[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10969-10985]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 291 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2419.

                              {time}  1120


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water development for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Goodlatte in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to submit to the House for its 
consideration H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2006.
  The Committee on Appropriations approved this bill unanimously on May 
18, and I believe it is a good bill that merits the support of the 
entire House.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide range of 
Federal programs including such diverse matters as flood control, 
navigation improvements, environmental restoration, nuclear waste 
disposal, advanced scientific research, applied energy research, 
maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear non-proliferation.
  Total funding for energy and water development in fiscal year 2006 is 
$29,746,000,000. This funding amount represent a decrease of $728,000 
below the budget request and $86.3 million below the current fiscal 
year. This bill is right at our subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and 
provides adequate funds to meet the priority needs of the House.
  Title I of the bill provides for the Civil Works Program of the Army 
Corps of Engineers; the Formally Utilized Sites Remedial Action 
Program, which is executed by the corps; and the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The Committee 
recommends a total of $4.746 billion for title I activities, $294 
million below the current year and $414 million above the current 
budget request.
  I want to explain a couple of things about the corps as we go through 
this and take a little time on this because some of this is a change.
  For a number of years, the corps Civil Works Program has been 
oversubscribed where Congress kept giving the corps more and more 
projects to do but not enough money to do them. We took steps last year 
to put the corps on the road to fiscal recovery by eliminating the 
number of new starts and concentrating resources on the completion of 
ongoing construction projects. We also asked OMB to adopt a new 
approach to future corps budget requests so that we can use our limited 
resources to complete the most valuable projects efficiently, instead 
of spreading those resources very widely to make incremental progress 
across a large number of projects.
  The fiscal year 2006 budget request adopts such a performance-based 
approach for the corps budget. Proposing to use the ratio of remaining 
costs to remaining benefits is the primary determinant of which 
construction projects should receive priority consideration for 
funding. While this ratio may not be a perfect measure of merit of all 
the projects, the budget request represents good faith from the OMB to 
concentrate the corps' limited resources on finishing the most 
worthwhile projects that are already under construction.
  Until we begin to clear out the enormous backlog of ongoing work, we 
are reluctant to start new projects; therefore, we did not include any 
new starts again this year in this bill.
  One consequence of adopting this new performance-based approach to 
the corps is that the funds available for member adds for corps 
projects are very limited this year. In part, this is because for the 
first time in years we received a budget request in which many 
congressional priorities are already at the funded level. I think this 
is an improvement. However, even with that request as a good starting 
point, the total amount that we can provide for the corps is less than 
what the House passed in fiscal year 2005.
  With a healthy base request and a lean 302(b) allocation, we did not 
add as much for Member projects as we have in previous years. We were 
harsh, but fair, in how we dealt with these Member projects.
  Our fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water bill makes major strides to 
improving the corps' project execution reprogrammings and continuing 
contracts. For a workload of approximately 2,000 projects, the Chief of 
Engineers recently told me that the corps had 2,000 projects, but they 
had 20,000 reprogrammings. We think this is not good management, and we 
have done a lot in our bill to try to focus the corps on these 
continuing contracts.
  The problem is that the corps has done a lot of reprogrammings. They 
have moved funds around. We believe this is a case management problem. 
We have taken extensive efforts to try to reform this program because 
we think that they may not have the money to restore what they should, 
and if there is a big plume in all of this, that they cannot really 
tell us what it is all about.
  Another area that we have a problem with is in the continuing-
contract area. Some people would like to get rid of continuing 
contracts. I do not happen to believe that. I think it is a tool that 
they need, but we need to make sure that they are not using them to 
excess and they are not using them to do things that either the 
administration did not want to fund, we did not want to fund, or the 
Senate did not want to fund; and that this money is not being shifted 
around or execution is being done that would inhibit our ability in 
future years to fund programs by the original funding by the corps.
  The Department of Energy received a total of $24.318 billion in the 
Energy and Water bill. That is an increase of $105 million over the 
budget request, about $101 million less than the fiscal year 2005 
level. As with the corps, we asked the Department of Energy to begin 
preparing 5-year budget plans,

[[Page 10970]]

first for individual programs and then an integrated plan for the 
Department. I think this is just good money management within these 
Departments. We need 5-year plans. We actually need longer visions in 
these programs so that we know what we are going to end up with in the 
waterways in the future and we know what the Department of Energy's 
plans are in the future.
  The committee has several important new initiatives for the 
Department of Energy. DOE presently has significant quantities of 
weapons-usable special nuclear materials, plutonium and highly enriched 
uranium, scattered around its complexes. Unfortunately, even with the 
heightened attention to homeland security after the 9/11 attacks, the 
Department has done little to consolidate these high-risk materials. We 
have provided additional funds for material consolidation initiative 
and direct DOE to take aggressive action to consolidate its weapons-
usable uranium and plutonium into fewer, more secure sites.
  We think this is not only a security problem, but it costs us a lot 
of money and we think we can do better.
  We also propose a spent fuel recycling initiative to stimulate some 
fresh thinking on how this country deals with its spent nuclear fuel. I 
want to state that I fully support the Yucca Mountain Repository, and 
our bill fully funds the request for Yucca Mountain in fiscal year 
2006. It is critical that we get Yucca Mountain done and done right and 
done soon. However, we continue to be frustrated by the delays in 
getting the repository open, and we are concerned about what will 
happen after that first repository is built.
  The Department of Energy estimates that each year of delay on Yucca 
Mountain costs the government an additional billion dollars, half from 
the legal liability for DOE's failure to begin accepting commercial 
spent fuel beginning in 1988, as required by the law, and the other 
half from the costs. In addition, the authorized capacity of Yucca 
Mountain will be fully utilized by the year 2010 with no place to 
dispose of spent fuel generated after that date.
  It is time to rethink our approach on spent fuel. We need to start 
moving spent fuel away from reactor sites to one or more centralized, 
above-ground interim storage facilities located at DOE sites. If we 
want to build a new generation of nuclear power reactors in this 
country, we have got to demonstrate to investors and the public that 
the Federal Government will live up to its responsibilities under the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act and to take title to commercial spent fuel.

                              {time}  1130

  I would note that we are already storing foreign reactor fuel on DOE 
sites. It is time we do the same for our domestic spent fuel. This may 
help to limit the billions of dollars of legal liability facing the 
Federal Government for its failure to accept commercial spent fuel for 
disposal.
  It is also time to think about our reluctance to reprocess spent 
fuel. The Europeans are doing this very successfully, and there are 
some advanced reprocessing technologies in the research and development 
phase that promise to reduce or eliminate some of the disadvantages of 
the current chemical process.
  We add funds to the Nuclear Waste Disposal account and direct the 
Secretary to begin accepting commercial spent fuel in fiscal year 2006 
for interim storage at one or more DOE sites. We also include 
additional funds and direction within the Nuclear Energy account for 
the Secretary to select an advanced reprocessing technology in fiscal 
year 2007 and to establish a competitive process to select one or more 
sites for an advanced fuel recycling facility.
  Lastly, the committee recommends a new Sustainable Stockpile 
Initiative to ensure the future of our Nation's nuclear deterrent. The 
committee provides additional funds for the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead that we initiated in last year's conference report. We placed 
the Reliable Replacement Warhead in the context of a larger Sustainable 
Stockpile Initiative, which we view as a package deal with several key 
components.
  First, the Reliable Replacement Warhead is a program to reengineer 
existing warheads to be safer, more secure, cheaper to maintain, easier 
to dismantle and, more importantly, easier to certify without 
underground testing.
  Secondly, we propose a modest slowdown of Life Extension work on the 
old warheads in preparation for a shift to the newer replacement 
warheads. This is coupled with a significant increase in dismantlement 
rates to bring down the stockpile to match the President's decision 
about the size of the stockpile by the year 2012. Frankly, in the long 
run, I am hopeful the Secretary's task force on the Nuclear Weapons 
Complex will propose some sensible steps to modernize the DOE Weapons 
Complex and bring it into line with these coming changes in the size 
and composition of the stockpile.
  The committee provided for an aggressive nuclear nonproliferation 
program within the National Nuclear Security Administration. We 
provided an additional $65 million to keep the plutonium producing 
reactor shutdown program with the Russians on track to have all three 
reactors closed by 2011. The committee also provided $85 million 
additional for the Russian material protection program to secure 
nuclear materials overseas.
  We made a significant reduction to the domestic MOX plant because of 
the large unexpended prior-year balances in that project, caused by the 
continued liability dispute with the Russians. Given the constrained 
budget environment, the committee cannot continue to appropriate 
hundreds of millions of dollars for a construction project that has 
been delayed for 3 years.
  I believe this is a responsible bill that makes sound investment 
decisions for the future of our agencies. Members will not receive as 
many water and energy projects as they may have liked, but we did take 
care of their top priorities. Hopefully, we did that everywhere.
  I want to thank all the Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water Development, and Related Agencies for helping to bring this bill 
to the floor today. I especially want to thank my ranking member, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for his extraordinary 
cooperation this past year. In my opinion, this is truly a bipartisan 
bill that represents a hard-fought but ultimately fair and balanced 
compromise. This is the way I believe our constituents expect their 
Representatives to work together.
  I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their support and 
for allowing us to move this bill forward in such an expeditious 
manner.
  Lastly, I want to thank the staff of the committee: Kevin Cook, our 
clerk; John Blazey, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowski, and Tracy 
LaTurner for their work on this bill. I also want to thank Dixon Butler 
of the minority staff and Kenny Kraft, from my office, and Peder 
Moorbjerg from the Visclosky office.
  I want to especially acknowledge our agency's detailees, Taunja 
Berquam and Felicia Kirksey, for their invaluable assistance in putting 
this bill and report together.
  It is a shared bill. We all work together and talk to each other, and 
I want to thank everybody for working together to get this bill this 
far.
   Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to submit to the House for its 
consideration H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2006. The Appropriations Committee 
approved this bill unanimously on May 18, and I believe this is a good 
bill that merits the support of the entire House.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide range of 
Federal programs, including such diverse matters as flood control, 
navigation improvements, environmental restoration, nuclear waste 
disposal, advanced scientific research, applied energy research, 
maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear nonproliferation. 
Total funding for energy and water development in fiscal year 2006 is 
$29.746 billion. This funding amount represents a decrease of $728,000 
below the

[[Page 10971]]

budget request and $86.3 million below the current fiscal year. This 
bill is right at our subcommittee's 302(b) allocation, and provides 
adequate funds to meet the priority needs of the House.
  Title I of the bill provides funding for the Civil Works program of 
the Army Corps of Engineers, the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial 
Action Program, which is executed by the corps, and the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The committee 
recommends a total of $4.746 billion for title I activities, $294 
million below the current year and $414 million above the budget 
request.
  For a number of years, the Corps Civil Works program has been 
oversubscribed, where Congress kept giving the corps more and more 
projects to do, but not enough money to do them all. We took steps last 
year to put the corps on the road to fiscal recovery, by limiting the 
number of new starts and concentrating resources on the completion of 
ongoing construction projects. We also asked the Office of Management 
and Budget to adopt a new approach to future corps budget requests, so 
that we can use our limited resources to complete the most valuable 
projects efficiently, instead of spreading those resources very widely 
to make incremental progress across a large number of projects.
  The fiscal year 2006 budget request adopts such a performance-based 
approach for the corps budget, proposing to use the ratio of remaining 
costs-to-remaining benefits as the primary determinant of which 
construction projects should receive priority consideration for 
funding. While this ratio may not be the perfect measure of merit for 
all projects, the budget request represents a good-faith effort from 
the Office of Management and Budget to concentrate the corps' limited 
resources on finishing the most worthwhile projects that are already 
under construction. Until we begin to clear out the enormous backlog of 
ongoing work, we are very reluctant to add new projects to the 
pipeline. Therefore, we did not include any new starts or new project 
authorizations for the corps in this House bill.
  One consequence of adopting this new performance-based approach to 
the corps budget is that the funds available for Member adds for corps 
projects are very limited. In part, this is because, for the first time 
in years, we received a budget request in which many congressional 
priorities are already funded at a reasonable level. However, even with 
that request as a good starting point, the total amount that we can 
provide for the corps is less than what the House passed in fiscal year 
2005. With a healthy base request and a lean 302(b) allocation, we did 
not add as much for Member projects as we have in previous years. We 
were harsh but fair in how we dealt with these Member requests.
  Our fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water bill makes major strides toward 
improving the corps' project execution, reprogrammings, and continuing 
contracts. Let me talk for a moment about these interrelated issues. 
For a workload of approximately 2,000 projects, the Chief of Engineers 
recently told me that the corps does about 20,000 reprogrammings each 
year. We have GAO reviewing the corps reprogrammings, and they tell us 
that the corps has reprogrammed funds for amounts as small as 6 cents. 
This is not sound financial management, and suggests that the corps is 
more focused on moving money around frequently to meet the corps' 
determination of project needs, irrespective of the allocations 
provided in annual appropriations. Instead, the corps should be 
managing its workload within the project allocations provided by 
Congress. Much of this problem is driven by the corps' misplaced 
emphasis on expending 99 percent of their funding every year, and they 
move money around freely between projects to meet that goal. We take 
steps to tighten up the reprogramming guidelines and to limit the 
corps' ability to make such frequent funding shifts. We expect the 
corps to execute the program that Congress gives them, not simply take 
the funds that Congress appropriates and then shuffle the money around 
to the corps' own priorities.
  Continuing contracts are a related problem. Under this mechanism, the 
corps can obligate the Federal Government for funding future fiscal 
years. In some cases, the corps is awarding continuing contracts for 
projects that received no appropriation in fiscal year 2005, or have 
not been included at all in the budget request for fiscal year 2006. 
Also, the corps uses accelerated earnings on continuing contracts to 
pay its contractors more than is appropriated for a project in the 
current fiscal year. In part, these accelerated earnings on continuing 
contracts are one of the drivers for the corps extensive 
reprogrammings, and also one of the mechanisms the corps uses in its 
pursuit of the 99 percent expenditure goal. This practice has to stop, 
and we include language limiting the corps' ability to obligate the 
government in excess of appropriations.
  The Department of Energy receives a total of $24.318 billion in the 
Energy and Water Development bill, an increase of $105 million over the 
budget request but $101 million less than the fiscal year 2005 level. 
As with the corps, we task the Department of Energy to begin preparing 
5-year budget plans, first for individual programs and then an 
integrated plan for the entire Department. This plan must include 
business plans for each of the DOE laboratories, so we understand the 
mission and resource needs of each laboratory.
  The committee includes several important new initiatives for the 
Department of Energy. DOE presently has significant quantities of 
weapons-usable special nuclear materials, plutonium and highly enriched 
uranium, scattered around the complex. Unfortunately, even with the 
heightened attention to homeland security after the 9-11 attacks, the 
Department has done little to consolidate these high-risk materials. We 
provide additional funds for a Material Consolidation Initiative and 
direct DOE to take aggressive action to consolidate its weapons-usable 
uranium and plutonium into fewer, more secure sites.
  We also propose a Spent Fuel Recycling Initiative to stimulate some 
fresh thinking on how this country deals with its spent nuclear fuel. I 
continue to support the Yucca Mountain repository, and our bill fully 
funds the request for Yucca Mountain in fiscal year 2006. It is 
critical that we get Yucca done right, and done soon. However, we 
continue to be frustrated by the delays in getting that repository 
open, and we are concerned about what happens after that first 
repository is built. The Department of Energy estimates that each year 
of delay on Yucca Mountain costs the government an additional $1 
billion, half from the legal liability for DOE's failure to begin 
accepting commercial spent fuel beginning in 1998, as is required by 
law, and the other half from the costs. In addition, the authorized 
capacity of Yucca Mountain will be fully utilized by the year 2010, 
with no place to dispose of spent fuel generated after that date. It is 
time to rethink our approach to dealing with spent fuel. We need to 
start moving spent fuel away from reactor sites to one or more 
centralized, above-ground interim storage facilities located at DOE 
sites. If we want to build a new generation of nuclear reactors in this 
country, we need to demonstrate to investors and the public that the 
Federal Government will live up to its responsibilities under the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act to take title to commercial spent nuclear 
fuel. I would note that we are already storing foreign reactor fuel on 
DOE sites--it is time we do the same for our domestic spent fuel. This 
may help to limit the billions of dollars of legal liability facing the 
Federal Government for its failure to accept commercial spent fuel for 
disposal.
  It is also time that we think again about our reluctance to reprocess 
spent fuel. The Europeans are doing this successfully, and there are 
some advanced reprocessing technologies in the research and development 
phase that promise to reduce or eliminate some of the disadvantages of 
the current chemical processes. We add funds to the Nuclear Waste 
Disposal account and direct the Secretary to begin accepting commercial 
spent fuel in fiscal year 2006 for interim storage at one or more DOE 
sites. We also include additional funds and direction within the 
Nuclear Energy account for the Secretary to select an advanced 
reprocessing technology in fiscal year 2007 and to establish a 
competitive process to select one or more sites for an advanced fuel 
recycling facility.
  Lastly, the committee recommends a new Sustainable Stockpile 
Initiative to ensure the future of our Nation's nuclear deterrent. The 
committee provides additional funds for the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead, which we initiated in last year's conference report. We place 
the Reliable Replacement Warhead in the context of the larger 
Sustainable Stockpile Initiative, which we view as a package deal with 
several key elements. First, the Reliable Replacement Warhead is a 
program to re-engineer existing warheads to be safer, more secure, 
cheaper to maintain, easier to dismantle, and most importantly, easier 
to certify without underground nuclear testing. Second, we propose a 
modest slow-down of Life Extension work on the old warheads in 
preparation for a shift to the newer Replacement Warheads. This is 
coupled with a significant increase in dismantlement rates to bring 
down the stockpile to match the President's decision about the size of 
the stockpile by the year 2012. In the long run, I am hopeful that the 
Secretary's Task Force on the Nuclear Weapons Complex will propose some 
sensible steps to modernize the DOE weapons complex and bring it into 
line with these coming changes to the size and composition of the 
stockpile.

[[Page 10972]]

  The committee provided for an aggressive nuclear nonproliferation 
program within the National Nuclear Security Administration. We 
provided an additional $65 million to keep the plutonium producing 
reactor shutdown program with the Russians on track to have all three 
reactors closed by 2011. The committee also provided $85 million 
additional for the Russian material protection program to secure 
nuclear material overseas. We made a significant reduction to the 
domestic MOX plant because of the large unexpended prior year balances 
in that project caused by the continued liability dispute with the 
Russians. Given the constrained budget environment, the committee 
cannot continue to appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars for a 
construction project that been delayed for 3 years.
  I believe this is a responsible bill that makes sound investment 
decisions for the future of our agencies. Members will not receive as 
many water or energy projects as they might like, but we did take care 
of their top priorities.
  I want to thank all the members of the Energy and Water Development 
Subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the floor today. I 
especially want to thank my Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky of Indiana, 
for his extraordinary cooperation this past year. This is truly a 
bipartisan bill that represents a hard-fought but ultimately fair and 
balanced compromise. This is why I believe our constituents expect 
their representatives to work together. I also want to thank the 
Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis, and the Ranking 
Minority Member, Mr. Obey, for their support and for allowing us to 
move this bill forward in an expeditious manner.
  Lastly, I would like to thank the staff of the Subcommittee--Kevin 
Cook, John Blazey, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowki, and Tracey 
LaTurner--for their hard work on this bill. I also want to thank Dixon 
Butler of the minority staff, and both Kenny Kraft from my office and 
Peder Maarbjerg of Mr. Visclosky's office. I especially want to 
acknowledge our agency detailees, Taunja Berquam and Felicia Kirksey, 
for their invaluable assistance in putting this bill and report 
together.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I want to pick up where my chairman, the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Hobson), left off and also personally thank the staff, 
because without their able assistance, we would not be here today and 
the product before this Chamber would not be of the quality that it is.
  So I do want to personally thank Terry Tyborowski and Tracy LaTurner 
of the majority staff, as well as John Blazey, Scott Burnison, and 
Kevin Cook. On the minority side, although again, as the chairman 
pointed out, this was a bipartisan effort, Dixon Butler.
  We have core detailees: Felicia Kirksey and Taunja Berquam, and I 
appreciate very much their help, as well as Kenny Kraft from the 
Chairman's office, and Peder Moorbjerg from mine.
  Mr. Chairman, I would want to thank Chairman Hobson, first of all, 
for his very good work; as I mentioned in subcommittee and full 
committee, his fairness, his judicious temperament, the fact that he is 
a gentleman, and also that he has exercised a great deal of foresight 
and leadership over the last 3 years as chairman of the subcommittee.
  I certainly feel that the chairman has outlined the elements of the 
value of the legislation before us very fairly. I would prefer to take 
somewhat of a different tack, this being my seventh bill as a ranking 
member, and illustratively point out the three areas of the bill where 
over the last 3 years the chairman has had a direction, he has 
exercised leadership and courage, and has provided us with an excellent 
work product.
  The first area is the area of high-performance computing, an area 
where the United States invented the field and long held undisputed 
leadership in the world. Several years ago, however, that leadership 
was challenged. In the House bill for fiscal year 2004, the committee 
recommended an increase in funding to enable the Department of Energy 
to acquire additional advanced computing capability and to initiate 
longer-term research and development. The Department used $25 million 
of these funds to engage a team, including Oak Ridge National Lab and 
Cray Computer, to pursue a leadership-class supercomputer and the next-
generation computer architectures.
  Despite being faced with budget constraints, the Department of Energy 
Office of Science sustained this increase in 2005. However, pursuing a 
$100 million-plus leadership-class machine with level funding was not 
going to put us back in the lead. So, once again, the committee 
recommended an increase to the request to support the Office of Science 
initiative to develop the hardware, software, and applied mathematics 
necessary for a leadership-class supercomputer to meet scientific 
computational needs.
  This year, the President's request for fiscal year 2006 pulled back 
from the strong support favored by the Congress, and such a cutback 
would tend to undermine the progress towards actually achieving a 
leadership-class U.S. supercomputer. So the recommendation before us 
today increases funding for advanced scientific computing research by 
$39 million: $25 million for hardware, $5 million for computational 
research, and $9 million for competitive university grants to restore 
the ongoing level of core research in this area that the President's 
budget recommendation cut.
  By taking the long-term perspective of the last 3 years and 
sustaining support for a highly desirable outcome, the chairman and the 
committee and all of its members are doing their part to ensure that 
the U.S. reasserts its technological leadership.
  The second area that has been a subject of concern for a number of 
years, in an area where we reduced funding, is Laboratory Directed 
Research and Development. It is an area that grew out of all proportion 
to its value at the beginning of this decade. This area also raised 
concerns of financial oversight and the use of Federal funds for 
purposes for which it was not appropriated.
  As an initial effort to get its arms around this program, which 
reached an aggregate funding level in fiscal year 2003 of $365 million, 
the committee mandated a comprehensive report on projects from the 
Department of Energy and initiated a GAO investigation. In developing 
recommendations for last year's bill, the committee based its guidance 
and statement of concerns on the results of those investigations and 
reports.
  This year, the President's budget, recognizing the concerns of the 
committee and the constraints on funding, reduced the percentage 
allowed for lab-directed research at weapons labs from 6 percent to 5 
percent. The committee today is recommending that lab-directed research 
be limited explicitly to $250 million for 2006, to be allocated to the 
labs by the Department of Energy. A quarter billion dollars is a 
healthy level of funding that could be used to fix many problems in 
energy research and water infrastructure, to name but two.
  As we state in the report, the committee recognizes the value of 
conducting discretionary research at the national laboratories, but we 
have now brought the funding level to this research back within reason 
and given it a sense of direction.
  And my last illustration, if you would, of a sense of direction that 
we have had over the last 3 years is in the area of nuclear weapons. It 
is the most sensitive area of activities under the Energy and Water 
Development appropriations.
  Here, under Chairman Hobson's courageous leadership, denial of 
funding has been effectively used to chart a safer and more efficient 
course for the future of our nuclear deterrents. In particular, coming 
into fiscal year 2004 appropriations, the President was asking for 
funds for a robust nuclear earth penetrator, for studies of new nuclear 
weapons potentially for new missions, for funds to proceed with the 
preparation of a modern pit facility to manufacture 450 plutonium 
triggers, and a shift to an 18-month readiness posture for a return to 
underground nuclear testing. Taken together, these policy initiatives 
signaled a shift in nuclear weapons policy.
  In 2004, the committee, among other things, reduced funding for the 
robust nuclear earth penetrator to $5 million from $15 million, 
ultimately agreeing to $7.5 million in conference; zeroed out

[[Page 10973]]

funds for proceeding with the modern pit facility; and held the test 
readiness posture at 24 months.
  Most significantly, in 2004, $4 million of the funds for advanced 
weapons concepts were fenced so that they could not be spent until the 
administration delivered a nuclear weapons stockpile plan. Without this 
action, there is no doubt that the plan would not exist. Today, it 
does.
  In fiscal year 2005, the committee went further and zeroed funding 
for the earth penetrator, while maintaining a 24-month test readiness 
posture.
  The committee has taken a constructive approach in trying to 
positively influence better policies. At the insistence of the 
committee, reasonable new approaches have been funded, including a 
reliable replacement warhead. In this year's bill, the committee is 
solidifying the progress made last year and in the previous year.
  First, advanced concepts was missing from the President's request and 
is essentially no longer under consideration. Secondly, the earth 
penetrator funding is again zero in the committee recommendation, and 
third, test readiness posture is held to 24 months. Finally, the 
reliable replacement warhead concept was included in the President's 
request. The committee is working to accelerate the implicit 
transformation of the newest nuclear deterrent stockpile by increasing 
funds to $25 million, while slowing programs extending the life of old 
weapons.
  Essentially, in this bill as well, Mr. Chairman, we are taking an 
advanced look. We have called for the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
Bureau of Reclamation, as well as the Department of Energy to undertake 
5-year plans in programs.
  This is an exceptional piece of legislation, and I would ask my 
colleagues to support it.
  I recommend that all members join me in supporting this bill. Its 
preparation has been bipartisan and the Chairman has been fair 
throughout its preparation. I would add my appreciation to the staff 
led on the majority side by Kevin Cook. He is joined by Terry 
Tyborowski, John Blazey, Scott Burnison, and Tracy LaTurner. They are a 
strong team. On the minority staff, I would thank Dixon Butler. This 
year we have two fine detailees from the Army Corps: Taunja Berquam 
helping the majority and Felicia Kirksey helping the minority. I would 
also thank Kenny Kraft on Chairman Hobson's staff and Peder Maarbjerg 
on my staff.
  This is my seventh year as ranking member on the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Subcommittee. In a few professions in our 
society seventh years are sabbaticals and times for reflection. In the 
Congress, we can't take a year off, but I feel compelled to reflect. 
During my years on this Committee it has been my privilege to serve 
with five subcommittee chairmen, and now, it has been my pleasure to 
serve with Dave Hobson for three years. During this time, Chairman 
Hobson has led our subcommittee to take a long-term perspective on a 
number of important issues and this is resulting in some profound and 
positive changes. Here are three examples.
  High Performance Computing is an area where the United States 
invented the field and long held undisputed leadership in the world. 
Several years ago, that leadership was challenged by Japan with their 
development of the Earth Simulator. In the House bill for FY 2004, the 
Committee recommended an increase of $40 million to enable DOE to 
``acquire additional advanced computing capability . . . and to 
initiate longer-term research and development on next generation 
computer architectures.'' Ultimately, $30 million of this increase was 
included in the final conference report. The Department used $25 
million of these funds to engage a team including Oak Ridge National 
Lab and Cray Computer to pursue a leadership-class super computer and 
next generation computer architectures.
  Despite being faced with budget constraints, the DOE Office of 
Science sustained this increase in the President's FY 2005 budget. 
However, pursuing a $100 million plus leadership-class machine with 
level funding of $25 million per year will never put the United States 
back in the lead. So once again, the Committee recommended an increase 
of $30 million to the request ``to support the Office of Science 
initiative to develop the hardware, software, and applied mathematics 
necessary for a leadership-class supercomputer to meet scientific 
computation needs.'' It must be noted that the Committee insisted that 
at least $5 million of this increase be reserved for computational 
research and not allow additional funds to go to hardware alone.
  In the face of an even more constrained funding environment, the 
President's request for FY 2006 pulled back from the strong support 
favored by the Congress. Such a cutback, if sustained, would tend to 
undermine the progress toward actually achieving a leadership-class US 
supercomputer. So, the recommendation before us today increases funding 
for advanced scientific computing research by $39 million--$25 million 
for hardware, $5 million for computational research, and $9 million for 
competitive university grants to restore the on-going level of core 
research in this area that the President's budget recommended for cuts. 
By taking the long-term perspective and sustaining support for a highly 
desirable outcome, the Committee is doing its part to ensure that the 
U.S. reasserts it technological leadership in the area of 
supercomputing--a technical capability that underpins our ability to 
invent the future.
  Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) is an area that 
grew out of all proportion to its value at the beginning of this 
decade. This area also raised concerns of financial oversight and the 
use of federal funds for purposes for which it was not appropriated. As 
an initial effort to get its arms around this program, which reached an 
aggregate funding level in FY 2003 of $365 million per year, the 
Committee mandated a comprehensive report on LDRD projects from DOE and 
initiated a GAO investigation of LDRD. In developing its 
recommendations for FY 2005, the Committee based its guidance and 
statement of concerns on the results of the GAO investigation and what 
had been learned from reviewing the extensive DOE reports. The FY 2005 
Committee report directs DOE to shift to direct requests for LDRD.
  The President's budget request for FY 2006, recognizing the concerns 
of the Committee and the constraints on funding, reduced the percentage 
allowed for LDRD at Weapons Labs from 6% to 5%. The Committee is today 
recommending that LDRD be limited explicitly to $250 million in FY 
2006, to be allocated to the labs by DOE. A quarter billion dollars is 
a healthy level of funding that could be used to fix many problems in 
energy research, water infrastructure, etc., so the ``Committee [truly] 
recognizes the value of conducting discretionary research at DOE's 
national laboratories'', but has now brought the funding level for this 
research back within reason and given it a sense of direction.
  Nuclear Weapons is the most sensitive area of activity under the 
Energy and Water Development appropriation. Here, under Chairman 
Hobson's courageous leadership, the denial of funding has been 
effectively used to chart a safer and more efficient course for the 
future of our nuclear deterrent. In particular, coming into the FY 2004 
appropriations process, the President was asking for funds for a robust 
nuclear earth penetrator (RNEP), for studies of new nuclear weapons 
potentially for new missions, for funds to proceed with preparation of 
a Modern Pit Facility to manufacture 450 plutonium triggers per year, 
and a shift to an I8-month readiness posture for a return to 
underground nuclear testing. Taken together, these policy initiatives 
signaled an alarming shift in nuclear weapons policy and accordingly, 
many here and abroad reacted with alarm. Each of these policies was a 
bad idea, an idea run amok. This situation developed in part because of 
the absence of an approved nuclear weapons stockpile plan.
  The House report accompanying the FY 2004 Energy and Water 
Appropriations Bill states, ``The fiscal year 2004 budget request is 
the second budget request delivered to the Committee that is loosely 
justified on the requirements of the Nuclear Posture Review policy 
document but lacking a formal plan that specifies the changes to the 
stockpile reflecting the President's decision [on the Nuclear Weapons 
Stockpile Plan].'' The Committee reduced funding for the RNEP to $5 
million from $15 million (ultimately agreeing to $7.5 million in 
conference), zeroed funds for proceeding with a Modern Pit Facility, 
and held the test readiness posture at 24 months. Most significantly, 
$4 million of the funds for advanced weapons concepts were fenced so 
that they could not be spent until the Administration delivered a 
Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan. Without this action, there is doubt 
that this Plan would yet exist.
  In FY 2005, the Committee went further and zeroed funding for the 
RNEP while maintaining the 24-month test readiness posture and 
continuing to defer the Modern Pit Facility. But, the Committee is a 
constructive influence and seeks to support better policies. At the 
insistence of the Committee, the dangerous advanced concepts approach 
was scrapped and a reasonable new approach was funded--the reliable 
replacement warhead (RRW).

[[Page 10974]]

  In FY2006, the Committee is solidifying the progress made last year. 
First, advanced concepts was missing from the President's request and 
is essentially no longer under consideration. Second, RNEP funding is 
again zero in the Committee's recommendation. Third, test readiness 
posture is held to 24 months. Fourth, the RRW concept was included in 
the President's request. The Committee is working to accelerate the 
implicit transformation of the U.S. nuclear deterrent stockpile by 
increasing funds to $25 million while slowing programs extending the 
life of old weapons. The promise of the RRW is that the U.S. will never 
need to resume nuclear weapons testing and will be able to sustain our 
deterrent with a smaller, less-expensive complex.
  In light of these examples where taking a longer-term perspective is 
showing results, I fully support the efforts in this FY2006 Energy and 
Water Development Appropriation to get all three principal agencies 
funded in this bill to adopt and communicate 5-year plans for their 
programs. Further, we have long under-invested in the water 
infrastructure of our nation, and although this year is no exception, 
the bill undertakes significant efforts to help the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers get effective control over management, particularly fiscal 
management of projects. Management improvements prepare the way for the 
most effective use of whatever level of funding can be supplied in the 
future. Concentrating funding on high-priority water projects to get 
them done should significantly improve the overall benefits of 
investment through the Corps and Bureau of Reclamation, and so, I 
support this painful approach as well.
  The Chairman and I are taking steps to involve all members of the 
Subcommittee in the oversight of the programs we fund. Everyone is 
being asked to concentrate on two subsets of our work. This also takes 
the long-term perspective as it will prepare our capable colleagues for 
future roles as chairs and rankings of appropriations subcommittees 
while strengthening our current work as appropriators.
  So, upon reflection, I am pleased with the positive effects of the 
last three years of Energy and Water Development Appropriations bills. 
Far more has been accomplished than the simple funding of government 
programs and the accommodation of congressional priorities. The nation 
and the world are better and safer as a result. What a privilege and 
pleasure to participate!
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Energy and Water 
appropriations bill. First, let me thank and commend Chairman Hobson 
and Ranking Member Visclosky for their hard work in crafting a bill 
that addresses so many complex national energy and water infrastructure 
needs. They make a good team.
  Our bill includes essential funding for energy programs that seek to 
make our country more efficient and less dependent on traditional 
fossil fuels and foreign oil. As a nation, we are facing an energy 
crisis which does not allow us to put off significant policy changes as 
to how we can invest our energy infrastructure dollars any longer.
  This year, we have made a significant investment in nuclear energy 
technology. This energy provides a clean, renewable energy source 
already capable of providing an alternative source of electricity to 
fossil fuels. Nuclear energy already provides 20 percent of our 
Nation's electricity and, in my home State of New Jersey, nearly 50 
percent of the electrical capacity.

                              {time}  1145

  I am also pleased that our subcommittee continues to fund fusion 
science. Our committee has been a leader in advancing fusion so that 
some day we will be able to realize the promise of the cleanest of 
energy sources. Thirty years ago the first power produced in a 
laboratory from fusion was barely enough to light a small light bulb. 
Today, our DOE labs are capable of creating enough power from fusion to 
light a small town.
  Mr. Chairman, I credit the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the 
ranking member for grappling with some tough policy decisions in this 
bill. For example, Yucca Mountain, which is facing delays, this bill 
includes money, $660 million for Yucca Mountain, in anticipation of a 
licensing agreement being signed.
  This bill also prioritizes the Army Corps' work on a number of 
essential navigation and flood control projects to ensure that such 
construction projects authorized by Congress are actually completed.
  But most importantly to me and to the New York-New Jersey region, in 
the Army Corps' portfolio, this bill reflects our committee's continued 
recognition of the value of our Federal investment in the New York-New 
Jersey harbor deepening project. This project has been recognized as 
one of five national priorities by the President. It is not only an 
issue of national security; it is an issue of economic security. The 
economic return on keeping open our Nation's third largest port to 
larger container ships is huge. I note that the Army Corps itself has 
listed this deepening project as one of its highest return investments.
  I cannot overstate the economic importance of the port which is the 
third largest in the United States. Every day thousands of goods come 
through the port of New York and New Jersey, and through its terminals 
many other goods are exported to the rest of the world. Those goods and 
the assets that protect them allow our Nation to proceed and keep its 
economy going. Therefore, I rise in support of the bill and urge other 
Members to do so as well.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as Members of this House know, when I have 
objections to the content of a bill, I am not shy in stating them. 
There are certainly portions of this bill with which I do not agree, 
but I want to say that it is very unusual and it is a very pleasant 
experience to see a piece of legislation brought to the floor which is 
not so much a product of politics as it is a product of legislative 
craftsmanship. I think that is the case with this bill.
  I think that the gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Indiana 
working together in an absolutely bipartisan fashion have produced a 
bill which is obviously based on some intellectual decisions about how 
to approach problems rather than being based simply on political 
judgments, and that means that this place is performing as it should 
perform. It is not just being a political institution; it is also being 
a legislative institution. That is happening in no small measure 
because of the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).
  That does not mean that I do not think this bill does not fall short 
in some areas. I think that the budget resolution has made it 
impossible for this committee to do a number of things that it ought to 
be doing in the area of energy research. Lord knows, that is important 
these days with rising gas prices and all of the rest; but I just want 
to say in my view, despite those shortcomings, this bill demonstrates 
that good government is good politics.
  The gentleman has brought to the floor a bill which is extremely 
responsible in terms of the way it deals with the nuclear weapons 
issues that were referenced by the gentleman from Indiana. It is an 
extremely bipartisan product. While I have feelings about nuclear power 
that are very different than some other Members in this Chamber, I want 
to say I think the gentleman has produced, with the assistance of the 
gentleman from Indiana, a very responsible bill; and I fully intend to 
support it.
  I hope as the process goes along we will wind up having more 
resources to deal with some of the problems that are shortchanged. But 
with that exception, I do not think we can ask for a better legislative 
product; and as someone who appreciates the traditions of this House, I 
want to extend my personal gratitude to the gentleman from Ohio for his 
contribution in making this the fine product that it is.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his 
kind comments. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is the scholar 
of the

[[Page 10975]]

House. He reads these things and understands them, and I very much 
appreciate his remarks on the bill on behalf of both myself and the 
ranking member.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I want to make some brief comments and then engage in some 
colloquy with the chairman.
  Not to repeat anything that has been already said, but just to 
highlight why I can believe this is such an excellent work product, 
really three reasons: one, this chairman over the last 2\1/2\ years has 
gone out into the country, both on the water side and on the energy 
side, gone into the depths of very complex places like our nuclear 
weapons complex, gone into our scientific research institutions, energy 
research, gone and seen demonstrations and the advancement of 
technology, and tried hard to understand what needs to be proposed. 
This chairman deserves tremendous credit. At no time in my 9 years on 
the Committee on Appropriations have I seen this kind of diligence that 
the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) has shown.
  Secondly, it has been very fair and very bipartisan all along the 
way.
  Third, this is one of the greatest assimilations of professional 
staff on both sides of the aisle, people with expertise and experience 
coming to the same subcommittee at the same time at a very important 
time. My hat is off to all of these individuals for their diligence.
  Mr. Chairman, if I may engage in a colloquy, I would like to say a 
few words on the importance of fielding a leadership-class computer for 
open science. For the past 2 years under your leadership, this 
subcommittee has provided additional funds to achieve this goal, and I 
thank you for this commitment. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory and 
its partners were competitively selected to carry out this effort. With 
the additional funds provided by this bill, they will continue down 
that path. The $25 million for hardware will enable the Center For 
Computational Science at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to upgrade 
the existing system to 50 teraflops. This will get us halfway to the 
goal of a leadership-class computer which is a 100 teraflop system. The 
remaining funds will help support the operations and software.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's support of this 
important program, and I share his goal in this field. I am 
disappointed that the Department's fiscal year 2006 budget request did 
not preserve the increases that this subcommittee provided for this 
purpose during the past 2 fiscal years. Because of the Department's 
disregard for congressional intent, the committee provides $30 million 
of the increase for the Center of Competition Science at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory which was selected competitively to build this 
leadership-class supercomputer.
  The committee expects the Department to make full use of this 
laboratory industry capability. Finally, I agree with the gentleman of 
the importance of this effort and encourage the Department of Energy to 
make the necessary budget requests in the future to continue this very 
important effort.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. In the subcommittee 
bill in the area of fusion energy sciences, the subcommittee offered a 
very reasonable approach to funding fusion science, given the 
uncertainty surrounding the thermonuclear experimental reactor 
equipment. As the subcommittee report notes: ``If the United States 
expects to be a serious contributor to international fusion research in 
general, and ITER in particular, the Nation needs to maintain strong 
domestic research programs and user facilities to train the next 
generation of fusion scientists and engineers.''
  I think that is exactly right, and I want to commend the gentleman 
and subcommittee staff for putting that strong statement in our report.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight one area in particular that we fund 
and ask for the gentleman from Ohio's comments. Our bill provides $5.1 
million for ``compact stellarators and small-scale experiments.'' I 
understand that to be a reference to experiments such as the quasi-
polloidal stellarator, or QPS, that is being developed by the Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Ohio, is my understanding 
correct?
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
the gentleman's understanding is correct.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
this time, and I commend him and the chairman of the subcommittee for 
producing a very good appropriation bill. I echo the sentiments that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just gave on the floor and 
appreciate the hard work that has gone into it.
  I think the rule, however, could have been a little stronger if the 
Schwartz amendment would have been made in order so we could have had 
further discussion about the need for increased investment in 
alternative and renewable energy technologies. I do not think that the 
energy bill that is working its way through Congress goes far enough, 
and this was another appropriation measure that could have been a 
vehicle for that increased investment.
  I do appreciate the work that is being done on the Yucca Mountain 
funding, however. We have two nuclear facilities that are storing a lot 
of nuclear waste in the upper Mississippi River region right now. Many 
of us feel it makes sense to have a single, isolated nuclear waste 
repository in this country, and the studies that have gone into Yucca 
Mountain and the funding that this committee is providing, it seems to 
me to be a reasonable and practical approach dealing with the nuclear 
waste issue.
  I especially want to commend the committee for the full support they 
have given to a very important program for the upper Mississippi River 
basin, the Environmental Management Program. This was a program that 
was created in the mid-1980s to strike balance on the multiple uses of 
the Mississippi region in the upper States. It is a multiple-use 
resource. It is incredibly valuable economically, quality of life, 
recreation and tourism. We have commercial navigation that uses the 
upper Mississippi along with the important recreation and tourism 
aspect, and the Environmental Management Program really has a twofold 
mission. One is habitat restoration for the upper Mississippi basin and 
the other is long term resource monitoring, to monitor the effects that 
sediment and nutrients are having in the basin.
  One of the first things I did as a new Member of Congress was help 
form a bipartisan Mississippi River Caucus so we could work together 
from both the North and the South in order to draw attention to the 
resources that are needed along the Mississippi River.
  We have made substantial progress, and I commend the committee's 
recognition that full funding of the EMP is appropriate at $33 million. 
This is a program that has received wide bipartisan support, multi-
state support. The five upper States of the Mississippi River basin 
have been fully supportive of this program, as have the Governors and 
the respective legislatures, and I commend the administration who has 
consistently submitted their budget requests calling for full funding 
of the Environmental Management Program.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would commend to my colleagues and include 
for the Record an article that just appeared in the Washington Post 
Sunday edition under the Travel section called ``Lolling on the 
River.'' It describes the quality of life and unique beauty that the 
upper Mississippi River basin has for all of us in that region.
  In it the author of the article, Bill O'Brian writes: ``The 
Mississippi, the river of Mark Twain, who once wrote, `It is not a 
commonplace river, but on the contrary is in all ways remarkable.' The 
river of LaSalle, Marquette

[[Page 10976]]

and Joliet, of B.B. King, Bob Dylan and the Doobie Brothers. Of 
Faulkner, Fitzgerald and T.S. Eliot. Of historian Stephen Ambrose who 
not long ago wrote, `The river is in my blood. Wherever, whenever, it 
is a source of delight. More, it is the river that draws us together as 
a Nation.'''
  EMP is a small part of the importance of this great natural resource 
which is of vital importance to our Nation. I commend the subcommittee 
and work they have done in recognizing by fully funding EMP the 
importance of this vital natural resource.

                [From the Washington Post, May 22, 2005]

     Lolling on the River: Following the Upper Mississippi by Land

                           (By Bill O'Brian)

       If you think the prairie of Wisconsin and Minnesota is 
     nothing but nondescript flatlands and farms, Buena Vista Park 
     in Alma, Wis., is the place for you. Specifically, the bluff 
     in the park more than 500 feet above the Mississippi River, 
     which forms the border of the two states.
       From that bluff on a clear day, you can see one of the most 
     awe-inspiring panoramas in all of North America. I've been to 
     the Grand Canyon. To Yellowstone. To Jackson Hole. To Lake 
     Louise. To Niagara Falls. To the Oregon, Maine, Carolina and 
     California coasts. To the interior of Alaska. To the top of 
     numerous skyscrapers. The vista from the bluff in Alma on a 
     clear day can compete with any of those places.
       From that precipice, you can see for miles into the 
     Minnesota countryside below. You can gaze upon the lush 
     greenery of the Dorer Memorial Hardwood State Forest and the 
     dark, rich soil of the northern portion of what schoolbooks 
     call the breadbasket of America. As the Mississippi zigzags 
     through that bottomland, you can see that the waterway is as 
     unruly as it is majestic, as undisciplined as it is immense. 
     It is clear that, left to its own devices, the river would 
     follow no laws other than those of physics, which state that 
     water flows from higher elevation to lower via the path of 
     least resistance.
       From that bluff in Alma, you can immediately understand 
     what Wisconsin outdoors journalist Mel Ellis meant half a 
     century ago when he wrote, ``If you haven't fished Ol' Man 
     Mississipp, forget about any preconceived notions you may 
     have as far as rivers are concerned. Because Ol' Man River 
     isn't a river at all. In fact, he's a hundred rivers and a 
     thousand lakes and more sloughs than you could explore in a 
     lifetime.''
       Northeasterners by birth and temperament, my wife, Sue, and 
     I knew almost nothing firsthand about life along the upper 
     Mississippi.
       The Mississippi--the river of Mark Twain, who once wrote, 
     ``It is not a commonplace river, but on the contrary is in 
     all ways remarkable,'' The river of La Salle, Marquette and 
     Joliet. Of B.B. King, Bob Dylan and the Doobie Brothers. Of 
     Faulkner, Fitzgerald and T.S. Eliot. Of historian Stephen 
     Ambrose, who not long ago wrote, ``The river is in my blood. 
     Wherever, whenever, it is a source of delight. More, it is 
     the river that draws us together as a nation.''
       So, from the point just outside East Dubuque, Ill., where 
     the Illinois-Wisconsin border meets the Mississippi about 175 
     miles west of Chicago, Sue and I had set out northward on the 
     Great River Road to see what--and whom--we might find. The 
     river road is a federally designated scenic byway that 
     stretches from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada. We covered a 
     minuscule portion of it, a couple of hundred miles mostly in 
     southwestern Wisconsin, primarily along State Route 35. We 
     had no itinerary per se. We pulled off the road when the 
     spirit, or hunger or curiosity, moved us. It was a drive-by--
     a lazy, three-day upper Mississippi River drive-by.
       On the first day, at a boat landing near the town of 
     Cassville, Wis., we stopped to chat with Dwayne Durant, a 
     fortysomething Iowan. Dressed in camouflage hunting gear, he 
     was standing on the riverbank in the Upper Mississippi River 
     National Wildlife and Fish Refuge with his dog, Sidney. 
     Durant had the satisfied countenance of a man who'd just 
     bagged his limit for the day. He welcomed us to the river, 
     patiently explained the intricacies and the appeal of duck 
     hunting, proudly showed us his fresh kill (two wood ducks, 
     two teal ducks and two mallards), then humbly thanked us for 
     visiting his corner of the world.
       The next morning, at Withey's Bar in Lynxville, Wis. (pop. 
     176), we introduced ourselves to a soft-spoken gentleman in a 
     flannel shirt sitting on a stool at the end of the bar. Les 
     Neefe told us that he was born 77 years ago in a Wisconsin 
     cheese factory (``not in a hospital, not in the hallway of 
     the cheese factory, in the cheese factory . . . in a room 
     above the boiler''). Over coffee, Neefe rhapsodized about the 
     pleasures of living in a houseboat docked on the Mississippi 
     six months a year, and he made two recommendations. First, he 
     suggested that, to get a real taste of Wisconsin, we should 
     go to the cheese shop up the road in Ferryville and buy some 
     ``sharp cheddar, old sharp cheddar.'' Then, to get a real 
     taste of river life, we should stop by P&M Concessions next 
     to Blackhawk Park in De Soto.
       We did both. The cheese, a nine-year cheddar, was rich, 
     creamy and sharper than sharp. Along with apples and 
     crackers, a block of the cheddar made a memorable watchin'-
     the-river-flow picnic lunch.
       Outside the P&M Concessions stand was a sign that read, 
     ``Welcome to the River--Sit Long, Talk Much, Fish A Lot.'' 
     Behind the counter was 34-year-old Amy Kroning, whose father 
     is the proprietor of the bait/tackle/refreshment/boat rental 
     shop.
       ``I can't think of anywhere I'd rather be than right 
     here,'' said Kroning, a mother of five who was born and 
     raised in De Soto. ``If I get more than an hour from the 
     river, I get depressed. Really. I'm not kidding. We go to a 
     Cubs game once a year [in Chicago], and I'm a nervous wreck 
     the whole time.''
       So, what is the allure of the Mississippi?
       ``It has a calming affect. It's relaxing,'' Verdetta Tusa 
     said later that day as we stood watching for more than an 
     hour while an enormous tow barge squeezed, wheezed and 
     creaked its way through the lock at the town of Genoa, Wis. 
     ``It's the history, too,'' said the 56-year-old lifelong 
     Minnesotan. ``They've been doing it this way, basically, from 
     the beginning.''
       The lock at Genoa is one of 29 on the upper Mississippi. 
     Watching tow barges come out of the sharp curves of the river 
     and negotiate the locks with pinpoint precision is a pastime 
     unto itself. Typically 15 barges are connected together in 
     front of one pilot boat. They transport grain, steel, road 
     salt, fertilizer, coal, petroleum products and other 
     nonperishable goods up and down the Mississippi most of the 
     year. It takes a barge about 10 days to get from Minneapolis 
     to St. Louis, but one 15-unit tow can carry as much grain as 
     225 rail cars or 870 semi-trucks at a fraction of the cost.
       As a barge passes through a lock, you can get close enough 
     to chat with the stevedores on board. One deckhand told us 
     that sometimes he stays out on the river for 60 to 80 days at 
     a time. And that he'd rather toil on the upper Mississippi 
     than on the lower, especially in the dead of summer, because 
     down near New Orleans and Memphis, ``it's too hot, and the 
     skeeters are bigger than I am.''
       An hour north of Genoa on State Route 35, not far past La 
     Crosse, Wis., we came to Perrot State Park, a verdant 1,400-
     acre refuge. There, an information marker on a small bluff 
     overlooking braided channels of the river reminded us just 
     how remarkable the Mississippi is. It's 2,350 miles long; 
     it's home to 100 species of fish (most notably walleye, 
     sturgeon and catfish in these parts); it drains all or part 
     of 31 states and two Canadian provinces.
       ``From Red Wing down to Iowa is the most beautiful part of 
     the river, with all the bluffs and trees. It's almost a 
     fantasyland,'' said Bob Schleicher. ``It's a place of 
     mystery. It's got so much folklore. Some of it's true; some 
     of it's not.''
       We met Schleicher, a 65-year-old retired car salesman, at 
     the municipal marina in Red Wing, Minn., the final town on 
     our river drive, directly across the bridge from Hager City, 
     Wis. Captain Bob, as he likes to call himself, told us that 
     he has navigated the Mississippi from St. Paul, Minn., to its 
     mouth in Louisiana. He explained that part of the appeal is 
     that ``you can be whoever you want to be on the river.'' He 
     told tales of river-running bootleggers, past and present. He 
     explained how the upper Mississippi differs from the lower--
     it is less crowded; it has more islands, beaches and marinas; 
     its currents are less dangerous; its water is less sandy. 
     But, he said with a smile, river people have a ``mutual bond, 
     whether you're a Confederate or a Yankee.''
       Schleicher talked for a while about the river's importance 
     to birds. Forty percent of all North American waterfowl and 
     326 bird species--including hawks, eagles, falcons, herons 
     and swans--use the river as a flyway, according to the 
     Audubon Society. We had seen a handful of bald eagles soaring 
     over or perched along the river, and Schleicher beamed as he 
     spoke of the resurgence of that ornithological American icon 
     on the bluffs near Red Wing.
       Then he suggested that, after spending a couple days 
     driving along the river, Sue and I might want to spend some 
     time on the river. For $10 apiece, he offered to take us on a 
     leisurely two-hour cruise in his old military flatboat-
     turned-riverboat.
       Once we cleared the dock, Schleicher allowed each of us in 
     the small group on board to take a turn piloting the boat for 
     a few minutes. As I stood at the helm, guiding the boat 
     around the river's trademark sweeping bends, minding the red 
     and green buoys that mark the shipping channel, passing huge 
     tow barges, I suddenly understood what Schleicher meant when 
     he said you can be who you want to be on the river.
       At that moment, as we glided past the tree-lined banks, 
     pushed along by the gentle current, the serenity was 
     overwhelming. And the history palpable. At that moment, I was 
     every riverman who's ever skippered a slow boat on Ol' Man 
     Mississipp.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham), a member of the committee.

[[Page 10977]]


  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to, first of all, express what an honor and 
privilege it is to work on a subcommittee that works in such a 
bipartisan way with the great leadership of the chairman and the 
ranking member. It is really a pleasure to actually get into policy 
discussions rather than a lot of the politics that we hear around here. 
It is very much appreciated.
  Also, the tremendous staff that we have on this subcommittee. I think 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) mentioned the great 
professionalism that they have on both sides of the aisle. It is a real 
pleasure.
  This bill is a really good bill under an allocation that could always 
be larger. We have worked out, I think, everything possible we can with 
the dollars available. I am very appreciative of the fact that we have 
focused on renewable energy, the kind of important work that we do on 
the river, on the Mississippi, and other projects that are involved 
also.
  I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member and urge 
support of this very, very good bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I feel like the skunk at the office party, 
but I rise to oppose the funding for the Yucca Mountain project 
contained in this bill. This bill shortchanges water projects and 
energy technology research and development, research into technologies 
to harness the sun and wind and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 
Yet there is 15 percent more funding for Yucca Mountain than there was 
in last year's bill despite the fact that this project is unsafe and 
riddled with problems and, in my estimation, can and never will be 
built.
  I want to update my colleagues on the recent developments regarding 
Yucca Mountain, and I sincerely hope that they listen.
  Last month, the Department of Energy revealed that scientists from 
the U.S. Geological Survey who were working on the water infiltration 
and climate studies at Yucca Mountain actually falsified documentation. 
Water infiltration and climate are two of the most fundamental factors 
involved in establishing whether or not the proposed repository can 
safely isolate radioactive waste and prevent groundwater contamination.
  In all my years fighting this project, I knew Yucca Mountain was not 
scientifically sound, but I never dreamed and never thought that 
Federal employees would purposely falsify documents to cover up the 
lack of basic science. In 90 pages of e-mails, the USGS employees 
fabricated dates and names of programs used in modeling for quality 
assurance audits and deleted information that did not fit favorable and 
hoped-for conclusions. The employees made it clear that quality 
assurance was not a priority of this project, but rather, an obstacle.
  Let me share with my colleagues some of the comments made by these 
employees, and I quote: ``Don't look at the last four lines. Those 
lines are a mystery. I've deleted the lines from the official QA 
version of the files. In the end, I keep track of two sets of files, 
the ones that will keep the QA happy and the ones that were actually 
used.''
  Another e-mail says, ``Like you said all along, the Yucca Mountain 
project has now reached a point where they need to have certain items 
work no matter what, and the infiltration maps are on that list. If 
USGS can't find a way to make it work, someone else will.''
  And finally, ``I don't have a clue when these programs were 
installed. So I've made up the dates and names. This is as good as it's 
going to get. If they need proof, I will be happy to make up more 
stuff.''
  No one better dare say to me on this floor that Yucca Mountain is 
based on sound science. It is not. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals 
ruled that the radiation standards for the proposed repository did not 
follow recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and would 
not protect the health and safety of our Nation. The difference between 
the findings and the radiation standards set by the EPA, a mere 290,000 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, the DOE has known for some time that this project was 
fatally flawed, that corners were cut, that the science did not support 
the conclusions and that the data were doctored. That the DOE continues 
to move forward with the complicity of this Congress is nothing short 
of insanity, dangerous and insane. Employees who have raised concerns 
have been intimidated into silence, and the workers were purposely 
exposed to hazardous conditions by contractors eager to win hefty cash 
bonuses. Science has been manipulated to fit predrawn conclusions, and 
public safety and the environment have been sacrificed upon the altar 
of political expediency and greed.
  Yucca Mountain is a disaster waiting to happen. When you build a weak 
foundation, your building collapses, and that is why Yucca Mountain is 
collapsing before our eyes. DOE is building Yucca on a weak foundation 
based on lies, fraud, intimidation, deception and nonexistent science. 
We should be pouring our resources into renewable energy, harnessing 
the sun, harnessing the moon, not sticking our valuable resources into 
a hole in the Nevada desert.
  If my colleagues think that nuclear waste is so safe, let them keep 
it in their own States, let them keep it in their districts, by their 
children, by their children's schools, by homes and hospitals, 
synagogues and churches; and do not travel across this country in order 
to stick it in a hole in the middle of the Nevada desert.
  I urge us to reconsider this. Let us change our direction before we 
go into something that is so disastrous and dangerous that we will 
never forgive ourselves and never be able to be forgiven by future 
generations of Americans.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Doolittle), a member of the committee.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, this is a vital bill for the future of 
our country, and this bill provides a very balanced approach to 
research in the scientific areas and to energy development and, indeed, 
renewable energy as well as vital water projects and infrastructure for 
this country to keep us economically sound. I would particularly like 
to commend the chairman and the staff in working with both sides here 
on this bill. It could do more if the resources were available; but 
given that they are not, we are making the best, I think, of what we 
have.
  I would like to single out the energy supply and conservation account 
which funds renewable energy, energy efficiency, nuclear energy, 
nondefense environment, safety and health programs and energy 
conservation. These are funded at $1.7 billion. Over $360 million is 
provided for hydrogen and fuel cell research. This funding supports and 
expands the President's hydrogen initiative and promotes the Freedom 
CAR project. Hydrogen is the fuel source of the future and funding in 
this bill moves us closer to that goal.
  Thirdly, the committee recommends $3.6 billion for the Office of 
Science, an increase of $203 million over the budget request. 
Additional funds are provided for priority work on advanced scientific 
computing, high energy physics and operation of user facilities.
  Lastly, Office of Science funding provides for the basic building 
blocks of science and is the gateway to future scientific 
breakthroughs. We must keep America's scientific knowledge strong and 
on the cutting edge. Advanced scientific computing allows the U.S. to 
keep up with the rest of the world. We cannot allow other countries to 
surpass the U.S.'s knowledge.
  I commend the chairman and I urge the passage of the bill.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Indiana for yielding me this time.
  I want to urge strong support for the fiscal year 2006 energy and 
water bill. This legislation provides investment in water 
infrastructure essential not only to our country but to the Texas 
economy. I want to thank the gentleman

[[Page 10978]]

from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and 
also the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for their assistance on 
these projects, particularly two flood projects, Hunting and Greens 
Bayous in my district. Thousands of my constituents' homes and 
businesses are at risk from catastrophic flooding in these areas, and 
the funding in this bill, $500,000 and $150,000 each, keeps these 
projects on track.
  I would also like to express my strong support for the $26 million 
included for the Houston ship channel deepening and widening project. 
This funding means we are on track to complete the deepening and 
widening this year and begin the barge lanes and environmental 
restoration. However, the tough operations and maintenance budget of 
the Corps could have counterproductive effects. The Houston ship 
channel budget is $5 million under capability for 2006. If we cannot 
maintain our channels to the right depth, then modern ships will not be 
able to take advantage of this new project. The project will also 
suffer as millions taken out through reprogramming are not returned as 
promised by the Corps.
  The new policy to rein in reprogramming by requiring committee 
approval over $1 million is very sound. Reprogramming goes against the 
letter, number and intent of Congress. Financial stability is essential 
and large investments are made on the basis of congressional 
appropriations. More market risk equals higher cost for all the 
projects.
  We should note a few brief points about projects that have been lost 
to reprogramming in the past and need to be made whole. It seems unjust 
that the solution to restore the letter and spirit of the law falls on 
the backs of the most recent victims of reprogramming such as our 
Houston ship channel who had reprogrammed dollars not returned.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for printing in the Record written 
commitments from the Corps under two administrations. The word and 
spirit of these commitments are to honor congressional appropriations 
law. Congressional and Corps promises deserve to be honored. That is 
the same principle behind the extremely wise reprogramming policy of 
the future in this bill. However, we should allow the Corps to fulfill 
its past commitments.
  Again, I would like to thank the Chair and the ranking member of the 
subcommittee and the full committee for making this bill possible.

         Department of the Army, Southwestern Division, Corps of 
           Engineers,
                                   Dallas, TX, September 18, 2001.
     Hon. Gene Green,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Green: Thank you for your letter dated August 29, 
     2001, concerning the Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, 
     Texas project.
       I regret that members of my staff were not able to meet 
     with you on September 12, 2001, to discuss this project in 
     more detail. Based on conversations with your office and Mr. 
     William Dawson of my staff, the following information will 
     address your primary concern.
       The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers remains fully committed to 
     completion of this project based on the optimal construction 
     schedule. I can further assure you that we will reprogram up 
     to $20 million in construction funds as required to this 
     project to ensure that this schedule is maintained 
     irrespective of any shortfall in the fiscal year 2002 
     Congressional appropriation.
       I continue to appreciate your patience and willingness to 
     work with us on this matter. Please do not hesitate to 
     contact me if you have any further questions about the 
     Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels project.
           Sincerely,
     David F. Melcher,
       Brigadier General, U.S. Army, Commanding General.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                  Washington, DC, August 29, 2001.
     General David F. Melcher,
     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Southwestern Division, Dallas, 
         TX.
       Dear General Melcher: I am writing you today with my 
     concerns about the FY 2002 Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 
     allocation for the Houston-Galveston Navigation Channel. This 
     project, funded by the Corps at $28.785 million, 
     realistically requires $46.8 million to keep it on an optimal 
     construction schedule.
       Over the past several years, funding totaling at least $20 
     million has been reprogrammed from this project to other 
     Corps projects. Given the discrepancy between the FY 02 Corps 
     budget and the amount of funding required to keep this 
     project on schedule, I am requesting that the Corps return 
     the full amount of reprogrammed money to this project in its 
     FY 02 budget. I have enclosed correspondence from the Corps 
     that my office received at the time when these funds were 
     reprogrammed for your review.
       I would also like to request a meeting with you in my 
     Washington, DC office, along with Congressman Chet Edwards, 
     during the second week in September to discuss this issue. If 
     you have any questions on this matter, please contact Bob 
     Turney in my Washington office at (202) 225-1688. Thank you 
     for your prompt attention to this request.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Gene Green,
     Member of Congress.
                                  ____

         Department of the Army, Southwestern Division, Corps of 
           Engineers,
                                       Dallas, TX, March 11, 1999.
     Hon. Gene Green,
     House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Green: This letter is in response to your 
     concerns regarding the proposed reprogramming of funds from 
     the Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels, Texas project.
       I am aware of, and fully appreciate the importance of the 
     Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels project to the economy 
     of this region and the nation. The Corps of Engineers, 
     Southwestern Division, is fully committed to completion of 
     the project based on the most optimal construction schedule. 
     I have made the recommendation to reprogram funds from this 
     project only after being personally convinced that the 
     project schedule cannot be advanced beyond what has currently 
     been scheduled to be accomplished this fiscal year. Based on 
     this analysis, I have determined that these funds are truly 
     excess to this year's project needs. The proposed 
     reprogramming is to be a temporary reallocation of funds to 
     maximize their use. They will be restored to the project when 
     they are required to ensure that we will maintain the optimal 
     construction schedule.
       I am providing an identical letter to the Honorable Chet 
     Edwards, Honorable Nick Lampson, and the Honorable Ken 
     Bentsen. Thank you for your involvement in the development of 
     the water resources infrastructure within the State of Texas. 
     If I can be of assistance on any other matter, please feel 
     free to contact me.
           Sincerely,
     Edwin J. Arnold, Jr.,
       Brigadier General, U.S. Army, Commanding General
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                Washington, DC, February 26, 1999.
     Mr. Gary A. Loew,
     Chief, Civil Programs Division, Southwestern Division, U.S. 
         Army Corps of Engineers, Dallas, TX.
       Dear Mr. Loew: For two consecutive years, the Congress 
     appropriated sufficient funds in the Energy and Water 
     Development appropriations bill to permit the completion of 
     the navigational features of the Houston Ship Channel project 
     in four years. Maintaining this optimal construction schedule 
     is a priority for us because it will add an additional $281 
     million to the project's return on investment and save 
     taxpayers $63.5 million in increased escalation and 
     investment costs.
       We appreciate the efforts you have made to fully inform us 
     about the need to reprogram $2.2 million to the GIWW-Aransas 
     National Wildlife Refuge project, as well as your 
     understanding of our concerns. In the spirit of cooperation, 
     we and the Houston Port Authority are willing to support the 
     corps request to reprogram funds from the Houston-Galveston 
     Navigation project. However, we would first ask to receive 
     assurance in writing that the corps will reprogram other 
     funds to the Houston project to replace those lost. Further, 
     our understanding is that funds will be reprogrammed back to 
     the Houston Ship Channel project by FY 2001. In addition, if 
     the dredging project suddenly moves ahead of schedule, the 
     corps must do everything possible to ensure that a delay does 
     not occur.
       We look forward to your prompt response.
           Sincerely,
     Gene Green,
       Member of Congress.
     Chet Edwards,
       Member of Congress.
     Ken Bentsen,
       Member of Congress.
     Nick Lampson,
       Member of Congress.

  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I note that the gentleman from Ohio 
included in the committee report a provision directing the Secretary of 
Energy to begin moving commercial spent nuclear fuel into interim 
storage

[[Page 10979]]

at one or more Department of Energy sites. I want to be sure that your 
intent is for the Secretary to focus his attention on existing DOE 
sites and not go looking for private sites that might be used for 
interim storage.
  Is my understanding of the gentleman's intent correct?
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. The gentleman's understanding is correct.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. So the gentleman does not see any reason the 
Secretary would consider a non-DOE site for interim storage?
  Mr. HOBSON. I do not see any reason for the Secretary to consider 
making a private site, or a site on tribal land, into a DOE site for 
interim storage. My intent is for the Secretary to evaluate storage 
options at existing DOE sites.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
his hard work and his courtesy.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
and the chairman of the subcommittee for their work on this bill. This 
is hard work.
  This particular appropriations bill goes to the very heart of many of 
our congressional districts. I appreciate very much the $4.7 billion in 
funding provided to the Army Corps of Engineers, but let me express my 
disappointment that we have not been able to stretch the dollars to 
provide work on new projects. I am speaking particularly about Sims 
Bayou, Greens Bayou, White Oaks Bayou and Braes Bayou.
  More importantly, having worked on legislation dealing with inland 
flooding, I can tell you that flooding is a very serious issue in my 
district. I look forward to working with this appropriations 
subcommittee through the coming session to be able to provide greater 
assistance.
  Might I also acknowledge my concern on the funding for 
nonproliferation in nuclear weapons. While I wish we had been able to 
include more dollars in this area, I am pleased that we were able to 
increase their funding by $8 million over last year. Unlike previous 
years, due to the appropriations subcommittee reorganization, the bill 
funds several renewable energy programs, clean coal technology, and the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Such programs greatly enhance the lives 
and security of my constituents.
  I am very pleased that the Appropriations Committee rejected the 
administration's proposal to prioritize Army Corps of Engineers water 
projects based on the projected revenue they would bring to the 
government. I want to join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) as 
relates to our port in Houston, a very important economic arm, but also 
an entity that needs a great deal of oversight and funding for security 
and also operation. I am disappointed that the maintenance and 
operation funding is not as much as it should be.
  I also wish there could have been added funds for new projects. 
Obviously, the needs of this Nation change on a daily basis. Saying 
that this year we will not start any new projects is a bit illogical. 
New projects are extremely efficient in job creation and there are many 
competitive projects across the Nation.
  One portion of the bill I am concerned about is the underfunding of 
the National Nuclear Security Administration, $136 million less than 
the President's request. I understand that some of this withheld money 
would have gone to the robust nuclear earth penetrator. I agree with 
the Committee that we need to think long and hard before we start 
creating new nuclear weapons when we are pushing the rest of the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this and hope that we 
can do something more about the Yucca Mountain project by not funding 
it, without further study and consideration of other opinions. The 
people of Nevada deserve no less.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first say thanks to you and the ranking member 
for your work on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, let me raise an issue of concern for my constituents. I 
appreciate very much the $4.7 billion in funding provided to the Army 
Corps of Engineers, but let me express my disappointment that we have 
not been able to stretch the dollars to provide work on new projects. I 
am speaking particularly about Sims Bayou, Greens Bayou, White Oaks 
Bayou and Braes Bayou. More importantly, having worked on legislation 
dealing with inland flooding, I can tell you that flooding is a very 
serious issue in my district, and I would look forward to working with 
this appropriations subcommittee through conference to be able to 
provide some greater assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, might I also acknowledge my concern on the funding for 
nonproliferation in nuclear weapons. While I wish we had been able to 
include more dollars in this area, I am please that we were able to 
increase their funding by $8 million over last year's levels.
  I would like to commend the chairman and ranking member of the Energy 
and Water Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee for their 
excellent work on crafting this bill. There are several elements of 
debate between the majority and the minority, and between the House and 
the administration, but in general it seems that a fair compromise has 
been reached. Unlike previous years, due to the Appropriations 
subcommittee reorganization, the bill funds several renewable energy 
programs, clean coal technology, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 
Such programs greatly enhance the lives and security of my 
constituents.
  I am very pleased that the Appropriations Committee rejected the 
administration's proposal to prioritize Army Corps of Engineers water 
projects based on the projected revenue they would bring to the 
government. This prioritization plan would have essentially eliminated 
some, while much needed, less profitable projects. I support the $4.7 
billion provided for the corps, 9.5 percent more than the President's 
request. This is a smart investment. I wish there could have been added 
funds for new projects. Obviously, the needs of this Nation change on a 
daily basis. Saying that this year, we will not start any new projects 
is a bit illogical. New projects are extremely efficient in job 
creation. There are many competitive projects across the Nation and in 
my district, which should have been provided for. However, at least 
this bill is not a step backwards, like the administration's request. I 
commend the committee for its leadership on this issue.
  One portion of the bill I am concerned about is the under-funding of 
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), $136 million less 
than the president's request. I understand that some of this withheld 
money would have gone to the ``robust nuclear earth penetrator.'' I 
agree with the Committee that we need to think long and hard before we 
start creating new nuclear weapons, when we are pushing the rest of the 
world to put aside such implements of violence and destruction. We are 
being accused on every front of employing double standards: as we march 
on in war and talk about peace in the Middle East; as we spurn our own 
neighbors in Cuba but ask people in the occupied territories or in 
Korea or in South Asia, to forgive and forget; as we talk about 
liberating people but allow tens of millions to die from HIV/AIDS in 
Africa. We do not need to further degrade our own standing as a beacon 
of liberty and justice by creating such violent and polluting weaponry 
now. So, I am pleased that this bill does not provide for the nuclear 
earth penetrator. But, I hope we can all work together to ensure that 
other critical non-proliferation work done by the NNSA will be fully 
provided for in the years to come.
  Through my work on the Science Committee I have come to understand 
the amazing new technologies on the horizon that will decrease our 
reliance on foreign sources of fossil fuels, and help preserve our 
environment for generations to come. It is good to see that this bill 
has allotted $3.7 billion, 6 percent more than the administration's 
request for Science programs. However, of the energy research out 
there, hydrogen fuels and fuel cells are some of the most promising 
areas that need to be developed. The Science Committee has encouraged 
strong support of these programs, and the administration also has 
recognized their value. But this appropriations bill provides for less 
than half of what the administration has requested for hydrogen 
technology research. I represent Houston, the energy capital of the 
world. I understand the needs of this Nation for ample and affordable 
energy. As gas prices take a slow decline, we are realizing that we 
depend too much on countries that are either directly or indirectly 
hostile towards us. It seems irresponsible to under-invest in these 
next-generation technologies. Perhaps this is something that can be re-
visited in conference.

[[Page 10980]]

  Again I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on 
this bill. The lagging economy of the past 3 years, and huge deficits 
that have been created by our fiscal policies, have made budgets very 
tight. I wish this were not the case. But considering the box we are 
in, I believe our appropriators have done an admirable job here to fund 
important priorities and serve the Nation's energy and water needs.
  Yet I am very disappointed in the support for the Yucca Mountain 
Nuclear Waste Respository at an amount of an additional $310 million. 
The project needs more consideration and more study, there is much 
opposition in Nevada and the people of that great State deserve better 
from this Congress.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Hobson) for his leadership in delivering a comprehensive and 
bipartisan appropriations bill to the floor today. He has taken the 
responsibility as chairman of the subcommittee very seriously. He has 
been to New Jersey, to our home State. He has seen the channel 
deepening project, and he takes a real interest in the projects found 
in his bill, and I thank him very much for his leadership.
  On a more personal note, I also want to thank the chairman for 
supporting the Green Brook Flood Control Project, which is in my 
district in New Jersey. My constituents in New Jersey thank him for his 
commitment to this project.
  I would also be remiss if I did not mention the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). For more than 5 years, the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), as a member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, has been a champion for the Green Brook Flood Control 
Project. He deserves significant credit for its success and the thanks 
of thousands of residents whose safety and livelihood in our area of 
New Jersey are very much at stake with the success of this project.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) and every member of the 
Committee on Appropriations has a considerable task and responsibility 
of prioritizing local projects. There are no easy decisions, 
particularly in a difficult and a tight budget year like this year. The 
Green Brook Flood Control Project is saving homes and businesses and 
lives. It is equally vital that our Senators from New Jersey take up 
the fight for this important project and finish the work that we have 
begun here in the House.
  Again I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson), and 
I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for 
their compassion and their vision and their leadership and commitment 
to this issue.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Feeney) for a colloquy.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time. We appreciate the chairman and the committee's hard work on this 
bill.
  I want to specifically highlight the Rose Bay Ecosystem Project in 
Florida's 24th Congressional District, which I represent. Here local, 
county, and State agencies have worked for 10 years now and have spent 
more than $30 million to restore our natural aquatic ecosystem of Rose 
Bay. Now this project has stalled, understandably, due to limited funds 
at a time of war. In the 1940s, Rose Bay was a productive estuary and 
shellfish harvesting area on the Halifax River in Volusia County. Since 
the 1990s, local engineers and cities have anted up to their 
responsibility, and we would hope that the Army Corps of Engineers 
would live up to the agreed-upon 5-point plan to restore Rose Bay.
  I would ask the chairman's help, along with the committee's, to do 
everything we can to get this project back on the appropriate steps 
forward.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Florida is aware, the 
budget is very tight this year; and due to the lack of Federal funds, 
many projects the committee supported in the past did not receive 
appropriations this year. Because money is tight, locals will need to 
do more with less and finish this with other local money. As the 
gentleman knows, I have got three grandchildren living in Florida; so I 
am interested in the State of Florida, and I appreciate the gentleman's 
bringing this to our attention.
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I simply again thank the chairman for his leadership, for being a 
gentleman, and for being a friend; and I recommend the legislation to 
my colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me close and say I want to thank my ranking member because we 
have worked together on this bill. It is a very comprehensive and 
detailed bill in a lot of scientific ways. We do take some visions for 
the future of this country which I think are very important when it 
comes to the waterways and we get the increased plume, which results 
from not finishing these projects, completed. I think also as 
important, if not more so, is the vision for the corps and the 
waterways in the future. Also the vision for the Department of Energy 
both in the weapons area and in the area of future cost-effective power 
for this country so that this country can compete in the world in the 
future are both dealt with in various stages in this bill.
  So I hope that everyone will support this bill.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I ask my Colleagues to join us today in 
defeating the previous question so that we can bring back a rule that 
will allow us to debate an amendment that would increase funding for 
research and development for new energy technologies by $250 million.
  Yesterday, Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz of Pennsylvania, requested 
a waiver from the Rules Committee so that she could offer this 
amendment on the floor, but she was denied that opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, for 4 years now, the Republicans in Congress have 
brought us an energy policy bill that provides billions in subsidies to 
traditional energy industries already reaping record profits. According 
to the New York Times, the top 10 biggest oil companies earned more 
than $100 billion last year, and their combined sales are expected to 
exceed $1 trillion, which is more than Canada's gross domestic product.
  Just a few weeks ago, Republican leaders brought to the House floor 
an energy bill that devoted 93 percent of its tax incentives to oil, 
gas and other traditional energy industries, and only 7 percent for 
renewable energy and investments in new technologies.
  It is time for a new direction. A Democratic energy plan would set us 
on a faster course toward energy independence by investing more of our 
valuable resources in clean, renewable energy resources, promoting new 
emerging technologies, developing greater efficiency and improving 
energy conservation.
  Today, we are fortunate to have a number of promising technologies 
that offer new ways to generate energy and improve energy efficiency. 
But these investments are just a beginning, and will need our 
commitment in future years to sustain the innovations and investment 
levels needed to truly establish a sound energy economy for the 21st 
Century.
  The hydrogen economy may be a worthy goal, but its benefits may not 
be realized until mid-century. And while hydrogen may eventually play a 
major role in replacing gasoline in our cars and trucks, the sources of 
energy to generate hydrogen must begin accelerated development now.
  The Schwartz amendment would not choose any particular type of 
technology. Instead, it would distribute resource across multiple 
technologies and use them to generate multi-year development and 
deployment projects, support research and development competitive 
grants, and increase deployment of existing and new energy conservation 
measures.
  For example, the National Academy of Sciences examined the possible 
benefits of an aggressive investment in solid state lighting.

[[Page 10981]]

Today, lighting constitutes 30 percent of all energy use in buildings 
in the United States. The Academy study found that an investment of $50 
million a year for 10 years would result in a $50 billion savings 
between now and 2050. That is a return of 100 to one for the U.S. 
economy.
  Another excellent example--fuel cells--offer potential benefits in 
vehicles and stationary applications. Fuel cells are essential to a 
hydrogen energy economy and also have a vital role to play in other 
areas. Again, the National Academy of Sciences study found that a 
sustained investment of roughly $500 million over the coming decade is 
likely to produce benefits as much as $40 billion through 2025.
  The government has an essential role to play in research and 
development. Unless a business can make a reasonable return on its 
research investment, it cannot afford to invest in R&D. And unless the 
business is a monopoly, this requires the R&D to lead to a patent on a 
device or a process that can be marketed. Applied research yields 
benefits that are too diffuse to be captured by anyone company.
  So the federal government collects funds from a broad base of 
beneficiaries--the taxpayers--and invests in research and development 
that otherwise would never happen. Almost all such funding is through 
appropriation bills--the Energy and Water bill being one good example.
  Mr. Chairman, we are the world leader in technical innovation.
  From the light bulb to the space program to the Internet, the U.S. 
has led the way. We have built the world's largest economy on the 
inventiveness of our citizens and our willingness to make the 
investment needed to advance our society. The fundamental nature of our 
free society has always been the key to our achievement.
  Science, engineering, and technology have enabled us to build our 
modern nation, and now we need to use these tools aggressively to 
increase our energy security, improve the lives of our citizens, and 
power us in the 21st Century.
  I call on Members to defeat the previous question so we might 
consider an alternative rule that would allow Congresswoman Schwartz to 
offer her amendment during the debate on funding energy priorities 
today.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge funding to 
redraw the flood plain maps that would assist in addressing flood plan 
management problems along the Missouri River. The States of Iowa, 
Nebraska, South Dakota, and Missouri, as well as all cities and 
counties bordering the river, have an immediate need for improved flood 
plain information along the Missouri River. The lack of incomplete data 
hampers the way that communities plan for their economic future and 
interact with state and federal agencies. The existing data is 
approximately 30 years old. Coupled with that, is the fact that the 
recently completed Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency Study, 
which includes the main-Lower Missouri below Gavins Point Dam, resulted 
in significant change to the existing hydrology and hydraulics along 
the river. This indicates that current flood plain management for the 
Missouri River is inaccurate and does not support the regulatory 
requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
  This need for new information is due to the changes in land use and 
the pressure from development occurring all along the river. Improving 
the flood plain mapping, which meets the requirements of the NFIP 
(authorized by P.L. 86-645), can be developed working from the results 
of the Upper Mississippi River System Flow Frequency Study. The new 
flood plain information will allow development of water surface 
profiles and Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) for regulating 
current and future development of the 100-year and 500-year flood 
plains as well as the floodway along this 313-mile reach of the river.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the language of this bill, which 
appropriates $310 million from the Nuclear Waste Fund ``to carry out 
the purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982'' does not on its 
face present policy concerns. While the Yucca Mountain repository 
program faces funding problems, this is not the bill in which to 
address those issues and this appropriation more than meets the 
Administration's FY 2006 request.
  The language of the committee report, however, is an altogether 
different matter and strays across the line from appropriating into 
authorizing. It does so by directing the Department of Energy (DOE) to 
undertake actions inconsistent with its authority under the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act. Specifically, the report directs DOE to ``begin the 
movement of spent fuel to centralized interim storage at one or more 
DOE sites within fiscal year 2006.''
  Now, it is elementary that report language does not constitute a 
statutory mandate. As the U.S. Supreme court ruled in its 1993 opinion, 
Lincoln v. Vigil, ``It is a fundamental principle of appropriations law 
that where Congress merely appropriates lump-sum amounts without 
statutory restriction, a clear inference may be drawn that it does not 
intend to impose legally funding restrictions, and indicia in committee 
reports and other legislative history as to how the funds should, or 
are expected to, be spent do not establish any legal requirements on 
the agency.''
  Nonetheless, report language that conflicts with an agency's 
statutory responsibilities warrants a response. The committee report 
directs DOE to do something the Nuclear Waste Policy Act does not 
permit--to establish one or more centralized interim storage facilities 
for commercial spent fuel, to take title to ``some'' commercial spent 
fuel, and to consider altering the order in which utility fuel is 
scheduled to be removed from utility sites.
  What would adoption of this ``interim storage'' proposal mean?
  First, it would mean that some State other than Nevada, which 
Congress ratified as the sole candidate for licensing a permanent 
repository, would ``win'' the lottery for hosting an interim storage 
facility that would open in 2006. The report language helpfully notes 
that three DOE sites in the States of Idaho, South Carolina, and 
Washington, could be selected. It notes as well, however, that other 
Federal sites, including closed military bases, could be picked.
  This would not be permitted under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
  Second, the proposed interim facility would not be subject to 
licensing by the NRC. It is not clear that the National Environmental 
Policy Act would even apply. If you think licensing a repository at 
Yucca Mountain will be a demanding process, as it should be, the 
uncertainties surrounding an unlicensed interim storage facility should 
give pause to potentially affected communities.
  Third, since the proposal specifies no licensing process and no 
statutory criteria for site selection, it is likely that pure 
politics--not seismic conditions, not storage capacity, not even 
security measures--would guide DOE in its selection of a fast track 
candidate to begin storing waste in FY 2006. That should send a chill 
up the spine of any state with a Federally-owned site, since the policy 
proposed in the report would not provide protections equal to the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requirements for storage of spent 
fuel by utilities.
  Fourth, ratepayers should be alarmed by the committee report's 
interim storage proposal. They have paid over $22 billion into the 
Nuclear Waste Fund since 1983 for the purpose of permanent disposal--
not interim storage--of commercial spent fuel. An interim storage 
facility could add to costs in the long run, increasing ratepayers' 
total payments to the Fund.
  Fifth, utilities and the nuclear industry should be alarmed by this 
interim storage proposal. While a few lucky companies' waste might get 
moved before Yucca Mountain opens, the vast majority are likely to be 
stuck holding their waste longer. Interim storage is likely to divert 
DOE's funds and attention, just when the Department needs to focus on 
submitting a license to the NRC and on getting Yucca Mountain up and 
running.
  I commend Representatives Spratt and Hobson for their colloquy 
clarifying that the committee report's ``guidance'' to DOE interim 
storage does not obviate the need for statutory changes to authorize 
DOE to pursue this misguided policy. Yesterday, I sent DOE Secretary 
Bodman a letter asking that and other questions, and I believe all 
Members would be well served to consider the answers before considering 
such substantial modifications to current law.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concerns with the 
Army Corps of Engineers and my hope that language included in this bill 
will rein their disregard for Congressional requests.
  I concur with the committee's expressed dissatisfaction with the Army 
Corps managing of water projects and their excessive transfer of funds 
between projects. Many of us have long been frustrated with the Army 
Corps is their mishandling of projects throughout the Nation. Although 
Congress authorizes and appropriates specific projects, the Army Corps 
repeatedly ignores these guidelines and sets their own priorities. This 
has resulted significant delays that further distress the communities 
near these uncompleted projects.
  In the 12th Congressional District, the environmental restoration of 
Grover's Mill Pond is a most egregious example of the Army Corps 
disregard for congressionally mandated projects. Located at the site 
made famous by Orson Wells' ``War of the Worlds'' radio broadcast, 
Grover's Mill Pond is not only a historic

[[Page 10982]]

site, but it is a recreation destination within West Windsor Township 
and a vital link in the Township's stream corridors and watershed area. 
Years of sediment build-up and runoff from the watershed have caused 
the pond to become overrun with aquatic weeds and algae.
  This pond in its current condition is not only an eyesore for the 
community and the residents that live near it, but gives off an 
unpleasant odor in the summer. Completion of this project is long 
overdue, and could have been completed had the Army Corps not 
transferred almost all of the $500,000 that was specifically designated 
by Congress for this project. Thankfully, the committee has once again 
designated funding for this project, and I expect that the Army Corps 
will follow Congressional designation and not once again shortchange my 
constituents in favor of a project they deem more worthy.
  Unfortunately, other unfinished projects in my district such as 
McCarter's Pond and Rogers Pond did not receive additional funding in 
this bill. I am hopeful that the strong and clear direction the 
committee has given the Army Corps in this bill will force them to 
complete such projects in the future and encourage them not to create 
such unpleasant situations in the future.
  I thank the committee for their desire to assist my constituents and 
this nation by providing additional funds for unfinished projects and 
expressing their severe dissatisfaction with the Army Corps management 
of water projects. I hope this legislation will serve as an important 
step in reforming this agency and ensuring that our communities receive 
the environmental restoration assistance they desperately need.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the civil works program of the 
Corps of Engineers provides water resources development projects that 
are important to the Nation. I believe the restrictions on 
reprogramming of funds and the constraints on the use of continuing 
contracts contained in this bill will lead to the inefficient use of 
appropriated funds and will disadvantage congressionally-added 
projects.
  Congress does not fully fund projects in a given fiscal year and the 
schedule for constructing these large water resources projects is 
subject to the weather, environmental conditions, and other dynamic 
circumstances. As a result, reprogramming and continuing contacts are 
important tools that allow for the efficient use of appropriated funds.
  I share the concerns that the Appropriations Committee has for some 
of the reprogramming activities of the Corps of Engineers and the way 
they have used continuing contracts for some of their projects. 
However, the constraints in this bill are too restrictive.
  Section 101 only allows a reprogramming of $2 million or less per 
project. This is not enough to allow the corps to effectively move 
money around among projects when projects are delayed or when they can 
be accelerated.
  Also, the bill earmarks nearly all available funding, which makes it 
impossible for the corps to pay back those projects that it took money 
from in previous reprogramming.
  I must disagree also with the restriction placed on continuing 
contracts by this bill. While there may have been some unwise uses of 
continuing contracts by the corps, the restrictions in this bill are 
too severe. They will lead to inefficient use of funds and a bias 
against Congressional priority projects.
  As a result of the constraints on reprogramming, a lot of money will 
be carried over each fiscal year and work will have to be broken up 
into many smaller units making projects more expensive.
  Current law requires the corps to use continuing contracts whenever 
funds are provided in an appropriations act, but there is not enough 
money to complete the project. Only funds for that fiscal year are 
reserved, but the contractor can proceed with additional work with the 
understanding that payment is subject to future appropriations.
  Section 104 is inconsistent with current law in that it restricts the 
amount of work a contractor can do to only that which can be 
accomplished with FY 06 funds. Under section 104, the contractor cannot 
proceed at his own risk in anticipation of FY 07 and future year 
funding. The contractor will have to stop work and wait for a new 
contract the next year.
  Section 104 is legislative in nature and I intend to make a point of 
order that will strike it from the bill.
  Section 105 further restricts the use of continuing contracts and has 
the remarkable effect of restricting the corps' ability to carry out 
congressionally-added projects in this appropriation bill.
  Section 105 states that none of the funds provided in FY 06 may be 
used to award a continuing contract that extends into FY 07 unless the 
Administration budgets for the project in FY 07.
  This means that even if a Member has funding for a project in this 
bill, for FY 06, not fully funded, there are three options: (1) Hope to 
award a continuing contract before Administration comes out with its 
budget in February of 2006, (2) award a single year contract for only 
one increment of the project (resulting in increased costs), or (3) 
wait until fiscal year 2008 to award a continuing contract for the 
project (delaying project construction and project benefits).
  These restrictions apply to on-going as well as new projects.
  In Alaska, there are currently eight projects under construction 
using continuing contracts. Seven of these are not in the President's 
Budget. I expect that before this bill becomes law, it will contain 
funding for all of these projects.
  Nevertheless, under section 105 of the bill, a continuing contract 
could not be used in FY 06, and the corps will have to break the 
projects into smaller pieces or wait until FY 08 to spend the FY 06 
appropriated funds.
  I believe the restrictions in this bill will delay these important 
projects in Alaska and make them more expensive. This is a problem that 
will be repeated for other Members for projects all over the country.
  Finally, I want to applaud the Committee's efforts to get additional 
information from the Administration during the budget process. 
Information is needed for all projects, not just the ones in the 
Administration's budget. In addition, I believe that a 5-year schedule 
of spending for each project will allow the Congress to better 
appropriate funding that can match the corps capabilities for 
individual projects.
  Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky are to be commended for 
their efforts to see that program management and budgeting at the Corps 
of Engineers are put back on track. While I have reservations about the 
effects of some of the measures required by this bill, I believe I can 
work with the Committee leadership as this bill moves forward to see 
that my concerns are addressed in Conference.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.
  I would first like to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. 
Hobson, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky, for their work in 
putting together the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill.
  I also want to thank both of them for including $48 million in the 
bill to continue funding the Port of Oakland's 50-foot dredging project 
in my district in California.
  As the fourth largest container port in the country, the Port of 
Oakland serves as one of our premier international trade gateways to 
Asia and the Pacific.
  The 50-foot dredging project will underpin an $800 million expansion 
project funded by the Port that will improve infrastructure, expand 
capacity and increase efficiencies throughout the distribution chain.
  Once this project is finished, an additional 8,800 jobs will be 
added, business revenue will increase by $1.9 billion, and local tax 
revenues will go up by $55.5 million. Best of all, 100 percent of the 
dredged materials will be reused for wetlands restoration, habitat 
enhancement, and upland use within the San Francisco Bay Area.
  I appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this project and I look 
forward to continuing to work with the Chairman and Ranking Member to 
complete it.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2006 Energy and Water 
Bill. I want to thank Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for 
their hard work in drafting this bill. I also want to acknowledge both 
the Majority and Minority staff for their dedication.
  I can appreciate the tough choices that both Chairman Hobson and 
Ranking Member Visclosky had to make with the tight allocation for this 
bill. I believe they have made choices with the best interests of 
improving U.S. water infrastructure and advancing energy programs in 
mind. Those decisions were not easy, but this bill is the best we can 
do under the budget constraints. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in 
favor of the FY 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations Act.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this bill is not perfect. But it 
provides appropriate funding for many important purposes, and I will 
vote for it.
  Subcommittee Chairman Hobson, ranking member Visclosky, and their 
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee deserve our thanks for their 
work on this legislation.
  Their task was made harder by the restrictions imposed by the budget 
resolution championed by the Republican leadership, and the

[[Page 10983]]

bill does not include some things that I think should have been funded. 
But I think they have done a good job with the allocation of funds 
available to them, and the bill does include some items of particular 
importance to Coloradans.
  In particular, I am very pleased that it will provide nearly $580 
million to continue--and, I hope, complete--the cleanup of Rocky Flats.
  Formed by the location of a facility for making key parts of nuclear 
weapons, the Rocky Flats site is located just 15 miles from downtown 
Denver and at one time was the location of large quantities of nuclear 
materials and other hazardous substances. Because of its proximity to 
our state's major metropolitan area, timely and effective cleanup and 
closure of the site has been a matter of top priority for all 
Coloradans.
  With the funding provided by this bill and barring unforeseen 
developments, the Department of Energy and its contractor, Kaiser-Hill, 
should be able to complete the cleanup in the coming months--and while 
the department will have ongoing responsibilities at Rocky Flats, 
completing the cleanup will enable it to focus even more intently on 
the cleanup work to be done at other sites. So, I strongly support this 
part of the bill.
  However, while we are taking care of the site, it is essential that 
we also take care of those who worked there. Some of them were made 
sick because of exposure to beryllium, radiation, or other hazards. It 
was because of them, and those like them who worked at other sites, 
that I worked with our colleagues from Kentucky and Ohio, Mr. Whitfield 
and Mr. Strickland, as well as others in both the House and Senate, and 
with Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson and his colleagues in the 
Clinton Administration, to pass the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). I am proud to have been 
able to help get this program enacted and I will continue working to 
improve it for those who have worked at Rocky Flats and other sites.
  And, we need to also remember the other workers at Rocky Flats as 
well. As they near the completion of their jobs at the site, they are 
understandably concerned about what will come next. Many have moved on 
to other jobs, and others will do so. But many are facing uncertainties 
about their futures. For all of them, it is essential that DOE acts 
promptly to resolve remaining questions about the futures they can 
expect when their work at Rocky Flats is finished.
  For that reason, I recently wrote to ask Secretary Bodman to give 
immediate attention to two important matters--(1) determining the 
future administration of pension and health insurance plans for Rocky 
Flats workers (and for those at other closure sites as well); and (2) 
assuring the continued availability of medical benefits for Rocky Flats 
workers who will not be eligible for full retirement at the time of the 
site's closure.
  I pointed out that DOE's Office of Legacy Management (LM) has stated 
that it is developing a plan for the transition of pension and 
insurance plans, as well as for record keeping and other matters for 
which LM is responsible. However, I also noted that no such plan yet 
exists, which means there is increasing concern among the Rocky Flats 
workers about their future.
  There now remain only a few months for these matters to be resolved 
prior to closure. Time is of the essence. So, I was very glad to note 
that the Committee Report accompanying this bill directs DOE to report 
by September 30, 2005, on the Department's plan for a national 
stewardship contract for administration of the pension and benefit 
payments to former Environmental Management closure site contractor 
employees. I applaud the committee for including this directive, and 
urge the Administration to complete and submit this report as soon as 
possible.
  The bill also includes other matters of particular importance for 
Colorado. It provides funding for several Bureau of Reclamation 
projects in our state, including the Colorado-Big Thompson project and 
the Fryingpan-Arkansas project as well as the ongoing construction of 
the Animas-La Plata project. It also includes needed funds for 
operation and maintenance of a number of reservoirs operated by the 
Army's Corps of Engineers as well as for other Corps activities in 
Colorado.
  And I am very glad to note that the bill will provide funds for 
completing construction of the new science and technology facility at 
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
  I am disappointed, however, that the bill shortchanges some of the 
important clean energy programs at NREL. As co-chair of the Renewable 
Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in the House, I have worked for 
years to increase--or at a minimum, hold steady--funding for DOE's 
renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development 
programs.
  Given the finite supply and high prices of fossil fuels and 
increasing global demand, investing in clean energy is more important 
than ever. DOE's renewable energy programs are vital to our nation's 
interests, helping provide strategies and tools to address the 
environmental challenges we will face in the coming decades. These 
programs are also helping to reduce our reliance on oil imports, 
thereby strengthening our national security, and also creating hundreds 
of new domestic businesses, Supporting thousands of American jobs, and 
opening new international markets for American goods and services.
  For our investment in these technologies to payoff, our efforts must 
be sustained over the long term. This bill does not do that. This bill 
is $23 million less than last year's bill in the area of renewable 
energy research. This includes cuts in biomass, geothermal, and solar 
energy programs. I believe that the reductions in funding levels for 
the core renewable energy programs are ill-advised at a time when the 
need for a secure, domestic energy supply is so crucial.
  I am also concerned about the bill's deep cuts to energy efficiency 
programs such as Industrial Technologies ($16 million) and State Energy 
Program Grants (nearly $4 million) and a cut of nearly $5 million in 
the Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability Program.
  Nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, my regrets about this bill are outweighed 
by my appreciation for the good things that it includes, and so I urge 
the House to pass this important appropriations bill.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank 
Chairman Hobson for his leadership in bringing this important 
legislation to the floor, and I also thank him for his continued 
commitment to the Yucca Mountain project. As a fiscal conservative, I 
share his concerns regarding the federal government's liability as 
result of project delays, and I would like to work with the Committee 
to ensure the Department of Energy (DOE) fulfills its statutory and 
contractual obligation to accept spent fuel for disposal. To resolve 
this issue the Committee has recommended the Spent Fuel Recycling 
Initiative (Initiative), which links interim storage to reprocessing.
  I strongly believe interim storage of commercial spent fuel should 
not take place a DOE sites like Savannah River. However, I do agree 
that interim storage is an issue Congress and the DOE should examine. 
One argument posed by opponents of this Initiative is that interim 
storage would create a ``de facto'' permanent repository, which 
undermines our national policy of disposing high-level radioactive 
waste in a permanent deep, geologic repository. While I share the 
concern, this argument only has merit if interim storage is dealt with 
as a separate issue. But, the Committee's report expressly states the 
Initiative has ``linked'' interim storage to reprocessing. Moreover, 
this bill fully funds the Yucca Mountain project. These facts read 
together clearly imply that the DOE implementation of the Initiative's 
core elements should not undermine Yucca Mountain. As a result, I 
strongly believe the DOE should carefully examine any unintended 
consequences in its implementation report to ensure the Initiative 
supports our national policy on nuclear waste disposal as set forth by 
the Nuclear Waste Disposal Act.
  Examining the merits of this Initiative also requires us to review 
its other core element--reprocessing commercial spent fuel. The 
Committee correctly notes prior to the mid-1970's, the Federal 
government encouraged the reprocessing of commercial spent fuel and 
even developed reprocessing facilities in several states including 
South Carolina. Although opponents often cite proliferation concerns as 
a reason not to reprocess spent fuel, the report states ``there is no 
evidence that current [European] reprocessing operations pose a 
significant proliferation risk.'' Equally as important, I agree with 
the Committee that reduced volumes gained through reprocessing could 
avert the need to expand Yucca or site a second repository. Finally, 
reprocessing can also reduce the radiotoxicity of high-level waste, 
which makes licensing Yucca Mountain a simpler proposition. As a 
result, there is no question it is time for our nation to reexamine 
this issue, and I believe the Savannah River Site's existing 
reprocessing infrastructure should be considered as potential resources 
that could be utilized for this purpose.
  Although I agree the Committee's Initiative presents our nation a 
possible solution to finally shipping high-level waste out of states 
like South Carolina more quickly than anticipated, I do not believe the 
Initiative could be implemented without further Congressional 
authorization. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), the DOE's 
authority to store commercial spent fuel on an interim basis at 
existing DOE facilities expired January 1,

[[Page 10984]]

1990. Moreover, the NWPA does not allow the DOE to construct a 
Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility until Yucca Mountain 
receives a construction license. Thus, if the DOE desires to implement 
the core elements of the Initiative, I along with the Committee request 
the DOE provide to Congress any necessary authority it may need to 
execute it.
  I have no doubt Chairman Hobson's intentions with this Initiative are 
to support the nuclear power industry by ensuring we have a permanent 
repository for commercial spent fuel, and he is to be commended for 
bringing this matter to the 109th Congress' attention. The issue of 
nuclear waste disposal is complex, and it will require big ideas for 
safe disposition of our high-level waste. The Spent Fuel Recycling 
Initiative is one of those ideas, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues and my constituents to ensure it is the best policy to 
pursue.
  Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I am mindful of the limitations 
that the Appropriations Committee is under when funding project 
requests for the Army Corps of Engineers. I am also aware, however, 
that the committee works closely with the Corps in this process, and 
that funding decisions are based largely on the priorities put forward 
by the corps.
  With this in mind, I am very disappointed that the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill that we approved today did not contain funding for 
the cleanup of a logjam on Jacobs Creek in my district in Coffey 
County, Kansas. I am disappointed because I have made it abundantly 
clear to the corps on numerous occasions that I hear more from 
constituents about this project than any other corps project in my 
district. Further, I have asked the corps to make it one of their 
highest priorities when it comes to funds spent in my district.
  This logjam began in 1973, but has only in recent years escalated to 
such a problematic level. Currently, the logjam covers an expanse of 
more than two miles. Along this stretch, boat docks are useless and 
garbage is trapped in the sediment. The clog poses not only a health 
and safety hazard to area residents, but it also threatens the economic 
viability of the region.
  If the corps had given this request the priority it deserved, it 
would have received funding. The absence of funding for this project in 
the bill leads me to conclude that the corps has once again looked the 
other way.
  I am disappointed that this crucial project has once again been 
ignored and I call on the corps to put their resources to work and 
remedy this situation. I fully intend to continue working to see that 
this project is funded in the final version of this bill.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, the measure before us today--the 
appropriations act for Energy and Water Development--joins the early 
wave of discretionary spending bills pursuant to the recently adopted 
budget resolution for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95). As the name 
suggests, this bill provides for the Nation's energy and water 
development needs, with funding for all of the Department of Energy, 
and select activities of the Departments of Defense and the Interior, 
including the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. While 
the government's overall energy strategy is now being discussed in a 
conference on H.R. 6, the bill before us today provides a vital 
additional component of the Nation's energy policies.
  As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am pleased to note that this 
bill complies with the budget resolution, and also reflects a 
responsible set of budgetary choices. Although the Appropriations 
Committee provided more funding that the President in certain areas, 
they still achieved a modest but real reduction in total spending for 
this bill, compared with fiscal year 2005.


                      Energy and Water Development

  H.R. 2419 provides $29.7 billion in appropriations for fiscal year 
2006. This is $410 million, or 1.3 percent, below the fiscal year 2005 
level, and equal to the President's request. The bill complies with 
section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of 
bills in excess of an Appropriations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation 
of budget authority in the budget resolution.
  The bill provides $23.8 billion in discretionary BA to the Department 
of Energy [DOE], a reduction of $390 million from the 2005 enacted 
level. Within the department, BA is reduced from the 2005 level by 2.6 
percent for Environmental and Other Defense Activities ($203 million), 
and 4 percent for the National Nuclear Security Administration ($365 
million). But for Energy Programs, the bill provides a slight increase 
of 1.3 percent, or $98 million.
  H.R. 2419 provides $661 million for the Yucca Mountain repository, an 
increase of $84 million above 2005 and $10 million over the President's 
request.
  Funding for the Department of the Interior totals $933 million and 
discretionary spending for the Bureau of Reclamation holds flat 
relative to 2005.
  For the Corps of Engineers, the committee provided $4.7 billion, or 
$396 million over the President's request, primarily through additional 
construction and operations and maintenance spending, which together 
make up two-thirds of total Corps of Engineers spending. Also, the 
Appropriations Committee rejected an initiative to directly fund the 
operations and maintenance costs through the Power Marketing 
Associations' revenues.
  H.R. 2419 does not contain any emergency-designated BA, which is 
exempt from budgetary limits. While the budget resolution for fiscal 
year 2006, H. Con. Res. 95, did allow for an advance appropriation in 
the Elk Hills account, the Committee on Appropriations provided for it 
with a current year appropriation.
  The bill also defers $257 million in previously appropriated funds 
for the Clean Coal Technology Initiative until fiscal year 2007, 
providing $257 million in BA savings for 2006, and an equal increase in 
2007. The administration proposed a rescission of this amount.
  Additionally, the bill allows the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] 
to recover 90 percent of its budget authority through licensing and 
annual fees, less the appropriation derived from the Nuclear Waste 
Fund. This will recover a projected $581 million in fiscal year 2006 
with remaining 10 percent, or $65 million, funded from the General Fund 
of the Treasury.
  In conclusion, I would like to commend Chairman Lewis and the 
Appropriations Committee on their steady work in bringing bills to the 
floor that comply with H. Con. Res. 95 and wish them continued success 
as they proceed through this appropriations season.
  I therefore express my support for H.R. 2419.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support of the 
House version of the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this 
important measure.
  I commend Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky for their work 
on this bill. I believe it is a good start for addressing our nation's 
water infrastructure and energy research needs, especially given the 
budget constraints.
  As a farmer who works the land in Colorado's San Luis Valley, I know 
and understand water issues, and I can't emphasize how important it is 
to invest back into local water infrastructure. Without this 
investment, I fear we will continue to see a decline in the management 
of this irreplaceable resource--water is the lifeblood of our rural 
communities.
  The House Energy and Water Appropriations Bill would provide $29.7 
billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation and 
Department of Energy, a $329 million increase over last year's funding 
level.
  I am pleased the Committee included funding for three important 
projects which I had requested back in March for the 3rd District of 
Colorado. First and foremost, the Committee included $56 million in 
funding for construction of the Animas-La Plata Project. This funding 
level represents a $4 million increase over the President's budget 
request and comes on the heels of a Colorado delegation letter which I 
spearheaded back in March. I would also like to thank the Committee for 
the inclusion of language which directs a larger percentage of program 
funds towards construction, not administrative costs.
  Completion of the A-LP will provide a much-needed water supply in the 
southwest corner of our state for both Indian and non-Indian municipal 
and industrial purposes. It will also fulfill the intent of a carefully 
negotiated settlement agreement in the mid-1980s to ensure the 
legitimate claims of the two Colorado Ute Tribes could be met without 
harm to the existing uses of their non-tribal neighbors.
  Since 2002, the Bureau of Reclamation has made much progress, and 
work has been completed or initiated on many key project features. This 
increased funding will allow the Bureau to move forward in a way that 
will ensure timely completion of the A-LP and avoid costly delays.
  The FY2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill also includes 
$315,000 for the Arkansas River Habitat Restoration Project. The U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers in cooperation with the City of Pueblo, 
Colorado has completed 90 percent of the project including fish habitat 
structures along a 9-mile section of the river below Pueblo Dam through 
downtown Pueblo. This funding would be used to complete the project 
which is an important environmental restoration project for the 
project.
  Finally, the Committee also provided a $1.021 million appropriation 
for the Army Corps of Engineers to engage in operations and maintenance 
at Trinidad Lake, Colorado;

[[Page 10985]]

this amount represents almost a $100,000 increase from the FY2005 
funding level. Trinidad Lake is a multipurpose project for flood 
control, irrigation and recreation, and was authorized by the 1958 
Flood Control Act. The lake is located in southern Colorado on the 
Purgatoire River, and bordered by the historic Santa Fe Trail. The dam 
itself is an earthfill structure 6,860 feet long and 200 feet high, and 
constructed with some 8 million cubic yards of earth and rock.
  Each project is an important part of improving water related 
infrastructure. As this bill proceeds through the appropriations 
process, I will continue the fight to preserve funding for the 3rd 
District of Colorado.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out 
certain things about H.R. 2419 that leave me troubled. I am quite 
concerned by significant reductions made in critical programs that are 
necessary for our Nation to maintain a credible long-term nuclear 
deterrent. The appropriations for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA) related to weapons activities was $6.63B in FY 
2005. That amount was reduced to $6.18B by the committee, a reduction 
of almost $0.5B, or nearly 10 percent.
  The Advanced Strategic Computing (ASC) Campaign has made great 
advances over the past 10 years. We are now able to model things with 
more fidelity than ever before. This modeling is used to certify the 
reliability of our nuclear stockpile without nuclear testing. The ASC 
Campaign was funded last year at a level of $698M. The administration 
request for FY06 is only $661M--a reduction of $37M over last year's 
levels. The administration's request was further reduced by the 
appropriations committee from $661M to $501M, coupled with nearly $22M 
of earmarks out of the $501M for extraneous projects, results in a 
final budget of less than 70 percent of last year's budget.
  These reductions come at the same time we are asking our Nation's 
nuclear laboratories to recertify our nuclear weapon stockpile with 
science and computing rather than nuclear testing. The committee states 
that its ``recommendation recognizes the Department's inability to 
achieve the promises of Stockpile Stewardship effort and redirects ASCI 
funding to maintain current life extension production capabilities 
pending the initiation of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program.'' 
One cannot remove funds from the Advanced Strategic Computing program 
to fund the Reliable Replacement Warhead program--not expected to yield 
fruit for a number of years--and expect the labs to continue to certify 
our stockpile. These programs are not substitutes for each other.
  Once again the committee has removed all funding for the Robust 
Nuclear Earth Penetrator Study. This is a worth while study, designed 
to answer whether or not a nuclear earth penetrator is even feasible as 
a means of holding Deeply Buried Hardened Targets (DBHTs) at risk. It 
is my understanding that this study will now move to the Department of 
Defense and outside of the jurisdiction of the Energy and Water 
Appropriations subcommittee.
  Inconsistent reductions and increases seem to have been made to the 
infrastructure construction projects for NNSA. The $55M administration 
request for the Chemistry Matallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) 
Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory was zeroed out. On the other 
hand the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility Y-12 National 
Security Complex recommended funding at a level of $81M, an increase of 
$11M over the request. The committee's reasoning zeroing ``the CMRR 
facility should be delayed until the Department determines the long-
term plan for developing the responsive infrastructure required to 
maintain the Nation's existing nuclear stockpile and support 
replacement production anticipated for the RRW initiative.'' It is my 
understanding that this determination will be made by the Secretary of 
Energy's Advisory Board subcommittee which is due to report out in 
June. The committee claims that its ``recommendation does not prejudge 
the outcome of the SEAB's subcommittee's assessment of the NNSA weapons 
complex.'' However, if the committee does not want to prejudge the 
outcome of the SEAB's study, it would seem more appropriate to only put 
a hold on the CMRR funds until the SEAB study has reported its 
findings. There is considerable use to be made of the CMRR in 
supporting the general science mission of the laboratory as well. It is 
not a facility to only support manufacturing as the committee suggests. 
We should not expect our critical nuclear laboratories to be held up to 
the safety and security standard that are set by industry if we do not 
provide for ways to update sorely needed facilities around the nuclear 
weapons complex.
  I find particularly troubling the reductions made to and restrictions 
placed upon the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) and 
like programs within DOE. Section 311 of the Bill limits the amount of 
LDRD funding to $250M. This is in comparison to the $400M in FY2005. 
This will severely restrict fundamental R&D that is so vital to our DOE 
complex in meeting the needs of national security.
  Section 312 of the bill is particularly troublesome since it subjects 
funds already subjected to overhead rates to those same rates yet 
again. LDRD funds have historically been used as indirect funds since 
they are redirected funds that have in essence already been taxed by 
the overhead charges.
  Section 313 restricts LDRD funds derived from DOE funded programs to 
be used only on DOE related research, as if other funded projects 
(generally referred to as ``Work for Others'' projects) do not help 
fund the LDRD programs. This is in fact not the case. In general, all 
funding for projects at the laboratories help to fund the LDRD programs 
at equal rates. The accounting nightmare that would be created if the 
installations were forced to keep the funding separate would be 
particularly onerous and waste even more resources. But beyond all 
these arguments, the LDRD program is designed expressly to investigate 
basic and applied research that has broad application across the 
potential customer base.
  Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Goodlatte, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2419) 
making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________