Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes purposes.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to submit to the House for its consideration H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2006.

The Committee on Appropriations approved this bill unanimously on May 18, and I believe it is a good bill that merits the support of the entire House.

Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide range of Federal programs including such diverse matters as flood control, navigation improvements, environmental restoration, nuclear waste disposal, advanced scientific research, applied energy research, maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear non-proliferation.

Total funding for energy and water development in fiscal year 2006 is $29,746,000,000. This funding amount represent a decrease of $728,000 below the budget request and $86.3 million below the current fiscal year. This bill is right at our subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and provides adequate funds to meet the priority needs of the House.

Title I of the bill provides for the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers; the Formally Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, which is executed by the corps; and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The Committee recommends a total of $4.746 billion for title I activities, $294 million below the current year and $414 million above the current budget request.

I want to explain a couple of things about the corps as we go through this and take a little time on this because some of this is a change.

For a number of years, the corps Civil Works Program has been oversubscribed where Congress kept giving the corps more and more projects to do but not enough money to do them. We took steps last year to put the corps on the road to fiscal recovery by eliminating the number of new starts and concentrating resources on the completion of ongoing construction projects. We also asked OMB to adopt a new approach to future corps budget requests so that we can use our limited resources to complete the most valuable projects efficiently, instead of spreading those resources very widely to make incremental progress across a large number of projects.

The fiscal year 2006 budget request adopts such a performance-based approach for the corps budget. Proposing to use the ratio of remaining costs to remaining benefits is the primary determinant of which construction projects should receive priority consideration for funding. While this ratio may not be a perfect measure of merit of all the projects, the budget request represents good faith from the OMB to concentrate the corps' limited resources on finishing the most worthwhile projects that are already under construction.

Until we begin to clear out the enormous backlog of ongoing work, we are reluctant to start new projects; therefore, we did not include any new starts again this year in this bill.

One consequence of adopting this new performance-based approach to the corps is that the funds available for member adds for corps projects are very limited this year. In part, this is because for the first time in years we received a budget request in which many congressional priorities are already at the funded level. I think this is an improvement. However, even with that request as a good starting point, the total amount that we can provide for the corps is less than what the House passed in fiscal year 2005.

With a healthy base request and a lean 302(b) allocation, we did not add as much for Member projects as we have in previous years. We were harsh, but fair, in how we dealt with these Member projects.

Our fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water bill makes major strides to improving the corps' project execution reprogrammings and continuing contracts. For a workload of approximately 2,000 projects, the Chief of Engineers recently told me that the corps had 2,000 projects, but they had 20,000 reprogrammings. We think this is not good management, and we have done a lot in our bill to try to focus the corps on these continuing contracts.

The problem is that the corps has done a lot of reprogrammings. They have moved funds around. We believe this is a case management problem. We have taken extensive efforts to try to reform this program because we think that they may not have the money to restore what they should, and if there is a big plume in all of this, that they cannot really tell us what it is all about.

Another area that we have a problem with is in the continuing- contract area. Some people would like to get rid of continuing contracts. I do not happen to believe that. I think it is a tool that they need, but we need to make sure that they are not using them to excess and they are not using them to do things that either the administration did not want to fund, we did not want to fund, or the Senate did not want to fund; and that this money is not being shifted around or execution is being done that would inhibit our ability in future years to fund programs by the original funding by the corps.

The Department of Energy received a total of $24.318 billion in the Energy and Water bill. That is an increase of $105 million over the budget request, about $101 million less than the fiscal year 2005 level. As with the corps, we asked the Department of Energy to begin preparing 5-year budget plans, first for individual programs and then an integrated plan for the Department. I think this is just good money management within these Departments. We need 5-year plans. We actually need longer visions in these programs so that we know what we are going to end up with in the waterways in the future and we know what the Department of Energy's plans are in the future.

The committee has several important new initiatives for the Department of Energy. DOE presently has significant quantities of weapons-usable special nuclear materials, plutonium and highly enriched uranium, scattered around its complexes. Unfortunately, even with the heightened attention to homeland security after the 9/11 attacks, the Department has done little to consolidate these high-risk materials. We

have provided additional funds for material consolidation initiative and direct DOE to take aggressive action to consolidate its weapons- usable uranium and plutonium into fewer, more secure sites.

We think this is not only a security problem, but it costs us a lot of money and we think we can do better.

We also propose a spent fuel recycling initiative to stimulate some fresh thinking on how this country deals with its spent nuclear fuel. I want to state that I fully support the Yucca Mountain Repository, and our bill fully funds the request for Yucca Mountain in fiscal year 2006. It is critical that we get Yucca Mountain done and done right and done soon. However, we continue to be frustrated by the delays in getting the repository open, and we are concerned about what will happen after that first repository is built.

The Department of Energy estimates that each year of delay on Yucca Mountain costs the government an additional billion dollars, half from the legal liability for DOE's failure to begin accepting commercial spent fuel beginning in 1988, as required by the law, and the other half from the costs. In addition, the authorized capacity of Yucca Mountain will be fully utilized by the year 2010 with no place to dispose of spent fuel generated after that date.

It is time to rethink our approach on spent fuel. We need to start moving spent fuel away from reactor sites to one or more centralized, above-ground interim storage facilities located at DOE sites. If we want to build a new generation of nuclear power reactors in this country, we have got to demonstrate to investors and the public that the Federal Government will live up to its responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and to take title to commercial spent fuel.

I would note that we are already storing foreign reactor fuel on DOE sites. It is time we do the same for our domestic spent fuel. This may help to limit the billions of dollars of legal liability facing the Federal Government for its failure to accept commercial spent fuel for disposal.

It is also time to think about our reluctance to reprocess spent fuel. The Europeans are doing this very successfully, and there are some advanced reprocessing technologies in the research and development phase that promise to reduce or eliminate some of the disadvantages of the current chemical process.

We add funds to the Nuclear Waste Disposal account and direct the Secretary to begin accepting commercial spent fuel in fiscal year 2006 for interim storage at one or more DOE sites. We also include additional funds and direction within the Nuclear Energy account for the Secretary to select an advanced reprocessing technology in fiscal year 2007 and to establish a competitive process to select one or more sites for an advanced fuel recycling facility.

Lastly, the committee recommends a new Sustainable Stockpile Initiative to ensure the future of our Nation's nuclear deterrent. The committee provides additional funds for the Reliable Replacement Warhead that we initiated in last year's conference report. We placed the Reliable Replacement Warhead in the context of a larger Sustainable Stockpile Initiative, which we view as a package deal with several key components.

First, the Reliable Replacement Warhead is a program to reengineer existing warheads to be safer, more secure, cheaper to maintain, easier to dismantle and, more importantly, easier to certify without underground testing.

Secondly, we propose a modest slowdown of Life Extension work on the old warheads in preparation for a shift to the newer replacement warheads. This is coupled with a significant increase in dismantlement rates to bring down the stockpile to match the President's decision about the size of the stockpile by the year 2012. Frankly, in the long run, I am hopeful the Secretary's task force on the Nuclear Weapons Complex will propose some sensible steps to modernize the DOE Weapons Complex and bring it into line with these coming changes in the size and composition of the stockpile.

The committee provided for an aggressive nuclear nonproliferation program within the National Nuclear Security Administration. We provided an additional $65 million to keep the plutonium producing reactor shutdown program with the Russians on track to have all three reactors closed by 2011. The committee also provided $85 million additional for the Russian material protection program to secure nuclear materials overseas.

We made a significant reduction to the domestic MOX plant because of the large unexpended prior-year balances in that project, caused by the continued liability dispute with the Russians. Given the constrained budget environment, the committee cannot continue to appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars for a construction project that has been delayed for 3 years.

I believe this is a responsible bill that makes sound investment decisions for the future of our agencies. Members will not receive as many water and energy projects as they may have liked, but we did take care of their top priorities. Hopefully, we did that everywhere.

I want to thank all the Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies for helping to bring this bill to the floor today. I especially want to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for his extraordinary cooperation this past year. In my opinion, this is truly a bipartisan bill that represents a hard-fought but ultimately fair and balanced compromise. This is the way I believe our constituents expect their Representatives to work together.

I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for their support and for allowing us to move this bill forward in such an expeditious manner.

Lastly, I want to thank the staff of the committee: Kevin Cook, our clerk; John Blazey, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowski, and Tracy LaTurner for their work on this bill. I also want to thank Dixon Butler of the minority staff and Kenny Kraft, from my office, and Peder Moorbjerg from the Visclosky office.

I want to especially acknowledge our agency's detailees, Taunja Berquam and Felicia Kirksey, for their invaluable assistance in putting this bill and report together.

It is a shared bill. We all work together and talk to each other, and I want to thank everybody for working together to get this bill this far.

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to submit to the House for its consideration H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2006. The Appropriations Committee approved this bill unanimously on May 18, and I believe this is a good bill that merits the support of the entire House.

Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide range of Federal programs, including such diverse matters as flood control, navigation improvements, environmental restoration, nuclear waste disposal, advanced scientific research, applied energy research, maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear nonproliferation. Total funding for energy and water development in fiscal year 2006 is $29.746 billion. This funding amount represents a decrease of $728,000 below the budget request and $86.3 million below the current fiscal year. This bill is right at our subcommittee's 302(b) allocation, and provides adequate funds to meet the priority needs of the House.

Title I of the bill provides funding for the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program, which is executed by the Corps, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The committee recommends a total of $4.746 billion for title I activities, $294 million below the current year and $414 million above the budget request.

For a number of years, the Corps Civil Works program has been oversubscribed, where Congress kept giving the Corps more and more projects to do, but not enough money to do them all. We took steps last year to put the Corps on the road to fiscal recovery, by limiting the number of new starts and concentrating resources on the completion of ongoing construction projects. We also asked the Office of Management and Budget to adopt a new approach to future Corps budget requests, so that we can use our limited resources to complete the most valuable projects efficiently, instead of spreading those resources very widely to make incremental progress across a large number of projects.

The fiscal year 2006 budget request adopts such a performance-based approach for the Corps budget, proposing to use the ratio of remaining costs-to-remaining benefits as the primary determinant of which construction projects should receive priority consideration for funding. While this ratio may not be the perfect measure of merit for all projects, the budget request represents a good-faith effort from the Office of Management and Budget to concentrate the Corps' limited resources on finishing the most worthwhile projects that are already under construction. Until we begin to clear out the enormous backlog of ongoing work, we are very reluctant to add new projects to the pipeline. Therefore, we did not include any new starts or new project authorizations for the Corps in this House bill.

One consequence of adopting this new performance-based approach to the Corps budget is that the funds available for Member adds for Corps projects are very limited. In part, this is because, for the first time in years, we received a budget request in which many congressional priorities are already funded at a reasonable level. However, even with that request as a good starting point, the total amount that we can provide for the Corps is less than what the House passed in fiscal year 2005. With a healthy base request and a lean 302(b) allocation, we did not add as much for Member projects as we have in previous years. We were harsh but fair in how we dealt with these Member requests.

Our fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water bill makes major strides toward improving the Corps' project execution, reprogrammings, and continuing contracts. Let me talk for a moment about these interrelated issues. For a workload of approximately 2,000 projects, the Chief of Engineers recently told me that the Corps does about 20,000 reprogrammings each year. We have GAO reviewing the Corps reprogrammings, and they tell us that the Corps has reprogrammed funds for amounts as small as 6 cents. This is not sound financial management, and suggests that the Corps is more focused on moving money around frequently to meet the Corps' determination of project needs, irrespective of the allocations provided in annual appropriations. Instead, the Corps should be managing its workload within the project allocations provided by Congress. Much of this problem is driven by the Corps' misplaced emphasis on expending 99 percent of their funding every year, and they move money around freely between projects to meet that goal. We take steps to tighten up the reprogramming guidelines and to limit the Corps' ability to make such frequent funding shifts. We expect the Corps to execute the program that Congress gives them, not simply take the funds that Congress appropriates and then shuffle the money around to the Corps' own priorities.

Continuing contracts are a related problem. Under this mechanism, the Corps can obligate the Federal Government for funding future fiscal years. In some cases, the Corps is awarding continuing contracts for projects that received no appropriation in fiscal year 2005, or have not been included at all in the budget request for fiscal year 2006. Also, the Corps uses accelerated earnings on continuing contracts to pay its contractors more than is appropriated for a project in the current fiscal year. In part, these accelerated earnings on continuing contracts are one of the drivers for the Corps extensive reprogrammings, and also one of the mechanisms the Corps uses in its pursuit of the 99 percent expenditure goal. This practice has to stop, and we include language limiting the Corps' ability to obligate the government in excess of appropriations.

The Department of Energy receives a total of $24.318 billion in the Energy and Water Development bill, an increase of $105 million over the budget request but $101 million less than the fiscal year 2005 level. As with the Corps, we task the Department of Energy to begin preparing 5-year budget plans, first for individual programs and then an integrated plan for the entire Department. This plan must include business plans for each of the DOE laboratories, so we understand the mission and resource needs of each laboratory.

The committee includes several important new initiatives for the Department of Energy. DOE presently has significant quantities of weapons-usable special nuclear materials, plutonium and highly enriched uranium, scattered around the complex. Unfortunately, even with the heightened attention to homeland security after the 9-11 attacks, the Department has done little to consolidate these high-risk materials. We provide additional funds for a Material Consolidation Initiative and direct DOE to take aggressive action to consolidate its weapons-usable uranium and plutonium into fewer, more secure sites.

We also propose a Spent Fuel Recycling Initiative to stimulate some fresh thinking on how this country deals with its spent nuclear fuel. I continue to support the Yucca Mountain repository, and our bill fully funds the request for Yucca Mountain in fiscal year 2006. It is critical that we get Yucca done right, and done soon. However, we continue to be frustrated by the delays in getting that repository open, and we are concerned about what happens after that first repository is built. The Department of Energy estimates that each year of delay on Yucca Mountain costs the government an additional $1 billion, half from the legal liability for DOE's failure to begin accepting commercial spent fuel beginning in 1998, as is required by law, and the other half from the costs. In addition, the authorized capacity of Yucca Mountain will be fully utilized by the year 2010, with no place to dispose of spent fuel generated after that date. It is time to rethink our approach to dealing with spent fuel. We need to start moving spent fuel away from reactor sites to one or more centralized, above-ground interim storage facilities located at DOE sites. If we want to build a new generation of nuclear reactors in this country, we need to demonstrate to investors and the public that the Federal Government will live up to its responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to take title to commercial spent nuclear fuel. I would note that we are already storing foreign reactor fuel on DOE sites--it is time we do the same for our domestic spent fuel. This may help to limit the billions of dollars of legal liability facing the Federal Government for its failure to accept commercial spent fuel for disposal.

It is also time that we think again about our reluctance to reprocess spent fuel. The Europeans are doing this successfully, and there are some advanced reprocessing technologies in the research and development phase that promise to reduce or eliminate some of the disadvantages of the current chemical processes. We add funds to the Nuclear Waste Disposal account and direct the Secretary to begin accepting commercial spent fuel in fiscal year 2006 for interim storage at one or more DOE sites. We also include additional funds and direction within the Nuclear Energy account for the Secretary to select an advanced reprocessing technology in fiscal year 2007 and to establish a competitive process to select one or more sites for an advanced fuel recycling facility.

Lastly, the committee recommends a new Sustainable Stockpile Initiative to ensure the future of our Nation's nuclear deterrent. The committee provides additional funds for the Reliable Replacement Warhead, which we initiated in last year's conference report. We place the Reliable Replacement Warhead in the context of the larger Sustainable Stockpile Initiative, which we view as a package deal with several key elements. First, the Reliable Replacement Warhead is a program to re-engineer existing warheads to be safer, more secure, cheaper to maintain, easier to dismantle, and most importantly, easier to certify without underground nuclear testing. Second, we propose a modest slow-down of Life Extension work on the old warheads in preparation for a shift to the newer Replacement Warheads. This is coupled with a significant increase in dismantlement rates to bring down the stockpile to match the President's decision about the size of the stockpile by the year 2012. In the long run, I am hopeful that the Secretary's Task Force on the Nuclear Weapons Complex will propose some sensible steps to modernize the DOE weapons complex and bring it into line with these coming changes to the size and composition of the stockpile.

The committee provided for an aggressive nuclear nonproliferation program within the National Nuclear Security Administration. We provided an additional $65 million to keep the plutonium producing reactor shutdown program with the Russians on track to have all three reactors closed by 2011. The committee also provided $85 million additional for the Russian material protection program to secure nuclear material overseas. We made a significant reduction to the domestic MOX plant because of the large unexpended prior year balances in that project caused by the continued liability dispute with the Russians. Given the constrained budget environment, the committee cannot continue to appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars for a construction project that been delayed for 3 years.

I believe this is a responsible bill that makes sound investment decisions for the future of our agencies. Members will not receive as many water or energy projects as they might like, but we did take care of their top priorities.

I want to thank all the members of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the floor today. I especially want to thank my Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky of Indiana, for his extraordinary cooperation this past year. This is truly a bipartisan bill that represents a hard-fought but ultimately fair and balanced compromise. This is why I believe our constituents expect their representatives to work together. I also want to thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis, and the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Obey, for their support and for allowing us to move this bill forward in an expeditious manner.

Lastly, I would like to thank the staff of the Subcommittee--Kevin Cook, John Blazey,

Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowki, and Tracey LaTurner--for their hard work on this bill. I also want to thank Dixon Butler of the minority staff, and both Kenny Kraft from my office and Peder Maarbjerg of Mr. Visclosky's office. I especially want to acknowledge our agency detailees, Taunja Berquam and Felicia Kirksey, for their invaluable assistance in putting this bill and report together.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen)

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

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

First of all, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his kind comments. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is the scholar of the House. He reads these things and understands them, and I very much appreciate his remarks on the bill on behalf of both myself and the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's support of this important program, and I share his goal in this field. I am disappointed that the Department's fiscal year 2006 budget request did not preserve the increases that this subcommittee provided for this purpose during the past 2 fiscal years. Because of the Department's disregard for congressional intent, the committee provides $30 million of the increase for the Center of Competition Science at Oak Ridge National Laboratory which was selected competitively to build this leadership-class supercomputer.

The committee expects the Department to make full use of this laboratory industry capability. Finally, I agree with the gentleman of the importance of this effort and encourage the Department of Energy to make the necessary budget requests in the future to continue this very important effort.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the gentleman's understanding is correct.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

The gentleman's understanding is correct.

I do not see any reason for the Secretary to consider making a private site, or a site on tribal land, into a DOE site for interim storage. My intent is for the Secretary to evaluate storage options at existing DOE sites.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) for a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Florida is aware, the budget is very tight this year; and due to the lack of Federal funds, many projects the committee supported in the past did not receive appropriations this year. Because money is tight, locals will need to do more with less and finish this with other local money. As the gentleman knows, I have got three grandchildren living in Florida; so I am interested in the State of Florida, and I appreciate the gentleman's bringing this to our attention.

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

Let me close and say I want to thank my ranking member because we have worked together on this bill. It is a very comprehensive and detailed bill in a lot of scientific ways. We do take some visions for the future of this country which I think are very important when it comes to the waterways and we get the increased plume, which results from not finishing these projects, completed. I think also as important, if not more so, is the vision for the corps and the waterways in the future. Also the vision for the Department of Energy both in the weapons area and in the area of future cost-effective power for this country so that this country can compete in the world in the future are both dealt with in various stages in this bill.

So I hope that everyone will support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to pick up where my chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), left off and also personally thank the staff, because without their able assistance, we would not be here today and the product before this Chamber would not be of the quality that it is.

So I do want to personally thank Terry Tyborowski and Tracy LaTurner of the majority staff, as well as John Blazey, Scott Burnison, and Kevin Cook. On the minority side, although again, as the chairman pointed out, this was a bipartisan effort, Dixon Butler.

We have core detailees: Felicia Kirksey and Taunja Berquam, and I appreciate very much their help, as well as Kenny Kraft from the Chairman's office, and Peder Moorbjerg from mine.

Mr. Chairman, I would want to thank Chairman Hobson, first of all, for his very good work; as I mentioned in subcommittee and full committee, his fairness, his judicious temperament, the fact that he is a gentleman, and also that he has exercised a great deal of foresight and leadership over the last 3 years as chairman of the subcommittee.

I certainly feel that the chairman has outlined the elements of the value of the legislation before us very fairly. I would prefer to take somewhat of a different tack, this being my seventh bill as a ranking member, and illustratively point out the three areas of the bill where over the last 3 years the chairman has had a direction, he has exercised leadership and courage, and has provided us with an excellent work product.

The first area is the area of high-performance computing, an area where the United States invented the field and long held undisputed leadership in the world. Several years ago, however, that leadership was challenged. In the House bill for fiscal year 2004, the committee recommended an increase in funding to enable the Department of Energy to acquire additional advanced computing capability and to initiate longer-term research and development. The Department used $25 million of these funds to engage a team, including Oak Ridge National Lab and Cray Computer, to pursue a leadership-class supercomputer and the next- generation computer architectures.

Despite being faced with budget constraints, the Department of Energy Office of Science sustained this increase in 2005. However, pursuing a $100 million-plus leadership-class machine with level funding was not going to put us back in the lead. So, once again, the committee recommended an increase to the request to support the Office of Science initiative to develop the hardware, software, and applied mathematics necessary for a leadership-class supercomputer to meet scientific computational needs.

This year, the President's request for fiscal year 2006 pulled back from the strong support favored by the Congress, and such a cutback would tend to undermine the progress towards actually achieving a leadership-class U.S. supercomputer. So the recommendation before us today increases funding for advanced scientific computing research by $39 million: $25 million for hardware, $5 million for computational research, and $9 million for competitive university grants to restore the ongoing level of core research in this area that the President's budget recommendation cut.

By taking the long-term perspective of the last 3 years and sustaining support for a highly desirable outcome, the chairman and the committee and all of its members are doing their part to ensure that the U.S. reasserts its technological leadership.

The second area that has been a subject of concern for a number of years, in an area where we reduced funding, is Laboratory Directed Research and Development. It is an area that grew out of all proportion to its value at the beginning of this decade. This area also raised concerns of financial oversight and the use of Federal funds for purposes for which it was not appropriated.

As an initial effort to get its arms around this program, which reached an aggregate funding level in fiscal year 2003 of $365 million, the committee mandated a comprehensive report on projects from the Department of Energy and initiated a GAO investigation. In developing recommendations for last year's bill, the committee based its guidance and statement of concerns on the results of those investigations and reports.

This year, the President's budget, recognizing the concerns of the committee and the constraints on funding, reduced the percentage allowed for lab-directed research at weapons labs from 6 percent to 5 percent. The committee today is recommending that lab-directed research be limited explicitly to $250 million for 2006, to be allocated to the labs by the Department of Energy. A quarter billion dollars is a healthy level of funding that could be used to fix many problems in energy research and water infrastructure, to name but two.

As we state in the report, the committee recognizes the value of conducting discretionary research at the national laboratories, but we have now brought the funding level to this research back within reason and given it a sense of direction.

And my last illustration, if you would, of a sense of direction that we have had over the last 3 years is in the area of nuclear weapons. It is the most sensitive area of activities under the Energy and Water Development appropriations.

Here, under Chairman Hobson's courageous leadership, denial of funding has been effectively used to chart a safer and more efficient course for the future of our nuclear deterrents. In particular, coming into fiscal year 2004 appropriations, the President was asking for funds for a robust nuclear earth penetrator, for studies of new nuclear weapons potentially for new missions, for funds to proceed with the preparation of a modern pit facility to manufacture 450 plutonium triggers, and a shift to an 18-month readiness posture for a return to underground nuclear testing. Taken together, these policy initiatives signaled a shift in nuclear weapons policy.

In 2004, the committee, among other things, reduced funding for the robust nuclear earth penetrator to $5 million from $15 million, ultimately agreeing to $7.5 million in conference; zeroed out funds for proceeding with the modern pit facility; and held the test readiness posture at 24 months.

Most significantly, in 2004, $4 million of the funds for advanced weapons concepts were fenced so that they could not be spent until the administration delivered a nuclear weapons stockpile plan. Without this action, there is no doubt that the plan would not exist. Today, it does.

In fiscal year 2005, the committee went further and zeroed funding for the earth penetrator, while maintaining a 24-month test readiness posture.

The committee has taken a constructive approach in trying to positively influence better policies. At the insistence of the committee, reasonable new approaches have been funded, including a reliable replacement warhead. In this year's bill, the committee is solidifying the progress made last year and in the previous year.

First, advanced concepts was missing from the President's request and is essentially no longer under consideration. Secondly, the earth penetrator funding is again zero in the committee recommendation, and third, test readiness posture is held to 24 months. Finally, the reliable replacement warhead concept was included in the President's request. The committee is working to accelerate the implicit transformation of the newest nuclear deterrent stockpile by increasing funds to $25 million, while slowing programs extending the life of old weapons.

Essentially, in this bill as well, Mr. Chairman, we are taking an advanced look. We have called for the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, as well as the Department of Energy to undertake 5-year plans in programs.

This is an exceptional piece of legislation, and I would ask my colleagues to support it.

I recommend that all members join me in supporting this bill. Its preparation has been bipartisan and the Chairman has been fair throughout its preparation. I would add my appreciation to the staff led on the majority side by Kevin Cook. He is joined by Terry Tyborowski, John Blazey, Scott Burnison, and Tracy LaTurner. They are a strong team. On the minority staff, I would thank Dixon Butler. This year we have two fine detailees from the Army Corps: Taunja Berquam helping the majority and Felicia Kirksey helping the minority. I would also thank Kenny Kraft on Chairman Hobson's staff and Peder Maarbjerg on my staff.

This is my seventh year as ranking member on the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. In a few professions in our society seventh years are sabbaticals and times for reflection. In the Congress, we can't take a year off, but I feel compelled to reflect. During my years on this Committee it has been my privilege to serve with five subcommittee chairmen, and now, it has been my pleasure to serve with Dave Hobson for three years. During this time, Chairman Hobson has led our subcommittee to take a long-term perspective on a number of important issues and this is resulting in some profound and positive changes. Here are three examples.

High Performance Computing is an area where the United States invented the field and long held undisputed leadership in the world. Several years ago, that leadership was challenged by Japan with their development of the Earth Simulator. In the House bill for FY 2004, the Committee recommended an increase of $40 million to enable DOE to ``acquire additional advanced computing capability . . . and to initiate longer-term research and development on next generation computer architectures.'' Ultimately, $30 million of this increase was included in the final conference report. The Department used $25 million of these funds to engage a team including Oak Ridge National Lab and Cray Computer to pursue a leadership-class super computer and next generation computer architectures.

Despite being faced with budget constraints, the DOE Office of Science sustained this increase in the President's FY 2005 budget. However, pursuing a $100 million plus leadership-class machine with level funding of $25 million per year will never put the United States back in the lead. So once again, the Committee recommended an increase of $30 million to the request ``to support the Office of Science initiative to develop the hardware, software, and applied mathematics necessary for a leadership-class supercomputer to meet scientific computation needs.'' It must be noted that the Committee insisted that at least $5 million of this increase be reserved for computational research and not allow additional funds to go to hardware alone.

In the face of an even more constrained funding environment, the President's request for FY 2006 pulled back from the strong support favored by the Congress. Such a cutback, if sustained, would tend to undermine the progress toward actually achieving a leadership-class US supercomputer. So, the recommendation before us today increases funding for advanced scientific computing research by $39 million--$25 million for hardware, $5 million for computational research, and $9 million for competitive university grants to restore the on-going level of core research in this area that the President's budget recommended for cuts. By taking the long-term perspective and sustaining support for a highly desirable outcome, the Committee is doing its part to ensure that the U.S. reasserts it technological leadership in the area of supercomputing--a technical capability that underpins our ability to invent the future.

Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) is an area that grew out of all proportion to its value at the beginning of this decade. This area also raised concerns of financial oversight and the use of federal funds for purposes for which it was not appropriated. As an initial effort to get its arms around this program, which reached an aggregate funding level in FY 2003 of $365 million per year, the Committee mandated a comprehensive report on LDRD projects from DOE and initiated a GAO investigation of LDRD. In developing its recommendations for FY 2005, the Committee based its guidance and statement of concerns on the results of the GAO investigation and what had been learned from reviewing the extensive DOE reports. The FY 2005 Committee report directs DOE to shift to direct requests for LDRD.

The President's budget request for FY 2006, recognizing the concerns of the Committee and the constraints on funding, reduced the percentage allowed for LDRD at Weapons Labs from 6% to 5%. The Committee is today recommending that LDRD be limited explicitly to $250 million in FY 2006, to be allocated to the labs by DOE. A quarter billion dollars is a healthy level of funding that could be used to fix many problems in energy research, water infrastructure, etc., so the ``Committee [truly] recognizes the value of conducting discretionary research at DOE's national laboratories'', but has now brought the funding level for this research back within reason and given it a sense of direction.

Nuclear Weapons is the most sensitive area of activity under the Energy and Water Development appropriation. Here, under Chairman Hobson's courageous leadership, the denial of funding has been effectively used to chart a safer and more efficient course for the future of our nuclear deterrent. In particular, coming into the FY 2004 appropriations process, the President was asking for funds for a robust nuclear earth penetrator (RNEP), for studies of new nuclear weapons potentially for new missions, for funds to proceed with preparation of a Modern Pit Facility to manufacture 450 plutonium triggers per year, and a shift to an I8-month readiness posture for a return to underground nuclear testing. Taken together, these policy initiatives signaled an alarming shift in nuclear weapons policy and accordingly, many here and abroad reacted with alarm. Each of these policies was a bad idea, an idea run amok. This situation developed in part because of the absence of an approved nuclear weapons stockpile plan.

The House report accompanying the FY 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill states, ``The fiscal year 2004 budget request is the second budget request delivered to the Committee that is loosely justified on the requirements of the Nuclear Posture Review policy document but lacking a formal plan that specifies the changes to the stockpile reflecting the President's decision [on the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan].'' The Committee reduced funding for the RNEP to $5 million from $15 million (ultimately agreeing to $7.5 million in conference), zeroed funds for proceeding with a Modern Pit Facility, and held the test readiness posture at 24 months. Most significantly, $4 million of the funds for advanced weapons concepts were fenced so that they could not be spent until the Administration delivered a Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Plan. Without this action, there is doubt that this Plan would yet exist.

In FY 2005, the Committee went further and zeroed funding for the RNEP while maintaining the 24-month test readiness posture and continuing to defer the Modern Pit Facility. But, the Committee is a constructive influence and seeks to support better policies. At the insistence of the Committee, the dangerous advanced concepts approach was scrapped and a reasonable new approach was funded--the reliable replacement warhead (RRW).

In FY2006, the Committee is solidifying the progress made last year. First, advanced concepts was missing from the President's request and is essentially no longer under consideration. Second, RNEP funding is again zero in the Committee's recommendation. Third, test readiness posture is held to 24 months. Fourth, the RRW concept was included in the President's request. The Committee is working to accelerate the implicit transformation of the U.S. nuclear deterrent stockpile by increasing funds to $25 million while slowing programs extending the life of old weapons. The promise of the RRW is that the U.S. will never need to resume nuclear weapons testing and will be able to sustain our deterrent with a smaller, less-expensive complex.

In light of these examples where taking a longer-term perspective is showing results, I fully support the efforts in this FY2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriation to get all three principal agencies funded in this bill to adopt and communicate 5-year plans for their programs. Further, we have long under-invested in the water infrastructure of our nation, and although this year is no exception, the bill undertakes significant efforts to help the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers get effective control over management, particularly fiscal management of projects. Management improvements prepare the way for the most effective use of whatever level of funding can be supplied in the future. Concentrating funding on high-priority water projects to get them done should significantly improve the overall benefits of investment through the Corps and Bureau of Reclamation, and so, I support this painful approach as well.

The Chairman and I are taking steps to involve all members of the Subcommittee in the oversight of the programs we fund. Everyone is being asked to concentrate on two subsets of our work. This also takes the long-term perspective as it will prepare our capable colleagues for future roles as chairs and rankings of appropriations subcommittees while strengthening our current work as appropriators.

So, upon reflection, I am pleased with the positive effects of the last three years of Energy and Water Development Appropriations bills. Far more has been accomplished than the simple funding of government programs and the accommodation of congressional priorities. The nation and the world are better and safer as a result. What a privilege and pleasure to participate!

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

I simply again thank the chairman for his leadership, for being a gentleman, and for being a friend; and I recommend the legislation to my colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment which the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and I are offering would take $15.5 million from the Committee on Appropriations, which was added on to the President's request for reprocessing and nuclear waste management, and reallocate these funds to programs that would improve energy efficiency.

We are offering this amendment today because we believe that now is the time to undo a policy first adopted back in the 1970s which discourages reprocessing of commercial spent fuel. We believe that nonproliferation risks associated with reprocessing are too great, that reprocessing is not economical and the additional funds recommended for reprocessing would be better spent on improving our Nation's energy efficiency.

First, reprocessing presents grave proliferation risks. President Ford first put this ban on reprocessing in place. It gives us the high moral ground as we look at the North Koreans and Iranians to tell them not to do it. It only makes sense.

Secondly, reprocessing is not economical. It would only be economical if, in fact, there was not a glut of uranium, which is what it is that we have in the world today.

Third, reprocessing is not safe. Twenty tons of highly radioactive material leaked from a broken pipe at a nuclear reprocessing plant in the United Kingdom in April of this year. This area is going to remain closed for a long, long time.

Fifth, the $15.5 million appropriated for reprocessing and interim storage would be better spent on energy efficiency priorities. It would be better to just use it to work smarter and not harder. The more efficient that we make our society is the absolute fastest way in order to guarantee that we would make ourselves less dependent upon imported oil, not moving along the route that this $15.5 million appropriation would move it.

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

Mr. Chairman, could you tell us how much time is remaining on either side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, again, this is a huge moment. This is a decision to reverse a policy which is 30 years old. It has gone through Presidents, Democrat and Republican, going back to Gerald Ford, which essentially says to the North Koreans, to the Iranians, to every other country in the world, we are not going to reprocess our civilian-spent fuel; you should not do it either. You should stay away from it. This is too dangerous.

We otherwise will wind up preaching temperance from a bar stool. We will be in a situation where we will be reprocessing civilian-spent fuel into plutonium, and we will be trying to tell the rest of the world that they should not do it. It would be like your father telling you that you should not smoke with a pack of Camels in his hand. It just does not work. You have to have some standard as a Nation on a policy as important as the reprocessing of plutonium in order to take that position and be a leader worldwide.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ 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 myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to a central, fundamental question which this Congress is going to decide this evening. The Senate yesterday resolved something they called the nuclear option. This is the real nuclear option. This is the nuclear option which the rest of the world is going to look at: are we going back to nuclear reprocessing? Are we going to become the leader in a technology which we are telling the rest of the world we do not believe they should have, especially since we do not even need it?

So this question of nuclear weapons in the world, nuclear proliferation, this issue is a central issue in determining whether or not we are going to be the leader or we are going to be spreading these technologies across the planet. Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment.

The amendment that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and I are offering would take the $15.5 million that the Appropriations Committee added onto the President's request for the reprocessing and nuclear waste management and reallocate these funds to programs that would improve energy efficiency.

We are offering this amendment today because we believe that now is not the time to undo a policy first adopted back in 1970s which discourages reprocessing of commercial spent fuel. We believe that nonproliferation risks associated with reprocessing are too great, that reprocessing is not economical, and that the additional funds recommended for reprocessing would be better spent on improving our nation's energy efficiency.

Reprocessing represents grave proliferation risks. Just look at North Korea. It has been reprocessing spent fuel from its reactors to use in nuclear bombs. In response, President Bush has asked the Nuclear Suppliers Group to limit access to reprocessing technology, arguing that:

This step will prevent new states from developing the means

to produce fissile material for nuclear bombs.

How are we going to credibly ask the rest of the world to support us when we tell North Korea, Iran or any other nation that they cannot have the full fuel cycle and they can't engage in reprocessing, when we are preparing to do the same thing right here in America? It just won't fly.

You cannot preach nuclear temperance from a barstool. That is why President Gerald Ford called for an end to commercial reprocessing back in 1976, and why no President since then has successfully revived reprocessing.

Reprocessing also is not economical. A MIT study puts the cost of reprocessing at four times that of a once-through nuclear power. The current price of concentrated uranium ``yellowcake'' in the spot market is about $53.00 per kilogram. For reprocessing to be economical, there must be a sustained 8-fold increase in the long-term price of uranium. But the world is faced with a uranium glut. In addition, building a reprocessing plant would be enormously expensive. Consider Japan's nearly completed Rokkasho reprocessing plant--20 years in the making. Just building it cost on the order of $20 billion. But the total cost of Rokkasho when you factor in the full life-cycle costs--including construction, operation and decommissioning costs--is estimated to be $166 billion. Uranium costs would have to soar to 20 times what they are today for this to be economically viable.

In France, Cadarache's ATPu MOX plant has ceased commercial activity because it is not economical, but it plans to fabricate test MOX assemblies to send here. In Russia, they too have closed their reprocessing plant, RT-1, and still have not opened its successor, RT- 2. The record is becoming clearer, reprocessing is not economical. Why would we think that the U.S. is immune from the fundamental laws of economics?

Reprocessing will not alleviate the nuclear waste problem. Talk to the folks at Savannah River where over 30 million gallons of high-level were left behind from reprocessing.

Under this bill, Savannah River may be targeted again for interim storage for spent fuel, awaiting reprocessing. So might Hanford and Idaho. In fact the bill report targets all DOE sites, federally owned sites, non-federal fuel storage facilities, and even closed military sites.

The Appropriations Committee Report (page 124) calls for DOE to provide ``an implementation plan for such early acceptance of commercial spent fuel, transportation to a DOE site, and centralized interim storage at one or more DOE sites.'' If appropriate DOE sites can't be found, the Report recommends that the nuclear waste be stored at ``other federally-owned sites, closed military bases, and non- federal fuel storage facilities.'' The Report calls for DOE to prepare a plan for centralized interim storage within 120 days of enactment of the bill, and states its belief that DOE ``already has authority for these actions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.''

So, if you just had a military base in your district closed by the BRAC, you might be a candidate to get a nuclear waste dump. Talk about adding insult to injury. Reprocessing sites will become defacto nuclear waste dumps. The spent nuclear fuel cannot even be handled to be reprocessed for 5 to 15 years--it is so radioactive. And what will happen to all this waste when the hard reality of the disastrous economics combined with the fact that our government deep in deficit cannot afford to subsidize this anymore?

Reprocessing is not safe. Twenty tons of highly radioactive material leaked from a broken pipe at a Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in the United Kingdom in April of this year. The affected area of the Sellafield plant will remain closed for months as officials devise a way of cleaning up the mess. Special robots may have to be built to clean up the waste as the area is too radioactive for people to enter.

Senior officials at the UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns the Sellafield reprocessing are pushing to close the plant altogether, arguing that it is more cost-effective to close the plant now rather than repair the problems only to decommission the plant as planned in 2012.

The MIT Study said this about safety:

We are concerned about the safety of reprocessing plants,

because of the large radioactive material inventories, and

because the record of accidents, such as waste tank explosion

at Chelyabinsk in the FSU [Russia], the Hanford waste tank

leakages in the United States and the discharges to the

environment at the Sellafield plant in the United Kingdom.

The $15.5 million appropriated for reprocessing and interim storage would be better spent on energy efficiency priorities. Under the Markey-Holt amendment, the $15.5 million added to the bill by the Committee for reprocessing and interim storage of nuclear waste would be transferred over to three under-funded domestic energy supply priority programs, as follows:

$8.5 million would be added for Industrial Technologies (which was cut by $16.5 million from current levels). Despite the fact that manufacturing makes up 35 percent of the nation's energy use, this bill would cut the industrial energy efficiency program to help manufacturers deal with high energy costs and develop

innovative technologies from $93 million in FY 2004 to $76 million in FY 2005, and now the House proposes $58 million in FY 2006. We are heading in the wrong direction. We are trying to maintain manufacturing jobs. We need to cut energy use and improve technology, since we can't cut wages to equate to China and India. This is a national security issue. Do we want to vacate the field in the key areas of steel, plastics, aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass and metal casting? We need domestic production and this program helps make our domestic industries more energy efficient.

$3.5 million would be added for State Energy Program Grants (which was cut $3.8 million from current levels). A recent study by Oak Ridge National Laboratories concluded that for every federal dollar in the State Energy Program: (1) $7.22 in annual energy cost savings are produced; (2) $11.29 in leveraged funds are provided from the states and private sector in 18 different project areas; (3) over $333 million is saved through annual cost savings (the appropriation is only $44 million in FY 2005); (4) 48 million source BTUs are saved--or 8 million barrels of oil; (5) 826,049 metric tons of carbon are saved; (6) 135.8 metric tons of volatile organic compounds are reduced; (7) 6,211 metric tons of NOX are reduced; and (8) 8,491 metric tons of SOX are reduced.

$3.5 million would be added for the Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability Program (which was cut by $4.8 million from current levels). This program is aimed at developing the ``next generation'' of clean, efficient, reliable, and affordable distributed energy technologies that make use of combined heat and power systems. The Department of Energy has established a goal of increasing installed combined heat and power systems from 66 Gigawatts in 2000 to 92 Gigawatts by 2010. As of 2004, this program is well on track, with 81 Gigawatts of installed power. However, much of the remaining potential for CHP systems is in small scale systems that are below 20 megawatts and employ micro-turbines, fuel cells and other technologies. This program needs full funding to continue delivering the benefits of increased reliability, security, efficiency and lower emissions to the U.S. economy.

Let me reiterate that my transfer amendment would still leave both reprocessing and nuclear waste disposal fully-funded at the levels requested in the President's budget, but would only reallocate money added by the Appropriations Committee. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office informs me that ``This amendment has no effect on budget authority and would reduce outlays by $1 million for FY 2006.''

Under the Markey-Holt amendment, we transfer these funds to energy efficiency programs that will provide our nation with a much better value for the dollar than the incremental investment in a nuclear reprocessing technology that is expensive, that poses serious nuclear nonproliferation risks, and which threatens to create new nuclear waste dumps at sites around the country.

I urge you to vote ``yes'' on the Markey-Holt-Inslee amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the gentleman's acceptance.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time, and I commend him and the chairman of the subcommittee for producing a very good appropriation bill. I echo the sentiments that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just gave on the floor and appreciate the hard work that has gone into it.

I think the rule, however, could have been a little stronger if the Schwartz amendment would have been made in order so we could have had further discussion about the need for increased investment in alternative and renewable energy technologies. I do not think that the energy bill that is working its way through Congress goes far enough, and this was another appropriation measure that could have been a vehicle for that increased investment.

I do appreciate the work that is being done on the Yucca Mountain funding, however. We have two nuclear facilities that are storing a lot of nuclear waste in the upper Mississippi River region right now. Many of us feel it makes sense to have a single, isolated nuclear waste repository in this country, and the studies that have gone into Yucca Mountain and the funding that this committee is providing, it seems to me to be a reasonable and practical approach dealing with the nuclear waste issue.

I especially want to commend the committee for the full support they have given to a very important program for the upper Mississippi River basin, the Environmental Management Program. This was a program that was created in the mid-1980s to strike balance on the multiple uses of the Mississippi region in the upper States. It is a multiple-use resource. It is incredibly valuable economically, quality of life, recreation and tourism. We have commercial navigation that uses the upper Mississippi along with the important recreation and tourism aspect, and the Environmental Management Program really has a twofold mission. One is habitat restoration for the upper Mississippi basin and the other is long term resource monitoring, to monitor the effects that sediment and nutrients are having in the basin.

One of the first things I did as a new Member of Congress was help form a bipartisan Mississippi River Caucus so we could work together from both the North and the South in order to draw attention to the resources that are needed along the Mississippi River.

We have made substantial progress, and I commend the committee's recognition that full funding of the EMP is appropriate at $33 million. This is a program that has received wide bipartisan support, multi- state support. The five upper States of the Mississippi River basin have been fully supportive of this program, as have the Governors and the respective legislatures, and I commend the administration who has consistently submitted their budget requests calling for full funding of the Environmental Management Program.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would commend to my colleagues and include for the Record an article that just appeared in the Washington Post Sunday edition under the Travel section called ``Lolling on the River.'' It describes the quality of life and unique beauty that the upper Mississippi River basin has for all of us in that region.

In it the author of the article, Bill O'Brian writes: ``The Mississippi, the river of Mark Twain, who once wrote, `It is not a commonplace river, but on the contrary is in all ways remarkable.' The river of LaSalle, Marquette and Joliet, of B.B. King, Bob Dylan and the Doobie Brothers. Of Faulkner, Fitzgerald and T.S. Eliot. Of historian Stephen Ambrose who not long ago wrote, `The river is in my blood. Wherever, whenever, it is a source of delight. More, it is the river that draws us together as a Nation.' ''

EMP is a small part of the importance of this great natural resource which is of vital importance to our Nation. I commend the subcommittee and work they have done in recognizing by fully funding EMP the importance of this vital natural resource.

[From the Washington Post, May 22, 2005]

Lolling on the River: Following the Upper Mississippi by Land

(By Bill O'Brian)

If you think the prairie of Wisconsin and Minnesota is

nothing but nondescript flatlands and farms, Buena Vista Park

in Alma, Wis., is the place for you. Specifically, the bluff

in the park more than 500 feet above the Mississippi River,

which forms the border of the two states.

From that bluff on a clear day, you can see one of the most

awe-inspiring panoramas in all of North America. I've been to

the Grand Canyon. To Yellowstone. To Jackson Hole. To Lake

Louise. To Niagara Falls. To the Oregon, Maine, Carolina and

California coasts. To the interior of Alaska. To the top of

numerous skyscrapers. The vista from the bluff in Alma on a

clear day can compete with any of those places.

From that precipice, you can see for miles into the

Minnesota countryside below. You can gaze upon the lush

greenery of the Dorer Memorial Hardwood State Forest and the

dark, rich soil of the northern portion of what schoolbooks

call the breadbasket of America. As the Mississippi zigzags

through that bottomland, you can see that the waterway is as

unruly as it is majestic, as undisciplined as it is immense.

It is clear that, left to its own devices, the river would

follow no laws other than those of physics, which state that

water flows from higher elevation to lower via the path of

least resistance.

From that bluff in Alma, you can immediately understand

what Wisconsin outdoors journalist Mel Ellis meant half a

century ago when he wrote, ``If you haven't fished Ol' Man

Mississipp, forget about any preconceived notions you may

have as far as rivers are concerned. Because Ol' Man River

isn't a river at all. In fact, he's a hundred rivers and a

thousand lakes and more sloughs than you could explore in a

lifetime.''

Northeasterners by birth and temperament, my wife, Sue, and

I knew almost nothing firsthand about life along the upper

Mississippi.

The Mississippi--the river of Mark Twain, who once wrote,

``It is not a commonplace river, but on the contrary is in

all ways remarkable,'' The river of La Salle, Marquette and

Joliet. Of B.B. King, Bob Dylan and the Doobie Brothers. Of

Faulkner, Fitzgerald and T.S. Eliot. Of historian Stephen

Ambrose, who not long ago wrote, ``The river is in my blood.

Wherever, whenever, it is a source of delight. More, it is

the river that draws us together as a nation.''

So, from the point just outside East Dubuque, Ill., where

the Illinois-Wisconsin border meets the Mississippi about 175

miles

west of Chicago, Sue and I had set out northward on the Great

River Road to see what--and whom--we might find. The river

road is a federally designated scenic byway that stretches

from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada. We covered a minuscule

portion of it, a couple of hundred miles mostly in

southwestern Wisconsin, primarily along State Route 35. We

had no itinerary per se. We pulled off the road when the

spirit, or hunger or curiosity, moved us. It was a drive-

by--a lazy, three-day upper Mississippi River drive-by.

On the first day, at a boat landing near the town of

Cassville, Wis., we stopped to chat with Dwayne Durant, a

fortysomething Iowan. Dressed in camouflage hunting gear, he

was standing on the riverbank in the Upper Mississippi River

National Wildlife and Fish Refuge with his dog, Sidney.

Durant had the satisfied countenance of a man who'd just

bagged his limit for the day. He welcomed us to the river,

patiently explained the intricacies and the appeal of duck

hunting, proudly showed us his fresh kill (two wood ducks,

two teal ducks and two mallards), then humbly thanked us for

visiting his corner of the world.

The next morning, at Withey's Bar in Lynxville, Wis. (pop.

176), we introduced ourselves to a soft-spoken gentleman in a

flannel shirt sitting on a stool at the end of the bar. Les

Neefe told us that he was born 77 years ago in a Wisconsin

cheese factory (``not in a hospital, not in the hallway of

the cheese factory, in the cheese factory . . . in a room

above the boiler''). Over coffee, Neefe rhapsodized about the

pleasures of living in a houseboat docked on the Mississippi

six months a year, and he made two recommendations. First, he

suggested that, to get a real taste of Wisconsin, we should

go to the cheese shop up the road in Ferryville and buy some

``sharp cheddar, old sharp cheddar.'' Then, to get a real

taste of river life, we should stop by P&M Concessions next

to Blackhawk Park in De Soto.

We did both. The cheese, a nine-year cheddar, was rich,

creamy and sharper than sharp. Along with apples and

crackers, a block of the cheddar made a memorable watchin'-

the-river-flow picnic lunch.

Outside the P&M Concessions stand was a sign that read,

``Welcome to the River--Sit Long, Talk Much, Fish A Lot.''

Behind the counter was 34-year-old Amy Kroning, whose father

is the proprietor of the bait/tackle/refreshment/boat rental

shop.

``I can't think of anywhere I'd rather be than right

here,'' said Kroning, a mother of five who was born and

raised in De Soto. ``If I get more than an hour from the

river, I get depressed. Really. I'm not kidding. We go to a

Cubs game once a year [in Chicago], and I'm a nervous wreck

the whole time.''

So, what is the allure of the Mississippi?

``It has a calming affect. It's relaxing,'' Verdetta Tusa

said later that day as we stood watching for more than an

hour while an enormous tow barge squeezed, wheezed and

creaked its way through the lock at the town of Genoa, Wis.

``It's the history, too,'' said the 56-year-old lifelong

Minnesotan. ``They've been doing it this way, basically, from

the beginning.''

The lock at Genoa is one of 29 on the upper Mississippi.

Watching tow barges come out of the sharp curves of the river

and negotiate the locks with pinpoint precision is a pastime

unto itself. Typically 15 barges are connected together in

front of one pilot boat. They transport grain, steel, road

salt, fertilizer, coal, petroleum products and other

nonperishable goods up and down the Mississippi most of the

year. It takes a barge about 10 days to get from Minneapolis

to St. Louis, but one 15-unit tow can carry as much grain as

225 rail cars or 870 semi-trucks at a fraction of the cost.

As a barge passes through a lock, you can get close enough

to chat with the stevedores on board. One deckhand told us

that sometimes he stays out on the river for 60 to 80 days at

a time. And that he'd rather toil on the upper Mississippi

than on the lower, especially in the dead of summer, because

down near New Orleans and Memphis, ``it's too hot, and the

skeeters are bigger than I am.''

An hour north of Genoa on State Route 35, not far past La

Crosse, Wis., we came to Perrot State Park, a verdant 1,400-

acre refuge. There, an information marker on a small bluff

overlooking braided channels of the river reminded us just

how remarkable the Mississippi is. It's 2,350 miles long;

it's home to 100 species of fish (most notably walleye,

sturgeon and catfish in these parts); it drains all or part

of 31 states and two Canadian provinces.

``From Red Wing down to Iowa is the most beautiful part of

the river, with all the bluffs and trees. It's almost a

fantasyland,'' said Bob Schleicher. ``It's a place of

mystery. It's got so much folklore. Some of it's true; some

of it's not.''

We met Schleicher, a 65-year-old retired car salesman, at

the municipal marina in Red Wing, Minn., the final town on

our river drive, directly across the bridge from Hager City,

Wis. Captain Bob, as he likes to call himself, told us that

he has navigated the Mississippi from St. Paul, Minn., to its

mouth in Louisiana. He explained that part of the appeal is

that ``you can be whoever you want to be on the river.'' He

told tales of river-running bootleggers, past and present. He

explained how the upper Mississippi differs from the lower--

it is less crowded; it has more islands, beaches and marinas;

its currents are less dangerous; its water is less sandy.

But, he said with a smile, river people have a ``mutual bond,

whether you're a Confederate or a Yankee.''

Schleicher talked for a while about the river's importance

to birds. Forty percent of all North American waterfowl and

326 bird species--including hawks, eagles, falcons, herons

and swans--use the river as a flyway, according to the

Audubon Society. We had seen a handful of bald eagles soaring

over or perched along the river, and Schleicher beamed as he

spoke of the resurgence of that ornithological American icon

on the bluffs near Red Wing.

Then he suggested that, after spending a couple days

driving along the river, Sue and I might want to spend some

time on the river. For $10 apiece, he offered to take us on a

leisurely two-hour cruise in his old military flatboat-

turned-riverboat.

Once we cleared the dock, Schleicher allowed each of us in

the small group on board to take a turn piloting the boat for

a few minutes. As I stood at the helm, guiding the boat

around the river's trademark sweeping bends, minding the red

and green buoys that mark the shipping channel, passing huge

tow barges, I suddenly understood what Schleicher meant when

he said you can be who you want to be on the river.

At that moment, as we glided past the tree-lined banks,

pushed along by the gentle current, the serenity was

overwhelming. And the history palpable. At that moment, I was

every riverman who's ever skippered a slow boat on Ol' Man

Mississipp.

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

Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, if we do not have to engage in any further debate, I support the gentleman and am prepared to accept the amendment.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

That is correct.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is my understanding.

I agree.

I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, no, it would not.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

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

I do not support the gentleman's amendment transferring all of the funds proposed for our spent fuel recycling initiative.

Our bill, and the administration's budget request, includes $750 million for the Advanced Fuel Recycle Initiative under the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. Among other activities, this program funds research into advanced reprocessing technologies that can avoid some of the shortcomings of existing technologies.

Specifically, there are new reprocessing technologies that have the potential to minimize the waste streams of radioactive waste products and also minimize and eliminate the presence of separated plutonium. This country would be foolish to ignore the potential benefits of new technologies.

Our bill adds $5 million to this research and directs the Secretary to make recommendations by fiscal year 2007 on advanced reprocessing technologies suitable for implementation in the United States. We also direct that the Secretary establish a competitive process for selecting one or more sites for integrated spent fuel recycling facilities.

After running through a nuclear reactor, spent nuclear fuel still contains 97 percent of its energy value, yet we continue to plan to bury the spent fuel underground rather than recycle it, as other countries do very successfully. The current Yucca Mountain repository will be full to its authorized capacity by the year 2010. If we do not look to recycle our spent fuel, then DOE should start tomorrow to expand Yucca Mountain repository or select a second site. In the near term, we direct the Secretary to begin moving spent fuel away from reactive sites and into interim storage at one or more DOE sites. I believe it is essential that the government demonstrate that it will comply with the requirement to begin accepting spent fuel from the reactor sites and begin to move it on the path to disposal in the repository.

I strongly oppose living in the past. We have to move to the future. We

have to get back into this business. This is safe, this is responsible, and it is the way this country should move forward and not live in the past. Use new technology.

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

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

I think I need to respond to a couple of comments that were made. First of all, we did not say to put anything in the interim; we said it is a site that should be looked at with all of the other sites. Second of all, this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, and I might suggest that if you look around the world, about the only place in the world who has nuclear power that is not reprocessing is us. Everybody else, the French, the Japanese, they are building a plant; the Brits have a plant. Everybody else in the world has stepped up and said, we are going to take care of this waste; we are not going to just bury it in the ground, and we are going to keep using it over and over again.

I think it is time for us to look at this policy and change this old, old policy, especially if we have new technology that does not leave us with the type of nuclear weapons-grade plutonium left over, and that is what we believe we are developing.

So I think this is a responsible part of the bill and we should move forward and vote the amendment down.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I intend for Yucca Mountain to be fully funded, and our bill does just that. As a matter of fact, I have gone head to head with the Senate since I have been the chairman of this subcommittee to ensure that the nuclear waste disposal program receives as close to the budget request as possible.

The gentleman is absolutely right that the ratepayers are not getting what they paid for because DOE has not fulfilled its statutory and contractual obligation to accept spent fuel for disposal. I have ratepayers in my own State who also have not received value for what they have paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund.

We are not intending, and I want to be very pointed about this, we are not intending to divert or diminish attention to Yucca Mountain.

Mr. Chairman, we provided our guidance only in report language and direct the Secretary to provide Congress with legislative language if he determines that changes to the authorizing statutes are necessary.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Mack) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for coming forth with this. I understand that red tide blooms are harmful, and a scientific approach, we need to learn more about these ocean events that are an appropriate use of research and development funds. In fact, I was personally involved last Congress in securing the funding that we talked about so we can learn ways to fight red tide.

Funds in excess of the budget requests have been provided for worthy research and development activity such as this. And I would hope, since I my grandchildren are residents of Florida, I hope we can get on and get rid of red tide one of these days, and especially as I get older. It affects older

people and I visit there, so I want to get rid of it too.

Mr. Chairman, I agree that the development of safe chemical treatment options may provide the Corps and the Tennessee Valley Authority with alternatives to many of the conventional methods of control that often have unintended consequences.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me suggest a couple of things to the gentleman if I might.

First of all, if you look at this bill, for the first time in the last couple of years there have been no new starts in this bill going out of the House. And I have limited the number. Even when we have gotten done with the bill, I think we only did five new starts last year.

We are trying to get control of this. We have even looked at, sometimes the administration has had new starts and we have taken them out. We have tried to limit the number of earmarks. The number of earmarks for Members' projects this year is down substantially over past years. Frankly, the administration did a better job this year of addressing some of the concerns of Members and of the overall program.

I think the gentleman would also be pleased to note that in this bill, for the first time, we are requiring a 5-year development plan for the Corps of Engineers, for example, and the Department of Energy. In that process, when we get that, similar to what we did in the military construction when I chaired that committee, we will, over a period of time, begin to get control of the situation, so that if they do not fit within the 5-year plan, then these projects are not going to be in there.

But we do not have that plan in place today. We are trying to make it in place. And I think it is going to make for better, more responsible use of taxpayers' dollars.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I would be happy to.

I appreciate the concerns that you have expressed and, frankly, it would be my pleasure to work with you going forward to perfect these provisions as we move into conference.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) for purposes of a colloquy.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for purposes of a colloquy.

Yes.

I share the gentlewoman's views on the importance of university research. The committee expects the Nuclear Energy Research Programs to set aside a portion of their funds for university research. The committee will be monitoring the programs, as I am sure you will also, to be sure that the funding is continuing in support of the university research.

The gentlewoman is correct. Our intention is to waive only the cost-sharing requirements for clean coal technological projects for FutureGen, and the cost-sharing requirements that are intended to operate instead are also on page 20.

If the gentleman is agreeable, we are willing to accept this amendment and move forward.

Mr. Chairman, I share the frustration of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) over how the Department has proposed to fund the International Fusion Project at the expense of domestic fusion research, and I will support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment cuts $20 million from the Department of Energy's departmental administration account and adds $20 million to the Corps of Engineers' operation and maintenance account.

This bill currently provides $253 million for the Department of Energy's departmental administration account for fiscal year 2006, and the committee recommendation is a cut of $26 million from the request. The gentleman's amendment would further reduce appropriations from the Department of Energy's salaries and expenses $5 million below the current-year enacted level. Cuts of this magnitude will require reductions in staff at the Department of Energy. Government employees may potentially be RIF'd for a period of time.

The amendment also seeks to add $20 million to the Corps' operation and maintenance account, for which the committee recommendation includes $2 billion. The amendment, if adopted, would have the effect of increasing funding for operation and maintenance by 1 percent.

Frankly, I sympathize with the gentleman. Funding needs are great, but the resources we have are limited. The Corps cannot, and we cannot, spend money we do not have. We need to ensure that the funds that are provided to the Corps are expended efficiently, consistent with the law and on the projects we appropriate.

I would like to point out to the gentleman that the bill provides $12.4 million in operation and maintenance funds for the projects he has expressed an interest in. In the past, the Corps was able to reprogram these funds and use them on other projects. In addition, the Corps would take ratable reductions against projects in the name of savings and slippage and use those funds on other purposes, not this year, as the bill includes reprogramming limitations and eliminates savings and slippage.

So while the gentleman may believe the funds provided in this bill are insufficient, I can assure him that the funds provided in this act will be used for those projects and not siphoned off for other uses.

I would suggest the gentleman withdraw the amendment. Failing that, I would oppose the amendment.

I also might point out that in the gentleman's district there is a total of, in North Carolina in O&M, there is $38 million put into this bill. With the limited resources that we have, I think the State did pretty well.

I will fight with the administration, for example, for the beach renourishment, for which they do not put anything in. But we do in the House and we have supported that because I do believe that that is an economic tool that the States need.

But at this point I would have to oppose the amendment and urge it not be adopted, but I would hope the gentleman would withdraw the amendment. Hopefully, next year, we will get a better allocation and we will do a better job on some of these things.

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

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