[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 66 (Wednesday, May 24, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3156-H3166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 832 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. 5427.

                              {time}  1426


                     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. 5427), making appropriations for energy and water development for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Gutknecht in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to submit to the House for its 
consideration H.R. 5427, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2007. The Appropriations Committee 
approved this bill unanimously on May 16, 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 
activities.
  The total funding for energy and water development for the fiscal 
year 2007 is $30.017 billion. This funding amount represents an 
increase of $546 million above the budget request and $172 million 
below the current fiscal year. I want to point out to everyone that our 
subcommittee's 302 allocation is right at the level and provides 
adequate funding to meet the priority needs of the House.
  Title I is the Army Corps of Engineers. This provides the funding for 
the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps and 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.

                              {time}  1430

  The committee recommends a total of $4.983 billion for the title I 
activities, an increase of $251 million above the budget request and 
$345 million below the enacted level for the current year, separate 
from emergency supplemental appropriations.
  In recent years, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion and I think our 
committee's, the corps' civil works program had lost its way. Instead 
of taking care of the Nation's most pressing water resources needs, the 
corps tried to keep everybody happy by spreading its limited resources 
across an ever-enlarging set of projects; and, frankly, Congress has 
been a big part of that problem, giving the corps more and more 
projects to do but, frankly, not enough money to do them.
  Our committee has taken steps in the last several years to put the 
corps on the road to fiscal recovery and to restore the focus on 
getting the most critical projects done efficiently. As before, we do 
not fund any new starts and do not carry any new project 
authorizations. I might say we not only cut out the Members' new starts 
in the corps, we cut out the President of the United States' new 
starts. We treat everybody the same. Instead, we concentrate our 
limited resources on the completion of ongoing projects. This will save 
money.
  I support the administration's attempt to apply performance-based 
criteria so that resources are applied to the highest-priority items. 
This is still a work in progress, and we know that the ratio of 
remaining costs and remaining benefits should not be the sole major of 
a project's merits, but I give OMB, and this is hard for me to do, 
credit for listening for a change to our concerns and, frankly, moving 
in what we all believe is the right direction.
  One obvious consequence of folks seeing limited funding on the most 
important projects is that fewer House Members will receive funding for 
corps water projects in their districts. We added $251 million to 
address Member needs for additional water projects. As in prior years, 
we favored projects that could complete a useful increment of work in 
fiscal year 2007.
  We also continue the initiatives we started last year to improve 
fiscal management in the corps. These initiatives have administration 
support. We maintain the reprogramming guidelines that we put in place 
last year, and we establish a fund to begin paying back some 
reprogramming comments that were made in previous years.
  We included language last year significantly limiting the corps' 
ability to misuse continuing contracts and to continue those 
limitations in fiscal year 2007. I have directed the corps to hire a 
commercial audit firm to provide Congress with a full accounting of 
these contracts.

[[Page H3157]]

  The current year is a transition from the old way of doing business 
to a new one in which the corps is more accountable for how it uses the 
funds that Congress appropriates for water projects. Frankly, in my 
opinion, these changes were long overdue; and we are confident they 
will put the corps on a more secure footing in the future.
  I would also like to talk about title II, which is the Bureau of 
Reclamation. Title II of our bill provides $941 million for the 
Department of the Interior, including $40 million for the Central Utah 
Project and $901 million for the Bureau of Reclamation. This represents 
an increase of $17 million above the budget request and $114 million 
less than the amount appropriated for the current fiscal year.
  We included an additional $6 million for the bureau to assist 
existing and future flood risks in the California Bay delta area and 
included the administration proposal to rescind $88 million of balances 
for at-risk desert terminal lakes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to let my colleagues know what a 
privilege it is to work with Mr. Hobson on the critical issues included 
in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. Mr. Hobson is 
a superb chairman, and I deeply appreciate his vision and even-handed 
approach to the work of our subcommittee. I also deeply appreciate the 
splendid work done by each member of the subcommittee. We have an 
exceptional membership.
  I also would want to acknowledge the fine staff that supports both 
the majority and the minority: Kevin Cook, Taunja Berquam, Scott 
Burnison, Terry Tyborowski, Tracey LaTurner, Dixon Butler, Kenny Kraft, 
Tony Digiovanni, Debbie Willis and Peder Maarbjerg of my staff. These 
are all exceptional individuals, and I would point out to the general 
membership that we will lose Peder Maarbjerg who is my associate staff. 
He has done not only fine work for myself but for the last several 
years made an exceptional contribution to the committee and to this 
country with his very good work.
  The bill itself does a good job of allocating scarce resources for 
sustaining the water infrastructure of our country, maintenance of our 
strategic deterrent, protecting our Nation from nuclear terrorism, 
continuing U.S. research leadership, particularly in the physical 
sciences, and developing energy technology to help us reverse a growing 
dependence on imported oil.
  I will be joining my chairman in support of the bill.
  Last year should have served as a major eye-opener as regards the 
protection of our communities and fellow citizens from the ravages of 
flooding. Hurricane Katrina may come to rank with the 1927 Mississippi 
flood as a seminal event in the corps' long history. The corps' 
responsibilities are multiple, and we should remember that.
  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a tool in our hands, and we must 
make good use of it and keep it sharp. Last year, the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Act began a major program of reforming the financial 
practices of the corps. This year, we try to continue that process; and 
I hope that no one will hamper that effort by striking section 102 of 
the bill.
  As usual, there are unintended consequences of such a major reform; 
and this has been a particular concern of those Members whose projects 
could not use appropriated funds in past years but are now ready to go 
and look for restoration of these funds. The bill makes a start at 
solving this problem by allocating $55 million specifically to fund 
repayment of donor projects.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the full 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
5427, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for the year 
2007. This is the fourth of 11 bills the committee plans to bring to 
the House floor before the July 4 break.
  I want to especially extend praise to Chairman Hobson and Ranking 
Member Visclosky, as well as members of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee and their staff for their very fine work in preparing this 
bill.
  This measure provides $30 billion in total discretionary spending. 
This represents a decrease, I repeat, a decrease of some $172 million 
below the fiscal year 2006 enacted level.
  The bill contains critical funding to support a vigorous civil works 
program through the U.S. Corps of Engineers, focusing limited resources 
on completing high-priority projects. This legislation also continues a 
number of significant reforms to improve project execution and 
financial management.
  The bill also includes a number of important energy initiatives, 
including efforts to strengthen clean energy technologies, energy 
supply and conservation programs, and fossil energy research and 
development.
  I would like to make two additional points regarding this bill. 
First, Member project funding in the bill before us today is some $200 
million, or 16 percent, below last year's level. This bill also 
terminates four programs, resulting in $460.5 million in taxpayer 
savings.
  Mr. Speaker, this energy and water bill is a fine product, worthy of 
all of our support. One more time, I would like to commend Mr. Hobson 
and Mr. Visclosky for their work together.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would now like to discuss title III of the bill, 
which is the Department of Energy.
  The Department of Energy receives a total of $24.37 billion in the 
Energy and Water Development bill, $299 million over the budget request 
and $326 million above the current new fiscal year.
  The budget request proposes a number of major new initiatives for the 
Department of Energy in fiscal year 2007, the American Competitiveness 
Initiative, which strengthens basic research by increasing funds for 
DOE's Office of Science by $505 million, for a total of $4.6 billion. 
We fully fund the budget request for the Office of Science, and we 
provide an additional $30 million of headroom to fund House earmarks in 
the science account. The Advanced Energy Initiative would increase 
funding for providing clean technologies.
  We generally fund all of these accounts at or above the requested 
funding levels funding. Funding in our bill for research in biomass 
energy increases 65 percent over last year. Research and development on 
solar energy increases 78 percent over last year. Research on hydrogen 
technology increases 26 percent over last year.
  We have also increased funding for vehicle technologies, building 
technologies and industrial technologies. As with the science earmarks, 
we also provide additional funding for the House earmarks so that these 
do not harm the underlying applied science research programs.
  The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, GNEP, is an initiative to 
recycle spent nuclear fuel with a first-year request of $250 million; 
and while we believe very strongly that we need to recycle our spent 
fuel, we have serious policy, technical and financial reservations 
about the GNEP proposal. It appears that the administration funded the 
GNEP by cutting other essential energy programs such as university 
nuclear energy education. We restore these funds and limit GNEP funding 
to $120 million in fiscal year 2007.
  We terminated the State energy programs. This amounts to $50 million 
spread among 50 States plus the territories. From our perspective, the 
States are fully capable of administering their own State energy 
programs. Where there is sufficient energy projects that exceed a 
State's capabilities, then those projects should be submitted to the 
committee as part of the DOE budget request. We do not support taking 
Federal funds from our bill and giving those States funds to spend.
  I might add that the group that came in, that lobbies for this, is a 
group located in Washington created by the States, funded by our money, 
to lobby us. So what do we do? We send the money out to the States.
  First of all, we collect it in taxes, we take a cut off of it here, 
then we send it back to the States, they take another cut, and they 
fund all these special people. The costs go as high as 52 percent, and 
then they do these little

[[Page H3158]]

grants. We think if they need them they ought to do them; and if they 
really need them that bad, we ought to fund them.
  We fully fund the request for the Yucca Mountain repository of $545 
million and provide an additional $30 million for interim storage 
contingent upon authorization. Unfortunately, Yucca Mountain is on a 
schedule that will not allow it to accept significant quantities of 
commercial spent fuel until the end of the decade at the earliest.
  The GNEP initiative to recycle spent fuel is on a similar schedule. 
The Department estimates that the Federal Government incurs a 
liability, and I want people to listen to this, of $500 million per 
year for each year that the repository is delayed. In addition, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission may not be able to issue a waste 
competence determination for any new reactors if the Federal Government 
does not provide some tangible solution to the problem of accumulating 
spent fuel. That is why we include $30 million for the Department to 
explore its options for interim storage.
  The Department says it needs additional statutory authorization for 
interim storage. If that authorization is not enacted by the end of the 
fiscal year 2007, then the remaining funds will revert to the effort to 
begin the process of selecting a site for a second nuclear waste 
repository.
  We continue our efforts to reform the DOE nuclear weapons complex. 
The committee views the reform of the weapons complex as a package 
deal. We will move forward with a reliable replacement warhead but only 
if accompanied by actions to consolidate the footprint of production 
complex, consolidating special nuclear fuel materials and accelerating 
dismantlement.
  I hope people will listen to this next paragraph, because this is 
probably one of the most outrageous expenditures we have done. It is 
one we have to get on with. We have to get it done, but the cost 
escalation of this project drives me out of my mind and I think most 
Members, if they would listen.
  The largest environmental cleanup project in the country, the waste 
treatment plant in Hanford, is billions over budget and 6 years behind 
schedule. The cost growth of this project is an increase of $6 billion 
in only 5 years; and, frankly, we still do not know what it will cost, 
nor can they tell us.
  We direct the Department to make several major management changes to 
this project. The Department must complete 90 percent of design before 
construction of major facilities, and it must impose a tighter linkage 
between contract payments and contract performance.

                              {time}  1445

  Most importantly, our bill requires the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's oversight of nuclear safety at the waste treatment plant, 
and we direct the Department to transfer $10 million to the NRC for 
this purpose. Fiscal year 2007 funding for the waste treatment plant is 
$600 million, a reduction of $90 million from the request, but an 
increase of $9 million over the current year.
  I would point out that our recommended funding level of $600 million 
is $80 million higher than what the Government Accountability Office 
recommended as needed for fiscal year 2007. We do increase funding for 
other cleanup activities at Hanford, primarily to mitigate the risk of 
radioactive contamination from reaching the Columbia River.
  Total funding for all DOE environmental cleanup activities, both 
defense related and nondefense, is $644 million, an increase of $161 
million. The committee provides a total of $1.59 billion for defense 
nuclear nonproliferation activities, a decrease of $133 million from 
the budget request. This reduction to the bottom line total for nuclear 
nonproliferation is due to the elimination of funding for construction 
of the mixed oxide project and associated pit disassembly and 
conversion facility at the Savannah River Site.
  In 2000, the United States and Russia each agreed to eliminate 34 
metric tons of excess weapons grade plutonium. While MOX is a far more 
expensive option for plutonium disposal than immobilization, it was 
felt several years ago that it was worth doing to encourage the 
Russians to do their own MOX plant. Well, guess what folks? The 
Russians are not coming. Listen again: The Russians are not coming.
  The Russian government signaled this spring that they no longer have 
any interest in proceeding with their own MOX project, so there is no 
longer any compelling nonproliferation reason to build the MOX plant. 
Earlier this week, I met the head of RosAtom, the Russian atomic energy 
agency. He confirmed that the Russians have no interest in spending any 
of their own money on MOX activities in Russia.
  Now, they did tell us that they would build it if we would provide 
all the money, because, they said, if we have to put money into 
something, we don't want to do that because we think it is too 
expensive; we think there is better technology, and we need to move on. 
They view MOX as an expensive outdated technology for plutonium 
disposal.
  In addition, the GAO tells us that the cost estimate on this facility 
has risen from $1 billion in 2002 to over $3.6 billion in 2006, and the 
project is already 8 years behind. Now, if you look at Hanford as any 
example, what do you think this thing is going to wind up at? And this 
is a deal that the Russians say they don't think the technology is any 
good. At the beginning, when we put it together, we didn't think it was 
that good, but we thought we could get them into the deal by doing 
this, so they said, let's go ahead with the deal.
  To deal with the plutonium already stored at the Savannah River Site, 
we should use the cheaper immobilization option. The only remaining 
rationale to continue the MOX plant is simply as a jobs program for 
certain States, and I don't think that is a compelling reason to spend 
several billion dollars of taxpayers' money. There is not 34 metric 
tons of weapons grade plutonium in South Carolina at this time, and the 
plutonium that is there wouldn't be able to be used in the MOX anyway, 
because it is of a different type than that which would be used for the 
MOX program.
  The requested fiscal year 2007 construction funding for MOX is 
applied to other priority nonproliferation activities, and roughly two-
thirds of it is kept at the Savannah River Site for plutonium 
immobilization activities and to meet environmental cleanup needs at 
that site.
  Title IV, Independent Agencies: title IV of our bill provides $228 
million for several regional commissions and independent agencies. The 
committee recommendation provides the requested funding for the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Board, the Delta Regional Authority, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, the Inspector General and the Nuclear Waste 
Technical Board.
  The committee reduces the funding, and if I had my way I would take 
it down to zero, and I tried to get those that are offering amendments 
to take this down to zero, but they didn't take me up on it, the 
Appalachian Regional Commission, which my State gets money for. But, 
again, it is like the State program: We send money here. We send money 
back there. And the Governors run around creating a bureaucracy and go 
do the little projects, and nobody really knows kind of what they do.
  I have had letters from all kinds of people who say they don't 
support excess spending. They do not like earmarks, but everybody seems 
to like the little earmarks that the Governors do in these little 
programs back in their State. So I cut the money. The President's 
request was around $60 million. And OMB always tells me they are so 
cost effective down there; I don't know why they don't look at this 
program. And I cut it back to $35 million.
  The first year, I cut it back to zero, and then we had to fund it 
when we got to conference. Unfortunately, that will probably happen 
again, but I don't like that. But if I had my way, I would cut out all 
these little commissions because I just think they take away from a lot 
of good work that the Congress does.
  We have also put an additional $40 million of budget authority to 
provide for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to address anticipated 
license applications for new reactors, which I hope we can really move 
forward with.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I would like to follow up on the chairman's remarks.

[[Page H3159]]

  Plutonium, highly enriched uranium and some highly radioactive 
products of nuclear fission in the hands of terrorists pose the 
greatest threat to the United States and its people. Accordingly, the 
recommendation before the committee increases funding for those 
elements of defense nuclear nonproliferation at DOE that truly address 
this issue. This bill correctly shifts money that should not be spent 
on MOX plants to other areas where the funds can be used now to enhance 
U.S. security.
  The Russians will not proceed with their MOX plant unless it is fully 
funded by other countries in the G-8 at a cost of $2.5 billion. Pledges 
to date have not passed $800 million. The Russians have stressed to the 
chairman, as he has pointed out, and myself that they are still fully 
committed to destroying 34 metric tons of their surplus plutonium. To 
do so, they are interested in pursuing less expensive approaches in 
partnership with us and funding 50 percent of the cost themselves.
  When it comes to energy policy, the committee's allocation forces our 
bill to be hundreds of millions of dollars below needed levels. While I 
applaud the significant increases for biofuels and solar, even in these 
areas, the budget forces choices between pursuing rapid 
commercialization of current technology and demonstrating new ones. 
With the support of Chairman Hobson, conservation technology 
investments were increased in the full committee resulting in full 
funding for solid-state lighting, one of the most promising 
technologies for saving energy; and for the request of the Governor's 
Ethanol Coalition for development of E-85 infrastructure.
  However, I remain concerned that the Clean Coal Power Initiative will 
have to wait one or more additional years before issuing its next 
solicitation for research proposals. The Department of Energy has 
argued that it is too late to include new technologies in the FutureGen 
demonstration plant, but given the abundance of domestic coal as an 
energy source, I believe we will be seeking new technologies to improve 
our use of coal for many years to come.
  Our country needs a robust mix of energy sources so that we can adapt 
rapidly to changes in the world's markets. We as a Nation can innovate 
our way out of the current energy crisis, but I fear that we are 
letting a false sense of economy prevent this from happening at the 
pace required.
  Last year, in an effort to move the country forward in developing 
nuclear power as a domestic source of energy that does not emit 
greenhouse gases, the Congress provided funds to pursue a competitive 
process for choosing sites for the integrated reprocessing of spent 
nuclear fuel, including interim storage. We as a subcommittee also 
worked to accelerate the opening of the Yucca Mountain permanent high-
level radioactive waste repository, but without success. The 
administration has responded with a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, 
or GNEP, and I would like to emphasize the concerns about GNEP 
expressed in our committee's report.
  I do not know whether GNEP will truly help the future of nuclear 
power. I do know that any benefits from GNEP for the American people 
are 15 years or more in the future, but the benefits to the DOE labs, 
whose directors came to Washington for a recent Senate event, might be 
very immediate.
  I appreciate the chairman's supporting a restrained funding level for 
this program that will provide funds for work to refine the ideas 
included in the GNEP concept. I believe that the level in this bill is 
the correct level and will oppose any efforts to make further cuts in 
this area. Our subcommittee will work with the authorizing committees 
to ensure that the costs and plans for dealing with the waste that GNEP 
will generate are understood and are accounted for.
  Members should note that the bill requires DOE to submit its GNEP 
plans to peer review by the National Academy of Science and the 
National Academy of Engineering.
  One cannot discuss the issues of spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear 
waste without reiterating that Yucca Mountain is essential as a 
permanent high-level radioactive waste repository. We must continue to 
support its opening and not give up, even though its opening has been 
delayed until at least 2017. Through GNEP, we may redefine the waste 
stream in the future. The character of much of the waste may change, 
and change so as to lessen the long-term radioactive activity of the 
waste. But we have today waste of known character awaiting permanent 
disposal. Of course, I speak of the waste generated by the creation and 
maintenance of our nuclear deterrent, a deterrent from which we have 
all benefited.
  Last year's cuts to the science account at DOE were estimated to 
reduce support for 2,200 researchers. This year's funding will increase 
support for 2,600 researchers. This type of oscillation, however, does 
not attract bright minds to the research areas DOE sponsors, and a new 
increase of only 400 researchers over 2 years is hardly a major step 
forward. But it is a step forward, and I would stress to my colleagues 
and to the administration that further major increases will be required 
to support the physical sciences at the level befitting our Nation and 
its desire for continued economic growth and world leadership.
  The bill provides for more staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
to enable it to handle an anticipated increase in license applications 
for new nuclear plants. I also foresee additional regulatory 
responsibilities for the NRC.
  For example, I see the need for NRC to become involved in issues of 
nuclear safety at the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant. At many sites, the 
Department of Energy self-regulates on nuclear safety, and I consider 
this a foolish approach, even when the Department has the best of 
intentions. We do not let the private sector self-regulate in matters 
of nuclear safety, and we should end this practice at DOE as soon as is 
practical.
  So I think you can see how many critical areas for our Nation are 
included within the scope of the energy and water bill. Again, despite 
the funding limitations imposed upon the subcommittee, I take comfort 
from the many excellent decisions embodied in it and from the good that 
will be accomplished by the people's money we provide for these many 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to include some further observations on our bill.
  I think the committee has produced a very responsible bill that makes 
sound investment decisions for the future of our agencies and, frankly, 
for the future of our country. I believe we have one of the best 
Secretaries of Energy that we have had in a long time. The DOE budget 
request for fiscal year 2007 reflects some very clear policy choices 
made by the Secretary in favor of basic science research and applied 
energy research.
  While we don't rubber-stamp every one of the Secretary's priorities, 
I very much respect that he has been willing to articulate his vision 
for the Department of Energy and has been willing to make some hard 
funding choices to support that vision. Frankly, we wish we saw some of 
that same vision and leadership in the Corps of Engineers.
  The devastating consequences of the hurricanes that hit the gulf 
coast last year demonstrates what happens when we make the wrong 
investments in critical water resources infrastructure.

                              {time}  1500

  The gulf hurricanes served as a wake-up call for many other parts of 
the country, such as Sacramento, that have inadequate flood protection.
  Last fall, we asked the corps to provide Congress with a ``top 10'' 
list of the flood control and navigation infrastructure needs in the 
country. The corps was surprisingly unable or not allowed to respond to 
this simple request, and that tells me the corps has lost sight of its 
national mission and has no clear vision for projects it ought to be 
doing in the future.
  We have asked the corps to prepare 5-year budget plans, and the corps 
has made real progress in making these a useful planning tool, but we 
have not got there yet.
  We have also tasked the National Academy of Public Administration to 
identify sensible criteria for prioritizing the most worthy projects in 
the future. But, frankly, what is

[[Page H3160]]

still lacking is a long-term vision of what the Nation's water 
resources infrastructure should look like in the future. ``More of the 
same'' is not a thoughtful answer, nor is it a responsible answer in 
times of constrained budgets.
  After the New Orleans experience, should we continue to rely solely 
on levees for urban flood protection? What should our deepwater and 
inland navigation system look like in 20 years? Nobody right now can 
tell me that, and I have been asking that for a couple of years.
  And how should the corps be structured and managed to meet these 
changing times? The committee is determined to work with the corps, 
with our colleagues in the Congress, and with outside groups to help 
the corps craft a better vision for the Nation's water resources in the 
future.
  Our country is also in an energy crisis, and we have the 
responsibility to do everything we can in our bill to address that. I 
feel our bill, within the limits of our jurisdiction, does that. Our 
bill provides significant funding increases for research on renewable 
energy and nuclear energy resources. This research is not going to get 
us the results overnight, but it puts us on a long-term path to 
increasing energy independence.
  In short, this bill supports a variety of energy efficiency programs 
that can realize savings immediately. The bill increases funding for 
weatherization, energy savings programs for the Federal Government, 
vehicle technologies, building technologies, and industrial 
technologies, all efforts in the near term to find energy savings 
wherever we can.
  Now let me talk about earmarks.
  My goal for this year's bill is to earmark less than we did last 
year. The number of incoming Member requests to our subcommittee was 
down slightly from last year. In fiscal year 2007, we received 2,957 
requests, a reduction of 17 percent from the 3,572 requests submitted 
in fiscal year 2006.
  By comparison to the total value of $1.24 billion of earmarks and 
congressional adds that we carried in our bill and report last year, we 
have only $1.4 billion this year. This is a reduction of $200 million, 
or 16 percent. Frankly, if we include congressional adds and 
programmatic increases and focus only on project-specific earmarks, 
then our earmarks total only 1 percent of a $30 billion appropriations 
bill.
  Most importantly, most of the earmarks in our bill are fully funded, 
meaning they do not compete with administration priorities. And I want 
to say once again we not only take out ours where we have to, we take 
out the President's, and last year we took out a number on the Senate 
when we got to conference.
  We have produced a very responsible House bill. If you want to see 
real earmark reform, then we encourage our colleagues in the other body 
to live by the same earmark levels that we have in our bill and to 
provide funding headroom for those earmarks so they do not adversely 
impact the base programs of our agencies.
  Lastly, I want to thank all members of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the floor. Our 
subcommittee held four more hearings than last year, including two 
intensive oversight hearings on the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant and 
on reform of the DOE nuclear weapons complex. I appreciate our members' 
attention and participation in these hearings.
  I particularly want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). He has been a true partner in this bill. We 
have had some hard-fought wins in this bill and have continued to work 
together. This is truly a bipartisan bill that represents the best of 
this Congress. This is the way I believe our constituents expect their 
representatives to work together. I am proud of our bipartisan process.
  I also want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
Mr. Lewis, and the ranking member, Mr. Obey, for their support and for 
allowing us to move this bill forward in an expeditious manner.
  Lastly, I want to thank the staff of this subcommittee, and it is 
truly a bipartisan staff. Kevin Cook is our clerk, Scott Burnison, 
Terry Tyborowski, Taunja Berquam and Tracy LaTurner, and I thank them 
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 might add that Peder is going to be leaving. This is his last bill. 
He has done a great job. He has always been great for everybody to work 
with. He is headed off to law school. Mr. Visclosky and I are both 
lawyers; I am not sure that he took our advice, but he is doing it 
anyway. We want to wish him well in his new career.
  I also want to acknowledge our agency detailees. The formerly single 
Tony DiGiovanni, and he just got married last week. We tried to advise 
him, but he didn't listen and got married. He is from the Department of 
Energy. And I am probably going to hear from a lot of people about 
that, but I have been married to my first wife for 47 years, so I guess 
I can get away with that maybe a little bit.
  And also Debbie Willis from the Corps of Engineers for their 
invaluable assistance in putting this bill together.
  If you see the hard work that goes into putting these bills together 
and all of the detail and especially the phone calls we get asking: How 
did I do in the bill? How come I didn't get more? What do you mean this 
is a new start? What do you mean?
  Everybody thinks that their thing is the most important thing. We 
tried to do the best we can. I am sure we made some mistakes, and we 
will try to take care of those in conference on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for the 
courtesy he is extending me today.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Yucca Mountain and to 
the $500 million in funding that this bill will waste on efforts to 
turn Nevada into a nuclear garbage dump.
  The families I represent in Las Vegas and north Las Vegas remain 
overwhelmingly opposed to Yucca Mountain. A recent survey found that 80 
percent of southern Nevada residents are against high-level nuclear 
waste buried only a short drive from homes and businesses in by far the 
fasting-growing metropolitan area in the United States.
  They know that Yucca Mountain is a total failure and that 
transporting nuclear waste to Nevada is a disaster waiting to happen 
and an invitation to terrorists looking to build a radioactive dirty 
bomb.
  But that is not the only reason I stand before you today. Mr. 
Chairman, I cannot believe that we are being asked to approve nearly 
$550 million for Yucca Mountain at a time when the Secretary of Energy 
cannot even calculate the cost of the proposed dump.
  This past February, Secretary of Energy Bodman told the New York 
Times that his Department no longer, and I quote, ``No longer has an 
estimate of when it can open the nuclear waste repository that it wants 
to build at Yucca Mountain, and it may never have an accurate 
prediction of the cost.''
  Let me read that last sentence again: The Department of Energy may 
never have an accurate prediction of Yucca Mountain's total cost.
  The Secretary testified in front of the committee that not only does 
he not have an accurate prediction of the cost but does not have any 
idea when Yucca Mountain may open. Yet here we are debating whether or 
not to spend $550 million on this boondoggle in the middle of the 
Nevada desert. It is an insult to the taxpayers of this Nation that we 
even consider spending another half a billion dollars on a proposal 
that threatens communities in 43 States, threatens our environment, 
threatens the health and safety of more than 2 million southern Nevada 
residents, and threatens to break this Nation's bank.
  I ask my friends on both sides of the aisle, how can you vote for 
more spending on Yucca Mountain when we do not even know how much it 
will cost, when it will open, or whether it will work?
  When it comes to reasons to oppose Yucca Mountain, what I have just 
said is only the tip of the iceberg. My colleagues, how can you vote to 
continue funding the Yucca Mountain project when there is overwhelming 
evidence of chronic mismanagement and blatant

[[Page H3161]]

disregard for quality assurance requirements? Are you so beholden to 
the nuclear industry that you will not stand up for the health and 
safety of millions of our fellow citizens?
  In its most recent report, the GAO found that since the 1980s and up 
until this year there have been massive ongoing problems with quality 
assurance efforts at Yucca Mountain, including evidence that workers at 
the site deliberately falsified their own work.
  E-mails written by employees conducting experiments at Yucca Mountain 
described keeping two sets of books, Mr. Chairman, one with the real 
information, one for the regulators. Allow me to read these e-mails:
  ``This is as good as it is going to get. If they need more proof, I 
will be happy to make up more stuff.'' And another e-mail brags, ``I 
don't have a clue when these programs were installed so I made up the 
dates and names.''
  While these workers are not being criminally prosecuted for their 
deceitful acts, and why, I don't know, what GAO found was a quality 
assurance program at Yucca Mountain riddled with failures that 
threatened to completely undermine the validity of scientific work done 
at the proposed site, and these findings are supposed to serve as a 
basis for licensing Yucca Mountain.
  Work performed at Yucca Mountain is so flawed that in some cases the 
DOE is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to have the science redone 
in the hopes of salvaging what remains of this project.
  So don't let anybody talk to me about sound science. This project is 
a slap in the face to any scientists worthy of that title.
  But we cannot stop there, Mr. Chairman. It is vital my colleagues 
also remember that the area surrounding Yucca Mountain has been rocked 
by earthquakes and violent volcanic activity. This is especially 
troubling considering that waste stored at Yucca Mountain will not even 
reach its peak danger levels for 300,000 years and will remain toxic 
for nearly 1 million years.
  Are we so arrogant to think that mankind actually has the ability to 
safeguard all of the nuclear waste ever generated in this country in 
one place for a period of approximately a quarter of a million years 
longer than modern humans have roamed the face of the earth?
  Let me also remind my colleagues of the groundwater beneath the 
Nevada desert. Are you willing to risk destroying the ecosystem of the 
southwestern United States to appease the nuclear industry? I am not. 
Is that what we want for the future of our communities? Is that what we 
want for families in Chicago and St. Louis and Denver and Salt Lake and 
others living along the waste transportation routes to Yucca Mountain, 
thousands of shipments of deadly radioactive waste over decades 
traveling along our roads and railways?
  There is a better solution, Mr. Chairman. Leave the waste at the 
plants where it is produced in secure dry-cask storage, where it can 
safely sit for the next 100 years.
  Mr. Chairman, in addition to funding for Yucca Mountain, this 
legislation also contains $120 million for the President's Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership, which I also strongly oppose. This dubious 
project seeks to export nuclear technology to developing nations with 
the guarantee that the U.S. will take back whatever nuclear waste is 
produced.
  In other words, not only will the United States of America, State of 
Nevada, be the dumping ground for all of this Nation's nuclear waste, 
we are now supposed to be the dumping ground for the entire world's 
nuclear waste?
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the efforts of my colleagues to 
eliminate funding for GNEP, not only because it threatens to send more 
nuclear waste to the United States but because nuclear reprocessing 
creates materials that can be used to create a nuclear bomb.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to remind you that Nevadans are 
overwhelmingly opposed to seeing the Silver State turned into a nuclear 
garbage dump. The only safe solution is to keep the nuclear waste at 
the plants where it is produced in dry-cask storage.
  Funding for Yucca Mountain should be eliminated, and we ought to be 
paying the nuclear power plants for storing this waste.
  I am not an advocate of civil disobedience, but, as God is my 
witness, I will lie in front of any train that attempts to ship nuclear 
waste to Nevada. I will stand on the highway to stop any truck that is 
putting nuclear waste in Nevada. Nuclear waste will come to Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada, over my dead body, I promise you that; and I hope the 
people listening will contact their representatives and stand with the 
State of Nevada against this outrage.

                              {time}  1515


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would admonish visitors in the gallery not to 
show their approval or disapproval of debate on the House floor.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) for purposes of a 
colloquy with the chairman.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 included two provisions to improve the technology transfer of new 
energy technologies, neither one of which has received any funding in 
this appropriations bill.
  Section 1001 of the bill would establish a technology 
commercialization fund by dedicating .9 percent of DOE research funding 
to tech transfer. The Appropriations Committee, I understand, has not 
funded that provision, because the committee considers the dedicated 
funding source a tax on the funding of important research programs at 
the Department of Energy.
  But, Mr. Chairman, also, section 917 of the bill, which I first 
offered as an amendment in the Science Committee, authorizes the 
establishment of Advanced Energy Efficiency Technology Transfer 
Centers. This section authorizes such funds as may be appropriate, 
around $10 million, and does not take funding away from other research 
funding into alternative energy.
  However, this appropriations bill also provides no funding for those 
technology transfer centers either.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that this bill does substantially increase 
funding for energy efficiency, for renewable energy, for basic 
research. I devoutly wish that it was increased more still. But I am 
concerned, Mr. Chairman, that we are ignoring solutions to our energy 
problems that are available to us now. I am concerned that we are not 
supporting moving technology out of the laboratory and into the 
marketplace, where such technologies will save consumers and businesses 
on their energy bills.
  I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you and the committee will recognize the 
importance of technology transfer and provide a near-term solution to 
our energy needs and provide appropriate funding.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that this 
research and development that we are funding in this bill needs to have 
a pathway to the marketplace. As we move forward to a conference with 
the Senate, we will both, Mr. Visclosky and myself, keep the 
gentleman's concerns in mind, as we agree.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert).
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill; 
and I want to commend Chairman Hobson for the outstanding manner in 
which he has brought this House to this point, cooperating fully, 
minority, the majority, cooperating fully with the authorizing 
committees, and how refreshing that is to see us working hand in glove 
in common cause.
  This bill is very important in the priorities it sets. The 
President's American Competitive Initiative is fully funded; the 
President's advanced energy initiative, which is fully funded, except 
for wise reductions on nuclear reprocessing.
  I want to thank Secretary Bodman and Under Secretary Orbach for the 
long-needed attention they have brought to science programs at the 
Department. They are two of the finest senior public officials in this 
or any administration, and we are very fortunate to have them at their 
post.
  As the National Academy of Sciences points out in the report, rising 
above

[[Page H3162]]

the gathering storm, the U.S. must substantially increase its 
investment in basic research and the physical sciences to remain 
competitive. This bill responds to that message. This bill is a good 
bill. I urge its full support.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time and also to Chairman Hobson.
  Mr. Chairman, I have served on this committee for 12 years. Let me 
compliment both you and the ranking member for your relentless pursuit 
of accountability and fiscal restraint in this bill. This bill has 
addressed nuclear issues, protecting the nuclear stockpile, seeking to 
address waste issues, navigation issues, issues that relate to lessons 
learned from Katrina. The chairman and committee members have been 
hands on.
  We have done things with the Army Corps in terms of its management 
alternative, energy alternatives, as Congressman Boehlert just 
mentioned, the American Competitive Initiative, more money into 
research and science, and in terms of energy renewables, the work of 
the ITER program, the international ITER program in terms of fusion, 
their combination with domestic fusion.
  On a more parochial level, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the 
endorsement of the good work that we do in the New York-New Jersey 
region in terms of keeping the Port of New York and New Jersey open for 
business, a linchpin to the eastern coast economy.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill.
  Since coming to Congress, I have been advocating for increased 
resources for research in the physical sciences and for the Department 
of Energy Office of Science in particular. I just really am most 
gratified that the chairman and the ranking member of the Energy and 
Water Subcommittee fully supported the President's request for funding 
for the DOE Office of Science.
  As the Nation's primary supporter of research in the physical 
sciences, the DOE Office of Science led the way in creating a unique 
system of large-scale, specialized, often one-of-a-kind facilities for 
scientific discovery.
  I also want to express my appreciation for the funding provided for 
the Energy Supply Account. This bill before us contains vital work in 
fossil energy, nuclear energy, renewable energy and conservation. Such 
a diverse portfolio of technologies is necessary to secure our energy 
future. These technologies represent wise investments and deserve broad 
support.
  At the same time, I want to register my concern about the decreased 
funding for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP. We must 
begin developing advanced fuel cycle technologies now. I know the 
chairman of the subcommittee appreciates this fact and wants DOE to do 
it right. So do I, which is why I look forward to continuing our work 
on this issue of common interest.
  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 my colleague and also 
the Chair of the committee for bringing the bill up. I also want to 
thank my good friend from Indiana.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation. I want to thank 
the subcommittee leadership for their inclusion of $43 million for the 
Houston Ship Channel Navigation project and for $13 million in 
operations and maintenance for the Houston Ship Channel.
  The navigation funding goes towards important environmental 
restoration work in the deepening and widening project. We are at the 
end of that project now.
  The operations and maintenance funding is not as much needed to keep 
the channel at its authorized depth, but I am concerned by the lack of 
O&M maybe not only for the channel but for others. Our problem is that 
if the channel silts up, those oil tankers that we bring in with crude 
oil to our refineries, we will have to off-load or lighten them off the 
coast, and it will actually raise the price of our gasoline. The O&M is 
a concern that I have with gas prices so high. We don't really want to 
build all that extra cost into the refining.
  I also want to thank the committee for the portion of the 2005 Energy 
Policy Act, the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center in Wyoming. The 
energy bill last year authorized this funding, so we can actually drill 
horizontally 50,000 feet instead of what we currently do. Again, it is 
something that will help us to get more reasonably priced products.
  I do have some concern also about the lack of flood control funding, 
because I not only represent an energy-producing area but we are also a 
low-lying area. The Corps $4.98 billion is a cut of $345 million from 
last year, but I am pleased the committee went above the President's 
budget by $250 million.
  I have three projects, Greens Bayou, Hunting Bayou and Halls Bayou, 
that were flooded with Allison in 2001; and we are on a road to try and 
get those so we don't have those massive floods like we did in 2001. I 
would hope that the committee would look at the cost-benefit ratio so 
that we don't see those floods. These homes are not vacation homes. 
They are blue-collar folks' homes that actually work at those 
refineries that were flooded in 2001.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the committee would look 
at those in the conference committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation.
  I do wish to thank the subcommittee leadership for their inclusion of 
$43 million for the Houston Ship Channel Navigation project and for $13 
million in operation and maintenance for the ship channel.
  I have serious concerns with the lack of flood control funding for 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
  The bill provides the Corps $4.98 billion, a cut of $345 million 
below last year. I am pleased that the Committee was able to go $250 
million above the President's request, but unfortunately that increase 
was not enough.
  We requested funding for three federal flood control projects in our 
Harris County, TX, district--Greens Bayou, Hunting Bayou, and Halls 
Bayou--and not one of these projects was funded. These projects are all 
properly authorized.
  Congress has funded Greens Bayou and Hunting Bayou for many years in 
a row now, and the general reevaluation review for Greens Bayou is 
almost complete. We need only $488,000 more to finish it.
  We are told the subcommittee has a preference for completing existing 
projects and studies. As a result, I hope they will reconsider both of 
their decisions on Greens Bayou, which could have a completed study 
this year with funding, and Hunting Bayou, which is an ongoing 
construction project.
  The Greens Bayou project has a high 3.7 benefit to cost ratio, and in 
2001, over 15,000 homes in this watershed flooded in Tropical Storm 
Allison.
  Hunting Bayou has already started construction and a cut-off of 
Federal funding threatens to put this project into danger of falling 
further behind schedule.
  The Hunting Bayou project will reduce the number of homes and 
businesses in the 100-year flood plain by 85 percent, from 7,400 
structures to 1,000. Eight thousand homes flooded in this area during 
Tropical Storm Allison as well.
  It is particularly shocking that these projects were zeroed out this 
year because these flood-prone areas are now home to thousands of 
Katrina evacuees.
  I am very concerned that we are going into a cycle of increased 
hurricane activity at the same time that we are failing to make the 
necessary flood control investments for our coastal cities.
  Greens Bayou, Hunting Bayou, and Halls Bayou are not projects to 
protect vacation homes or homes in obvious flood hazard areas. Most of 
these areas were outside the flood plain until upstream development 
expanded the flood plains.
  I do wish to thank the subcommittee leadership for their inclusion of 
$43 million for the Houston Ship Channel Navigation project and for $13 
million in operations and maintenance for the ship channel.
  The navigation funding will go towards important environmental 
restoration work included in the deepening and widening project, 
keeping

[[Page H3163]]

our commitment to our region's environment and ecology strong.
  The O&M funding is not as much as needed to keep the channel at its 
authorized depth, and I would alert the committee that if the channel 
is silted up too much, oil tankers will have a hard time getting to the 
major gasoline refineries.
  With gas prices at the current high levels and supplies tight, we 
cannot risk another supply constraint.
  I also want to thank the committee for funding a portion of the 2005 
Energy Policy Act: the research into extended reach drilling at the 
Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center in Wyoming.
  This research promises to extend drilling up to 50,000 feet in three 
dimensions, which will allow us to recover more resources with fewer 
drill sites.
  Congress's interest in this project is justified because of its 
potential to reduce the environmental cost of oil and gas production.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the bill today, but I am making an urgent 
plea for flood control funding for Harris County. We dodged Hurricane 
Rita last year; over the next couple of years we may not be so lucky.
  We don't want to look back on the next few hurricane seasons with the 
same regrets as we did after Hurricane Katrina.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding time.
  If anyone needs to find an example of bipartisanship and good work 
product, they need to look no further than the Energy and Water bill, 
under the leadership of Dave Hobson and Peter Visclosky, two fine 
midwestern gentlemen who know how to work together and lead us in a 
bipartisan way toward energy independence in the stronger and more 
effective Army Corps of Engineers.
  One issue within the bill that I would like to address, Mr. Chairman, 
that is the Department of Energy's recent pronouncement that it would 
no longer reimburse Department of Energy contractors for contributions 
to defined benefit pension plans and medical plans. It is an overly 
broad and unprecedented position.
  One Cabinet agency is attempting to prohibit contributions to defined 
benefit plans at the very moment the House and Senate conferees are 
negotiating over provisions to strengthen the financial solvency of the 
very same defined benefit plans. DOE should not be allowed to 
unilaterally mandate a reimbursement policy.
  The White House has publicly supported reforms to our country's 
pension laws to strengthen defined benefit plans. We commend Chairman 
Hobson and Mr. Visclosky for inserting language into this 
appropriations bill to preclude DOE from implementing this policy.
  Make no mistake that the House is working its will on this specific 
issue and is repudiating the DOE's policy to prohibit reimbursement of 
contractor contributions to these plans.
  It is my hope and expectation that the House leadership will sustain 
this position on any negotiations with the Senate. America's workers 
who are covered by defined benefit plans deserve our full support and 
protection.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, last month the 
Department of Energy announced, with no notice or consultation with 
Congress, that it would stop its contractors from offering traditional 
pension plans to new employees and cut back on health benefits as well, 
starting next year.
  Over the next several years, this radical new policy would torpedo 
the retirement benefits of over 100,000 employees working on the 
Nation's most cutting edge and vital research and energy projects.
  This unilateral action by the Department of Energy is a mistake in 
many ways. It sends a message that the Federal Government no longer 
supports one of the country's bedrock retirement systems.
  The Department will shuffle employees into 401(k) savings plans, a 
vehicle that puts at risk all of the employees. Let's be honest. The 
401(k) plans were never designed to meet comprehensive retirement needs 
of employees. They are saving plans, not retirement plans.
  But I want to commend Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky 
for addressing this issue in this legislation. It would stop the 
Department of Energy from implementing this new policy and prohibit it 
from using the contracting process in any way from curtailing 
traditional pension plans and health benefits.
  Groups throughout the retirement policy area have expressed concern 
with the Department of Energy policy, the AFL-CIO, the AARP, Mercer 
Human Resources Consulting and Pension Rights Center.
  Major Energy Department laboratories and facilities are spread 
throughout the country. These contractors range from institutions like 
the University of California, Iowa State University, and major 
companies like Honeywell, Fluor, Johnson Controls and Westinghouse.
  Thousands of workers at the Energy Department facilities in Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee; Hanford, Washington; Idaho Falls, Idaho; Portsmouth, 
Ohio; and Los Alamos, New Mexico have jobs with traditional pension 
plans and comprehensive benefits. We need this as we try to stay on the 
cutting edge of competitiveness on a worldwide competition to make sure 
that we can track the best that this country has to offer in terms of 
scientists, engineers, computer technicians and the rest.
  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for taking care 
of this in this legislation.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham), a member of the committee.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Hobson for the 
great work that he has done and the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, just 
a great friend. You two guys fighting over who is going to give me a 
minute shows me how bipartisan we are here and all the great fellow 
committee members. This is really a subcommittee that works and works 
in a lot of different ways.

                              {time}  1530

  We work well together on a very bipartisan basis, but also doing the 
oversight work, really working through some very difficult issues. We 
would not be able to do that without the extraordinarily talented 
professional staff that we have on both sides, and I want to thank 
them.
  This is a very important bill for Iowa, for the country. We have got 
an energy facility, the Ames Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, and obviously, 
the Army Corps of Engineers, and the transportation issues we have on 
the Mississippi. There are a lot of different issues, the riverfront 
improvements in Fort Dodge, other environmental conservation projects 
around.
  But this is a very, very good bill, accomplished by people working 
together, and I just want to once again express my appreciation to the 
chairman and ranking member and the great staff.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support of the Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill that we are considering today.
  The Energy and Water bill funds our Nation's Department of Energy 
programs, water and science programs and some defense and agriculture 
related programs. Unfortunately, instead of making a commitment to a 
rational energy policy this bill continues our dependence on fossil 
fuels; continues our practice of poisoning our lands, oceans, and air; 
and does little to combat rising gas prices.
  While H.R. 5427 does increase funding for alternative energy research 
and development, we must do more. I was pleased to learn that energy 
supply and conservation programs are funded at $2 billion, 5 percent 
more than the President's request and 12 percent more than the current 
level. Important initiatives that will receive additional funding are 
renewable energy and energy efficiency programs; including biomass 
fuels, hydrogen technologies and solar power.
  Appropriations bills are a chance for Congress to fund programs that 
we believe fit our Nation's goals and protect the best interests of the 
American people. In this bill, we must show our commitment to important 
programs that promote sustainable energy sources, energy efficiency, 
and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. We can and should do 
better than what we are considering today.
  That is why I supported the Visclosky amendment which would have 
invested $750 million in alternative energy, innovation, and energy 
efficiency by increasing funding for the Biomass and Biorefinery 
Systems Research

[[Page H3164]]

and Development and various other technologies such as clean coal and 
geothermal research and development.
  Tomorrow we will consider a bill once again that will allow drilling 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I wonder when my colleagues will 
learn that drilling our way to energy independence is unrealistic and 
simply flawed logic. We must focus on developing sustainable energy 
sources and encouraging conservation. This is the only way to actually 
work our way to energy independence.
  I urge my colleagues to make a commitment to alternative energy 
sources. Ernest Hemingway wrote, ``The world is a fine place and worth 
fighting for.'' We must continue to fight to preserve our environment 
and develop energy sources that are clean, safe and sustainable.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman I want to thank the 
gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Indiana for their leadership 
on this important piece of water resources legislation in the midst of 
an extremely tight budget environment.
  I support the fiscal year 2007 Energy and Water Development 
appropriation measure.
  This measure includes funding for a number of flood control projects 
administered by the Corps of Engineers that are desperately needed 
within my congressional district: the Nokomis Road Bridge Erosion 
Project, the Upper Trinity River Feasibility Study, and most 
importantly the Dallas Floodway Extension.
  I appreciate the subcommittee's consideration of my requests and your 
past support for vital flood control projects in my congressional 
district.
  My constituents in the region are highly concerned about the 
possibility of severe flooding of the Trinity River, an event that 
could result in countless loss of lives and almost immeasurable 
property damage.
  The Dallas Floodway Extension, DFE, is the linchpin of the city's 
flood control efforts. Each year the Office of Management Budget finds 
within its good graces to zero out funding, but the project is of 
critical importance to my constituents.
  This legislation includes $5 million for the construction of the 
Dallas Floodway Extension.
  This funding will go towards the construction of a chain of flood 
conveyance wetlands and a system of protective levees that will enhance 
the security of Dallas' central business district and area 
neighborhoods. The project will also reclaim 792 acres of land that are 
currently in the 100-year flood plain.
  Although I am disappointed that this amount falls far below the 
Corps' expressed capability of $28 million, it is my hope that the 
project funding may be revisited during the House-Senate Conference.
  As the country's recent flooding events have highlighted, we can not 
continue to shortchange this Nation's water resources infrastructure.
  Adequate investment in our nation's infrastructure will protect lives 
and property, bolster economic growth, and further enhance the quality 
of life for all our constituents.
  While I recognize the difficult constraints the committee worked 
under in developing this legislation, and appreciate the funding 
included, I also know it is imperative to the public health and safety 
of the people of Dallas that this project proceed as quickly as 
possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the bipartisan effort that went into the 
drafting of this legislation, commend that effort as a model for the 
way in which this Chamber ought to routinely work, and urge a ``yes'' 
vote on H.R. 5427.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my deep concern about the 
subcommittee's decision to zero out funds for the Mixed Oxide, or MOX, 
fuel fabrication plant at Savannah River Site in South Carolina. In a 
nutshell, the MOX fuel plant would take weapons grade plutonium and 
convert it into fuel usable in commercial reactors.
  In 2002, the state of South Carolina, in an arrangement with the 
Department of Energy and Congress, agreed to allow 34 tons of weapons 
grade nuclear material for MOX processing be stored at the Savannah 
River Site. In exchange, the state of South Carolina received 
assurances that the MOX fuel plant would be completed on schedule. And 
to be sure, we put in place penalty payments for the Department of 
Energy if the MOX fuel plant's construction delayed beyond 2011.
  In parallel with this U.S. effort, the U.S. and our allies agreed to 
help fund a MOX facility in Russia, where the Russians would likewise 
convert 34 tons of their own plutonium into MOX fuel. To nearly 
everyone, this seemed like a good deal--and in any event, a done deal. 
In the U.S., we would eliminate the expense and risk of safeguarding 
weapons usable nuclear fuel. In Russia, we would eliminate the risk 
that weapons grade nuclear material would fall into terrorist hands. 
And for the nuclear power industry, we would provide a new source of 
nuclear fuel.
  For four years, we have been told by the Department of Energy that 
liability concerns for U.S. contractors in Russia were the hold-up for 
the MOX facility--a problem we believed was resolved last summer. 
Unfortunately, earlier this year it came to light that there was a more 
fundamental problem. In February, the Russians informed U.S. officials 
that they would only move forward with the MOX fuel facility in Russia 
if the MOX fuel could be used in new so-called fast reactors, which 
pose proliferation concerns, or if the international community paid for 
the whole project. This development called into question the 
nonproliferation benefits that the U.S. might expect from MOX.
  I can understand Chairman Hobson's concern about these changes to the 
MOX fuel program. In fact, I share them. But that does not change the 
fact that without the MOX program, South Carolina is stuck with 34 tons 
of weapons grade plutonium with no clear pathway for disposal. When 
South Carolina agreed to take the Nation's plutonium, it did not do so 
to become plutonium's final burial place. We only took the plutonium 
with the promise that a processing facility and ultimate removal would 
be forthcoming. The penalty payments imposed on the Department of 
Energy were our ace in the hole to make sure this happened. In the 
Defense Authorization bill, we even included language attesting to the 
fact that the South Carolina MOX facility was worth doing on its own, 
separate of the Russian facility if need be.
  We learned of Russia's decision shortly before the Defense 
Authorization bill was marked up in the Armed Services Committee, and 
we took sensible steps to account for these new circumstances. What the 
House Armed Services Committee did is fence the funds sought for the 
MOX fuel plant, pending a report from the Department of Energy that 
reaffirms this process as the preferred technology and most cost-
effective means for disposing of weapons-grade plutonium. Millions of 
dollars have been spent in the expectation that the MOX fuel decision 
was a done deal. An EIS has been prepared. Tons of plutonium have been 
shipped to South Carolina, based on the iron-clad promise that it would 
be processed into MOX reactor fuel and shipped out on schedule. The 
contractor for the project has put together an impressive engineering 
team, and begun design work. Duke Energy has obtained MOX fuel 
assemblies from France and loaded the fuel rods in its light water 
reactor. To cancel this substantial project so precipitously, with no 
input from the Department of Energy, with no consideration of sunk 
cost, and with the enormous cost to terminate for convenience does not 
seem wise or right to me, particularly when we lack an agreed-upon 
alternative that has been studied and found superior to the MOX fuel 
option.

  I am not dogmatic about MOX; if other treatment options are available 
and cost effective, I am open to those options. But with over half a 
billion dollars already invested in the MOX facility, I am wary of 
scrapping the whole idea and starting over. I understand that Chairman 
Hobson put $111 million of the MOX cut into exploration of other 
treatment options at Savannah River Site, and I commend him for that. 
But I think we should withhold judgment on MOX fuel until we have at 
least received the report sought by the House Armed Services Committee. 
I look forward to working with Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member 
Visclosky either to restore funding or to find an alternative that is 
mutually agreeable.
  Thank you for the opportunity to share my views on this issue of 
great importance to my state, out country, and our nuclear complex.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Mr. Hobson and 
Ranking Member Visclosky for offering a strong bill that ensures that 
the United States maintains a robust nuclear deterrent and modernizes 
the infrastructure to support it.
  I am especially pleased that the bill continues the House's 
unwavering support for the National Ignition Facility, NIF at Lawrence 
Livermore Laboratory in my district with full funding.
  As you know, NIF is one-of-a-kind world-class scientific effort that 
allows the United States to maintain its nuclear arsenal without 
resorting to underground testing.
  Also NIF significantly advances the science of fusion as a potential 
alternate energy source.
  I would like to also commend the chairman on a bill which fully funds 
the National Nuclear Security Administration's Advanced Simulation and 
Computing Program, ASC, which has developed the fastest computer in the 
world.
  ASC is vital to the transformation of the Nation's nuclear 
infrastructure and its simulations will help assess new programs such 
as the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program, RRW.
  Livermore Lab is at the forefront of this work and I welcome the 
continued investment in computational capabilities, like the Blue Gene 
L and Purple computers at Livermore Lab, and the unparalleled 
capabilities they provide.
  Again I commend the chairman for a strong mark.

[[Page H3165]]

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with earmark reform 
proposals currently under consideration in the House and Senate, I 
would like to place into the record a listing of the Congressionally-
directed project in my home state of Idaho that is contained within the 
report to this bill.
  The project provides $3 million within the Army Corps of Engineers 
Section 595 program for rural water infrastructure upgrades in Idaho 
communities. The funding was authorized in the last Water Resources 
Development Act.
  This funding is critical to assisting rural Idaho communities in 
upgrading their water and wastewater treatment facilities. In many 
cases, this funding is required to comply with unfunded mandates passed 
down by this Congress and federal agencies.
  Perhaps the most striking example of why the federal government has a 
responsibility to assist these communities is the burden the EPA's 
revised arsenic standard is having across America.
  In the small Idaho town of Castleford, the Mayor and City Council had 
to lay off their only law enforcement officer so they could pay for the 
arsenic study required by EPA's unfunded mandate. This small town of 
just a few hundred people has been forced to come up with at least $2 
million--a sum that would have been wholly impossible without some 
assistance from the federal government.
  In addition, these funds help rural communities in Idaho facing 
economic hardship--like the rural community of Rupert. Rupert, just 
last week, learned that one of its major employers, Kraft Foods, is 
closing its cheese plant in the community. The vital water funding in 
this bill will assist Rupert in attracting new businesses by offering 
improved services at lower costs than would otherwise be possible.
  I'm proud to have obtained this funding for Idaho communities and 
look forward to working with them in the future to meet their water 
resource challenges.
  I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally-
directed projects in my region and an explanation of my support for 
them.
  (1) Rural Idaho Environmental Infrastructure, $3,000,000--pg. 28.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to express my support for 
H.R. 5427, the Fiscal Year 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations bill 
and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  I would like to begin by commending the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations 
Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for their 
outstanding work in bringing this bill to the Floor.
  I recognize that extremely tight budgetary constraints this year made 
the job of the subcommittee much more difficult. Therefore, I believe 
the subcommittee should be commended for its diligence in creating this 
fiscally responsible measure.
  In light of these fiscal constraints, I am very pleased that the bill 
includes $7.5 million for the Antelope Creek Flood Damage Reduction 
Project, an integral component of a flood control, transportation and 
community revitalization project known as the Antelope Valley Project 
in Lincoln, Nebraska. Critical to progress on the entire Antelope 
Valley Project is the completion of the drainage work. This multi-
purpose project is a partnership of Lincoln, the University of 
Nebraska, the Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, the Corps 
of Engineers, and the Departments of Transportation and Housing and 
Urban Development.
  The first segment of the project was completed in 2004 under a $4 
million Corps of Engineers contract. Delay of the next project segment 
would cause a delay in the transportation improvements already under 
construction. Completion of the flood control portion is necessary 
before community renewal can proceed.
  It is also important to note that this bill includes $190,000 to 
complete the Fremont South Section 205 Flood Control Study. The total 
cost of the study is $733,500 and the total federal share is $366,750, 
of which $177,000 has been received over the past two study years. The 
goal of this project is to provide urgent feasibility planning in 
connection with upgrading an existing levee in order to keep a portion 
of south Fremont out of flooding in the 100-year floodplain. This 
Fremont South area is not currently identified by the Federal 
Management Agency (FEMA) as being in the designated floodplain. 
However, a revision to the FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map will 
include this Fremont South area when printed and approved in the near 
future.
  Finally, I am pleased that this bill includes $175,000 for the Lower 
Platte Natural Resource Districts under the Lower Platte River and 
Tributaries authority and Section 503 authority. This provision was 
included in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 for a carrying 
capacity assessment for protection of water resources in the critical 
Lower Platte basin, including planning to expand to a water resource 
monitoring program. Key to protection of water resources in the basin 
is a carrying capacity assessment to support watershed management 
resource protection including the strengthening of related resource 
monitoring programs.
  Again Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Subcommittee's inclusion of 
funding for these projects of great importance to my district. I 
support passage of H.R. 5427 and urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I believe that we need comprehensive 
appropriations earmark reform. In the last 10 years, the number and 
cost of federal earmarks have spiraled out of control, from 4,000 in 
1994--totaling 24 billion dollars--to more than 15,000 items last year, 
valued at more than 47 billion dollars.
  Earmarks are out of control. We should reform the manner in which 
earmarks are approved by Appropriations and Authorizing Committees, 
with an eye toward increasing transparency and accountability.
  But what we are voting on today is a series of amendments, chosen by 
one member, in an ad hoc, piecemeal attempt to reform the 
appropriations process one earmark at a time. While this is a useful 
exercise to point out the problem, having one member pick and choose 
among existing earmarks is as arbitrary as the underlying process.
  I will fight for genuine, comprehensive appropriations reform, so 
that we can be truly open and accountable to our constituents.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly recognize the work the 
subcommittee has done in providing $2.3 million for the San Antonio 
Channel Improvements Project. This money will provide the first 
installment of a multiyear construction effort to expand the economic 
development of the San Antonio River while addressing potential flood 
control problems.
  As many know, the San Antonio Riverwalk which is the central segment 
of the San Antonio River park system is one of the premier tourist 
sites in our country. Conceived in the 1930's, the Riverwalk has been 
an example of everything the Federal government and the Army Corps of 
Engineers can do right with its water construction efforts.
  The San Antonio Channel Improvements Project has fully met the 
federal technical requirements for project development and fully fits 
with the Corps' strategic plan for the Nation. This project will 
significantly enhance flood protection in the San Antonio metropolitan 
effort while at the same time restore the river ecosystem and connect 
the San Antonio River park system with the San Antonio Missions 
National Historical Park.
  The significant economic development impact of this project will 
primarily be felt by the most disadvantaged sections of the San Antonio 
community. The City of San Antonio and Bexar County have also committed 
more than $46 million in local funding to match the Army Corps of 
Engineers investment in this project.
  Mr. Chairman this bill's $2.3 million initial commitment to the San 
Antonio Channel Improvements Project is appreciated by the San Antonio 
community. As the legislative process moves forward on this bill it is 
my hope the final language for this project will provide the level 
needed to fully proceed with construction. The construction of the San 
Antonio Channel Improvements Project will provide untold flood control 
and environmental benefits as well as economically benefit South Texas. 
I look forward to continuing to work with the Committee towards that 
goal.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, 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 $43.5 million in the 
bill to continue funding the Port of Oakland's 50-foot dredging project 
in my district in California, as well as for including the Army Corps 
of Engineers funding request for Operations and Maintenance programs in 
California that should provide $6.5 million for the Port.
  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.

[[Page H3166]]

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss the important issue 
of dam safety work at Isabella Dam, located in Kern County, California, 
which I represent.
  On April 27, 2006, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers declared an 
emergency pool restriction at the Lake Isabella Dam due to concern over 
increased seepage at the base of the auxiliary dam. On May 1, the Corps 
began releasing water from the dam to relieve pressure on the dam, 
until the pool level at the dam reached only 63 percent of capacity. 
This restriction will remain in place until the Corps can take 
permanent corrective action at the dam, which may not be until 2012, 
which is 6 years from now.
  The Corps of Engineers has named Isabella Dam as their top dam safety 
concern in the Nation as a result of the Corps Screening Portfolio Risk 
Assessment done last year, due to seepage, seismic concerns, and 
spillway deficiencies. Nonetheless, their estimated time for taking 
permanent corrective action is 6 years. Because of this significant 
concern, I am working with Energy and Water Appropriations Chairman 
Hobson to secure the additional funding needed for the Corps to 
continue important drilling, sample collecting, economics modeling, and 
environmental studies at Isabella in order to expedite this multi-year 
process.
  Isabella Dam protects a population of 300,000 in the Bakersfield area 
and about 350,000 acres of highly profitable agricultural land and oil 
fields. Kern County's evacuation plan notes that should Isabella Dam 
fail, within three and a half hours portions of the city of Bakersfield 
would be under as much as thirty feet of water. Loss of life and 
property, including agricultural land, which annually produces crops 
with a $3.5 billion farmgate value, would be tremendous. Likewise, 
there would be tremendous damage to oil infrastructure and significant 
impact to the entire Nation because Kern County annually produces more 
oil than Oklahoma.
  I am also concerned about the considerable economic hardship that has 
already occurred as a result of the Corps' pool restriction at 
Isabella. Water agencies and the City of Bakersfield who have water 
rights on the Kern River have already lost 77,000 acre feet of water 
since the pool restriction was put in place. This is precious water, 
with a conservatively estimated value of over $2.5 million. Allowing 
water to be lost simply because there is no place to store it is an 
immense problem in a State like California, which has limited 
resources.
  Given the immediate and considerable safety and economic concerns 
surrounding Isabella Dam, I will continue to work with my colleagues 
and the Corps to resolve the problem as swiftly as possible.
  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 2007, 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 water user 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 $5 
billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, $923 million for the Bureau of 
Reclamation, and $24.6 billion for the Department of Energy. Of this 
amount, $1.9 billion is provided for energy research, development, and 
demonstration and conservation deployment--an amount $20 million above 
the previous year and $55 million above the Administration's request.
  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 $57.4 million in 
funding for construction of the Animas-La Plata Project. This funding 
level represents a $4 million increase over the FY 2006 funding level.
  Completion of the A-LP will provide a much-needed water supply in the 
southwest comer 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. 
While I had hoped we could achieve a funding level closer to the Bureau 
of Reclamation's current capability of $70 million, I appreciate the 
committee's decision to increase the project funding level. If we can 
speed up completion of the project, then we avoid costly delays, saving 
taxpayer money.
  I am pleased that the FY 2007 Energy and Water Appropriations bill 
also includes $350,000 for the Arkansas River Habitat Restoration 
Project. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the City 
of Pueblo, Colorado has completed 95 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.
  The committee also provided a $789,000 appropriation for the Army 
Corps of Engineers to engage in operations and maintenance at Trinidad 
Lake, Colorado. While I appreciate the funding for this project, I am 
disappointed that the committee chose to reduce its funding by almost 
half of last year's level. Trinidad Lake is a multipurpose project for 
flood control, irrigation and recreation, and was authorized by the 
1958 Flood Control Act. I realize we are under tight budget constraints 
but a delay in necessary funding will end up costing us more in the 
long run.
  Finally, I am pleased with the increased funding this bill dedicates 
for research and development. Some of this money will go directly to 
the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) in Golden, Colorado. NREL is 
home to some of the most innovative renewable energy research in 
America and even the world. There is also an increase above the 
Administration's budget request for weatherization grants. This program 
directly helps the American consumer by assisting them in energy 
conservation measures. Conservation is the quickest way for consumers 
to deal with high energy prices.
  Given the current budgetary constraints, I believe this bill is a 
good start. The funding included for Colorado projects is important for 
improving water related infrastructure in our state. As we move forward 
with the appropriations process, I will continue the fight to preserve 
funding for Colorado and the 3rd Congressional District.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio's time has expired.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Biggert) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gutknecht, 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. 5427) 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________