To reclassify fees paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund as offsetting collections, and for other purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this bill provides the 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, maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear nonproliferation. Total funding for the energy and water development in fiscal year 2005 is $27.988 billion. This funding amount represents an increase of $50 million over fiscal year 2004 and $734 million over the President's budget request. The bill is right at our subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and provides adequate funds to meet the priority needs of the House.

I believe we do some good things for the Nation in our bill. Members will not receive as many water earmarks as they might like, but we did take care of their top priorities. Instead of a steady regimen of pork, we try to put the corps back on a balanced diet. We hope that we can leave the corps civil works program in better shape than we found it, and I am confident the changes we make in this bill will have lasting positive effects. The same holds true for DOE.

Lastly, I would like to thank all of the members of this subcommittee for their cooperation and especially thank my ranking member and partner, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). It has been a pleasure working with the gentleman and his staff on this bill, Dixon Butler and Peder Maarbjerg. I want also to thank the committee staff, Kevin Cook, Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, and Tracey LaTurner, as well as Kenny Kraft on my own staff. I also want to recognize our agency detailees, Tim Winchell and Jim Spratt. Their assistance was invaluable in putting this bill and report together. I think this is a good bill. We ought to pass it expeditiously.

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to submit to the House for its consideration H.R. 4614, the 2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2005. The Appropriations Committee approved this bill unanimously on June 16th, and I believe it is a good bill that merits the support of the entire membership of the House.

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 is truly a bipartisan bill-- that is not to say we agreed on every issue, but we did agree to work together in a professional manner to resolve our differences. I am proud of the product and equally proud of the process behind this bill. I also want to thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young, and the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Obey, for allowing us to move this bill forward in an expeditious manner.

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, maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear nonproliferation. Total funding for energy and water development in fiscal year 2005 is $27.988 billion. This funding amount represents an increase of $50 million over fiscal year 2004 and $734 million over the Presidents budget request. 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 $4.833 billion for Title I activities, $252 million above the current year and $713 million above the budget request. That gives you an idea of how inadequate the budget request for the Corps really was. The Corps has been in an unhealthy situation the past couple of years because Congress has given them more work to do but not enough money to do it. This year, we were determined to correct that situation and put the Corps on the road to fiscal recovery. For a change, we have over-subscribed the Civil Works budget. We exercise restraint on the number of projects that we put on the Corps plate and we provide sufficient funds to get the work done. For the projects that we do fund in fiscal year 2005, we decided to concentrate on protecting existing water infrastructure and completing ongoing projects.

This country has invested over $300 billion in current dollars in our existing water infrastructure, and this infrastructure provides over $38 billion in annual benefits to the economy. We can't afford to ignore the maintenance of this critical infrastructure. Imagine what would happen if we have to shut down part of our inland navigation system because one of the lock structures fails--the consequences to our economy would be enormous.

Over recent years, we have created a huge backlog of work for the Corps. Existing projects take longer to complete and cost more. Let me give you just one example from my part of the country, the replacement of the McAlpine Lock on the Ohio River. Ideally, this lock replacement should take no more than 4 years to complete and should cost roughly $230 million. However, it will cost the taxpayer an additional 10 percent for every year of additional delay on this project. We have to reverse that trend and finish what we started, and finish projects in a timely and cost-effective manner. We do not include any new project studies, new construction starts, or new project authorizations in our bill.

We task the Corps to begin preparing 5-year budget plans, similar to what the Department of Defense prepares in its Future Years Defense Plans. This should provide some consistency and stability if Congress has a clear picture of the future Civil Works program. Also, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is now funded in our Energy and Water bill rather than in Defense appropriations.

Title II of our bill provides $1.1 billion for the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of $36 million above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and $46 million over the budget request. The Committee does not provide funding for the California Bay-Delta Restoration program in California pending the enactment of authorizing legislation, but includes funding for several authorized components of this program.

The Department of Energy receives a total of $22.48 billion in our bill, an increase of $511 million over fiscal year 2004. 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 funds the Yucca Mountain repository at the Administration's net budget request of $131 million, and does not include the proposed authorization language to reclassify the fees paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund. As I have mentioned many times, OMB played Russian roulette when they assumed the House and Senate would pass the proposed reclassification language. By assuming the offset of $749 million, OMB reduced the total request for discretionary spending by that amount. The House Budget Resolution reduced it even more. I don't like going forward with so little money for Yucca Mountain, but we are playing the hand that we were dealt. I remain supportive of the proposed reclassification language, and hope the efforts of the Energy and Commerce Committee to enact such legislation will be successful.

For the Energy Supply account, which funds the Department's research on renewable energy, nuclear energy, and electricity transmission and distribution technologies, the Committee provides $817 million, an increase of $84 million over the current year by $18 million below the request. The Committee provides a modest increase of $51 million for the Office of Nuclear Energy, with a focus on improving the infrastructure at the Idaho National Laboratory. We reduced the funding for hydrogen research by $31 million below the request because the Department failed to comply with House and conference guidance regarding competition and cost sharing of hydrogen research.

The Committee provides an increase of $168 million for the Office of Science to support research on an advanced leadership-class scientific computer and nanoscale science, and to increase the availability DOE user facilities to the scientific community.

Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), is $9 billion, an increase of $372 million over fiscal year 2004 and a decrease of $22 million from the budget request. The Congress just received a plan that finally shows major reductions in our nuclear weapons stockpile. However, much of the DOE weapons complex is still sized to support a Cold War stockpile. The NNSA needs to take a ``time- out'' on new initiatives until it completes a review of its weapons complex in relation to security needs, budget constraints, and this new stockpile plan.

The Committee provides no funds for advanced concepts research, the robust nuclear earth penetrator study, the modern pit facility, and enhanced test readiness. Our bill does provide significant increases for weapons dismantlement, for consolidation of weapons-grade materials, and for security upgrades at several sites in the weapons complex. The Committee fully funds the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and directs the National Nuclear Security Administration to complete NIF by 2008 and conduct all necessary experimental work to support first ignition in 2010.

For nuclear nonproliferation, the Committee provides the request of $1.35 billion. We reduce funding for the domestic MOX plant and spend the resources on other high-priority non-proliferation needs.

The Committee provides the requested amount of $943 million for non- defense environmental management, the same as the budget request. For defense environmental management activities, the Committee provides $6.9 billion, $301 million more than fiscal year 2004 and $65 million less than the budget request. The Committee does not provide the full request of $350 million for the Administration's high-level waste proposal for Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, and reduces the request by $77 million for two specific projects at the Savannah River Site. The Committee does not support partial solutions to the Waste Incidental to Reprocessing problem that do not address all of the affected States.

Across the entire Department of Energy, the Committee fully funds the request of $1.4 billion for safeguards and security to protect sensitive materials, facilities, and information, and provide additional funds to address selected high-risk areas.

Title IV of our bill provides $202 million for several Independent Agencies. The bill includes the requested funding for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, the Delta Regional Authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its Inspector General, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Reduced funding is provided for the Appalachian Regional Commission, and no funding for the Denali Commission or the Office of Inspector General for the Tennessee Valley Authority.

I believe we do some good things for the Nation in our bill. Members won't receive as many water earmarks as they might like, but we did take care of their top priorities. Instead of a steady regimen of pork, we try to put the Corps back on a balanced diet. We hope that we can leave the Corps Civil Works program in better shape than we found it, and I am confident the changes we make in this bill will have lasting positive effects. The same holds true for DOE.

Lastly, I would like to thank all of the Members of this Subcommittee for their cooperation, and especially thank my Ranking Member, Pete Visclosky. Pete, it has been a pleasure working with you and your minority staff, Dixon Butler and Peder Maarbjerg. I want to thank the Committee staff--Kevin Cook, Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, and Tracey LaTurner, as well as Kenny Kraft on my own staff. I also want to recognize our agency detailees, Tim Winchell and Jim Spratt. Their assistance was invaluable in putting this bill and report together.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JN04.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JN04.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JN04.003

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's statement. I want to assure him that I will work with him to insert acceptable language into the Statement of Managers to accompany the conference report to encourage the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to address the recommendations found in the May 2004 General Accounting Office report.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. The committee wrestled with the need to balance existing commitments of the Corps of Engineers with new projects such as the Wabash River study in Tippecanoe County. Unfortunately, we were not able to satisfy both demands.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I do share the concerns of my colleague from Illinois. That is why I commit to her and the rest of our Great Lakes colleagues that I will work in conference, I am sure with my ranking member, to see that the Corps receives the funding and authority it needs to complete work on these barriers and have them up and running as soon as possible. I agree we need a permanent redundant protection against the spread of aquatic invasive species between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basins and the Federal Government should be responsible for the long-term operation and maintenance of this project of national and international significance.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the vice chairman of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, yes.

Mr. Chairman, I will agree to work with the gentleman on this as the bill goes to conference, but I want to remind him, though I am sure this study deserves to proceed, the fact is that not all deserving new studies can go forward at the same time.

It is one of the basic cornerstones of this bill that we tried to limit projects and studies until we finished some of the things we have already started. There has been a lot of criticism of the Corps that it does not get things done and costs get out of line. What we have tried to do is limit the new starts.

But I want to assure the gentleman that should the door open and new studies in conference are available, we will take another look at the merits of the Boulder Creek study.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) such time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I share my colleague's concern about the lead in parts of the D.C. water system. However, I have to point out that such work is really not in the Corps of Engineers bailiwick. They are not authorized and we do not include any new water project authorization in our bill at this time.

I should also note that the Corps is probably not the best agency to conduct this kind of work. The Corps' role in the water system for the District of Columbia is limited to operating the water treatment plant. The Corps currently has no responsibility after the water leaves the plant for the water distribution and supply lines are a district responsibility and not that of the Corps.

Therefore, regrettably, I mean this sincerely, I do not have any way to really take care of this right now. This is a problem that the District has. At some point we ought to find a solution to help the District solve this problem. I just do not have the tools at this time to do that. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through title II be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 24 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to oppose the amendment to increase funding for the renewable energy program. Everything we did in the major renewable accounts, with the exception of the hydrogen program, which were reduced because the Department ignored congressional guidance on competition and cost sharing, is at or above the President's budget request.

While I am supportive of the renewable energy programs, there are many other areas of the bill I would have included additional funds, if possible. However, the committee's allocation was tight and we had to make some tough decisions. I believe we wrote a fair and balanced bill, and the renewable energy programs did very well.

I might point out that I have already taken a hard line in our committee with the nuclear weapons computer programs, and additional major reductions, I do not think, are helpful or necessary at this time. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the remainder of the bill through page 42, line 6 be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would just ask for approval of the amendment. This restores the language for one year in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

Madam Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I would just like to state that I appreciate the amendment offered by my colleague from Colorado. I happen to agree with the gentleman about this agency. I think it is one of the biggest pork- barrel projects we have here. When I was on the Committee on the Budget with John Kasich, we tried to do away with this.

However, there are a lot of people that like to give their Governors the ability to do these pork-barrel projects; and, therefore, I do not think this amendment will pass, even though I would probably vote for it. So I appreciate the gentleman withdrawing his amendment.

Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her support and her inquiry.

I would assure her that nothing in the bill or the report would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from returning funds to donor projects. In fact, as the gentlewoman has observed, the bill report includes language that specifically instructs the corps to be as diligent in returning funds as it has been in reprogramming them. Again, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her inquiry and hope this clarification has worked to address her concerns.

The ranking member and I have undertaken a very strong look at the reprogrammings in the Corps of Engineers, much more so than in past years, and we are making them report to us, and we are signing off on them, and we are watching these much more diligently than we had been in the past, and we think it will work out much better in the future.

Madam Chairman, I agree.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 10 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have been very generous to a lot of the accounts in here. Some of the accounts we have taken money away from that are being stripped out here. I would oppose this amendment. Nonproliferation is very important. Over the years we have continued to fund nonproliferation, even sometimes when the accounts were carried very high. I think this amendment is not meritorious at this time; and, therefore, I oppose the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).

Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), and I thank the chairman.

I find it interesting to come to the floor today virtually 3 years on to discuss the issue of energy in California. Frankly, I have spent my entire chairmanship on the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs dealing with energy issues, in particular the California issue.

We have heard a lot of talk about certain companies manipulating market behavior, and the transcripts clearly indicate that that is the case. The question that we ought to ask is what were the precursor conditions that led to that. I think that is a fair question. I mean, instead of treating the symptoms, let us treat the root cause of the issue; and the fact of the matter is that for all the complaints that might be registered against the current administration, the same requests being registered with them were registered with the previous administration. And in accordance with the law, the previous administration said there is not a thing we could do.

Go back and check the record. I encourage you to do that. Go back and see how many requests were made of the Clinton-Gore administration to intervene on this issue, and you will find that Clinton-Gore routinely and regularly said the law is very clear, and we cannot intervene. And the law has not changed. The law has not changed in terms of how FERC can intervene on these things. I think that is an important point to make. So if you are going to complain about how the law is interpreted, perhaps we ought to first look at the law itself and change that.

Now, the second thing is that in California there is this interesting mix in terms of how the energy markets are regulated. And California being kind of like the big market in the entire United States, the consequences of how the market in California operates have ramifications for Oregon and Washington, Nevada and Arizona and the rest of the country.

Well, in California the ability to build new plants or price the product is controlled by what is called the Public Utilities Commission, and in California at the very onset of this electricity crisis, a request was made of the Governor to ask the Public Utilities Commission to provide the investor-owned utilities, PG&E and Southern California Edison and Sempra in San Diego, the ability to forward contract for delivery of power.

There is a letter on record sent from the assembly Republicans to the Governor asking him to exercise his authority over the PUC and get this forward contracting ability in place. And you know what the Governor did? The Governor never responded. He did nothing.

The consequence of that is that the investor-owned utilities were left defenseless. Under a set of rules adopted unanimously by the California legislature, that effectively forced them into the day ahead of market. In other words, they had to go into the market no more than 24 hours ahead of time and buy the power for their customers. Now, think about that. Do you buy your mortgage 24 hours ahead of the time when you occupy your house? No, you do not. Do you buy your gasoline or your food or your health care insurance, do you buy that 24 hours ahead of the time when you need it? No, you do not, because the price is not going to be very favorable. And yet the structure in which the California Public Utilities Commission set this up was such as to be self-defeating, and to now come forward 3 years on and complain about the circumstances that existed in California is somewhat interesting to me at best.

Now, there is a demand and supply imbalance in California. The demand and supply imbalance in California has ramifications for the folks in Oregon and for the folks in Nevada and for the folks in Arizona and Washington, because the demand in California is so great that we will suck up every kilowatt of power that is anywhere in the market. We will not let our families and our factories go quiet or be without power, and the price will act accordingly.

Now, there was a proposal that I put forward to allow FERC to immediately assess the impact of inappropriate behavior, rather than waiting for 60 days. I got no cosponsors from that side of the aisle for that. There is a proposal I put forward that eventually led FERC to a solution in terms of the pricing imbalance in California that allowed FERC to set overall prices in the marketplace at the last marginal pricing unit. I not only did not get any cosponsors from that side of the aisle; I got attacked from that side of the aisle. And now I find, interestingly enough, that is exactly the proposal my Democrat colleagues all are putting forward.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot solve these problems by snapping our fingers. These are not things that get solved 24 hours beforehand. We can no more solve this problem in 24 hours' time than we can reasonably expect investor-owned utilities in California or anywhere else to be able to meet their power demand in a 24-hour-ahead market. We cannot do it. We have to plan ahead.

Now, to come out here 3 years on and beat your chests about the behavior of the current administration, which is exactly the same as the behavior of the previous administration that you all refused to hold accountable, I mean, that is just unacceptable. Now, you can go on and do it, but the facts of the matter speak very loudly.

I invite you, and I have invited you, to look at the bills that I have put forward. I have been harangued by some of you; and upon examination, you have not even read the bills that I have put forward to try and solve this problem. I invite you to come help us. We are looking for partners to solve this thing.

There are three legs to this solution. The first is the PUC, which has yet, has yet to adopt the regulation in allowing

investor-owned utilities to contract for forward delivery of power. That is the first leg. The second leg is to allow the construction of new facilities instead of defending these dinosaur facilities that are high-polluting, using coal, or oil, or diesel for power generation; the second leg of this is to allow new technology to come to the market. But you stand over there and you object to everything. You stand there like Horatio at the pass, and you will not let us into the Valley of Solutions.

I ask you to stand next to us, not in front of us objecting or preventing us to move forward. I will tell my colleagues why. Because the facilities we can bring on line today with new technology, created in California, perfected in California will allow us to generate power with less adverse impact on the environment at lower price, at a higher efficiency. It is unfathomable to me, after 5\1/2\ years, the last 3\1/ 2\ years of which I have been chairman of a subcommittee, to find that my friends who happen to live in California with me are only now coming to look at this solution. And the path of solution that they propose is to beat their chests, attacking an administration which did exactly the same thing as the previous one.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues in California to look at these solutions. We need to give these investor-owned utilities the ability to forward-contract for power. That is a huge step in the right direction. We need to create the new facilities that use natural gas and far less polluting carbon-based power sources to provide us the energy for our homes and our factories. We need to find a way where we can talk sensibly about a market-based solution.

My Democrat colleagues cannot come down here and beat their chests in 2004 because it is a Presidential election year and try and rewrite history. Governor Davis tried that, and now he is writing his memoirs. That is just the fact. I am not interested in you guys writing your memoirs. I am interested in you joining with us to find solutions. That is what this is all about.

I am not going to be here a year from now. You all are going to have this in your lap, and you are going to have to deal with it. I am going to be out in California dealing with the consequences. But I ask you to please focus on solutions.

Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson), he has been a mentor of mine and he has done heavy lifting across this country on energy issues, and I thank him.

Mr. Chairman, we talked about this a little earlier today. I was listening to the minority leader's comments very carefully in my office, and I ran over here. I apologize for being a little short of breath.

I just want to refresh everybody's memory about what happened in 2000 and 2001 and to point out the empirical fact that there have been no statewide blackouts or brownouts in California since, frankly, the Republican-dominated FERC got put into place.

First of all, the law was very clear. When the previous administration was in control, these same complaints were uttered, the same concerns were brought to the floor, and the same response was given by FERC down to the last period or punctuation mark. You got no more response from the FERC under Clinton-Gore than you are complaining about today. The reason is that the law is clear. If you are unhappy about that, change the law.

The prohibition of funds that the gentlewoman is asking for here will not do one thing to create another megawatt of power for California. It will not do a single thing to help us replace the carbon-based, high- polluting facilities that exist in California today with much more efficient and less adverse impact to the environment. It does not do a single thing to reduce the pricing that the California PUC board regulates which is dominated by appointees of former Governor Gray Davis. It does not do a single thing to solve the problem on forward contracting for investor-owned utilities.

I repeat my invitation. I said Horatio earlier. I meant Hannibal. Rather than acting as Hannibal at the gates to the valley of solutions, stopping us from entering, come over and join us. Help us put in place the infrastructure and the technology that California is so good at creating. Help us put that in place to create the megawatts of power that our people need and our factories depend upon. Help us bring power to the peninsula of San Francisco which is probably one of the most difficult places to get power to in the entire United States. Help us eliminate the variability in power that Santa Clara depends upon. Help us bring power to our food processors up and down the State where agriculture remains the largest industry. Abandon this Hannibal at the gates concept and come over here and help us. Instead of haranguing us about past history and attempting to rewrite it, come over here and propose your solutions.

This is not a witch-hunt. It should not be a witch-hunt. The response you are getting today is the same response you got under Clinton-Gore. The law is very clear about what FERC's prerogatives are. So come over here and help us find solutions. Help us create the technology and put it in place that allows us to create power at less adverse impact to our environment.

I know you are environmentalists. I know you are, because I watch you very carefully. One of my models on environmental issues is the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), one of your fine, outstanding Members and one of your leaders. Help us put that technology in place and make California's environment even more suitable for our use. I know that PG&E is based in San Francisco. They have just gone through a horrendous bankruptcy. I know the gentlewoman as the minority leader is very curious about the outcome.

I am trying to find solutions. We need to work together on this.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, who is a neighbor of mine, because all of those are good ideas. And to the extent that we have bad actors that have manipulated the system, we are going to get at it because the chairman is going to probably accept this amendment.

But the point is that we cannot sit here flailing away at the past history. We have to come to a solution, and the solution is along the lines that you would otherwise advocate for and advocated for when President Clinton was here and Vice President Gore was here and advocated for when Governor Davis was in office and now that he is not and those people are gone, you are opposing them. We want to get at the bad actors. There are two or three who manipulated the market. There is no question about it. And they did it to the detriment of every single one of us who lives in California. Every single one of us.

Whether one lives in San Francisco or Modesto or Santa Clara, every single one of us suffered from that. But I ask you to come over here and help us find solutions on a bipartisan manner, on a manner that does not attempt to rewrite history. History is history. It is gone. It is done. It is over. Clinton is gone. Davis is gone. There is no point in pointing the finger. We know what the facts are. Help us put in place the facilities that give us power with the least detriment to our environment, that give us power at the lowest price, that give our investor-owned utilities, who employ thousands of people up and down the State, who give our investor-owned utilities the opportunity to forward contract because if they had the opportunity to do that, to remove the uncertainty on supply, the very same thing that Governor Davis was asked to do, that the PUC was asked to do, that both declined to do, if we gave them that power, we would not have to

build new facilities. We would not have additional constraints on supply. We would not have prices going through the roof.

I want to repeat my compliments to the gentleman from Ohio. I left one thing out earlier. Oftentimes he has been a gentle hand in my tenure here. Sometimes he has been a heavy hand. In every instance I have appreciated it.

I thank the folks on the other side because we are in this together.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to first of all congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), as well, on a very well-crafted bill. I would start by thanking the chairman very much for his friendship as well as his fairness and discretion in his dedication to make sure that the right thing is done and that the agencies under our jurisdiction are made as efficient and as effective as possible.

As the chairman noted, we have an excellent staff that works very, very well together and they have helped us craft a very good bill. I too want to enumerate them because they are all so very important to us: Tracey LaTurner; Tim Winchell; Jim Spratt; Kenny Kraft; Dennis Kern; Scott Burnison; Kevin Cook, whom, I might add, is a Cornell graduate and has replaced a Notre Dame graduate as clerk of the committee; Dixon Butler and Peder Maarbjerg.

This is a very good bill. There are a lot of good things to recommend it to the membership.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Hobson, for the courtesy shown to me and the Democratic staff by him and the majority staff of our Subcommittee. The positive environment and cooperation engendered makes work on this bill a joy and pleasure.

I share with the Chairman the frustration that more cannot be done, particularly for the water and environmental infrastructure of our nation. The constraints imposed by the budget are very real. Our subcommittee mark increases funding for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers above last year's level and well above the ridiculously low request of the President. That said, the level recommended for FY 2005 is only 2.6% above that enacted by FY 2003; clearly this increase is below the level of inflation, so the buying power of the Corps-Civil Works budget is again below what it was two years ago.

This bill puts a priority on completion of on-going construction projects and studies and maintenance of high priority existing infrastructure. It does not contain any new starts, and this should help to begin to clear the current backlog of projects and enable the accomplishment of these projects in less time--thereby reducing total project costs and accelerating the realization of benefits to our economy. However, current funding levels will not truly fix this problem. In my opinion, substantive increases to the budget of the Corps are needed--increases above the rate of inflation. A transformation in the way that water infrastructure and environmental restoration are supported through the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation will require a transforming rather than simply sustaining increase in the funds we provide. Without this, completion of construction and maintenance projects and studies will continue to take too long and major new projects will languish.

There are those who have flirted with radical changes to our nation's approach to nuclear weapons--seeking to study new weapons for new missions and to develop a nuclear bunker buster. These same individuals have pushed to have this Nation prepare to resume underground nuclear testing within 18 months of a Presidential decision and to begin development of a major new facility to build plutonium pits--also referred to as nuclear triggers. All of these steps jeopardize our position in the world as advocates of restraint in the development of weapons of mass destruction. They all portend major increases in funding requirements. Today, conventional national defense and homeland security, including nuclear nonproliferation, are far better investments than enhancements to our nuclear deterrent. Under the leadership of Chairman Hobson, no funding is provided in the Energy and Water Development bill for any of these ill-considered policies.

As many members realize, plutonium, highly enriched uranium and some highly radioactive products of nuclear fission in the hands of terrorists could pose major hazards to the United States and its allies. Accordingly, this bill fully funds the President's request of almost $1.35 billion for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation at DOE. Some elements of the DOE program are stalled while other opportunities have opened up to protect major quantities of fissionable material. Accordingly, I fully support the shifts in this bill of $177.25 million to priority targets for nonproliferation including: security of Russian Strategic Rocket Forces sites (+$32M), MegaPorts (+$30M), and efforts outside the Former Soviet Union (+$60M). Also, I am pleased to note that this year no reductions are taken to nuclear nonproliferation efforts due to uncosted prior year funds; this helps keep the pressure on to move aggressively to initiate new projects in Russia.

Last year, in the first year that the gentleman from Ohio served as chairman of the subcommittee, the FY 2004 Energy and Water Development appropriation fenced some funds for advanced nuclear weapons concepts, specifying that $4 million could not be spent until the Administration provided a revised nuclear stockpile plan. Thanks to this action, the Departments of Defense and Energy have finally delivered a revised plan that details how the United States will achieve our treaty commitments to bring the number of deployed nuclear weapons down to the range of 1,700 to 2,200 by the year 2012. The development of this plan is vital to our nation.

Now, the spending plans of the National Nuclear Security Administration need to be brought into alignment with the revised nuclear stockpile plan. I am committed to working with the majority and DOE to bring this about. For FY 2005, the bill will fund the beginning of this process by providing support for an ongoing program of disassembly for nuclear weapons that are no longer needed. A smaller stockpile will be less expensive to maintain and certify while still providing a more-than-adequate nuclear deterrent.

Experience shows that when the Department of Energy's labs are forced to compete with universities and other outside research groups, the country gets more for its money and the labs actually do better work. The Department has for some time asserted that open competition between its labs and external entities, such as universities, is not allowed under federal procurement law and regulations. I am particularly pleased that this year this bill instructs DOE to find a way to accomplish fully open competitions and to propose changes to law or regulation if any are needed. I note that DOE labs are already involved in space missions where traditionally competition for science investigations, including major research instruments, is open to NASA centers, DOE and other agency labs, universities ,and corporations, so DOE may find that this is easier than they have asserted in the past.

As we in the Congress push the Administration to develop a five-year plan for DOE and business plans for each of its labs, we also should work to clarify the role of DOE in the life sciences. Our nation continues to make major investments in the National Institutes of Health, yet the DOE is seeking to develop major facilities to support research in protein synthesis and the control genes exert over processes in living cells. Many of these facilities involve the use of advanced physics techniques--a traditional strength of DOE. Does this traditional role in physics research mandate that DOE fund these facilities? Furthermore, does DOE's traditional role as the chief supporter of high energy physics mean that DOE should co-fund satellite missions in astronomy that are traditionally the responsibility of NASA? NSF supports astronomy of all kinds and has since its inception, yet it does not seek funding for satellite missions.

This year, the bill again provides strong support to the Office of Science at DOE. This office is leading efforts to develop a U.S. supercomputer that will be the most capable in the world--a distinction currently held by the Japanese Earth Simulator. Last year, an extra $30 million was provided to jump-start this effort. This year, the Department included this increase in its base budget, but this level of funding will not get the job done. So, again another increase of $30 million is provided for this effort. DOE provides the science and industrial communities with powerful research tools. In the President's budget request, operating time on some of these user facilities would have been less than optimum. To get the most from our past investment in these facilities, funding levels are provided to increase the number of weeks they can operate in FY 2005. More support also is provided for nanoscale science and technology and maintenance of DOE science facilities around the nation.

Long ago, our nation made a commitment to to use nuclear energy to power our submarines and aircraft carriers and to provide a significant amount of our commercial electricity generation. We have operated a nuclear weapons complex for about 60 years. The result is considerable amounts of high-level nuclear waste that is currently spread around our country. For our safety and that of coming generations, this waste needs proper, long-term burial. The Congress and the Executive have decided that this burial will be in Yucca Mountain on the edge of the Nevada Test Site.

Funding for long-term disposal of high level nuclear waste in FY 2005 should be $880 million, but OMB muddled the situation by needlessly proposing that the civilian support of $749 million be funded through a legislated reclassification of money paid into the nuclear waste fund and kept in the general treasury. This, along with the constraints of the budget, has left us unable to provide these funds in this bill. I find it hard to believe that a poorly timed proposal, which in no way affects the

actual deficit, will undermine a policy consensus carefully developed over decades, but that is where we are.

So, I would say to my fellow members, the FY 2005 Energy and Water Development bill is a very good bill. It makes major progress on crucial issues. It provides for many activities that are critical to our nation and the world as well as to regions of our country and individual localities and member districts. I think it will give the House a strong position in our conference negotiations with the Senate. It does not fix all problems, but it provides for significant improvements. I strongly urge that it be passed by this House.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), as well, for his dedication on trying to resolve this situation, helping his constituents, and also make note that he has also been in very close coordination with our office so that we can solve this problem. I do appreciate his very hard work on this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

Mr. Chairman, I assure the gentleman I will join the chairman in reconsideration of this project if the opportunity presents itself.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairman, I simply want to rise to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks and the gentleman's objection. I do appreciate the intent, and I do want to work with the gentlewoman as we proceed at conference, but I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of this legislation, but as chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on Armed Services, I must express my concerns about some of the funding levels for important National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) programs that are authorized within my subcommittee. The Fiscal Year 2005 Energy and Water Appropriations bill provides no funds for the robust nuclear earth penetrator (RNEP), advanced concepts, modern pit facility, nor enhanced test readiness. The Fiscal Year 2005 National Defense Authorization bill, which passed this House overwhelmingly just weeks ago, fully funded the President's request for these important initiatives. Furthermore, this elimination of funding for these programs jeopardizes our country's ability to respond to future national security threats, as pointed out in the Statement of Administration Policy. I now include that complete Statement of Administration in this Record.

Of particular concern to me is the $27.6 million authorized in the House-passed bill for RNEP would support the Air Force-led study concerning the feasibility of modifying an existing nuclear weapon to destroy what are known as hardened and deeply buried targets. It has long been recognized that these hardened targets are increasingly being used by potential adversaries to conceal and protect leadership, command and control, weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic missiles. I believe it is imperative that we finish this review as part of a larger effort to ensure that we further our technological edge.

Critics of RNEP say that they are not convinced that this money will only fund a study. This simply is not the case. This funding does not authorize the production of any weapons. In fact, Section 3117 of Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 108- 136) clearly states and I quote, ``The Secretary of Energy may not commence the engineering development phase (phase 6.3) of the nuclear weapons development process, or any subsequent phase, of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress.''

Opponents also point to the NNSA Future Years Security Plan inclusion of $484.7 million for RNEP in the future. This budget estimation is required by congressional direction, and represents a placeholder should Congress and the President decide to go any further than a study. Without the placeholders by both NNSA and the Department of Defense (DoD) in the out year budgets, if authorized, the start of the RNEP's next phase would be delayed until funding was appropriated. This would nullify the schedule and cost estimates and require the costing and schedule to be redone causing additional taxpayer cost. Moreover, by the statute cited earlier, these funds could not be used for anything other than basic research without subsequent approval by Congress.

Although I plan to support this legislation, as chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, I felt it necessary to set the record straight concerning this program, and I am hopeful that the House/ Senate conference will provide a reasonable level of funding for these programs.

Statement of Administration Policy

The Administration supports House passage of the FY 2005

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill.

The President supports a discretionary spending total of

not more than $819 billion, in addition to the $2.5 billion

in advance appropriations for Project BioShield, consistent

with his FY 2005 Budget. The President's Budget

responsibility holds the growth in total discretionary

spending to less than four percent and the growth in non-

security spending to less than one percent, while providing

the critical resources needed for our Nation's highest

priorities: fighting the War on Terror, strengthening our

homeland defenses, and sustaining the momentum of our

economic recovery.

Consistent with the need for responsible spending

restraint, the Administration urges the Congress to fully

fund unavoidable obligations and not to include any emergency

funding, including contingent emergencies, unless mutually

agreed upon in advance by both the Congress and the

Administration. Within this context, the Administration urges

the House to fully fund Presidential priorities, such as the

Nuclear Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, NV and the

Hydrogen Fuel initiative.

The Administration is pleased that the Committee-reported

bill is consistent with the overall $819 billion

discretionary total and looks forward to working with the

House to address the following concerns.

administration priorities

Nuclear Waste Repository. It is vital to secure nuclear

waste now scattered at 126 sites in 39 States in one

appropriate underground facility. Further delay increases the

costs and security risk of storing materials at these various

sites. Therefore, it is imperative that the Department of

Energy (DOE) have the necessary resources for licensing and

constructing the repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The

President's Budget contains a proposal to facilitate the

long-term financing for this project and the Energy and

Commerce Committee has reported a bill consistent with the

proposal. We strongly urge the House to adopt this financing

proposal and will continue to work with the Congress to

ensure its enactment.

Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. The Administration strongly urges

the House to fund the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative,

which will reduce the Nation's dependence on foreign oil and

provide cleaner air. The Committee's $31 million reduction

for fuel cell technologies should be restored by redirecting

funds from the Corps of Engineers, which is funded well above

the President's request.

National Security. The Administration strongly opposes the

elimination of funding for the Advanced Concepts Initiative,

the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator study, and planning for

the Modern Pit Facility. These reductions, if sustained,

would diminish the Nation's ability to respond to future

national security threats. Once again, this reduction could

be restored by redirecting some of the funds from the Corps

of Engineers or DOE's nuclear energy research and development

program.

army corps of engineers--civil works

The Administration commends the Committee for focusing the

Civil Works program on completing projects already under

construction and limiting new starts. These efforts are

consistent with the Administration's policy to reduce the

backlog of ongoing civil works construction projects. We urge

the House to eliminate funding and cancel balances for

projects that have low estimated economic or environmental

returns or

that are outside the Corps main mission, as requested.

We urge the House to restore funding that is necessary to

sustain operations on four nationally significant Corps

projects: $18 million for Columbia River fish recovery to

comply with a biological opinion pursuant to the Endangered

Species Act (ESA); $12 million to revitalize the side

channels of the Upper Mississippi River; $8 million for

Everglades Restoration; and $51 million to improve Missouri

River habitat and support continued operation of the river in

compliance with the ESA. We also request that the House

restore $10 million to the Regulatory Program to avoid delays

in the permitting process and ensure effective enforcement.

Department of Energy

The Administration strongly opposes reductions to the

National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA)

Nonproliferation programs to eliminate weapons-grade

plutonium production in Russia and to dispose of 68 metric

tons of surplus weapons-usable plutonium in the Russian

Federation and the United States. The proposed reductions

could delay the programs and escalate their costs, thereby

damaging critical components of the Nation's comprehensive

nonproliferation strategy.

The Administration objects to the bill's reductions to

important nuclear stockpile stewardship programs, such as the

Life Extension Programs, Directed Stockpile Work, and the

science and engineering campaigns. Furthermore, the

Committee's restrictive funding controls for the complex

Inertial Confinement Fusion National Ignition Facility

program may prevent NNSA from achieving the milestones the

Congress has directed for the program.

The Administration is concerned with the $76 million

reduction to the high-level waste proposal. The Defense

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has recently communicated to

DOE its view that the safety consequences of delaying

radioactive waste disposition activities at the Savannah

River site are unacceptable. Moreover, the Administration and

the State of South Carolina have reached agreement on

radioactive waste disposal and underground storage tank

closure at DOE's Savannah River site. While we share the

Committee's preference for a legislative solution that

extends beyond the Savannah River site and are continuing to

pursue a consensus with all affected States on such

legislation, the funds are crucial to allowing the clean up

of the Savannah River tanks.

The Administration rejects the Committee's suggestion to

reduce spending on the International Thermonuclear

Experimental Reactor in FY 2005, as well as its shift in

funding for the Gridwise and Gridworks programs from the

Office of Electric Transmission and Distribution (OETD) to

the Office of Energy Assurance. OETD was established to

provide a single, focused organization to strengthen Federal

leadership on electricity reliability.

While we understand the need to restrain expenses for

departmental overhead, the funding reductions to the

Department Administration account in the House bill would

hinder the Secretary's ability to manage the Department.

bureau of reclamation and the central utah project

The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for

fully funding the Water 2025 Initiative and for directly

funding the Utah mitigation and conservation activities

through the Central Utah Project rather than indirectly

through the Western Area Power Administration. However, we

urge the House to include the Administration's proposal to

make a corresponding transfer of authority for project

mitigation from the Secretary of Energy to the Secretary of

the Interior.

tennessee valley authority (TVA)

The Administration is disappointed that the Committee did

not provide, as the Subcommittee did, the requested

appropriation of $9 million for TVA's Office of Inspector

General (OIG) to be derived from the TVA Fund. This proposal

would allow the OIG to conduct its duties in a more

independent manner, similar to the Inspectors General of

other Federal agencies.

constitutional concerns

Section 501 of the bill purports to limit the use of

appropriated funds by the Executive Branch in communicating

with the Congress. To the extent this provision would

preclude the President or his subordinates from initiating

communications with the Congress, it would interfere with the

Executive Branch's ability to influence congressional action

and would violate the Recommendations Clause of the

Constitution. The Administration urges the House to remove

this provision or amend it to allow normal and necessary

Executive Branch communications.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for his leadership on the committee and for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, in a few minutes, I am going to be offering a very important amendment to highlight an incredibly valuable program that affects the

Upper Mississippi River basin, the Environmental Management Program. It has been in existence since 1986. It deals with habitat restoration along the river, along with long-term resource monitoring so we can better manage the river basin and the ecosystem. I look forward to being able to continue the work on this important project with the chairman and the ranking member of the committee as we move to conference in dealing with the funding issue.

But right now, Mr. Chairman, I want to recognize and draw attention in this Chamber to a very important and fun event that is going to occur in the Upper Mississippi River over the next week. It is the re- creation of the Grand Excursion that occurred there 150 years ago. The Grand Excursion is regarded as one of the greatest promotional trips ever devised in our Nation's history, one that changed the face of the Upper Mississippi River forever. In 1854, the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad became the first railroad to reach the Mississippi River.

To celebrate, the owners and contractors for the railroad proposed an excursion for a select group of stockholders, friends, and family. But word spread quickly about the occasion, resulting in a 1,200 person entourage traveling from Rock Island, Illinois, to what is now known as Minneapolis, Minnesota. It was the Grand Excursion of paddle boats up the Mississippi River.

My district in Western Wisconsin has more miles along the Mississippi River than any other district and will play host to this excursion coming through our communities over the next week.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the excursionists were considered ``the most brilliant ever assembled in the West.'' Statesmen, historians, diplomats, poets, newspaper editors. As the media wrote home to their newspapers, word spread about the wonders of the Nation's ``dark interior.''

This event turned into an opportunity to show some of our Nation's most influential people the fantastic beauty, numerous resources, and the unlimited opportunities that the Mississippi River and the West could provide. The year after, steamboat traffic along the Upper Mississippi River doubled, flooding the region with new settlers. The Grand Excursion also brought millions of dollars of investment to the area and positioned the Upper Mississippi region as a dominant force in the development of the Nation in the 19th Century.

The Grand Excursion of 2004 is an opportunity now to draw awareness from around the Nation and around the world about the recreational, the commercial, and the environmental opportunities that the Mississippi River and all its communities provide. In addition to the ``Grand Flotilla,'' the retracing of the Grand Excursion's journey by trains, paddlewheelers, and steamboats, over 50 communities along the 419 mile route will hold festivals and educational events to commemorate their 150th anniversary. Those who are unable to participate firsthand in the celebrations will be able to experience the excitement through the dynamic Web site that has been created.

I wish the participants of the Grand Excursion much fun and success in the upcoming week.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, based on previous conversations and the agreement I had with the Chair and the ranking member of the committee, I was offering this amendment with the intent to ask unanimous consent to withdraw and continue working with them and with the conferees in regards to a very important program that affects the upper Mississippi river basin, the Environmental Management Program.

It is an authorized program that first passed in 1986. It was reauthorized on a permanent basis in 1999. The authorization level has gone up to $33 million. My concern is that we have over the last few years been backtracking in regards to the funding of this important program.

As co-chair of the bipartisan upper Mississippi river basin Congressional task force, I have worked with my colleagues from this five-State region to build consensus about how best to protect and restore the nationally significant and environmental treasures of the upper Mississippi River.

I want to commend my colleagues who are here today, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) and my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Hulshof, for their strong support for the EMP program and the support we have had in the bipartisan Mississippi River Caucus.

Earlier this year, 013 of us of the River Caucus wrote to the committee asking the committee to respect and appropriate funds for EMP at the President's budget request of $28 million. The committee, however, in this underlying report is only recommending $16 million.

The fear is we are backsliding on current projects that are in the works that will delay the completion of these projects by years. It will delay the implementation of new identified habitat restoration projects along the upper Mississippi River, along with the crucial long-term resource monitoring and the data collection which helps us better manage this important national treasure that we have in middle America.

The upper Mississippi and the entire Mississippi River basin area is North America's largest migratory route for waterfowl. It is the primary drinking source for 33 million Americans. It adds countless billions of dollars to our regional economy through industry and companies and farmers with the commercial navigation that is available along the Mississippi, not to mention a $6 billion tourism impact on the upper area and close to $2 billion recreation impact in the upper Mississippi River area.

And we have always recognized the legislation that has preceded us today that this is a multi-use river system between commercial navigation, which has existed in the past since the 1930s when the lock and dam system was created to harness the power of the river, to the recreation and the tourist impact.

The EMP program was established in the 1980s recognizing the need to maintain that important balance along the river between the infrastructure needs that are ongoing, but also the habitat restoration and long-term resource monitoring that the EMP program currently does. But, unfortunately, again, we have had backsliding over the last few years in regards to the commitment of the program.

Fortunately, the administration sees it a little bit differently. Based on a

letter that I wrote to the administration requesting funding earlier this year, the President responded to my request by a letter dated April 20, and I quote, ``As you know, the President submitted his 2005 budget on February 2004. I am pleased to say that the budget identifies EMP as one of the eight highest priority Army Corps of Engineer construction projects in the Nation and proposes $28 million in funding for it an increase of $9 million or 47 percent from the previous fiscal year.''

The point is, this has received wide bipartisan support, support from the governors and the five States of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri, that have supported this project. Various groups that are concerned about river management issues are very supportive of the environmental management program. The Corps of Engineers has had a multiyear, multimillion dollar navigation study that they have initially released a preliminary report upon asking in part for $5.3 billion ecosystem management project to go along with a proposed lock and dam expansion project.

In light of where we seem to be heading in regards to the river management issues, we would hope we could get more support for the funding of a program that has proven itself year in and year out with wide bipartisan support, with tangible results that we see along the upper Mississippi River, something that thousands of people will see in the coming week as the 1854 grand excursion is recreated with a grand flotilla going up the Mississippi and finally ending up, I believe, in the district of the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) for a 4th of July celebration.

The river has played an incredibly important role in the development of middle America, the Great Plains States, and the upper Midwest generally. From the exposure it received in 1854 with the Grand Excursion to the great American novels that Mark Twain wrote of two kids growing up on the Mississippi, Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, to the ongoing uses of the river, we believe we need to do a better job of funding the EMP; and hopefully with the leadership's cooperation, we can accomplish that in conference.