
does not ensure that State and tribal fish and wildlife agencies will 
have a say in how and where these functions will be transferred. I hope 
that BPA and the Council set up a process that actively engages and is 
fully responsive to the needs of the State fish and wildlife agencies 
and tribes for whom the FPC was originally created.
  The Pacific Northwest is about to embark on a 1-year-long court-
ordered process to correct the flaws in the Federal Columbia Basin 
Salmon Plan. It is my hope that the transfer of the FPC functions does 
occur seamlessly and in full collaboration with our State and tribal 
managers so they may fully participate in discussions and negotiations 
concerning the operations of the Federal Columbia River Power System.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the conference 
report has deleted all funding for the nuclear bunker buster program. 
This action reflects the second time that the Congress has decided to 
reject the Bush administration's request for this dangerous and 
unnecessary weapon, and I am hopeful that this action will end the 
debate on this issue once and for all.
  The United States faces a serious national security threat from the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons materials and technologies, most 
notably in North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. The pursuit of new nuclear 
weapons such as the Bush administration's proposed nuclear bunker 
buster sends a dangerously mixed signal to the rest of the world and 
erodes our nonproliferation credibility. Nations that see the U.S. 
expanding and diversifying our nuclear arsenal are encouraged to seek 
or maintain nuclear deterrents of their own and ignore nonproliferation 
obligations. Additionally, a U.S. move toward expanding and 
diversifying our nuclear stockpile is contrary to our legal obligations 
under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear 
Weapons, NPT, which clearly requires the United States to work toward 
reducing our nuclear arsenal.
  In light of the adverse impact of the pursuit of the nuclear bunker 
buster and any other new nuclear weapon on international 
nonproliferation efforts, the fact that the bunker buster would 
inevitably spread high levels of radiation above ground, and existing 
U.S. earth-penetrating and other conventional weapons capabilities, the 
Bush administration's proposed nuclear bunker buster study and the 
development of any new nuclear weapons are a dangerous and wasteful use 
of taxpayer money.
  While I am pleased at the outcome on the bunker buster, I am very 
concerned that this appropriations bill provides $80 million for the 
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative--an increase of $10 million over the 
amount requested for this program. In addition, the bill provides an 
additional $50 million in nuclear waste disposal funding to support 
development of a spent nuclear fuel recycling plan. These proposals are 
aimed at reviving nuclear reprocessing--an idea that Congress has 
considered and rejected in the past.
  The conference report contains language that directs the Department 
of Energy to use this money to

     accelerate the development of a separations technology that 
     can address the current inventories of commercial spent 
     nuclear fuel and select the preferred technology no later 
     than the end of fiscal year 2007.

  Essentially, the Appropriations Committee is telling DOE that it 
doesn't believe Yucca Mountain will ever be opened, so it now wants the 
Department to instead embark on a crash program to start reprocessing 
nuclear waste.
  I warned back in 1987 that the decision to limit the search for a 
deep underground repository to the Yucca Mountain site and to bar 
examination of other alternative sites was a risky one. If Yucca 
Mountain proved unsuitable, or if it could not meet the NRC's licensing 
requirements, then our country efforts to find a solution to the 
nuclear waste problem would be forced back to square one.
  Now, it appears that my warnings are being borne out. The Yucca 
Mountain repository is falling apart in the face of serious scientific 
and technical problems. But rather than come back to Congress and ask 
for legislation that would reopen the search for a permanent 
repository, which the nuclear industry and its supporters in Congress 
know would be politically hazardous, the appropriators now appear to be 
effectively abandoning the notion of deep underground burial. Instead, 
they want to reprocess the waste and store it in above ground 
``interim'' storage facilities.
  Now, you would think that such a fundamental rewrite of the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act would actually require action by the committee that 
actually has jurisdiction over the act in the first place. In the 
House, that would be the Energy and Commerce Committee. However, in 
this bill the directive to prioritize reprocessing is being made 
without any participation by the Energy and Commerce Committee. The 
committee doesn't even get a copy of the report mandated by the 
Appropriations conferees.
  Yes, there was language in the Energy Policy Act which authorized R&D 
on reprocessing. I opposed that language, and sought unsuccessfully to 
remove it from the bill. But R&D is far different from moving to full-
scale engineering of reprocessing technologies with a short-term 
deployment objective. That is what is being proposed in the bill before 
us today. This conference report is actually talking about setting a 
target for site selection in fiscal year 2007, and a target for 
initiation of construction of one or more integrated spent fuel 
recycling facilities in fiscal year 2010.
  This has enormous implications for the future of efforts to 
permanently dispose of the Nation's nuclear waste in a deep underground 
repository. It effectively means that there will

[[Page H10064]]

be no deep underground repository. It effectively means that there will 
be no deep underground burial of waste in our lifetimes. So, all of the 
billions paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund over the years will soon see 
those funds be diverted over to supporting this new unproven and risky 
scheme of reprocessing.
  This is a huge policy shift. Since the 1970's we have had a policy in 
this country against reprocessing spent fuel, both because of the risk 
of nonproliferation and because reprocessing is not economical. In 
recent years, Republican leaders in Washington have decided they want 
to undo that policy, however.
  I am fundamentally opposed to reprocessing, because I believe that a 
revival of domestic reprocessing would undermine America's nuclear 
nonproliferation efforts, cost us enormous amounts of money, will not 
solve the nuclear waste problem, and won't increase nuclear safety.
  With respect to the proliferation risks--just look at North Korea. It 
has been reprocessing spent fuel from its reactors to use in nuclear 
bombs. In response, President Bush has asked the Nuclear Suppliers 
Group to limit access to reprocessing technology, arguing that:

       This step will prevent new states from developing the means 
     to produce fissile material for nuclear bombs.

  At the same time, the U.S. is confronting Iran over its plan to 
develop a full uranium enrichment program. How are we going to credibly 
ask the rest of the world to support us when we tell Iran or any other 
nation that they cannot have the full fuel cycle or reprocessing when 
we have one here at home? It just won't fly.
  America cannot preach nuclear temperance from a barstool. We cannot 
credibly tell other nations that they should refrain from reprocessing 
or other nuclear fuel cycle activities abroad when we are engaging in 
these same exact activities here at home. That is why President Gerald 
Ford called for an end to commercial reprocessing back in 1976, and why 
no President since then has successfully revived reprocessing.
  In addition to the serious adverse nonproliferation consequences, 
reprocessing also is not economical. A MIT study put the cost of 
reprocessing at four times that of as once-through nuclear power. The 
current price of concentrated uranium ``yellowcake'' in the spot market 
is about $53.00/kg. For reprocessing to be economical, there must be a 
sustained 8-fold increase in the long-term price of uranium. That is 
not likely to occur anytime soon.
  On top of that is the cost of building a plant. As a benchmark, 
Japan's nearly completed Rokkasho reprocessing plant--20 years in the 
making--costs on the order of $20 billion. I have seen some cost 
estimates for a U.S. reprocessing program that run as high as $65 
billion. That is not something that is economically viable at a time of 
huge Federal budget deficites.
  Moreover, reprocessing will not really alleviate the nuclear waste 
problem. Talk to the folks at Savannah River where over 30 million 
gallons of high-level were left behind from reprocessing. Under this 
bill, Savannah River may be targeted again for interim storage for 
spent fuel, awaiting reprocessing. So might Hanford and Idaho or other 
Federal sites.
  The conference report states that funding in the Nuclear Waste 
Disposal Account will be used:

     to prepare the overall program plan and to initiate a 
     competition to select one or more sites suitable for 
     development of integrated recycling facilities (i.e., 
     separation of spent fuel, fabrication of mixed oxide fuel, 
     vitrification of waste products, and process storage) and 
     initiate work on an Environmental Impact Statement. The site 
     competition should not be limited to DOE sites, but should be 
     open to a wide range of other possible federal and non-
     federal sites on a strictly voluntary basis.

  These reprocessing sites will become de facto nuclear waste dumps. 
Which State is going to ``volunteer'' to become a nuclear waste dump? 
Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, such a site cannot legally be 
located at the Yucca Mountain site. So, where is it going to go?
  How long will the waste be stored there? The spent nuclear fuel 
cannot even be handled to be reprocessed for 5 to 15 years--it is so 
radioactive. So we know already that ``interim storage'' could last for 
a very long time.
  And if we construct these ``interim'' waste dumps, what happens next? 
What will happen to all this waste when the hard reality of the 
disastrous economics combined with the fact that our government is 
already too deep in deficit that it will be unable to subsidize such a 
program forever? There are simply too many unanswered questions.
  It is also not accurate to suggest, as some do, that reprocessing is 
safe. Twenty tons of highly radioactive material leaked from a broken 
pipe at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in the United Kingdom 
in April of this year. Senior officials at the UK's Nuclear 
Decommissioning Authority, which owns the Sellafield reprocessing have 
pushed to close THORP altogether, arguing that it is more cost-
effective to close the plant now rather than repair the problems only 
to decommission the plant as planned in 2012. Is that the kind of mess 
we want happening over here?
  When the House version of this bill was being debated on the House 
floor last summer, I offered an amendment which would have transferred 
the $15.5 million appropriated for reprocessing and interim storage to 
several energy efficiency priority programs that were underfunded in 
the bill. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated.
  I continue to be opposed to the reprocessing language in the bill. I 
intend to continue raising questions about this proposal, both in the 
Energy and Commerce Committee and on this floor.
  Finally, on another matter, I am very concerned about the cuts that 
have been made in energy efficiency programs in this bill. We are in 
the middle of an energy emergency. We had a hearing before the Energy 
and Commerce Committee last week that showed the impact that these high 
prices are having across the board, in every sector of the economy. The 
Senate will be holding a hearing today on price gouging by big oil 
companies and the $100 billion in oil company profits projected for 
2005. There are things that we can do in this area. What we are seeing 
is missed opportunities.
  The House Bill for the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water 
Appropriations provided $41 million for the State Energy Program. The 
Senate bill provided $41 million for the State Energy Program. Now we 
go to conference and the conference report provides $36 million, which 
is $8 million below fiscal year 2005 levels--almost a 20 percent cut. 
We are in the midst of an energy crisis. This program implements energy 
efficiency programs and energy emergency preparedness activities in 
every State in our country. A recent National Laboratory study 
concluded that for every $1 invested, we get $7.22 in return in energy 
savings. This makes no sense. We should be increasing these programs, 
not cutting them.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
House Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.
  This legislation provides essential funding for the Houston Ship 
Channel, $26 million to finish the deepening and widening project and 
conduct environmental restoration work.
  Also, I want to particularly express my appreciation for the 
Subcommittee's increase for Operations and Maintenance funding to $11 
million for Houston-Galveston.
  It is penny-wise and pound foolish to under-fund maintenance, because 
that reduces the benefits that we get from all of our construction 
dollars.
  If we are going to dredge a channel to 45 feet to allow for modern 
ships to reach a port, we obviously have to keep that channel at 45 
feet and remove silting and other blockages.
  This bill also provides important funding for flood control projects 
in the Houston area--$375,000 for construction of the Hunting Bayou 
Federal flood control project and $75,000 to finish up the General 
Reevaluation Review study for Greens Bayou.
  Hurricane Katrina showed the Nation the value of flood control 
projects. Both the Hunting Bayou and the Greens Bayou projects will 
save Federal money. By protecting homes from flooding, we reduce the 
amount of future disaster assistance and flood insurance claims.
  My constituents who would benefit from these projects do not own 
expensive beach houses close to the shoreline, they own homes in a 
densely populated urban area over 50 miles from Galveston Bay.
  However, Houston does not have a lot of elevated areas and we are at 
risk from hurricanes and tropical storms, and as a result flood control 
projects make good economic sense.
  Unfortunately the Bush Administration repeatedly zeroes out funding 
in their budgets for flood control projects in Houston, for reasons I 
still cannot understand.
  Our projects are authorized by Congress, have strong cost-benefit 
rations, are supported by the community, and are managed by the 
professional experts at the Harris County Flood Control District. 
Hunting Bayou had over 8,000 residences flood in 2001 from Tropical 
Storm Allison and Greens Bayou had over 28,000 homes flood in the same 
storm.
  As a result, I want to thank the Subcommittee Chairman, David Hobson, 
the Ranking Member, Pete Visclosky, and especially my Texas colleague 
Chet Edwards for salvaging funding for all our projects--the Houston 
Ship Channel, Hunting Bayou, and Greens Bayou.
  As final note, I want to add that the Houston Ship Channel has 
received serious damage from Hurricane Rita, roughly $30 million. Parts 
of the channel have silted up with material to 35 feet, which is a 
serious safety and economic problem.
  If the large oil tankers cannot get to the refineries on the Houston 
Ship Channel, that will

[[Page H10065]]

not help gasoline prices to go down in this country.
  Our refinery capacity has got a lot of notice lately in Congress, and 
this is something we can do in the short term to help that--repair 
hurricane damage at oil importing ports like the Port of Houston.
  The Houston delegation--myself, John Culberson, Tom DeLay, Al Green, 
Sheila Jackson-Lee, Kevin Brady, Michael McCaul, Ted Poe, and our Texas 
colleague on the Appropriations Committee Chet Edwards all recently 
sent a letter to the Committee and Subcommittee requesting this $30 
million in emergency damage repair funding for the next Supplemental.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the FY06 Energy and 
Water Appropriations Bill.
  Chairman Hobson, Ranking Member Visclosky, and their staffs have 
worked tirelessly to produce a good bill and they deserve much praise 
for their efforts.
  This bill goes a long way in strengthening our Nation's water 
infrastructure. If this past hurricane season has taught us anything, 
it is that we must ensure an adequate level of protection for our 
coastal cities and those areas prone to flooding.
  The modest investments included in this bill can save billions in 
disaster recovery needs.
  Our Nation's water infrastructure is also critical to building the 
economy. Our waterways provide a low cost way to move agriculture 
commodities and manufactured goods to the world market. This bill will 
help maintain and strengthen these arteries, ensuring access for 
American producers.
  This legislation also includes critical funding for Nuclear power and 
our ability to store nuclear waste, namely the Yucca Mountain 
repository. The funding level is lower than what the House agreed to 
earlier this year, but the lower funding is justified by the Energy 
Department's recent changes to the project. What is important is that 
the Yucca Mountain project and Federal spent fuel management moves 
forward.
  The legislation's funding for the Corps of Engineers, nuclear energy 
R&D and the Yucca Mountain program helps ensure a vibrant future for 
American water ways, flood control and nuclear energy.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Chairman Hobson and 
Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard work and encourage all of them 
to support this bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). Without objection, the previous 
question is ordered on the conference report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________