[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 29459-29468]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2754, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 444, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2754) making appropriations for 
energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2004, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the conference report 
is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
November 7, 2003, at page 28191).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that has a conference agreement of $27.3 
billion. This is a good bill. We worked very hard on it, and we have 
had a very tough conference; and I hope everybody will vote for the 
bill.
  At this time I would like to make a few remarks concerning the 
committee staff on both sides. We worked together very diligently to 
prepare this bill and this conference report. I guess this is my second 
time to conference the bill, but my first time to be involved in the 
writing of the bill, which is a rather unusual circumstance.
  During that period of time, and for the last number of years, our 
clerk has had different people being the chairman. And I do not know 
whether it is because I became the chairman that he is leaving or not. 
He has had a different chairman about the last five times, and so I 
said I was going to stay awhile, and then suddenly I heard he was going 
to retire. So I hope it is not because of the conference we have had 
that he is leaving, because he has done a great job. He has been 15 
years here in this committee. He likes apparently the challenge of 
breaking in a new chairman, but I am not sure that he likes the 
continuation of that. But he will have to speak afterwards about that.
  I really want to thank him because he has been a great help to me and 
a great help to the staff as we have worked on this bill. He was dubbed 
``Silent Bob'' in one of the reports that was out, I think it was in 
one of what we call local political rags here around Washington. While 
most people might say he is silent, I can tell you when he is in the 
room and Silent Bob speaks, we all listen. He has done a great job for 
this committee. He has been a great resource to me and to the committee 
over these years.
  So I want to thank him, and I hope he can go out and work on his golf 
game because he tells me his game is about as bad as mine, and that is 
really bad. So now he will have plenty of time to learn how to play 
golf better and also to probably earn a lot more money, as he can come 
back and lobby us about a lot of issues because he is a real authority, 
especially on the water part of this bill.
  So, again, thanks to you, Bob, for being the clerk for all these 
years and for leading us during this period of time.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a document detailing the 
specifics of this appropriation bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the 
conference report on H.R. 2754, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004.
  We had a challenging conference with the Senate this year, but we 
were able to resolve our differences and reach a fair compromise. Most 
importantly, I believe we did the right thing for the Nation in this 
conference report in a number of important areas, from rebuilding our 
water infrastructure, to dealing with the disposal of spent nuclear 
fuel, to advancing the frontiers of our scientific knowledge.
  The total amount of funding included in the conference agreement is 
$27.3 billion. This represents an increase of $1.1 billion over the 
current fiscal year and approximately $380 million over the budget 
request.
  Title I of this conference report provides funding for the Civil 
Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and for the Corps' 
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. The conference 
agreement provides the Corps with $4.6 billion, slightly below the 
current year but nearly $400 million over the

[[Page 29460]]

inadequate budget request. The Administration does not seem to 
comprehend that underfunding the Corps of Engineers ultimately costs 
the country more in the long run, as projects that are strung out over 
multiple years always cost more than they would if constructed on an 
efficient schedule. I have already initiated a dialog with the 
Administration in an attempt to convince them of the need to increase 
funding to support the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers in 
future fiscal years.
  In fiscal year 2004, we opted to focus our available resources on 
completing ongoing projects, and therefore limited the number of new 
starts in this conference agreement.
  Funding for Title II of the bill, which includes the Central Utah 
Project Completion Account and the programs of the Bureau of 
Reclamation, is $986.5 million, $14 million above the amount 
appropriated last year and $64 million above the budget request. The 
Committee did not provide the $15 million requested by the 
Administration for the CALFED Bay-Delta program. The authorization for 
this program expired in fiscal year 2000 and it has not been 
reauthorized.
  Total funding for Title III, the Department of Energy is $22 billion, 
$1.2 billion above fiscal year 2003 and $120 million below the budget 
request.
  In many ways, I am most proud of our accomplishments in this part of 
the conference agreement. My top priority in the Energy and Water bill 
this year was to provide sufficient funding for the Yucca Mountain 
nuclear waste repository, and I believe we succeeded. This conference 
agreement provides a total of $580 million for Yucca Mountain, only $11 
million below the request but an increase of $123 million compared to 
the current fiscal year. This project has been significantly 
underfunded in prior years, and we are finally starting to reverse that 
trend.
  Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we keep the Department of Energy on 
schedule to submit the repository license application late next year 
and to begin repository operations in 2010. The Yucca Mountain 
repository is essential for both energy security and homeland security. 
We have provided the necessary funding in this conference agreement, 
and I have the commitment of the Secretary of Energy to move forward 
aggressively on the repository program during this coming fiscal year.
  Another priority of mine, and of many other Members in this chamber, 
is the subject of advanced scientific computing. By a number of key 
measures of computing power, the United States is now in second place 
behind Japan. For the sake of our scientific leadership, of our 
national security, and for economic competitiveness, we cannot afford 
to stay in second place for very long. We have provided an additional 
$30 million for the Department of Energy to procure additional state-
of-the-art computers in the near term and to begin an interagency 
effort to develop next-generation computer architectures.
  Another area where there is significant Member interest in this 
conference agreement is the portion of DOE's budget that deals with 
several new nuclear weapons initiatives proposed by the Administration. 
I strongly believe that we need to take a hard look at our existing 
Cold War nuclear arsenal before we start down the path of designing new 
weapons and new weapons infrastructure. As President Bush said when he 
announced reductions to the nuclear stockpile on November 13, 2001, 
``The United States and Russia have overcome the legacy of the Cold 
War.'' At that time, he pledged that the United States would reduce our 
stockpile to 1,700 to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads over the 
next ten years. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for the Department 
to Defense, and the Department of energy, to deliver a revised nuclear 
stockpile plan that reflects the President's commitment of two years 
ago. It is time for DOD and DOE to take a hard look at our nuclear 
weapon stockpile and on the infrastructure we are maintaining to 
support that stockpile.
  Mr. Speaker, the funding provided in this conference agreement 
maintains our strong support for DOE's nonproliferation programs in 
Russia and other countries. This agreement also makes a key change in 
DOE's contracting culture, as we require the competition of five 
laboratory contracts that we awarded without competition back in the 
1940s and have never been competed since. Most Members are shocked to 
learn we have contracts that have never been competed in the past half 
century. We are fixing that situation.
  Funding for Title IV, Independent Agencies, is $229.3 million, an 
increase of $22.6 million from last year and $81.4 million above the 
budget request. We have funded the Appalachian Regional Commission at 
$66 million, $33 million above the request, in recognition of the 
strong interest in this chamber and in the Senate in the work of the 
ARC.
  I want to thank my Senate counterpart, Chairman Pete Domenici, and 
his Ranking Minority Member, Senator Harry Reid, for their hard work 
during this conference. They may view me as a relatively junior Member 
by Senate standards, but rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that I fought long 
and hard to defend the House priorities during this conference. My 
Ranking Member, the Honorable Pete Visclosky, was at my side during 
this process, and I truly value his support and advice.
  Mr. Speaker, before I conclude I would also like to thank the staff 
for their help in getting me up to speed on the complex issues we have 
in this bill. The Subcommittee staff includes Bob Schmidt, Kevin Cook, 
Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, Tracy LaTurner, and our detailee from the 
Corps of Engineers, Robert Pace. I also want to thank Kenny Draft of my 
staff, and Dixon Butler and Peder Maarbjerg of the minority staff.
  I urge the unanimous support of the house for adoption of this 
conference report. I would hope we could quickly conclude action on 
this conference report so that we can get this bill to the White House 
for signature.
  I want to make special mention here today for ``Silent Bob'' Schmidt, 
the subcommittee clerk on my bill this year.
  Bob is leaving the Hill at the end of this week, and is going on to 
greener pastures. I hate to say it, but his departure may be partly my 
fault. He has the remarkable record of having clerked for five 
different Chairmen, I believe, in the past five Congresses. He 
apparently likes the challenge of breaking in new Chairmen, and I told 
him I intend to be around for a while, so that may be why he's going. I 
hope not.
  I would like to congratulate Bob on his many years of service on the 
Appropriations Committee, and for his former service for the Corps of 
Engineers. Bob's knowledge of the agency programs in our bill, and of 
the rules of the Committee and the house, have been invaluable during 
my first year as Chairman on this subcommittee. I will miss his 
experience and his company, and I know that the staff will, too.
  I like to refer to Bob as ``silent Bob'' because he's not a real 
talkative guy, so I am not sure that we'll notice when he is out of the 
office, even when he is gone for good. He usually managed to speak up, 
though, when anybody was about to make a mistake, which is one hallmark 
of a very good Appropriations Clerk and I know we will all miss him 
when it's time to get the work done. On behalf of those of us who have 
worked closely with him, I want to wish him every success in his golf 
game and whatever else he takes on in the future.

[[Page 29461]]





[[Page 29462]]



[[Page 29463]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to as, I always do on these 
occasions, thank the staff because in the end they are the ones who 
have done the very hard work. I want to thank Kevin Cook, I want to 
thank Scott Burnison, I want to thank Dennis Kern, Tracey La Turner, 
Rob Pace, Kenny Kraft, Rob Nabors, Dixon Butler, Peder Maarbjerg, 
Leslie Phillips, and I would also like to add my voice of thanks to Bob 
Schmidt. Bob has done an incredible job as a staff member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. As a former staffer myself, I truly 
appreciate the work everyone has done on this bill, and in this case 
particularly the work of Bob. It is no surprise to me the quality of 
work he has done since he is a graduate of the University of the Notre 
Dame.
  The second set of thank you's goes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Hobson). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and I serve 
together on the Subcommittee on Defense. As mentioned, this is his 
first full round with the energy and water bill, and he has done an 
exceptional job. He has been completely bipartisan. He has been a 
gentleman. He has made decisions. Our Department of Energy and our 
energy policy in the United States of America is better off because of 
the work the gentleman has done on this bill.
  I have now served with five chairmen; they have all been very able. 
They have all done very good work; this is the best bill which has been 
brought to the floor while I have been a ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, on the substance of the bill, I would want to simply say 
that I think the committee has done a very good job on the nuclear 
weapons program. On the issue of water infrastructure, we have done our 
very best. We have added $377 million, and put back into the process 80 
programs that were eliminated by the administration under budget 
requests. Any failings here are not because of lack of effort by the 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the staff that 
worked to put this bill together, Bob Schmidt, Kevin Cook, Scott 
Burnison, Dennis Kern, Tracey La Turner, Rob Pace, Kenny Kraft, Peder 
Maarbjerg, Leslie Phillips, Rob Nabors, and Dixon Butler, all put in 
countless hours to produce this fine product.
  I would also like to thank my Chairman, Chairman Hobson, who guided 
the House priorities through a very tough Conference, and led us to 
produce a very good bill. He has been one of the best Chairmen I have 
ever work with, and I look forward to working with him in future years.
  Now, no bill is perfect Mr. Speaker, but this bill was a product of a 
truly bipartisan effort. Mark Twain once said that ``Common Sense is 
not that Common'' but this Conference Report advances some very common 
sense ideas, and though I don't want to take up much time, I would be 
remiss if I did not mention a few.
  In the area of Nuclear Weapons, this Conference Report directs the 
Dept. of Energy to focus on management of our aging weapons stockpile 
before moving forward with new concepts and designs.
  The Report fenced two-thirds of the money going to Advanced Concepts, 
or weapons research, until DOE produces a Nuclear Weapons Stockpile 
plan. This plan is needed to better deal with our aging war-heads and 
to dispose of many of those systems. Due to advances in technology many 
warheads are no longer practical or feasible with current Department of 
Defense technology and strategies.
  In addition, the Conference Report, funds the Modern Pit Facility 
program and the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) or Bunker Buster 
at, $10M and $7.5M respectively, half of the President's and Senate's 
Requests in both cases. This is because we should not be looking 
forward to new weapons until we have a solid plan for the weapons and 
technology we already have.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be especially wary of the nuclear waste stored 
in many sites across this country in this unfortunate time of terrorist 
threats. The compromise we came to with the other body, funded the 
Yucca Mountain Repository at it's highest level ever, $580M, and fully 
supports the submission of the December 2004 license application. I 
appreciate the Chairman's leadership on this issue.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker our funding for the Corps of Engineers was the 
best that we could do within the money provided. Many important 
projects could not be fully funded, completed, or started. This under-
funding was not the fault of the Chairman or this committee, which 
funded the Corps approximately $377 million over the President's 
Request and restored approximately 80 ongoing studies that the 
Administration did not include in their budget. Unfortunately, this 
Administration, and previous Administrations, in a bipartisan failure, 
have not made the infrastructure of this country a priority.
  Currently, the Corps O&M program reflects a high priority backlog of 
$1 billion and an additional $1.9 billion in unfunded work. Though the 
conference report added $29 million to the President's request, we are 
still behind.
  For on going construction, the backlog was $44 Billion for FY 2002 
and $45 billion in FY 2003. The Conference Report added $372 million to 
the President's request of $1.35 billion to help this situation; this 
is just a drop in the bucket, and I suspect this backlog will continue 
to grow in FY 2004.
  We need to invest in our future, by creating jobs, advancing the 
efficiency of commerce and transportation, while improving the 
environmental outlook and quality of life for people in this country. 
This can all be done through better investment in our domestic 
infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill as well, and 
want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson). During no time in 
my 9 years here have I seen anyone grow as fast on the job in 10 and a 
half months as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson). His first 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development meeting was coming in as 
chairman, and in the last 10 and a half months, he has been all across 
the country, studied these issues, consumed himself with it, and done 
an outstanding job, in large part because of the bipartisan 
cooperation. There is no doubt this is a bipartisan product, an 
excellent work product.
  I want to thank again those staff members already mentioned on our 
side of the aisle, Bob Schmidt, Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, Kevin 
Cook, Kenny Kraft, and Tracey LaTurner. They have done outstanding 
work.
  A couple of points I want to make, first as a representative of the 
premier multipurpose laboratory in the United States, Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory, science is up. Our long-term investment in the 
future of our country, the seed corn for the next generation, is up 
above the President's request because the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Hobson) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) believe we must 
invest for future generations, and this bill reflects that commitment 
long term. It is very important. Plus, energy security; everybody has 
talked for a long time about our need to solve the long-term waste 
issue relative to our nuclear waste storage and whether we can ever go 
back into the nuclear business. We are solving that problem by fully 
funding and adequately funding Yucca Mountain, which we need to do. 
This committee has moved on this.
  We also have an accelerated cleanup program across the country now 
because this Department of Energy, under Secretary Abraham's 
leadership, rolled out an ambitious plan to clean these nuclear sites 
up sooner rather than later and invest more in the short run to save 
money in the long run. We are doing that at Oak Ridge, at Hanford, 
Savannah River, and across the country. It is important that we do that 
for the health and safety of our citizens, and this bill is an 
excellent work product. I agree with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky) that this is the best energy and water bill that we have 
offered in a number of years.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to funding for 
the Yucca Mountain project in the energy and water appropriations 
conference report which allocates $580 million for the Yucca Mountain 
project and nuclear waste disposal. This is an increase of almost 30 
percent above current spending levels. Appropriating

[[Page 29464]]

such a significant increase of funds for a project which is riddled 
with problems is unconscionable.
  I would like to bring to our attention numerous developments that 
cloud the future of the Yucca Mountain project. These issues raise 
major concerns regarding the wisdom of continuing this dangerous folly. 
Proponents of Yucca Mountain claim that a central site would reduce 
security concerns at the Nation's 131 nuclear reactor sites. That is 
preposterous. Even if Yucca Mountain opens, every nuclear reactor in 
operation will continue to store nuclear waste on site. Instead of 
eliminating potential terrorist targets, we will be creating a new 
target, this time in the State of Nevada.
  Nuclear waste shipped to Yucca Mountain will pass through 45 States 
and the District of Columbia, traveling on roads and railroad tracks 
located next to 50 million people over the course of the next 24 years. 
Residents of cities such as Chicago, Atlanta, St. Louis, and Salt Lake 
City could see multiple shipments of this deadly nuclear waste pass 
through their backyards daily.
  The United States Air Force has stated that the Yucca Mountain 
repository will interfere with training at the Nellis Air Force Base. 
This would negatively impact military preparedness at one of the 
Nation's most important training facilities. It is almost unimaginable 
that we would consider a plan that would limit the ability to train 
America's combat pilots.
  Just last month, the independent Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board 
found that the canisters that will store high-level waste at Yucca 
Mountain are likely to corrode and leak, resulting in the release of 
radioactive nuclear materials that will contaminate nearby water 
supplies.
  Instead of dumping money into the ill-conceived Yucca Mountain 
project, we should invest in the development of clean energy sources, 
such as renewable energy. By boosting renewable energy, we are working 
to bring down energy costs, create a consistent and reliable source of 
energy, improve the environment and public health, and reduce our 
vulnerability to terrorists around the world.
  We must look far ahead when considering the future of energy. That 
future is in reliable, renewable energy, not nuclear power. I urge my 
colleagues to consider the consequences of this project. This Congress 
will rue the day it got into bed with the nuclear industry. The people 
of the State of Nevada already do.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this 
conference report and want to commend the chairman and his staff on 
very, very fine work. I particularly thank them for their willingness 
to work with those of us from Appalachian districts for funding for the 
Appalachian Regional Commission. That is a part of America that is very 
rural, it is a part of America that is struggling economically, and 
with the tremendous loss of manufacturing jobs recently, it is an 
agency that we believe needed to be funded. We are also pleased that he 
helped us put language in the bill that said those who receive this 
funding will be accountable publicly. We want to make sure that these 
agencies serve us, and that they are open. The language requires that 
their budgets, their minutes, their audited statements and public 
meetings be open to the press and public. We thank them for that.
  I also commend the committee on authorizing $2.15 billion for 
hydrogen fuel cells. It is a program I have supported for years. I 
commend the committee on authorizing $200 million for clean cities. I 
represent State College, Pennsylvania, which is the first bus system 
that will be all natural gas, and are now working toward becoming 
hydrogen, and are leading the way. I thank the committee for the $100 
million for increased hydropower which is important. We have a lot of 
dams in this country which have not been harnessed and hydropower which 
has not been adequately utilized, and I want to particularly thank the 
committee for its dramatic increase for LIHEAP from $2 billion to $3.4 
billion. With the high cost of natural gas and fuel oil this year, home 
heating is going to be a problem in cold parts of this country, and 
this program will be vital. I also was delighted at the $1.8 million 
clean coal power spending; and I want to thank the chairman and those 
who worked with him on Yucca Mountain. I know it is a controversial 
issue, but it needed legislative leadership and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Hobson) provided that. I thank him for his work.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to two 
provisions in this energy and water conference report. First, this bill 
provides $7.5 million for study of a new-generation, earth-penetrating 
nuclear warhead and $6 million for research on advanced nuclear weapons 
concepts such as low-yield mini nukes. Supporters of these new nuclear 
weapons argue the current funding is limited to weapons research and 
development in DOE labs, but this argument ignores the obvious end 
results of these studies, and that is that they will have to be tested. 
These weapons will be tested most likely at the Nevada test site. That 
will once again expose Utah and the rest of this Nation to fallout from 
those tests.
  High-yield weapons present an additional problem, unacceptable 
amounts of fallout would endanger U.S. troops approaching the target to 
confirm the weapons' success. No one is going to argue about pursuing 
new technologies to address the threats posed by terrorists hiding in 
hardened or deeply-buried sites, but we should ask and answer this 
question about whether nuclear weapons, regardless of yield, can even 
get the job done.
  I oppose this bill that would once again move toward exposing Utahans 
to nuclear testing in Nevada. That brings me to a second point I also 
raise in opposition to the bill, and that is there is a provision that 
would reclassify radioactive waste from two Department of Energy sites 
as a type of waste that can be shipped to commercial facility. This 
language was included in the conference report without the knowledge of 
States like Utah that had commercial facilities where the DOE has 
suggested shipping such highly-concentrated radioactive waste. This 
waste has much higher radioactive levels than other radioactive waste 
that commercial facilities are currently regulated to accept under this 
classification.
  This is unacceptable to Utah, and I am fundamentally opposed to 
language that makes Utah into a dumping ground not only for waste from 
Ohio and New York, but waste from other east coast States as well. Some 
Members argue this waste is not that bad. Mr. Speaker, if the waste is 
not that bad, then Ohio and New York should not be in such a rush to 
get rid of it.
  Utah has a history on this issue, a history of being downwinders. My 
family comes from southern Utah. I would not put Utah into a back seat 
to anyone when it comes to their patriotism and commitment to this 
country, but we need to make sure when we move ahead and potentially 
expose our citizens to radiation, that we make sure we make these 
decisions in the clear light of day, and we look out for the health and 
safety of all Americans.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, but I have 
some concerns. There are 60 separate authorizations in this bill; 10 
were cleared through my committee. The remaining came from the other 
body. What bothers me is we have sent over to the other body a WRDA 
bill that they should be acting on. When we have that many projects in 
an appropriations bill without having to go through the due process, 
including my committee, I think it is inappropriate.
  I have worked with the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee. 
My staff has worked with them, and we worked through what the House 
projects should be and they were

[[Page 29465]]

cleared. But now we see a small WRDA bill. When the conference report 
was filed, I was a little shocked. In fact, it has two projects in this 
bill which were not asked for by either the House or Senate. Two 
projects were inserted by the Corps itself. I think this is a bad way 
to legislate.
  The bill overall is a good bill, but what we ought to be doing is 
passing a WRDA bill out of the other body and getting that done because 
this Nation needs a sound policy. This Nation needs restoration, it 
needs a sound project list to conclude.
  The chairman and the ranking member did an outstanding job, but I 
hope this body keeps insisting to Members of the other body, two of 
them from each State, urge them to pass that piece of legislation that 
covers the whole Nation and not do it piecemeal, because it weakens the 
process and makes it difficult to do what we should be doing. I ask 
Members as we approach next year, we urge that body to act responsibly.

                              {time}  1500


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman is reminded not to 
urge action in the other body.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the chairman at all. As a matter 
of fact, the chairman, I, and the ranking member tried when we passed 
this bill in the House to not put any authorizing language in this bill 
that was not approved by the chairman when it left here. In our 
discussions with the other body, they have a different procedure. We 
had certain things that we had to take the way the procedures works.
  I would suggest that we do need to pass a water bill, and I think my 
ranking member agrees with me on that. We want to work with the 
gentleman from Alaska in every way we can. There are two large things 
that were approved over here that I think substantially hurt that, but 
they were requests from the Senate which I think the gentleman is aware 
of which we passed by the committee.
  But again just generally I want to say, not only generally but 
specifically, I totally agree with the fact that we should pass a water 
bill as expeditiously as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would just for a moment agree with both of my chairs and refer to 
my opening remarks where, despite our best efforts, we are also on the 
appropriations side underfunding these programs. I would agree with the 
chairman of the authorizing committee that I would hope the other body 
acts sooner rather than later.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), my 
partner in this. This is the first time we have done this bill 
together. He and his staff have been absolutely marvelous to work with. 
We have tried to expose to each other all of our problems. If we would 
have had more money, we could have helped more people. That is our 
goal, with the very delicate infrastructure that we have in this 
country; but we just did not have enough money to do that.
  In closing, I would like once again to say that I appreciate the 
clerkship of Bob Schmidt and all of the staff, but especially Bob. In 
the time I have worked with him, he has been an invaluable resource. We 
are going to miss him a lot.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 2754, the 
Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report. 
However, I am concerned about one provision which was added to the 
statement of managers concerning the Bonneville Power Administration. 
Incorrect language was added stating ``the conferees are aware of the 
Department of the Treasury's concerns relating to Bonneville Power 
Administration's financial accounting practices and expect Bonneville 
to rectify the situation as soon as is possible.'' The Department of 
the Treasury has not expressed concerns relating to BPA's accounting 
practices. In fact, a letter from Treasury Acting Under Secretary for 
Domestic Finance, Brian Roseboro, to Stephen Wright confirms that no 
concerns about BPA's accounting practices exist. The letter, dated 
November 18, 2003, states:

       Dear Mr. Wright: The Department of the Treasury received 
     the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2754 and reviewed the 
     sentence on page 171 that reads, ``The conferees are aware of 
     the Department of the Treasury's concerns relating to 
     Bonneville Power Administration's financial accounting 
     practices and expects Bonneville to rectify the situation as 
     soon as is possible.'' The Department of the Treasury has not 
     expressed any concern about the financial accounting 
     practices of Bonneville either privately or publicly. Please 
     let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Brian C. 
     Roseboro, Acting Under Secretary for Domestic Finance.

  Mr. Speaker, I wish the Record to reflect the fact that this sentence 
added to the Conference Report is incorrect, and the letter from Under 
Secretary Roseboro corrects the Record.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Hobson and 
Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard work in producing an Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill that funds a number of important programs 
This legislation includes significant increases over the President's 
request for Basic Energy Research and for Energy Supply programs.
  Sadly, this bill also marks a watershed in U.S. nuclear policy that 
will have dire consequences for us and for our children. Indeed, by 
funding research on adapting nuclear weapons for new uses against hard 
and deeply buried targets and funding work on new low yield nukes, 
Congress has given its stamp of approval to a persistent effort by this 
administration to put the United States back in the business of making 
nuclear weapons.
  The funding of these two initiatives has been the culmination of the 
work of nuclear hawks in the administration who had produced a Nuclear 
Posture Review in December of 2001 that places a strong emphasis on the 
use of nuclear weapons for both offensive and defensive purposes and a 
misguided National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction in 
December 2002 that outlines new scenarios when the United States would 
consider using nuclear weapons.
  The development not only marks a new chapter in American national 
security policy that directly invites a nuclear arms race with any 
power that wishes to compete, but also a shameful moment for Congress 
when elected officials have been too willing to embrace a new weapons 
program without challenging what have been very lightweight 
justifications.
  Mr. Speaker, nuclear weapons will remain a crucial part of America's 
arsenal for the foreseeable future. They provide a hedge against 
potentially hostile nuclear powers and underpin security commitments to 
our allies. But today, the United States is addressing the threat of 
weapons of mass destruction from Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan and 
a growing list of counties.
  The Director of the CIA, George Tenet, warned last February that the 
``desire for nuclear weapons is on the upsurge ``among small 
countries'' and that ``we have entered a new world of proliferation.''
  Even Russia, our former Cold War rival whom we fought in a conflict 
that almost brought the world to the brink of annihilation, on noting 
the administration's current intent to pursue a new generation of 
nuclear weapons, has responded by making plans to strengthen its 
nuclear deterrent by modernizing delivery vehicles and keeping a number 
of heavy ballistic missiles previously slated for dismantlement.
  Instead of working to build an equitable global regime that actively 
devalues nuclear weapons and creates incentives for their elimination, 
the administration would rather develop new battlefield nuclear 
capabilities, leading us into a world where nuclear weapons are seen as 
legitimate alternatives for all nations and the taboo on their use is 
severely eroded.
  The administration's intent to develop a new generation of nuclear 
weapons of any size makes a mockery of the President's claim that the 
Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) he signed with Russian 
President Putin marked the true end of the Cold War.
  Indeed, if you combine the repeal of the ban on development of low 
yield nuclear weapons contained in the Defense Authorization Bill with 
the funding of these same weapons in this bill and the flexibility in 
the SORT which allows both Russia and the United States too keep all 
their weapons rather than dismantle them, we actually have the makings 
of a nuclear arms buildup in this country for the first time since the 
end of the Cold War.
  While this bill cuts funds in half for the Robust Earth Penetrator 
and ties $4 million of the

[[Page 29466]]

$6 million requested for advanced concepts to an important reporting 
requirement, there is no such thing as opening Pandora's box part way.
  With this bill, the United States has crossed a major threshold and 
entered a new nuclear era.
  By approving the administration's request for plans to develop a new 
generation of nuclear weapons, Congress has failed the American people 
by adopting policies that potentially make the United States less 
secure.
  The justifications the administration offered for its nuclear 
agenda--the need to maintain the knowledge of our nuclear designers and 
the need to strengthen our nulcear deterrent by developing more usable 
nuclear weapons--were paper thin.
  The first justification deserves little comment. The argument that 
Congress needs to create a jobs program for scientists to help hone 
their skills doesn't hold water.
  Second, the proposition that nuclear weapons can somehow be 
engineered to be smarter and cause less collateral damage is simply 
false.
  Nuclear weapons will never surgically destroy hardened targets.
  They offer no guarantee of destroying chemical and biological agents 
without releasing them into the atmosphere.
  Detonated in an urban area, even a 1-kiloton nuclear bomb with a 
yield much lower than the nuclear warheads under consideration for an 
RNEP would kill tens of thousands of civilians and hinder friendly 
troops.
  Our warfighters do not have a military requirement for new nuclear 
weapons, and we have not exhausted research on conventional 
alternatives.
  I am deeply concerned that by preaching the rhetoric of disarmament 
and nonproliferation, and on the other hand, developing a new 
generation of weapons of mass destruction, we are making the world a 
more dangerous place. Perhaps the most alarming thing this Congress has 
done is to trivialize nuclear weapons and their destructive power.
  The prohibition on low yield weapons not only was necessary, it 
reinforced the notion that nuclear weapons should always be considered 
the most destructive weapons known to man.
  By lifting the ban on research and funding their development in this 
bill, it is much easier to believe that they are just like any other 
usable weapons system, rather than a horrific weapon of last resort.
  The American people are poorly served when the executive branch does 
not engage them on policies that may have catastrophic consequences for 
them in the future and when their elected officials are reluctant to 
ask the hard questions or thoroughly review the administration's 
national security propositions.
  I am going to vote for this bill because it contains a number of 
important provisions for our economy.
  It will be up to this Congress and subsequent Congresses however, to 
ensure that the administration's quest for new and more usable nuclear 
capabilities does not take us closer to the day when we decide to use 
them again.
  We did not heed the protests of the current mayor of the city of 
Hiroshima who wrote the President on the anniversary of the bombing of 
his city this summer that ``this clear indication that the United 
States intends to develop small nuclear weapons raises the horrifying 
specter that nuclear weapons will actually be used'' and represents a 
``frontal attack on the process of nuclear disarmament.''
  If today we are unwilling to listen to those who have the only 
experience of the consequences of nuclear war, I hope that in the very 
near future we can at least start giving proper attention to this 
development in future hearings and debates.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 
2004 energy and water appropriations conference report, which funds 
several projects of great interest to my constituents in Southern 
California.
  The New River has been described as the ``world's most polluted 
river.'' The river flows from Mexico, north across the U.S. border, and 
through my district in Imperial County, California. Due to grossly 
inadequate sewage treatment and solid waste facilities in Mexico, raw 
sewage, industrial waste, and garbage are constantly released into the 
New River.
  The New River is extremely polluted, foamy, and foul-smelling. The 
river significantly violates water quality standards, and plants and 
animals cannot survive in much of it. The New River continues to 
threaten the health of residents of my district and of undocumented 
immigrants who use the waterway to cross the international border.
  A coalition of citizen groups and government agencies in my district, 
including the Calexico New River Committee, has developed a feasible 
plan that will significantly improve the quality of water flowing 
through the community. The project involves building wastewater 
infrastructure to improve water quality in the vicinity of the city of 
Calexico on the southern portion of the New River in Imperial County by 
installing project headworks and encasing the New River, and 
constructing a disinfecting facility and wastewater polishing system as 
the river emerges from its encasement.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, which provides funding for the Nation's 
energy and water-related projects, would continue environmental 
restoration efforts on the New River. This is an extremely important 
first step in the process of enhancing the water quality of the 
southern portion of the New River, enriching life in the community, and 
making a healthier home for fish and wildlife.
  Better quality water flowing along the New River would also mean 
improved water quality in the Salton Sea. The Salton Sea is the largest 
inland water body in California, and one of the largest salt lakes in 
the world. The Salton Sea is an important habitat for Federal and State 
listed endangered species, as well as other migrating and resident bird 
species, a reservoir for agricultural drainage, a center for 
recreation, and a wetland ecosystem.
  But it is quickly becoming too saline to continue supporting 
wildlife, and a recent rural-to-urban water transfer may shrink the 
shoreline. This bill would provide funding for the Salton Sea Research 
project for efforts to continue study of the alternatives for 
restoration of the Sea.
  Water that eventually drains into the Salton Sea comes from the 
Colorado River, and is delivered to farmers and residents in my 
community by the All American Canal. This bill provides funding to 
construct small regulating reservoirs on the canal, which will vastly 
improve operating efficiencies. The reservoirs would provide storage 
for water that is unavoidably delivered from the lower Colorado River 
in excess of what is immediately needed by users, thereby improving 
water conservation efforts.
  Finally, water in the Colorado River is threatened by a uranium mine 
tailings pile sitting only 700 feet from the River near Moab, Utah. The 
tailings, which sit in an unlined pond and seep into the ground water, 
are radioactive and contain high concentrations of toxic metals left by 
the leaching process used to separate uranium from ore. The tailings 
are leaking radioactive material into the Colorado River at levels 
1,300 times above the allowed limit. This bill provides funding to 
accelerate remediation of this site, and would ensure that residents of 
my community, other Colorado River water users, and the environment 
receive the long-term protection so desperately needed.
  For the sake of my constituents at the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as 
residents of the West, I urge my colleagues to support the conference 
report.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member supports the FY2004 Energy and 
Water Development appropriations conference report and urges his 
colleagues to vote for it. This Member would like to commend the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the Chairman of the 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the Ranking 
Member of the subcommittee, for their exceptional work in bringing this 
conference report to the Floor.
  This Member recognizes that extremely tight budgetary constraints 
made the job of the subcommittee much more difficult this year. 
Therefore, the subcommittee is to be commended for its diligence in 
creating such a fiscally responsible measure. In light of these 
budgetary pressures, this Member would like to express his appreciation 
to the subcommittee and formally recognize that the Energy and Water 
Development appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2004 
includes funding for several water projects that are of great 
importance to Nebraska.
  This Member greatly appreciates the $18 million funding level 
provided for the four-State Missouri River Mitigation Project. The 
funding is needed to restore fish and wildlife habitat lost due to the 
Federally sponsored channelization and stabilization projects of the 
Pick-Sloan era. The islands, wetlands, and flat floodplains needed to 
support the wildlife and waterfowl that once lived along the river are 
gone. An estimated 475,000 acres of habitat in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri 
and Kansas have been lost. Today's fishery resources are estimated to 
be only one-fifth of those which existed in pre-development days.
  In 1986, the Congress authorized over $50 million to fund the 
Missouri River Mitigation Project to restore fish and wildlife habitat 
lost due to the construction of structures to implement the Pick-Sloan 
plan.
  Also, this measure provides additional funding for flood-related 
projects of tremendous

[[Page 29467]]

importance to residents of Nebraska's First Congressional District. Mr. 
Speaker, flooding in 1993 temporarily closed Interstate 80 and 
seriously threatened the Lincoln municipal water system, which is 
located along the Platte River near Ashland, Nebraska. Therefore, this 
Member is extremely pleased that this conference report continues 
funding in the amount of $191,000 for the Lower Platte River and 
Tributaries Flood Control Study. This study should help formulate and 
develop feasible solutions which will alleviate future flood problems 
along the Lower Platte River and tributaries.
  This Member recognizes that this bill includes $546,000 for the Sand 
Creek Watershed project in Saunders County, NE, and $318,000 for the 
Western Sarpy-Clear Creek project. This funding is to be used for pre-
construction engineering and design work. This Member is also very 
pleased that the conference report includes construction funds for 
several Nebraska projects including $500,000 for Sand Creek, $500,000 
for Western Sarpy-Clear Creek, $1.5 million for Antelope Creek, and $1 
million for Missouri National Recreational River.
  Funding for the Sand Creek project is particularly urgent. There is a 
cooperative effort in Nebraska between the State highway agency and 
water development agencies which makes this project more cost-effective 
and feasible. Specifically, the dam for this small reservoir is to be a 
structure that the Nebraska Department of Roads would construct instead 
of a bridge as part of the new State expressway in the immediate 
vicinity of Wahoo, NE. Immediate funding would help ensure that this 
coordinated effort could continue.
  This Member appreciates the report language which directs ``the 
Secretary of the Army to work closely with the local sponsor on the 
Sand Creek Environmental Restoration project, accepting advance funds 
offered by the sponsor, and agreeing to credits and reimbursements, as 
appropriate, for work done by the sponsor, including work performed in 
connection with the design and construction of seven upstream detention 
storage structures.''
  The Western-Sarpy-Clear Creek Flood Reduction Project is designed to 
provide protection to the City of Lincoln's water supply, Interstate 80 
and U.S. Highway 6, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad/Amtrak 
line, telecommunication lines and other public facilities. The project 
completes and strengthens a levee system, most of which is already in 
place, to channel water and ice downstream away from the confluence of 
the Elkhorn and Platte Rivers, which is where major flood problems 
begin.
  The purpose of the Antelope Creek project is to implement solutions 
to multi-faceted problems involving the flood control and drainage 
problems in Antelope Creek as well as existing transportation and 
safety problems all within the context of broad land-use issues. This 
Member continues to have a strong interest in the project since he was 
responsible for stimulating the City of Lincoln, the Lower Platte South 
Natural Resources District, and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to 
work jointly and cooperatively with the Army Corps of Engineers to 
identify an effective flood control system for downtown Lincoln. The 
Antelope Creek Flood Control Project is a large project and will have a 
number of phases of right-of-way acquisition and construction.
  This Member appreciates the $500,000 included in the conference 
report for research in Nebraska on improved soybean oil for biodiesel 
fuel. Biodielsel use is growing rapidly, and an improved oil from 
soybeans developed for Nebraska growers can open new markets for 
soybean growers, while contributing to a cleaner environment and 
reducing our Nation's dependence on non-renewable energy sources. 
Replacing petroleum-based diesel fuel with biodiesel produced from 
soybean and other vegetable oils can help make the Nation more self-
sufficient in energy and reduce air pollution, including emission of 
``greenhouse gases'' contributing to global warming. Biodiesel holds 
significant potential for expanding markets for soybean growers and 
processors.
  Finally, this Member also is pleased that the conference report 
includes $1 million in funds from the Drought Emergency Assistance 
Program for emergency assistance in Nebraska.
  Again Mr. Speaker, this Member commends the distinguished gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the Chairman of the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, for their support of projects which are important to 
Nebraska and the First Congressional District, as well as to the people 
living in the Missouri River Basin.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations conference report, 
which brings the Houston Ship Channel project extremely close to 
completion and provides critical flood relief for residents of the 29th 
District of Texas.
  It was flooding down in Texas yesterday, and this bill is urgently 
needed down in my hometown of Houston. This bill provides $35.5 million 
for the Houston Ship Channel deepening and widening project, which will 
allow our Nation's second largest port to continue to grow and handle 
the heavy energy and petrochemical traffic that is necessary for the 
smooth economic functioning of our Nation.
  The Port of Houston is home to the single largest petrochemical 
complex in the country, with a combined capacity to produce nearly 49 
percent of the Nation's petrochemical capacity. By increasing the 
capability of the ship channel to handle newer, larger tankers more 
safely, Congress will directly increase the energy security of our 
Nation at a time of tumultuous energy markets. We need to obtain an 
additional $12 million in reprogramming funding next year as the 
construction on the ship channel nears completion.
  The ship channel is one of the primary economic engines in my 
district and throughout Texas, directly providing tens of thousands of 
jobs in the greater Houston area and many more thousands across the 
State.
  For flood control, this legislation provides $750,000 for flood 
protection construction work along Hunting Bayou, an urban watershed in 
East-Central Harris County. During Tropical Storm Allison, the most 
expensive tropical storm in U.S. history, over 8.000 homes flooded in 
the Hunting Bayou watershed, which is heavily residential and low to 
moderate income.
  The House Energy and Water Appropriations Act for FY 2004 also 
provides $774,000 to complete the General Re-evaluation Review for 
Greens Bayou, a highly populated, but economically disadvantaged 
watershed in North Harris County. The lack of flood control protections 
in this watershed leaves these residents and businesses unprotected and 
resulted in the flooding of over 15,000 structures during Tropical 
Storm Allison. The most major channel flooding during that event 
occurred in the Greens watershed, and we need to get moving and start 
moving dirt down there as soon as possible. This bayou came very close 
to topping its banks just yesterday.
  I offer my deep appreciation to Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member 
Visclosky for their attention and dedication to these critical economic 
development and flood protection projects for my constituents down in 
Houston, TX. I hope to work with them as this legislation goes forward, 
and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2754, 
the Energy and Water Appropriations conference report for fiscal year 
2004. Let me first thank Chairman Hobson for his strong leadership of 
our subcommittee's work and to Ranking Member Pete Visclosky for his 
bipartisan approach to this conference report. And my thanks to the 
subcommittee staff for their tireless efforts to put this conference 
report together.
  While public attention is rightly focused on the war on terrorism 
abroad, our committee continues to do its part to protect our nation's 
security at home. The issue of energy security is now clearly before 
us--our energy facilities and networks must be safe and secure. And we 
must also continue the critical work of the Department of Energy to do 
the research and development on domestic sources of energy, reducing 
the demand of foreign oil imports and to find better ways to protect 
our nuclear stockpile.
  I applaud the chairman for providing $82 million for the new Office 
of Electric Transmission and Distribution (OETD), which is $5 million 
over the requested amount. The Office of Electric Transmission & 
Distribution is a new DOE program office formed to help ensure a robust 
and reliable U.S. transmission grid for the 21st century. I am pleased 
our subcommittee has provided DOE with the funding needed to lead a 
national effort to help modernize and expand America's electric 
delivery system to better ensure economic and national security.
  Further, it is important to note the conferees added the $5 million 
over the requested amount to allow the Department of Energy to complete 
its investigation into the causes of the August 14th, 2003 blackout, 
which highly affected thousands of people in my region of the country. 
It is important DOE conduct an extensive investigation to get to the 
bottom of what caused or contributed to the outage so we can take 
proper steps to ensure such failures are never repeated in the future.
  Chairman Hobson has produced a conference report that continues the 
Federal commitment to work in partnership with our states and local 
communities to address such vital

[[Page 29468]]

needs as flood control, shore protection, environmental restoration and 
improving our Nation's waterways. By doing so, we are helping to meet 
critical economic, environmental and public safety needs in virtually 
every state in the country.
  I want to especially thank Chairman Hobson for his support of top 
priorities in my home state of New Jersey. Keeping our port open for 
business is critical to our regional economy and the 229,000 thousand 
jobs related to port activity in New Jersey and New York. Protecting 
and restoring our 127 miles of shoreline is vital $30 billion dollar 
tourism industry. And, this bill continues to work to protect New 
Jersey's communities from natural disasters such as flooding and 
continues New Jersey's special role to provide for a future energy 
source that is clean and unlimited: that is the work of the Princeton 
Plasma Physics Laboratory.
  Finally, I want to take a moment of my time to thank the Army Corps 
of Engineers for their efforts to improve the quality of life that the 
American people have at home as well as for the Iraqi people abroad. 
Today, well over 300 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers military and civilian 
employees are in Iraq assisting the people in many areas. The Corps 
also provides daily assistance to the reconstruction effort with 
technical advice for the International Aid Developments program of 
reconstructing water and sanitation facilities; public facilities, such 
as hospitals and schools; roads, bridges and railroads; and airport and 
seaport rehabilitation. Of vital importance is the Corp's work with the 
Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. State Department, and U.S. 
engineering societies that help Iraqi engineers gain knowledge lost 
during the last 30 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support this conference report and urge 
my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Conference 
Report on H.R. 2754, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act for fiscal year 2004. As this Congress is well aware, my district 
of Sacramento, CA, is the most at-risk river city in the Nation. 
Situated at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers, 
Sacramento has narrowly escaped certain disaster twice over the last 
two decades. My number one priority as a Member of this body has always 
been to put an end to this grave public safety risk and to provide my 
constituents with the flood protection they both need and deserve. I am 
happy to say this bill will do just that. In fact, in the eyes of 
Sacramento, the passage of this bill is an historic moment.
  A major flood along the American River would cripple this economy, 
causing between $7 and $16 billion in direct property damages and 
likely result in significant loss of life. The Sacramento floodplain is 
home to half-a-million people, 5,000 businesses providing 200,000 jobs, 
160,000 homes, 1,300 government facilities including the State Capital, 
over 100 schools, six major hospitals, 26 nursing homes, three major 
freeways systems, and a regional economy that supports over one million 
people.
  For almost as long as Sacramento has been at risk of a catastrophic 
flood, there has been a dispute over how to resolve the issue. Earlier 
this year, my colleague John Doolittle and I reached an agreement that 
moves forward the two most pressing issues for Northern California: 
flood control and water supply. This bill contains that agreement and 
successfully addresses both of those issues for the indefinite future.
  I would like to take a moment and recognize the tremendous efforts 
that have made this possible. Without the leadership of Chairman Hobson 
and Ranking Member Visclosky of the Energy and Water Appropriations 
Subcommittee and Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Sacramento would still be 
fighting for incremental flood control projects. Their recognition of 
Sacramento's dire flood control situation advanced this solution. On 
behalf of my constituents, thank you.
  More specifically, this bill provides for the construction of the 
Folsom Dam Mini-Raise. This is the crowning project in a series of 
vital flood control improvements and surpasses the region's long held 
goal of reaching 200-year level protection. By raising the existing 
Folsom Dam seven feet, Sacramento's flood control system will be able 
to weather a storm 50 percent larger than anything in the recorded 
history of the watershed. In addition, the project provides a new 
permanent bridge to replace the Folsom Dam Road, which was closed in 
February due to security concerns, and for ecosystem restoration on the 
lower American River. Congressional approval of the Mini-Raise benefits 
the entire Sacramento region, by addressing not only the area's flood 
control needs, but also ecosystem restoration, transportation issues 
and Homeland Security needs.
  I am grateful for the continued Federal assistance that Sacramento 
has received throughout the years to bring us to this moment. That 
commitment is evident in this bill and will ensure that those living 
and working in the region will be kept out of harm's way.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the conference report.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________