[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 23331-23340]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3183, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 788, 
I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3183) making 
appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tierney). Pursuant to House Resolution 
788, the conference report is considered read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
September 30, 2009, at page 23048.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) and 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) each will control 
minutes 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report to 
accompany H.R. 3183.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the 
conference report on H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriation Act for fiscal year 2010.
  The conference agreement before us is a good one, and it merits the 
support of all of the Members of the House.
  The agencies and the programs under the jurisdiction of energy and 
water development contribute to solving many of the most pressing 
challenges facing our country, including strengthening and maintaining 
our water infrastructure, advancing U.S. scientific leadership, 
combating global climate change with renewable and cleaner energy 
technologies, and providing security against nuclear threats. I believe 
the conference agreement provides strong support for these agencies and 
programs.
  The total amount of funding included in the energy and water 
conference agreement is $35.5 billion. This constitutes an increase of 
$204 million from the enacted level for fiscal year 2009. While the 
conference agreement is below the budget request, the primary reason 
for this difference is the Congressional Budget Office score of the 
Department of Energy's budget. The conference agreement provides $571 
million above the budget request in program scope to further critical 
energy, water development and related goals.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Senate counterpart, Chairman Byron 
Dorgan, and his ranking member, Robert Bennett, for their hard work 
during this conference. I especially want to extend my appreciation to 
my ranking member, the Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, 
for his extraordinary cooperation and insight. I truly value his 
support and advice and that of all of the members of our Energy and 
Water Subcommittee. I believe we are all proud of this bipartisan 
product.
  Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I would also like to thank the staff 
for their help in shepherding this bill through the House and through 
conference with the Senate. The subcommittee staff includes Taunja 
Berquam, Robert Sherman, Joseph Levin, James Windle, Casey Pearce, and 
our detailee from the Corps of Engineers, Lauren Minto.
  I also want to thank Richard Patrick of my staff and Rob Blair and 
Kevin Jones of the minority staff, and Nancy Fox and Kathleen Hazlett 
of Mr. Frelinghuysen's staff.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge unanimous support in the House for the adoption 
of this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the 
conference report on H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010. The agencies and programs 
under the jurisdiction of Energy and Water Development contribute to 
solving many of the most pressing challenges facing our country, 
including strengthening and maintaining our water infrastructure, 
advancing U.S. scientific leadership, combating global climate change 
with renewable and cleaner energy technologies, and providing security 
against nuclear threats. I believe the conference agreement provides 
strong support for these agencies and programs.
  The total amount of funding included in the Energy and Water 
conference agreement is $33.5 billion. This constitutes an increase of 
$204 million from the enacted level for fiscal year 2009, and is 
approximately $929 million below the budget request. While the 
conference agreement is below the budget request, the primary reason 
for this difference is a Congressional Budget Office score of $1.5 
billion for the Department of Energy's budget request for the 
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program. The conference agreement 
provides $571 million above the budget request in program scope.
  Title I of this conference report provides funding for the Civil 
Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, including the 
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. The conference 
agreement provides the Corps with $5.4 billion in fiscal year 2010, 
slightly above fiscal year 2009, and $320 million over the budget 
request. These investments will provide increased transportation 
efficiency on our nation's waterways, job creation, clean water, and, 
most importantly, will ensure the safety of our citizens. The 
conference agreement also recognizes the increasing cost of aging 
infrastructure through significantly increased funding for the 
operation and maintenance of existing projects.
  The conference agreement continues to limit new contract obligations 
that require funding from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund due to the 
insolvency of the Fund. If the revenue stream is not addressed, the 
level of investment must be adjusted to the available resources--
resulting in increased costs to existing projects as they are 
suspended, as well as the deferral of new projects in need of 
recapitalization. I would urge the administration and interested 
parties to pursue this issue with the relevant authorizing committees.
  Funding for title II, which includes the Central Utah Project 
Completion Account and the programs of the Bureau of Reclamation, is 
$1.13 billion, $12 million above the amount appropriated last year and 
$67 million above the budget request. The conferees support funding for 
two projects to alleviate water supply and conservation issues in the 
California Bay-Delta, as proposed by the House. The conference 
agreement provides $133 million, $69 million above the request, for 
rural water projects to bring clean water to tribal and rural 
communities in Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, and South 
Dakota.
  Total funding for title III, the Department of Energy, is $27.1 
billion, $318 million above fiscal year 2009 and $1.3 billion below the 
budget request due to a score by the Congressional Budget Office of 
$1.5 billion for the Department of Energy's budget request for the 
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program. This conference 
agreement, when combined with the $36.6 billion of American 
Reinvestment and Recovery Act funding, represents a historic investment 
into energy and science technology, as well as the cleanup of the 
nation's nuclear legacy. The conference agreement also supports the 
national security missions of the National Nuclear Security 
Administration.
  Our nation's ongoing energy crisis affects our economy, security, and 
environment, and

[[Page 23332]]

the conferees have taken. action with this agreement to develop lasting 
solutions for our energy challenges. Americans today face rising 
electricity prices, a transportation system still dependent on foreign 
oil, and the looming uncertainty of global climate change. A broad 
portfolio of approaches across energy technologies at the Department of 
Energy will be required to transform our energy economy and address 
this energy crisis. To further diversify this portfolio, the conferees 
provide a prudent level of funding for Energy Innovation Hubs, Hubs, a 
new research model that will gather a broad array of researchers around 
critical energy challenges. The conference agreement provides the 
Department of Energy with the opportunity to establish three Hubs to 
research the next generation of clean and safe nuclear power, cutting-
edge science and technology to convert sunlight to transportation 
fuels, and systems to reduce energy use in buildings.
  The conference agreement provides a record investment of $2.24 
billion in renewable energy and efficient energy technologies, $314 
million above the fiscal year 2009, to develop and deploy long-term 
solutions to our energy challenges. By investing in ways to harness 
energy from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and water sources, the 
conference agreement takes steps to advance technologies that will 
provide affordable, clean energy from domestic, renewable sources. 
Although they offer vast, untapped renewable energy resources in the 
United States, these technologies currently account for less than 3 
percent of our electricity generation. Applied research and development 
for these renewable energy technologies is funded at $620 million, an 
increase of 17 percent over the fiscal year 2009, to launch our nation 
into the next generation of clean and secure electricity generation.
  To bring electrical power from these new renewable resources to the 
population centers that use it, and to reduce energy losses during 
power transmission, the conference agreement boosts funding by 26 
percent over 2009 for electricity delivery and energy reliability. In 
addition to funding research and development for smart grids, energy 
storage, and other ways to modernize the nation's power transmission 
and distribution system, the conference agreement more than triples 
funding over the fiscal year 2009 for cyber security research and 
development to secure the nation's electric power system as cyber 
attacks increase worldwide while the grid is becoming increasingly 
network-connected.
  Chronically high fuel prices and dependence on foreign oil continue 
to hinder our nation's economy and transportation sector. The 
conference agreement invests nearly $950 million in activities at the 
Department of Energy to permanently reduce our dependence on petroleum 
fuels. The agreement provides $311 million for vehicle technologies, 
$38 million above the fiscal year 2009, to increase vehicle efficiency, 
advance alternative fuel technologies for next-generation biofuels, and 
develop electrified vehicles that can run petroleum-free. Further, the 
conference agreement provides $174 million for hydrogen and fuel cell 
technologies, to continue the work at the Department of Energy, in 
conjunction with private industry and research institutions, furthering 
one of a small handful of pathways that may reduce the need for 
imported petroleum fuels.
  The conference agreement invests $570 million in programs that cost-
effectively cut energy consumption now and in the future by developing 
and deploying efficient energy technologies. Americans will save money 
and energy in the near-term through $210 million in funding for 
weatherization assistance grants, a 5 percent increase over the fiscal 
year 2009. Further, the conference agreement increases funding for 
Industrial Technologies and Building Technologies to develop innovative 
technologies that will help our homes, businesses and industries save 
energy and money while reducing harmful emissions.
  The conference agreement is a measured commitment to positioning 
nuclear energy to play a role in the nation's energy future. The 
conference agreement provides $787 million for nuclear energy, $5 
million below fiscal year 2009 and $10 million above the request. This 
funding supports the licensing, research, and development of nuclear 
reactor technologies.
  In addition, the conference agreement supports fossil energy funding 
to emphasize carbon capture and sequestration--the key to enabling the 
use of our extensive reserves of coal while reducing greenhouse gas 
emissions. Fossil Energy research and development programs are funded 
at $672 million, $55 million above the request, of which $404 million 
is for fuels and power systems and $37.8 million focuses on natural gas 
and unconventional petroleum research.
  There is a legacy of contamination from the past 60 years of nuclear 
weapons manufacturing and research. This conference agreement is a 
major investment in mitigating the environmental effects of the 
nation's nuclear legacy and, for the first time, meets virtually all of 
the cleanup regulatory compliance milestones at sites around the 
country. The conference agreement provides $6.4 billion for 
environmental cleanup, which includes national defense and non-defense 
sites, as well as Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
Decommissioning (UED&D). Defense sites are funded at $5.6 billion, $147 
million above the request. The conference agreement provides non-
defense sites with $245 million, $7 million above the request, and $574 
million for UED&D, $14 million above the request. The clean-up projects 
and activities take place around the country, in places like Hanford, 
Washington; Savannah River, South Carolina; Los Alamos, New Mexico; Oak 
Ridge, Tennessee; Portsmouth, Ohio; Idaho; and Paducah, Kentucky, among 
others.
  The conference agreement increases funding for the Office of Science 
3 percent from fiscal year 2009, progress in these constrained times. 
The conference agreement provides $394 million for advanced scientific 
computing research, $25 million above fiscal year 2009. The Office of 
Science conducts world-leading scientific research and development, 
both in exploring the fundamental nature of matter and energy, and in 
laying the technological foundations upon which are found our best 
prospects of building energy independence and control of climate 
change.
  While the administration is determining national policy regarding how 
to dispose of high-level radioactive waste and nuclear spent fuel, it 
is prudent to continue to learn from the investment that has been made 
to the Yucca Mountain waste repository. For nuclear waste disposal 
activities, the conference agreement provides a total of $197 million 
to continue the licensing process at Yucca Mountain. Within these 
funds, the conference agreement provides $5 million to create a Blue 
Ribbon Commission to evaluate all alternatives for nuclear waste 
disposal.
  The programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, 
reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation overseas, maintain the U.S. 
nuclear weapons stockpile, and provide reliable nuclear propulsion for 
the U.S. Navy. The conference agreement provides a total of $9.9 
billion for the NNSA, which includes $666 million of construction 
activities for the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility not funded in 
the NNSA in fiscal year 2009. Adjusting for the new activities, the 
conference agreement for the NNSA is $9.2 billion, the same as fiscal 
year 2009.
  Nuclear weapons or material with nuclear weapons potential, in the 
hands of terrorists are a priority national security threat to the 
United States and our allies. The NNSA programs address the full 
spectrum of the proliferation threat by supporting multilateral 
agreements, securing nuclear materials overseas, detecting illicit 
trafficking, and researching and developing the leading-edge technology 
to support nonproliferation. Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 
activities are funded at $2.1 billion. The International Nuclear 
Material Protection and Cooperation program that works in Russia and 
elsewhere to secure nuclear material and enhance border and port 
security receives $572 million, $20 million above the request and $172 
million above fiscal year 2009. The conference agreement includes funds 
for the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Waste Solidification 
Building, and supporting activities at Savannah River, South Carolina.
  Given the serious international and domestic consequences of the U.S. 
initiating a new nuclear weapons production activity, it is critical 
that the administration lay out a comprehensive course of action before 
funding is appropriated. Major transformation of the weapons complex 
can only be produced with significant bipartisan support, lasting over 
multiple sessions of Congress and multiple Administrations.
  The Nuclear Posture Review should inform an enduring strategy and 
provide the basis of the underlying complex necessary to ensure the 
nation's nuclear weapons continue to keep our nuclear weapons safe and 
reliable. The conference agreement provides $32.5 million for a limited 
study of how to improve the non-nuclear components of the B61 bomb. The 
agreement also includes direction for the NNSA to commission two 
independent studies to ensure that the B61-12 is both necessary and 
technically sound. In particular, the second study will examine whether 
the B61-12 has sufficient technical advantages to constitute a long-
term 21st century weapon, or whether it is likely to need near-term 
replacement or retirement. Should the Nuclear Posture Review confirm 
the B61-12 as a national security requirement, the agreement includes a 
provision allowing the NNSA to reprogram

[[Page 23333]]

funds from other, limited, activities to address technical issues 
associated with the non-nuclear portion of this program. In the 
interim, this agreement maintains B61-related technical expertise while 
evaluating whether the program is essential for national security.
  For Naval Reactors, the conference agreement provides $945 million, 
$117 million above fiscal year 2009, in order to support the next-
generation nuclear reactor for the U.S. Navy.
  Funding for title IV, Independent Agencies, is $292 million, a 
decrease of $16 million from the previous fiscal year and $27 million 
below the budget request. The conference agreement funded the 
Appalachian Regional Commission at $76 million and the Delta Regional 
Authority at $13 million, the same as the request. The conference 
agreement also provides $12 million for the Denali Commission, the same 
as the request. Two new commissions have been funded by conference 
agreement: the Northern Border Regional Commission at $1.5 million and 
the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission at $250,000. The Nuclear 
Waste Technical Review Board is funded at $3.9 million, the same as the 
request, and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is funded at 
$26 million, the same as the request. The Federal Coordinator for the 
Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects is also funded at the budget 
request level of $4.5 million. Finally, the conference agreement 
provides $154.7 million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, $29 
million below the budget request.
  We have a responsibility to do everything possible to address our 
current energy crisis and the state of our infrastructure. This 
conference agreement invests in the energy areas that will put us on 
the long-term path to increased energy independence, reduce the 
emissions of greenhouse gases, and lead global efforts to confront 
global climate change. Further, it provides funding to build and 
maintain our nation's navigation, flood damage reduction projects and 
water supply facilities to strengthen our economy, protect our citizens 
and provide those who do not have it, clean water.
  I want to thank my Senate counterpart, Chairman Byron Dorgan, and his 
Ranking Member, Senator Robert Bennett, for their hard work during this 
conference. I especially want to extend my appreciation to my Ranking 
Member, the Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, for his 
extraordinary cooperation and insight. I truly value his support and 
advice, and that of all the members of our Energy and Water 
Subcommittee. I believe we are all proud of this bipartisan product.
  Mr. Speaker, before I conclude I would also like to thank the staff 
for their help in shepherding this bill through the House and through 
conference with the Senate. The Subcommittee staff includes Taunja 
Berquam, Robert Sherman, Joseph Levin, James Windle, Casey Pearce, and 
our detailee from the Corps of Engineers, Lauren Minto. I also want to 
thank Richard Patrick of my staff, and Rob Blair and Kevin Jones of the 
minority staff, and Nancy Fox and Kathleen Hazlett of Mr. 
Frelinghuysen's staff.
  I urge the unanimous support of the House for adoption of this 
conference report.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much as time as I 
may consume.
  I rise in support of the Energy and Water appropriations conference 
agreement for 2010. I would like to recognize Vice Chairman Pastor for 
his friendship and leadership--it has been a good working partnership--
and all members of the committee.
  I would also like to thank all of the staff on both sides of the 
subcommittee as well as in my office and his for their dedication and 
hard work. On the majority side, Taunja Berquam, the Clerk Bob Sherman, 
Joe Levin, James Windle, Casey Pearce, and Lauren Minto. On the 
minority side, Rob Blair and Kevin Jones. In my personal office, Katie 
Hazlett and Nancy Fox; and in Mr. Pastor's personal office, Rich 
Patrick. All of these individuals worked tirelessly to put together the 
product before us which meets the needs of every congressional district 
in the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement totals $33.465 billion, which 
is $928 million below the President's request, and $167 million, or 0.6 
percent, above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
  However, the conference agreement was preceded by the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act and other emergency stimulus 
appropriations for the fiscal year 2009, which gave more than $58 
billion in new money to the agencies under our jurisdiction. In fact, 
nearly 39 billion new dollars alone went to the Department of Energy.
  So while the growth from the fiscal year 2009 regular appropriation 
to this conference report is minimal, the Department of Energy is going 
to have a difficult time spending and accounting for all of the new 
money it has received.
  However, Mr. Speaker, in general, this conference agreement is 
reasonable and balanced.
  I do want to highlight one area in which I have significant concerns: 
the future of nuclear power in this country and what happens when 
political science trumps sound science.
  During the Republican motion to recommit the House Energy and Water 
bill, my colleague from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) spoke eloquently about the 
perils of following the President's plan to terminate our current 
nuclear waste management plant at Yucca Mountain. My biggest regret 
with this conference agreement is that we were unable to overcome 
Senator Reid's influence, and consequently, the disposal plan is barely 
on life support.
  The amount of funding in this bill for continuing with the Yucca 
Mountain license application is now half of what is requested, further 
delaying the progress on the establishment of a national nuclear waste 
disposal site.
  And what will the results be of this decision? Spent nuclear fuel and 
radioactive waste is being stored on site at 121 locations across 39 
States. These are our States; they're our constituents. I am sure this 
fuel is safe where it is today, but I know many of our constituents 
want it stored somewhere where the environment will not be affected and 
where the material will be kept safely.
  The President's and the majority leader in the Senate's decision will 
ensure that the fuel stays where it is for at least 15 or 20 years with 
each site bearing all of the major costs and responsibilities for 
management and security of the waste material.
  Second, their plan will rob our country of potential jobs and tax 
revenue. These jobs range from Ph.D.s in physics to pipe fitters, from 
welders to plumbers. Operating nuclear power plants can sustain 700 
permanent jobs while new plants generate as many as 2,400 construction 
jobs.
  Currently, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has applications for 26 
new plants. That's at least 60,000 jobs at stake. I don't understand 
how the President can push for an economic revitalization and reduce 
carbon emissions while gutting the single technology which will help 
accomplish both of those goals.

                              {time}  1315

  Our constituents need these jobs and the clean power source that they 
create.
  Third, killing Yucca Mountain would bring billions of dollars of 
liability against the Federal Government, anywhere from $11 to $22 
billion. This is money which the Federal Government owes industry 
because we have failed to live up to our responsibilities. We've signed 
contracts with these companies to take the waste off their hands. And 
because of the political arrangement between the White House and the 
Senate leader, we have failed, taxpayers and ratepayers must now carry 
that burden for the foreseeable future.
  These are not empty threats or dire predictions. They are facts. Last 
week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had a vote that basically 
denies the go-ahead for the construction of new nuclear power plants 
because of the administration's plans to terminate Yucca Mountain.
  Those 54,000 jobs I mentioned earlier are on hold. The nuclear waste 
in our districts is still there and not going anywhere. The billions of 
liability that our children will have to repay? Well, that's another 
few billion on top of our current $1.6 trillion deficit.
  The one bright side of the conference agreement is that we were able 
to keep the license application alive, but just barely. Until the 
American public wakes up to the pitfalls of this political arrangement 
between the White House and the Senate leader, we will all have to bear 
the costs.

[[Page 23334]]

  With that said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Vice Chairman 
Pastor for his leadership and friendship. Overall, this is a great 
conference agreement, and I intend to support it, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
conference report for the Energy and Water appropriations bill.
  This bill commits $180 million in Federal funding for critical 
Everglades restoration projects. While it is less than the 
administration request and the House-funded level, it represents a firm 
commitment from this Congress. To be clear, we must move boldly forward 
in saving this unique national treasure. Time is our enemy, and we have 
delayed too long.
  In 2000, Congress authorized the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration 
Plan as a State-Federal partnership to restore the ailing River of 
Grass. However, to date, the State has outspent the Federal Government 
by more than 2 to 1.
  Finally, after 8 years of inaction, we are beginning to meet our 
commitment--and I can't thank Chairman Pastor and Chairman Obey enough 
for their steadfast support of funding to restore the Florida 
Everglades to its once pristine state--with significant funding in the 
FY09 bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as well, and now 
in the FY10 legislation.
  Chairman Obey, Chairman Visclosky and Chairman Pastor, your 
leadership on this effort will not be forgotten. It will preserve a 
national treasure for years and years to come so that my children and 
my children's children can enjoy the Florida Everglades. Today's bill 
is a positive step forward for the Everglades, and I hope it will spur 
further action in the next fiscal year.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the committee.
  Mr. WAMP. I thank the chairman, and I thank the ranking member and 
the Speaker. It's my 15th year here. I have been on this committee for 
13 years, and I inherited a district that is really heavy in this bill, 
and I know that. I represent Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
  The committee has been incredibly good through the years to recognize 
the needed investments in science, energy research, national security 
and environmental management, and yet again this conference report 
recognizes those critical priorities on behalf of our country, and I'm 
grateful for that. But much like Paul Revere, I have come to the 
committee, the subcommittee, and the House again today to say we have a 
huge problem at the Chickamauga Lock on the Tennessee River.
  We began construction of the replacement lock a few years ago. The 
cofferdam is complete. Inside this cofferdam, we will dry out the 
Tennessee River in the next few months to test that the cofferdam 
works. The cofferdam is about the size of this entire building, the 
Capitol Building, in the middle of the Tennessee River.
  We are ready now to begin pouring the foundations in the middle of 
the river to replace the lock. The current lock will close. I just had 
the briefing today from the Corps.
  Yesterday at the conference committee closing this out, and I signed 
the conference report, I offered an amendment to put language and up to 
$14 million in the bill to make sure we can move the project forward. 
It failed on a 10-8 vote. I appreciate Lincoln Davis, the only member 
of the majority for voting ``yes.'' Everyone in the minority voted 
``yes.'' This is a critical problem.
  I say to the administration, you only made a $1 million funding 
request. It's not sufficient to move it along. The current lock will 
close. The Corps just briefed us again today. They cannot keep it open. 
It will be the largest inland waterway system in the history of our 
country to close.
  The current lock was set to close at 2014. We are not building the 
lock yet. The cofferdam is complete. The Kentucky lock only got $1 
million, but their stimulus money allows them to start construction. We 
could not. I made this case at the subcommittee, at the full committee, 
and on the House floor Mr. Pastor helped us. We put $14 million in, and 
just like happens in this place, somehow by the time we got to the 
conference meeting, it was taken back out. We tried to restore it 
yesterday, change of support, went down virtually party lines.
  I'm telling you, we got a problem. We need help. And it's not me. 
It's the entire eastern system. It's the largest inland waterway system 
in the country. It is going to close. We've got to do something.
  Please, to the committee, to the Senate, to the House, both parties, 
administration, when there is an emergency supplemental, let's get 
together ahead of time and fix the Inland Waterway Trust Fund problem. 
This is a crisis for all the inland waterway system, and the first big 
failure will be Chick Lock unless we exert the leadership that we are 
elected to do. It's a can that has been kicked down the road too long.
  I plead with you on behalf of the constituents, not just in my 
district, not just in my State, but in the entire eastern part of our 
country. From Peoria to south Georgia, you will have truckloads of 
cargo and goods, 150,000 18-wheelers a year added to carry the cargo 
that currently goes through this lock, and it is about to close because 
we're not doing our job. That's the truth. And I hate it. And I have 
done my best, but I am only one. I need help. Our people need help. Our 
country needs help. We need leadership.
  Let's keep the Chickamauga Lock open. If there's an emergency 
supplemental that moves, we need to step up and fix this problem before 
the 2011 cycle. I'm going to do everything I can. I've been here long 
enough to know how to cooperate, how to get it done and sometimes how 
to keep the trains from going any further until the right things are 
done. That's not a warning. I need your help. That's a plea.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I've done 
this bill, and I have to tell you that one of the lessons I learned is 
that the inland waterway is of great value to our country, and we have 
not paid enough attention to it. So I would agree with my colleague 
that it's a problem that we need to solve.
  The Inland Waterway Trust Fund is the vehicle which would construct 
and maintain these locks. But at this point, we haven't been able to 
solve that problem. And the gentleman is right. We did help him here in 
the House when we passed this bill, but I have to tell him with great 
regret that in the conference we found very little support from the 
Senate in this particular lock, and in working out the conference bill, 
we had to go back to the $1 million.
  At this moment, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill will greatly 
improve our Nation's water infrastructure, robustly fund vital energy 
research and help protect our Nation from the threat of nuclear 
terrorism. The bottom line is that it will create jobs, strengthen our 
economy and protect our Nation.
  The bill provides $5.4 billion for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
to address our Nation's vitally important water infrastructure needs. 
It moves us forward in funding the construction and maintenance of our 
Nation's ports and navigational waterways, which are crucial to our 
economy and international trade.
  H.R. 3183 also makes great strides in protecting our communities from 
natural disasters by providing $2 billion for flood protection efforts. 
Also included is $27.1 billion to fund the Department of Energy's 
efforts to decrease our reliance on foreign sources of oil and increase 
our investment in technologies that use energy more efficiently and to 
expand energy sources right here at home.
  While providing $2.2 billion for research into energy efficiency and 
renewable energy efforts such as solar, wind, biofuels and hydrogen, 
this bill also invests in conventional energy sources by providing $787 
million for

[[Page 23335]]

nuclear energy research and $672 million for fossil energy research.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no more important mission for our country, for 
this Congress, than preventing nuclear weapons from falling into the 
hands of terrorists, and this bill provides $2.1 billion for our 
Nation's nuclear nonproliferation efforts at home and abroad. Why? To 
keep the American family safe.
  Our Nation's communities, national economy and security are 
strengthened by this bill, which is why I urge all of my colleagues, 
Republicans and Democrats alike, to support it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of our committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference report that we are considering today 
addresses a number of issues affecting the energy and water 
infrastructure of our country. However, when it comes to the ongoing 
water crisis in California, the conference report comes up short.
  The ongoing water crisis in California has exacerbated the economic 
downturn up and down my State. Statewide, the unemployment rate has 
risen to more than 12 percent. In the Central Valley, regional 
unemployment has now reached 20 percent, with some communities' 
unemployment now over 40 percent. California's water crisis is the 
result of severe drought conditions on top of the federally imposed 
pumping restrictions that have been placed on our State's critical 
water infrastructure.
  While the conference report does provide some funding for a number of 
California's mid- and long-term water resource management projects, 
many of the projects are years away from completion and will not 
provide any assistance to Californians that are suffering today. Many 
of the most affected communities have made it clear they are not 
looking for a handout. They want their water and their jobs back.
  During the markup of this bill in the Appropriations Committee, I 
offered an amendment to do exactly that, by ending the federally 
imposed pumping restrictions. Sadly, most of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle rejected my amendment and voted to protect a 3-inch 
fish instead of protecting jobs and the people of California. Similar 
efforts by my colleague, Mr. Nunes, have been rebuffed by the 
Democratic majority.
  The fact remains that the flaws and shortcomings of the Endangered 
Species Act have tied the hands of judges and water resource planners, 
creating a manmade drought that is killing jobs, destroying livelihoods 
and hurting families in California.
  I realize this issue should be addressed by the authorizing 
committee, but if the Democratic leadership will not force the 
committee of jurisdiction to act, the members of the minority have no 
other option. If this Congress and this administration fail to take the 
bold steps necessary to address this crisis in the near future, the 
people of California will know exactly who is responsible for their 
mounting job losses and economic suffering.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, when we were doing this bill, and 
in fact, when this bill was on the floor, we assisted, to the best of 
our ability, in terms of providing authorization and also money, and in 
some cases we waived matching restrictions so that we would have both 
the authority and the financial resources to deal with the problem.
  What the previous speaker had asked us to do was to waive the 
environmental impact statements that were required, and we did not have 
the ability to do it, and the authorizing committee would not allow us 
to do it. So we did not have that ability to do it. But we did try, and 
it was kept in the conference to provide the authorization and the 
financial resources to continue to, in the short term, deal with the 
water shortages in central California.
  At this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend and a 
member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. SALAZAR. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for 
their wonderful leadership on this subcommittee.
  I rise today to support what I consider to be my best legislative 
accomplishment since I came to Congress in 2004, but let me first say 
how important the investments that we are making in this bill are.
  The nearly $2.5 billion for renewable energies will play a vital role 
in reducing carbon emissions, creating jobs, and producing clean 
energy. I especially want to point out the $225 million included for 
solar energy. The Third Congressional District of Colorado already has 
some of the largest solar farms in the world, and my constituents are 
already recognizing the very benefits of the solar industry.
  The $1.13 billion included for the Department of the Interior and the 
Bureau of Reclamation are so vitally important to the Western United 
States. As other speakers have mentioned, water continues to be a 
damper to the livelihood of many Westerners, and this investment in our 
Nation's water infrastructure from dams, canals, treatment plants, and 
rural water projects is extremely important to our rural citizens as 
they face crisis after crisis, from Colorado all the way to California.
  This bill included several desperately needed dollars for rural water 
projects in Colorado. The $1.75 million for the Jackson Gulch 
Rehabilitation Project in Mancos, Colorado, and the $600,000 for the 
Platoro Reservoir in the San Luis Valley will help provide major 
assistance to improving these rural water districts.
  Lastly, and most importantly, I want to thank the chairman and 
ranking member and all the staff of the subcommittee for taking a step 
that has not been taken for 50 years.
  The roots of the Arkansas Valley Conduit stretch back to 1962, when 
President Kennedy signed the authorization by Congress, which was part 
of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, which included the construction of 
Lake Pueblo. The Federal project was the end result of years of work by 
Pueblo and southern Colorado leaders who wanted to make better use of 
the region's water.
  ``This is the best news I've heard in a long time,'' said Bob 
Rawlings, publisher of the Pueblo Chieftain and an avid fighter for 
water rights in Colorado.
  I am happy to say to the people of southeastern Colorado you will no 
longer have to wait for clean drinking water. Clean drinking water is 
on the way.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Rooney).
  Mr. ROONEY. I rise today in support of the Energy and Water 
appropriations bill. This bill contains support for various projects 
within my district that will help with the continued restoration and 
preservation of the south Florida ecosystem.
  I'm pleased with the funding for the continued restoration of the 
Hoover Dike. This earthen dike is currently undergoing a massive 
rehabilitation project that will continue to ensure the health and 
human safety of Pahokee, South Bay, Okeechobee, Belle Glade, Clewiston, 
Moore Haven, and the surrounding communities.
  However, while I'm grateful to the committee for its support of these 
projects, I must express my great disappointment with the Senate for 
stripping out most of the vital construction funding for the Indian 
River Lagoon. This project was originally authorized in the 2007 Water 
Resources Development Act as a component of the Comprehensive 
Everglades Restoration Plan.
  While some in the upper body argued that the Indian River Lagoon was 
a new project and a ``new start'' and therefore not deserving of 
funding, I argue it's not a new start, as it is a component of the 
overall ongoing Everglades Restoration project. By cutting the majority 
of its vital funding, we are only kicking the can further down the road 
for not getting this vital project started.
  It's time for the Federal Government to live up to its financial 
commitment

[[Page 23336]]

to this project. My only hope now is that the lagoon will receive 
funds, however minimal, and our colleagues in the Senate will now agree 
that this is not a new start and therefore deserves to be fully funded 
next year.
  Every year that goes by, however, without adequate funding, further 
damage is done to our fragile ecosystem there in the Indian River 
Lagoon, making recovery that much harder.
  I'd like to thank my fellow Florida colleagues, especially 
Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, for their tireless work and support 
for these projects, and the House committee for including funding in 
the original House bill. I look forward to continuing the good work 
that we have started.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. In response to the comment from my friend from 
Florida, all new starts in this bill--and there were a few, and the 
Everglades got two. We have the number of 100,000, but that was to 
signify that a new start is available for this project. By designating 
the new start for the Everglades, that means that recovery money can be 
used now for the purpose that you spoke about.
  Secondly, the Corps will now be able to reprogram moneys that now you 
designated as a new start, can reprogram moneys to continue the efforts 
on this lagoon.
  And so we thought that the new start was not a cutback in money but 
was a vehicle that would make more money available so that the 
Everglades program could go forward. That's how we attempted to solve 
this problem. Hopefully, that will be the result.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to stand today in support of the 
fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water appropriations conference report. I'd 
like to thank Chairman Pastor and Ranking Member Frelinghuysen for 
their great work on this legislation, and I praise them for their 
cooperation and bipartisanship. Because of their work and the excellent 
work of our subcommittee staff, we have before us a comprehensive, 
fair, and targeted bill that makes significant investments in our 
country's future and in the goal of achieving energy independence. They 
have been able to do this with only a slight increase of $200 million 
over last year's funding level; yet these investments will build on the 
success of the American Recovery and Investment and Recovery Act in 
developing a clean-energy economy and creating more American jobs.
  I'm particularly grateful that this bill increases by more than 10 
percent the funding for the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy Program. This program, funded at $2.2 billion, 
invests in producing cleaner and more efficient energy technologies to 
produce inexpensive energy from domestic sources.
  Included are $225 million for research to harness the vast amount of 
solar energy reaching the Earth every day, $311 million to improve 
vehicle and battery technology, and $200 million for research into 
improving energy efficiency in commercial and residential buildings, 
which currently consume about 40 percent of our Nation's total energy 
usage.
  As a scientist, I'm pleased to see $4.9 billion for the Office of 
Science's basic and applied science research program. Such investments 
are critical to maintaining America's place as a leader in the world 
economy.
  Additionally, this legislation supports President Obama's historic 
commitment to nuclear nonproliferation by providing $2.1 billion for 
securing vulnerable nuclear material. This will protect Americans from 
the risk of nuclear material falling into terrorist hands by securing 
stockpiles in the former Soviet Union. The money will also improve our 
ability to stop nuclear and radiological materials from being smuggled 
into the U.S.
  Again, I strongly support this bipartisan legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on final passage.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. There 
was language in this bill that was stripped in the conference report 
that would have directed the Corps of Engineers to pursue a much safer 
level of flood protection for the New Orleans region.
  Our entire delegation, Republicans and Democrats, were unanimous in 
support of the language that was in the bill, and the conference report 
stripped out that language, which would have directed the Corps to 
pursue a much safer option than the one they're currently pursuing.
  If we have learned anything from the lessons of Katrina, it's that 
the Federal levees that failed us before cannot be rebuilt the same way 
they were the last time that they failed. There's too much taxpayer 
money that's been put at stake for us to get this wrong. And so we much 
more support the option that would have actually made sure that the 
Corps gets it right for all the money that's being spent as opposed to 
the route that they're choosing right now.
  Option 2a, which was the language that we would have directed the 
Corps to pursue, is known as Pump to the River. According to the 
Corps's own report, Pump to the River, this option 2a that's being 
thrown out by this report, is more technically advantageous than the 
one they're pursuing. It's more operationally effective than the one 
the Corps is pursuing. It provides greater reliability, and, most 
importantly, it further reduces the risk of flooding.
  That's the option that our entire State delegation, that our 
Governor's office, that all the people back home--the city of New 
Orleans, the parish of Jefferson--fully support; an option that reduces 
the risk of flooding. That's what we should all support after what we 
saw happen during Hurricane Katrina; yet that language that we had 
unanimous support from our delegation that was in the bill is now being 
stripped out by this conference report.
  We need to learn from the lessons of Katrina. And it's time this 
administration stopped paying lip service to our flood protection needs 
and actually put its money where its mouth is and do the right thing as 
opposed to making the same mistakes that were made in the past.
  We cannot afford to let them go forward with building an option that, 
by their own admission, is much less reliable in protecting the people 
of New Orleans for future flooding, so I rise in opposition.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, in response, I have to tell you 
that the conferees on the House side, the House managers, were united 
on this front, as well as the chairman of the other body's committee. 
We felt that the alternative that was desired did not provide 
additional protection and it would have delayed the permanent 
protection of New Orleans by anywhere from 18 to 36 months, which we 
thought was too long of a period of time to keep New Orleans 
unprotected. The cost, we believe, would have been $3 to $4 billion 
more.
  And so for that reason, we felt that, in fairness, that we should 
continue with the program that the Corps has for New Orleans.
  At this time, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member 
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. I thank the gentleman from Arizona, and I certainly thank 
him for his leadership in getting this bill to this point. I appreciate 
the ranking member and the good work that they have both done in a very 
fair and nonpartisan way to serve this country, and also the staff of 
the Energy and Water Subcommittee and what a magnificent job they have 
done.
  This is a very special bill to the First Congressional District of 
Arkansas. It makes continued investment in our flood protection ability 
in the operations and maintenance of our flood protection system. It 
adds money for construction where construction is

[[Page 23337]]

needed, for investigations where investigations are needed and more 
study needs to be done.
  The Department of Energy has moved forward with the appropriations in 
this bill. We tried to do what we can to improve the solar energy 
research, the biofuels research, vehicle technology research, hydrogen 
technology, energy-efficient buildings, industrial technologies, and 
weatherization grants. All of these things are an investment in the 
future of this country and our ability to reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil. And that's what the committee had in mind. I think our 
leadership has done a great job with all these things.
  We also make a serious investment in electricity delivery and 
reliability. In the area of the science and the basic sciences, we have 
made another serious investment.
  I think that this is the kind of thing that the Appropriations 
Committee was created for--to make these decisions, make the necessary 
investments in the future of this country, and continue to build our 
infrastructure, protect our people, and provide the opportunity for us 
to be successful.
  I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today 
unfortunately in opposition to this conference report. I want to point 
out to this body that something has been added in the original version 
from the other body that injects itself into something that I don't 
think the House wants to be involved in, and that is the water wars 
between Alabama, Florida and Georgia. Unfortunately, there is language 
here that directs the Corps of Engineers to calculate critical yields 
on the two major basins that flow through my State of Georgia and, in 
particular, involve the basins themselves and the reservoirs, the 
largest of which is Lake Lanier.
  Now I do not think that the gentleman who is handling this bill or 
the Republican gentleman who is handling this bill has any intention of 
having this inject itself into a controversy that has been going on for 
decades in the Federal courts and is still currently under appeal as a 
result of the latest decision. Now the effect of this is one of two 
things: since it directs the Corps of Engineers to within 120 days to 
calculate critical yields of the two major river basins, it will either 
be used for purposes of the ongoing litigation or it will be used as an 
argument for why human consumption should not be considered in the 
resolution of this issue between the three States, or among the three 
States.
  Now to spend Corps dollars calculating something that does not take 
into account the right of people to drink the water that is in their 
State is unrealistic, and it is a true waste of Federal money. I find 
it quite ironic that the gentleman who injected this language into this 
bill just a couple of years ago was injecting language that directed 
the Corps not to do these kinds of studies. Isn't it ironic how all of 
a sudden the positions have flip-flopped? Now if you do not think that 
this is an issue that involves the so-called water wars, I would invite 
you to look at the press release for the gentleman who is claiming 
credit for injecting this in it, and it's referred to as the Water Wars 
amendment.
  Now I would hope that this body would not see fit to get involved in 
a fight that is going to be resolved, hopefully, by agreement of the 
Governors of the three States. My Governor has initiated an effort to 
try to resume those negotiations, and we have had a response from at 
least the State of Alabama. We are hopeful that the State of Florida 
will respond accordingly. Ultimately, I think this issue will be 
resolved by the Governors reaching a conclusion and then bringing that 
conclusion to this body and to the other body and asking for us to 
incorporate it into the laws of this country.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, in reference to Mr. Deal, it's 
our understanding that that is right, the language in this conference 
requires two studies to determine the critical yield of the Federal 
projects. But we don't know, first of all, what the outcomes are going 
to be, so that's why we're having these studies. We don't want to get 
into the water wars, and we don't think that the consumption issue is 
an issue that will be part of the studies. Well, the language is report 
language, and this administration could do what it wants with the Corps 
of Engineers.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I come down to concur with my 
colleague Mr. Deal from Georgia. The water situation in our State of 
Georgia is dire. It's a very delicate situation. We are working towards 
a very, very good response for the people of Georgia and for our entire 
region. We've just had the court ruling. It's very sensitive there. Our 
major concern--and again, this is with great respect to the chairman. 
He just spoke and we concur with that as well. But we need to be very 
careful that there is no language in the reporting language or in any 
of the studies that removes the words ``for human consumption'' for 
water. Because if the manuals are not constructed with the measurements 
by using water that is used for human consumption, that shoots right 
into our bull's-eye because that's why in metro Atlanta, in the Lake 
Lanier area where the point of the discussion is, we use that water for 
human consumption. So we're very sensitive to anything that would 
disallow that. We are working with the Governors of both Florida and 
Alabama, jointly with our Governor of Georgia, to come to a conclusion. 
As you all may or may not know, the judge, when he ruled in his 
decision, declared that it would be here in Congress that we would have 
to at some point reauthorize the water use of Lake Lanier and that 
region for human consumption. So this language would make it very 
difficult for us. We certainly want to concur with that. I concur with 
Mr. Deal and the folks in Georgia, and I would respectfully hope that 
our words would be taken within the spirit of understanding that we are 
to deliver those words. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to stand 
with my colleagues about this language that was put in the conference 
committee report, and I am looking at the press release now: 
``Conference Committee Adopts Shelby Water Wars Amendment.'' I just 
want to give a little warning to some other Members of this because, 
not only would the judges' ruling about the Tallapoosa Basin and the 
Chattahoochee Basin--it also mentioned that because this drinking water 
was nonauthorized, and who would ever have thought we would have to 
authorize the ability for humans to have drinking water out of their 
water source, it also is going to affect 17 other States with 
approximately 42 Corps impoundments in their States.
  If they do not believe that this will be used as a test case and a 
model for others to file suit with the Endangered Species Act or 
whatever for people taking unauthorized drinking water out of those 
water sources, they are very much confused. This bill needs to be 
defeated. This conference report needs to be defeated. We need to go 
back to conference. We need to get this language out. I hope that other 
Members in this body who have these impoundments located in their 
States understand the consequences this language could have for them if 
this conference committee report is passed in this body and goes to the 
President's desk for signing. Because if you don't believe this isn't 
going to be brought up in some of these court cases, you're just 
fooling yourself. So I would like to ask the other Members of this body 
to join me and my colleagues in voting against the conference report.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify that the 
Corps was wanting to do these studies, and defeating this conference 
report is not going to stop the Corps from doing

[[Page 23338]]

these studies. I have committed to the gentleman from Georgia that we 
will work with him because we don't believe that the consumption of 
water by the residents of Atlanta or Georgia should play a role, and it 
should be a factor in these studies.
  I now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. I would like to also thank 
the ranking member. This is a good conference report. This is a good 
piece of legislation. I think there are some sound investments in here. 
I wish some were more, but I think given the stimulus and everything, 
we are moving in the right direction. We send about $750 billion a year 
to oil-producing countries. A couple of years ago the Department of 
Defense spent about $115 billion escorting big oil ships in and out of 
the Persian Gulf. We have got to get away from our dependency on 
foreign oil. We have got to get away from our dependency on these 
foreign countries that get us into all of these political 
entanglements.
  I think the investments that are made here on solar energy ($225 
million), biofuels, vehicle technology, hydrogen technology, energy-
efficient buildings--for those of us who represent manufacturing States 
in the Midwest, this green economy is opportunity for us. We have 
manufacturing. We have great research and development institutions. 
This is an opportunity for us to revive the middle class in the United 
States of America through these green jobs. There was a report that was 
just done for the Midwest Governors meeting that is coming up, and it 
says, ``Regional Report Endorses Clean-Energy Economy for the 
Midwest.''
  ``Midwestern States should use their abundant natural resources and 
manufacturing base to build an economy based on clean energy.'' And we 
have the opportunity to do that if we continue investing in research 
and development, especially coal.
  There is one last point that I would like to mention. I hope that 
next year we can continue to push these energy hubs. Secretary Chu has 
made this a top priority. They're modeled after the old Bell 
Laboratories. A variety of different universities are going to be 
involved in the research. They're going to be able to collaborate and 
focus on the technologies that are working, not focusing on just 
getting money so you can have a budget for next year. So I hope as we 
continue to move, we continue to push, these energy hubs are going to 
be nothing but opportunity for us to get into the commercialization and 
continue to create jobs.
  Again, this is a good piece of legislation. I want to thank the 
chairman. I would also like to thank the staff. I know a lot of work 
went into it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. First of all, I would like to thank the chairman, the 
ranking member and the professional staff of the committee. A wonderful 
job has been done, I think, dealing with and grappling with the whole 
set of issues. But in this $33.5 billion conference report, there are 
some very significant investments and priorities, $2.2 billion in 
energy efficiency and renewable energy, everything from solar to 
biofuels and hydrogen, weatherization grants. We are very, very pleased 
that they were able to produce that as part of this conference report.
  But I also want to say that on the nuclear side, a continuing 
investment by the committee, some $787 million on a whole range of very 
important efforts related to nuclear energy so they can be safe and 
environmentally useful to us to continue to expand, both through the 
loan guarantee program but also through a number of other investments 
that are being made in the conference report. And to deal with the 
President's commitment on nuclear nonproliferation, on the weapons 
side, a $2.1 billion investment.
  I think that Congressman Pastor, who has led this effort, and the 
staff have done a great job. We had a good process in negotiations with 
the Senate in our conference committee, which wrapped up yesterday. I 
encourage the House to favorably report this. I thank my good friend 
from New Jersey, who has served as the ranking Member and who has done 
an extraordinary job. This has been a bipartisan effort and is a 
bipartisan work product that I think moves the country's priorities 
forward in terms of energy and energy efficiency. I recommend it to the 
House.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Energy and 
Water conference report. By now I suspect all of the Members of the 
House understand the drought crisis affecting California, particularly 
in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley, a large part of my district. If 
this drought continues a fourth, fifth year, it could impact the entire 
State of California.
  Among many of the items in this conference report are two amendments 
that Congressman Cardoza and I have been fighting hard for on behalf of 
our farmers, farmworkers and farm communities who are at ground zero as 
it relates to this drought crisis. Communities are having 30 and 40 
percent unemployment, the most difficult situation they've ever faced. 
In July, we offered an amendment to bring drought relief to the San 
Joaquin Valley by providing funding for two projects. The 2-Gates 
project and the Intertie project, both of these projects were on the 
back burner for years. They should have been already implemented. This 
administration is moving forward to put these into construction next 
year.
  The second amendment addresses impediments to transfers. Transfers 
are critical during drought conditions, both regulatory and that by 
Mother Nature. This gives the Bureau of Reclamation the flexibility 
needed to facilitate, and much more needs to be done.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
has expired.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds 
to the gentleman.
  Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. This gives the 
flexibility for the Bureau of Reclamation to facilitate these water 
transfers. This year, we transferred over 6,000-acre-feet of water that 
was a critical lifeline. Much more needs to be done. I urge my 
colleagues to support these two amendments in this conference report. I 
thank the gentleman from Arizona for his support in these efforts.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am prepared to yield back the balance of my 
time, Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, Tom Bevill used to describe this 
bill as the ``all-American bill'' because it meets the needs of 
America. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the FY 10 Energy 
and Water Appropriations Conference Report, and I commend Chairman 
Pastor and Ranking Member Frelinghuysen for bringing this bipartisan 
legislation to the floor today.
  The FY 10 Energy and Water Appropriations bill makes key investments 
that will drive American innovation, enhance our energy security, clean 
up our environment, reduce the threat of nuclear weapons and support 
our water infrastructure.
  The conference report provides $4.9 billion to the Department of 
Energy's Office of Science, $1.6 billion for basic energy sciences and 
$2.4 billion for applied research. These funding levels, when added to 
last year's appropriations and this year's stimulus bill, exceed the 
goals of the America COMPETES Act and meaningfully advance our Nation's 
innovation agenda.
  The $2.2 billion allocated to energy efficiency and renewable energy 
represents a 16 percent year over year increase and, in conjunction 
with continued Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee authority, 
will strengthen our energy security by accelerating our research, 
development and deployment of homegrown solar, biofuel, smart grid, and 
advanced vehicle technologies.
  This legislation continues the Nation's half century commitment to 
mitigating the environmental impacts of contaminated military and

[[Page 23339]]

civilian nuclear sites by spending $6.419 billion for that purpose, and 
it provides $9.072 billion to confront the global nuclear threat, 
including $2.1 billion in support of President Obama's nuclear 
nonproliferation initiative.
  Finally, the FY 10 Energy and Water bill designates $6.7 billion for 
the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation for priority 
water infrastructure, flood protection, and conservation projects. In 
that regard, I am particularly pleased with the inclusion of over $3 
million for specific Chesapeake Bay restoration initiatives of 
particular importance to my congressional district and the rest of the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the FY 2010 Energy and 
Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. I would like 
to point out two provisions of the report that help to address the 
water supply crisis in California's San Joaquin Valley.
  California is experiencing its third consecutive year of dry 
conditions. Our State's water supply outlook is further exacerbated by 
the ``regulatory drought'' that has resulted from agency regulatory 
actions. The Endangered Species Act in particular has proven to be a 
regulatory hammer, preventing water conveyance, transfers, and storage, 
even when water supplies have been plentiful. The Departments of the 
Interior and Commerce developed new Biological Opinions to protect 
Delta smelt and salmonid species, respectively. These decisions have 
resulted in significant restrictions on pumping water out of the Delta. 
These cuts were in addition to the many previous cuts that had already 
been imposed, including the Bay Delta Accord, the Central Valley 
Project Improvement Act and other actions.
  The combination of the drought and the regulatory drought has 
resulted in dangerously low reservoirs and a 10 percent water 
allocation to farmers on California's westside. Over 400,000 acres of 
some of the world's most productive farmland have been fallowed, 
resulting in devastating job losses and high unemployment--as much as 
40 percent in some cities on the westside.
  It is crucial that the State of California and the Federal Government 
build new storage facilities and that we develop a better conveyance 
and water management system. In the meantime, it is important for the 
Departments to development programs that allow for flexibility as a 
means of achieving greater water supply. There are two provisions that 
Mr. Costa and I added to the House Energy and Water Appropriations bill 
that do just that.
  First, the $40 million in CALFED funding provides the Bureau of 
Reclamation with the flexibility to use these funds to help fund 
crucial projects, such as the Two Gates Project and the Intertie 
Project, which will help relieve some of the pressure on the water 
supply in the San Joaquin Valley of California. More funding is needed 
for these two projects as well as others, and this report provides a 
good start on a downpayment toward these projects and others that will 
help the Bureau, the State Department of Water Resources and our water 
district to move and transfer water in California to the people and 
farms that need it the most.
  Second, I support the clarification of the Central Valley Project 
Improvement Act of 1992, which clarifies that additional restrictions 
under the CVPIA on water transfers within certain areas of the Central 
Valley Project South of Delta are not required. Several years ago, the 
Bureau of Reclamation changed its interpretation of this statute, and 
began applying additional and cumbersome requirements to water 
transfers within the CVP unless they were within the same county. These 
restrictions on water transfers have prevented the transfer of water 
from one area to another and have created an impediment to efficient 
and practical water use. This amendment would clarify that water 
transfers between Friant and South of Delta agricultural service 
contractors can occur beyond county boundaries so that water districts 
within one county can transfer to districts outside the county.
  Unfortunately, the House version of the Energy and Water Bill which 
provided for permanent clarification in the law was not included in 
this report. Instead, this language clarifying the water transfer 
provision is limited to a 2-year period. Senator Feinstein, Mr. Costa 
and I will be introducing a bill to make this transfer amendment 
permanent, and we look forward to bringing something to the floor in a 
short period of time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on 
the Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act. Programs funded under this legislation range from 
nuclear weapons and nonproliferation capabilities to basic research on 
current and next generation energy sources and distribution 
technologies. I am pleased that the conference agreement before us 
today reflects a strong commitment to our nation's needs in these 
areas.
  I believe that nuclear proliferation is the single greatest threat to 
global peace and security. The United States should be leading efforts 
to eliminate nuclear weapons and secure loose or inadequately 
safeguarded nuclear material. That is why I am very pleased that the 
conference agreement increases our investment in nonproliferation 
programs to $2.1 billion, including a 43 percent increase in funding 
for International Nuclear Material Protection and Cooperation. These 
funds will improve our ability to stop illicit nuclear trafficking and 
prevent terrorists from gaining access to unsecured nuclear material 
around the world. Equally important is the fact this agreement exceeds 
the budget request for weapons dismantlement and disposition, 
reflecting a dedication to reduced U.S. nuclear weapon stockpiles.
  The conference agreement also maintains significant investments in 
Department of Energy research and development programs that are 
critical to placing our nation on a path toward a sustainable energy 
future. The support for energy efficiency and renewable energy research 
in this legislation will help us develop new, less expensive ways to 
produce and use energy. Funding for electricity delivery and 
reliability will allow us to begin modernizing and securing our aging 
electrical grid against internal and external threats. The $4.9 billion 
in funding for the Office of Science will support the basic research 
that will be the foundation of tomorrow's transformative discoveries 
and innovations. I appreciate the $426 million investment for fusion 
energy sciences included in the conference agreement, and I hope we 
will continue to strengthen this and other basic and applied energy 
programs in the coming years.
  Finally, I applaud the conference agreement for upholding the funding 
goals of the America COMPETES Act--an important step toward restoring 
the rightful place of science in our nation. Yet we should not 
underestimate the size or scope of the challenges posed by climate 
change and energy security. As we consider future legislation, the twin 
goals of a clean energy future and a robust economy will require a firm 
dedication to providing our scientists and engineers the resources they 
need to initiate genuinely transformative changes in our energy sector.
  Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I wish to address briefly 
the language of Section 401 of the conference report, which requires 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to provide a report on barriers 
to the issuance of a combined construction and operating licenses 
(COLs).
  As the Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the 
House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the 
NRC, I want to ensure that the Commission, in responding to Section 
401, remains cognizant of its responsibilities to comply with the 
substantive and procedural requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and NRC regulations in the 
issuing of COLs to new nuclear power plants. These laws cannot be 
overridden or even challenged by a reporting requirement appended to an 
annual appropriations bill.
  The NRC should, of course, review COL applications in an efficient 
fashion, without undue or unwarranted delays. However, speed of action 
is not the only policy interest that the Congress has with respect to 
licensing. Public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the 
licensing process requires the Commission to ensure that licensees 
comply with the substantive safety requirements of the law and of NRC 
regulations. The Commission must therefore assure that it does not 
sacrifice crucial safety evaluations, public input or adequate 
environmental review as part of any effort to streamline or accelerate 
its regulatory functions.
  Under Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC is directed, 
after holding a public hearing, to ``issue to the applicant a combined 
construction and operating license if the application contains 
sufficient information to support the issuance of a combined license 
and the Commission determines that there is reasonable assurance that 
the facility will be constructed and will operate in conformity with 
the license, the provisions of this Act, and the Commission's rules and 
regulations.''
  The Act further stipulates that in conducting its licensing 
activities, ``The Commission shall identify within the combined license 
the inspections, tests, and analyses, including those applicable to 
emergency planning, that the licensee shall perform, and the acceptance 
criteria that, if met, are necessary and sufficient to provide 
reasonable assurance that the facility has been constructed and will be 
operated in conformity with the license, the provisions of this Act, 
and the Commission's rules and regulations.''

[[Page 23340]]

  Moreover, the Act mandates that: ``Following issuance of the combined 
license, the Commission shall ensure that the prescribed inspections, 
tests, and analyses are performed and, prior to operation of the 
facility, shall find that the prescribed acceptance criteria are met.''
  In addition, NRC regulations 10 CFR Part 51 and 10 CFR Part 52 
implement the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA in regards 
to the licensing process. Under these regulations, for example, the NRC 
is required to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) as part 
of the COL application. According to the NRC website, ``the NRC staff 
estimates that the environmental review process will take approximately 
24 months. This includes scoping, issuance of the draft EIS, a comment 
period, and issuance of the final EIS.''
  While it is true that the necessary reviews take time, the NRC's 
licensing regulations were enacted to protect the public from poorly 
sited locations, untested reactor designs, and other factors that could 
lead to environmental damage, unsafe construction, or even catastrophic 
nuclear emergencies. I support an efficient and effective NRC licensing 
process as long as it does not come at the expense of the safeguards 
codified in existing law.
  In point of fact, it does not appear that the licensing process 
itself is to blame for any delays in new reactor approval. In 2007 the 
NRC established the Office of New Reactors (NRO), separate from the 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, so that the NRO can focus solely 
on the review of new reactors. Indeed, NRC Chairman, Dr. Gregory 
Jaczko, has repeatedly stated that the licensing delays are ``almost 
exclusively tied to challenges with the [reactor] designs not being 
complete,'' resulting in license applications that reference 
uncertified design plans. This bottleneck has far more to do with the 
iterative design approval process, than with potential internal NRC 
barriers such as inefficient administration or inadequate funding. 
Certainly all must agree that it is impossible for the NRC to approve a 
license application for which there is not yet an approved design!
  Finally, I would note that while Section 401 mandates report 
submission to the committees on Appropriations, the House Energy and 
Commerce Committee, which is the NRC's authorizing committee, also 
expects to receive copies of any reports submitted pursuant to this 
Section.
  I look forward to seeing the Commission's report on this matter, and 
I urge the Commission to pay careful heed to the current laws and 
regulations under which the NRC operates, so that we ensure that the 
nuclear reactor application process works properly.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 788, the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the conference report.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 308, 
nays 114, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 752]

                               YEAS--308

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Massa
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--114

     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Baird
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Roe (TN)
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Sullivan
     Tiahrt
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Adler (NJ)
     Barrett (SC)
     Capuano
     Carney
     Maloney
     McCarthy (CA)
     Neugebauer
     Pascrell
     Schmidt
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1427

  Messrs. SULLIVAN, BARROW and POE of Texas changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. TURNER and PRICE of North Carolina changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________