Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 539, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the conference report on H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

The amount of funding included in the Energy and Water conference agreement is $30.5 billion. This represents an increase of $663 million over the enacted level for fiscal year 2005, including supplementals and approximately $748 million over the budget requests. Much of this increase is dedicated to the Civil Works program of the Corps of Engineers with the Corps receiving approximately $1 billion over the budget request.

The recent hurricanes have taught us a hard lesson about the dangers of neglecting the water resources infrastructure in this country. We have to make sure we provide sufficient funds to address the most pressing water resource needs in this country, and we have to make sure that the Corps follows the spending guides provided by Congress in executing those projects.

We have focused on funding on the most important flood control, navigation and dam safety projects and on completing projects that are already under way. That means that our conference report includes only a limited number of new starts and project authorizations.

Our conference agreement imposes stricter controls on the Corps over reprogrammings and continuing contracts. Within the Department of Energy, our conference agreement provides health funding levels for the major DOE programs. We advance initiatives on the recycling of spent nuclear fuel and on the Reliable Replacement Warhead, and we keep critical projects such as the Yucca Mountain Repository and the National Ignition Facility and the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility moving forward.

I really want to thank all my colleagues on the Energy and Water Subcommittee and in the Senate. I especially want to extend my appreciation to my ranking member and partner in this venture, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). He has been an exceptional partner in this effort, and I believe we are both proud of this very bipartisan bill. I also want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their outstanding work this past year.

I urge the unanimous support of the House for the adoption of the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the conference report on H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006.

The total amount of funding included in the Energy and Water conference agreement is $30.5 billion. This represents an increase of $663 million over the enacted level for fiscal year 2005, including supplementals, and approximately $748 million over the budget request.

Title I of this conference report provides funding for the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and for the Corps' Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. The conference agreement provides the Corps with $5.4 billion in fiscal year 2006, slightly below the current year when last year's emergency supplemental appropriations are considered, but approximately $1 billion over the budget request.

The recent hurricanes in September and October should serve as a long-overdue wakeup call to both Congress and the Corps of Engineers about the importance of water resources infrastructure in this country. We have to make sure that we provide sufficient funds to address the most pressing water resource needs in this country, and we have to make sure that the Corps follows the spending guidance provided by Congress. We have to fund the right projects, we have to make sure the Corps completes those projects in a timely manner, and we have to make sure those projects perform as intended.

To that end, our top priority in this conference was to provide additional funding for essential water projects around the country. Of the additional $749 million that was available to our conference over the amount requested by the Administration, we dedicated $634 million of that increase to the Corps of Engineers.

As we have done in the last several fiscal years, we have attempted to focus those resources on the Nation's top water resources priorities. That means that we apply funds to projects that can be completed in fiscal year 2006. We asked the Corps to use its professional engineering judgment to provide us with a list of the top ten priority flood control needs around the country, and a list of the top ten navigation infrastructure needs as well. Unfortunately, the Corps was unable to provide us with anything other than the list of projects contained in the budget request, so we generally funded those critical flood control and navigation projects at the full amount of the request.

As in previous years, we also limit the number of new starts and the number of project authorizations contained in this conference agreement. However, the most significant change is not in the funding levels or the individual projects, but rather in the way the Corps manages those funds and executes those projects. The Corps has operated its Civil Works program with a large amount of flexibility in the past, with the freedom to move funding around from project to project. Unfortunately, that practice got out of hand, to where the Corps was executing 20,000 reprogrammings a year for a workload of only 2,000 projects. That is not sound financial management.

The problem was compounded by the Corps' excessive reliance on continuing contracts, whereby the Corps can commit the Federal government to multi-year contracts in advance of having sufficient appropriations in hand. These two practices, reprogrammings and continuing contracts, meant that the Corps was playing a shell game with the funding we appropriated, moving money around from project to project to cover obligations they had made in excess of available appropriations.

Our conference agreement brings that practice to an end, by imposing stricter controls over reprogrammings and continuing contracts. We put a lot of effort into negotiating sound allocations for water projects, and we expect the Corps to abide by those allocations in the future.

Funding for Title II of the bill, which includes the Central Utah Project Completion Account and the programs of the Bureau of Reclamation, is $1.065 billion, $47 million above the amount appropriated last year and $114 million above the budget request.

Total funding for Title III, the Department of Energy is $24.29 billion, $129 million above fiscal year 2005 and $77 million below the budget request.

Our conference agreement provides healthy funding levels for the major Department of Energy programs. Energy Supply and Conservation is funded at $1.83 billion, an increase of $24 million over the current year and $81 million over the request. This amount includes significant increases in weatherization assistance and research on nuclear energy and electricity transmission and distribution. Fossil Energy research and development programs are funded at $598 million, an increase of $107 million over the request. This amount includes $18 million for FutureGen and $50 million for the Clean Coal Power Initiative.

Non-defense environmental cleanup activities are funded at $353 million, an increase of $3.3 million over the request. The Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund receives $562.3 million, an increase of $67 million over the current year and a decrease of $29 million below the request. Defense Environmental Cleanup programs are funded at $6.19 billion, an increase of $177 million over the request. Of this amount, $157.4 million represents the cleanup of facilities of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), initially proposed in the budget request for transfer from Environmental Management to the NNSA. The conference report provides $526 million for the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, a decrease of $100 million from the request.

The conference agreement provides $3.633 billion for the DOE Office of Science, an increase of $33 million over the current year and $170 million over the request. This amount includes an additional $30 million for advanced scientific computing, to accelerate the development of a leadership-class supercomputer for scientific applications.

For nuclear waste disposal activities, the conference agreement provides a total of $500 million, including $450 million for work on the Yucca Mountain repository and $50 million to initiate planning and a competitive site selection process for one or more integrated spent fuel recycling facilities. It is essential to continue development of the Yucca Mountain repository, but it is also essential to pursue alternative approaches to spent nuclear fuel so that we do not have to develop eight more repositories by the end of this century.

The conference agreement provides a total of $9.2 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), an increase of $217 million over the current year but a decrease of $201 million from the request. This decrease compared to the request results largely from the cleanup responsibilities for NNSA sites and facilities, which were proposed in the budget request for transfer to the NSSA but were retained in Environmental Management in the conference agreement.

The conference agreement does not include funding for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator but provides significant increases for the development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Additional resources are provided to accelerate the consolidation of special nuclear materials into a smaller number of secure sites, and to accelerate dismantlement of obsolete nuclear weapons. The conference agreement includes the requested amount of funding for construction of the National Ignition Facility.

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities are funded at $1.6 billion, an increase of $138 million over the current year and $6 million below the request. This amount includes sufficient funds for the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at Savannah River to proceed into construction in fiscal year 2006.

Funding for Title IV, Independent Agencies, is $271.1 million, a decrease of $18.2 million from last year and an increase of $36.9 million above the budget request. We have funded the Appalachian Regional Commission at $65.5 million, the same as the request. The Delta Regional Authority is funded at $12 million, an increase of $6 million over the request and over the current year. The conference agreement provides $50 million for the Denali Commission, a decrease of $16 million below the current year and $47 million over the budget request. The conference agreement provides $734 million for salaries and expenses of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), an increase of $77 million over the current year and $41 million over the request. This additional budget authority is provided for NRC work on licensing new reactors and for increased security assessments.

I want to thank my Senate counterpart, Chairman Pete Domenici, and his ranking minority Member, Senator Harry Reid, for their hard work during this conference. I especially want to extend my appreciation to my ranking member, the Honorable Pete Visclosky of Indiana, who was at my side during this entire process. I truly value his support and advice, and that of all the Members of our Energy and Water Subcommittee. I believe we are all proud of this bipartisan product.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude I would also like to thank the staff for their help in shepherding this bill through the House and through conference with the Senate. The Subcommittee staff includes Kevin Cook, John Blazey, Scott Burnison, Terry Tyborowski, Tracy LaTurner, and our detailee from the Corps of Engineers, Taunja Berquam. I also want to thank Kenny Kraft of my staff, and Dixon Butler of the minority staff, and Peder Maarbjerg and Felicia Kirksey of Mr. Visclosky's staff.

I urge the unanimous support of the House for adoption of this conference report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg), a committee member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, it is my view. My visit to Hanford last year gave me a real appreciation for the need to treat the tank wastes at Hanford and protect the Columbia River from the groundwater contamination.

The Department must be more forthcoming with information on its plans for the waste treatment plant, and this conference agreement requires a report on their actions to date by December 1 and quarterly reports beginning on January 1.

So the gentleman has my assurance that we are on this; and, frankly, had I not visited and seen the problem firsthand, I might not have been as active and as strong on this; but I want to assure the gentleman and his State that we are going to be on top of this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the conference report has deleted all funding for the nuclear bunker buster program. This action reflects the second time that the Congress has decided to reject the Bush administration's request for this dangerous and unnecessary weapon, and I am hopeful that this action will end the debate on this issue once and for all.

The United States faces a serious national security threat from the proliferation of nuclear weapons materials and technologies, most notably in North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. The pursuit of new nuclear weapons such as the Bush administration's proposed nuclear bunker buster sends a dangerously mixed signal to the rest of the world and erodes our nonproliferation credibility. Nations that see the U.S. expanding and diversifying our nuclear arsenal are encouraged to seek or maintain nuclear deterrents of their own and ignore nonproliferation obligations. Additionally, a U.S. move toward expanding and diversifying our nuclear stockpile is contrary to our legal obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT, which clearly requires the United States to work toward reducing our nuclear arsenal.

In light of the adverse impact of the pursuit of the nuclear bunker buster and any other new nuclear weapon on international nonproliferation efforts, the fact that the bunker buster would inevitably spread high levels of radiation above ground, and existing U.S. earth-penetrating and other conventional weapons capabilities, the Bush administration's proposed nuclear bunker buster study and the development of any new nuclear weapons are a dangerous and wasteful use of taxpayer money.

While I am pleased at the outcome on the bunker buster, I am very concerned that this appropriations bill provides $80 million for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative--an increase of $10 million over the amount requested for this program. In addition, the bill provides an additional $50 million in nuclear waste disposal funding to support development of a spent nuclear fuel recycling plan. These proposals are aimed at reviving nuclear reprocessing--an idea that Congress has considered and rejected in the past.

The conference report contains language that directs the Department of Energy to use this money to

accelerate the development of a separations technology that

can address the current inventories of commercial spent

nuclear fuel and select the preferred technology no later

than the end of fiscal year 2007.

Essentially, the Appropriations Committee is telling DOE that it doesn't believe Yucca Mountain will ever be opened, so it now wants the Department to instead embark on a crash program to start reprocessing nuclear waste.

I warned back in 1987 that the decision to limit the search for a deep underground repository to the Yucca Mountain site and to bar examination of other alternative sites was a risky one. If Yucca Mountain proved unsuitable, or if it could not meet the NRC's licensing requirements, then our country efforts to find a solution to the nuclear waste problem would be forced back to square one.

Now, it appears that my warnings are being borne out. The Yucca Mountain repository is falling apart in the face of serious scientific and technical problems. But rather than come back to Congress and ask for legislation that would reopen the search for a permanent repository, which the nuclear industry and its supporters in Congress know would be politically hazardous, the appropriators now appear to be effectively abandoning the notion of deep underground burial. Instead, they want to reprocess the waste and store it in above ground ``interim'' storage facilities.

Now, you would think that such a fundamental rewrite of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act would actually require action by the committee that actually has jurisdiction over the act in the first place. In the House, that would be the Energy and Commerce Committee. However, in this bill the directive to prioritize reprocessing is being made without any participation by the Energy and Commerce Committee. The committee doesn't even get a copy of the report mandated by the Appropriations conferees.

Yes, there was language in the Energy Policy Act which authorized R&D on reprocessing. I opposed that language, and sought unsuccessfully to remove it from the bill. But R&D is far different from moving to full- scale engineering of reprocessing technologies with a short-term deployment objective. That is what is being proposed in the bill before us today. This conference report is actually talking about setting a target for site selection in fiscal year 2007, and a target for initiation of construction of one or more integrated spent fuel recycling facilities in fiscal year 2010.

This has enormous implications for the future of efforts to permanently dispose of the Nation's nuclear waste in a deep underground repository. It effectively means that there will

be no deep underground repository. It effectively means that there will be no deep underground burial of waste in our lifetimes. So, all of the billions paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund over the years will soon see those funds be diverted over to supporting this new unproven and risky scheme of reprocessing.

This is a huge policy shift. Since the 1970's we have had a policy in this country against reprocessing spent fuel, both because of the risk of nonproliferation and because reprocessing is not economical. In recent years, Republican leaders in Washington have decided they want to undo that policy, however.

I am fundamentally opposed to reprocessing, because I believe that a revival of domestic reprocessing would undermine America's nuclear nonproliferation efforts, cost us enormous amounts of money, will not solve the nuclear waste problem, and won't increase nuclear safety.

With respect to the 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.

At the same time, the U.S. is confronting Iran over its plan to develop a full uranium enrichment program. How are we going to credibly ask the rest of the world to support us when we tell Iran or any other nation that they cannot have the full fuel cycle or reprocessing when we have one here at home? It just won't fly.

America cannot preach nuclear temperance from a barstool. We cannot credibly tell other nations that they should refrain from reprocessing or other nuclear fuel cycle activities abroad when we are engaging in these same exact activities here at home. 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.

In addition to the serious adverse nonproliferation consequences, reprocessing also is not economical. A MIT study put the cost of reprocessing at four times that of as once-through nuclear power. The current price of concentrated uranium ``yellowcake'' in the spot market is about $53.00/kg. For reprocessing to be economical, there must be a sustained 8-fold increase in the long-term price of uranium. That is not likely to occur anytime soon.

On top of that is the cost of building a plant. As a benchmark, Japan's nearly completed Rokkasho reprocessing plant--20 years in the making--costs on the order of $20 billion. I have seen some cost estimates for a U.S. reprocessing program that run as high as $65 billion. That is not something that is economically viable at a time of huge Federal budget deficites.

Moreover, reprocessing will not really 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 or other Federal sites.

The conference report states that funding in the Nuclear Waste Disposal Account will be used:

to prepare the overall program plan and to initiate a

competition to select one or more sites suitable for

development of integrated recycling facilities (i.e.,

separation of spent fuel, fabrication of mixed oxide fuel,

vitrification of waste products, and process storage) and

initiate work on an Environmental Impact Statement. The site

competition should not be limited to DOE sites, but should be

open to a wide range of other possible federal and non-

federal sites on a strictly voluntary basis.

These reprocessing sites will become de facto nuclear waste dumps. Which State is going to ``volunteer'' to become a nuclear waste dump? Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, such a site cannot legally be located at the Yucca Mountain site. So, where is it going to go?

How long will the waste be stored there? The spent nuclear fuel cannot even be handled to be reprocessed for 5 to 15 years--it is so radioactive. So we know already that ``interim storage'' could last for a very long time.

And if we construct these ``interim'' waste dumps, what happens next? What will happen to all this waste when the hard reality of the disastrous economics combined with the fact that our government is already too deep in deficit that it will be unable to subsidize such a program forever? There are simply too many unanswered questions.

It is also not accurate to suggest, as some do, that reprocessing is safe. Twenty tons of highly radioactive material leaked from a broken pipe at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in the United Kingdom in April of this year. Senior officials at the UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns the Sellafield reprocessing have pushed to close THORP 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. Is that the kind of mess we want happening over here?

When the House version of this bill was being debated on the House floor last summer, I offered an amendment which would have transferred the $15.5 million appropriated for reprocessing and interim storage to several energy efficiency priority programs that were underfunded in the bill. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated.

I continue to be opposed to the reprocessing language in the bill. I intend to continue raising questions about this proposal, both in the Energy and Commerce Committee and on this floor.

Finally, on another matter, I am very concerned about the cuts that have been made in energy efficiency programs in this bill. We are in the middle of an energy emergency. We had a hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee last week that showed the impact that these high prices are having across the board, in every sector of the economy. The Senate will be holding a hearing today on price gouging by big oil companies and the $100 billion in oil company profits projected for 2005. There are things that we can do in this area. What we are seeing is missed opportunities.

The House Bill for the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations provided $41 million for the State Energy Program. The Senate bill provided $41 million for the State Energy Program. Now we go to conference and the conference report provides $36 million, which is $8 million below fiscal year 2005 levels--almost a 20 percent cut. We are in the midst of an energy crisis. This program implements energy efficiency programs and energy emergency preparedness activities in every State in our country. A recent National Laboratory study concluded that for every $1 invested, we get $7.22 in return in energy savings. This makes no sense. We should be increasing these programs, not cutting them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recommend that all Members join me in supporting this conference agreement. Its presentation has been bipartisan, and the chairman has been fair throughout his preparation. I would also join the chairman in adding 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 very strong team.

On the minority staff, I would like to thank Dixon Butler. This year we have two of the finest detailees ever from the Army Corps, Taunja Berquam helping with the majority and Felicia Kirksey helping with the minority. I would also thank Kenny Kraft on Chairman Hobson's staff as well as Peder Maarbjerg on mine.

Conference negotiations this year were protracted and their favorable resolution required both patience and firmness in pushing for positive reforms of the Corps of Engineers management practices.

I want to thank Chairman Lewis as well as Ranking Member Obey for their steadfast support in getting this done.

As I said in my remarks earlier this year, 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, including saner and safer policies on nuclear weapons, insistence on 5-year planning from the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Department of

Energy; a focus on completing projects in management reforms, particularly at the Corps. On this side of the aisle I am pleased to have had the opportunity to support my chairman on these issues.

The conferees were given an allocation of $749 million larger than was available when the House developed its bill back in the spring. The tragic events that resulted from the hurricanes demonstrated that our Nation has crying needs in the areas served by the program of the corps, and we have devoted the increased funds to meet these needs along the Gulf of Mexico and across the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for my colleagues' support of this conference agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I recommend that all members join me in supporting this conference agreement. Its preparation has been bipartisan and the Chairman has been fair throughout its reparation. 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 of the finest detailees ever 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.

Conference negotiations this year were protracted and their favorable resolution required both patience and firmness in pushing for positive reforms of the Corps of Engineers management practices. I want to thank Chairman Lewis and Ranking Member Obey for their steadfast support in getting this done.

As I said in remarks earlier in the year, 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, including saner and safer policies on nuclear weapons, insistence on 5- year planning from the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and Department of Energy, a focus on completing projects, and management reforms, particularly at the Corps. On this side of the aisle, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to support him on these issues.

The conferees were given an allocation $749 million larger than was available when the House developed its bill back in the Spring. The tragic events that resulted from hurricanes Katrina and Rita demonstrated that our Nation has crying needs in the areas served by the programs of the Corps of Engineers, and we have devoted the increased funds to meeting these needs both along the Gulf of Mexico and across the Nation.

The Energy and Water Development conference agreement had to work within the constraints that started with the President's budget request and its inadequate commitment of resources to the programs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The events of this year amply demonstrated the latent threats to our Nation from natural disasters and the failure of inadequate manmade structures. The Congress is doing the right thing in increasing spending on the Corps in FY 2006 by more than $1 billion over the request. Hopefully the Administration will now understand the level of investment needed and submit a budget for FY 2007 that sustains and extends this investment level for the water infrastructure of our Nation.

An additional top priority within the Energy and Water appropriations is nuclear nonproliferation. While the overall level included in the conference agreement is slightly below the request, considerable funds have been shifted from a construction project with major unspent balances to support of high priority programs to help Russia protect and control its nuclear weapons material. The Russian side has signaled strong willingness in this area, and bureaucratic obstacles in the U.S. have been removed. We must seize this opportunity for the increased safety of us all.

Alas, this conference agreement is limited by an overall constraint forced by allocation.

Four fifths of the Energy and Water funding goes to the Department of Energy, but energy research, development and demonstration is only 10% of the Department. The cost of gasoline, natural gas, and home heating oil have exploded over the past 18 months. Only the Federal Government can invest in the long-term R&D needed and stimulate demonstration and deployment of new technologies through partnerships with the private sector.

When our Nation faced high costs and uncertain supplies for energy in the mid-1970s, President Carter and Congress, made major investments in energy conservation and renewable energy along with unconventional sources of fossil fuels were funded. A comparable response today would require quadrupling our support for renewable energy and doubling our support for conservation R&D at DOE. As a start, Democrats advocated for creation of an energy independence fund of one-quarter billion dollars of new money at DOE at the time the House considered the Energy and Water appropriations bill.

The prosperity of our Nation is built in part on preeminence in almost all areas of fundamental science research. The Department of Energy is the primary supporter of physical science research and provides state-of-the-art user facilities available to investigators from government, academia, and industry.

The constraints on this conference agreement have allowed only one area of research and user support to be increased above the request-- high performance computing. This 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. For three years in a row, the Congress has had to increase support substantially in this area to sustain momentum in reachieving U.S. leadership.

The conference agreement provides no increased support for the operations of DOE user facilities. Construction of these facilities represents a major investment. Before the recent run-up in energy prices, it was estimated that an additional $95 million was required to operate these facilities at full capacity. Operation of these facilities is energy intensive, and the FY 2006 operating levels are likely to be smaller than planned.

Within the constraints of the conference allocation, the Energy and Water conferees have made good choices for our Nation. I ask for support for this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I look forward to today's consideration of H.R. 2419, which reflects much thought and long-term planning on behalf of the Committee on Appropriations. This year's energy and water bill means a great deal to my constituents in my hometown of Sacramento.

This year, we pointedly witnessed just how important the water funding included in the energy and water appropriations funding legislation is. And we must now embrace the lessons this year's unprecedented hurricane season have taught us about the essential need to invest in our Nation's flood control infrastructure, dollars that are necessary to examine, maintain and strengthen our levee and dam systems.

Federal officials must look expeditiously at the significant role infrastructure plays to reduce catastrophic loss in a flood event. I commend the committee for calling on the Corps of Engineers to identify and create a list of the Nation's 10 most critical water resource needs in the country.

While hurricane season has ended, the flooding season in Sacramento and all of California will begin shortly. And as I have consistently spoken about the unacceptable risk of flooding my constituents face, I am certain you understand the concern I have about this upcoming season. Despite years of dedicated efforts, Sacramento still remains one of the most flood-prone and threatened cities in the country, paling in comparison to the level of protection enjoyed by other river cities.

According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento's flood risk is among the highest of urban areas in the country. This bill makes a significant investment in Sacramento's flood reduction efforts. It keeps the region on track to achieve our short-term goal, through levee work, of reaching 100-year protection. Moreover, this legislation ensures our other projects move forward, through which Sacramento will more than double the current level of flood protection. This increased protection is essential.

With thousands of lives and the capital of the Nation's largest State at risk, the need for this critically important investment is clear. We cannot afford to delay this work. This legislation recognizes the immediate need for progress on our flood control by directing our Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation to continue the collaborative work addressing improvements to Folsom Dam. On behalf of Sacramento, I appreciate their dedication to this goal.

Each of our flood control partners, the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State of California, recognize the dire need for improved flood control and have personally invested in finding a solution; and I thank them for this. They, as I, who live in Sacramento, understand that lives are at risk and delays only add to our vulnerability.

I cannot proceed without also expressing my gratitude to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). Their commitment to improving our Nation's water infrastructure is evident in this legislation. I thank both of California's Senators for their efforts on Sacramento and California's flood control needs. I appreciate Senator Feinstein's leadership in the conference committee. To the energy and water appropriations staff, particularly Peder Maarbjerg and John Blazey, your long hours and hard work are much appreciated.

Their efforts reflect not only the incredible investments that must be made to improve our infrastructure across the Nation, but also an acknowledgment that we must wisely spend each dollar. This legislation adds new measures to ensure that the Corps manages each dollar efficiently.

To improve the execution of projects, the Corps is directed to develop a 5-year comprehensive budget plan and vision for water infrastructure in the country to comprehensively integrate financial planning and project management. Further, while the Corps will still have the flexibility to occasionally shift project funding as needed, the Corps will no longer be able to consistently use this practice.

By working together, the Congress, the administration, and the Corps of Engineers will be better prepared to ensured that limited Federal resources are spent efficiently, commitments to local sponsors are honored, and projects remain on schedule.

This bill moves our country forward on many levels, from improving local water infrastructure to bigger-picture Corps of Engineer financial management and efficiency issues.

In light of the realities our Nation faced this year, I hope Congress will continue this commitment to public safety and significantly invest in water infrastructure. I strongly support the underlying conference report and look forward to voting in support of the measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report.

First, let me commend Chairman Dave Hobson and Ranking Member Pete Visclosky for their hard work on this Conference report.

In a year of fiscal constraint, extraordinary costs due to natural disasters, they have produced an excellent bill that addresses our national priorities and 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.

Katrina

No policy discussion about the Corps of Engineers can take place in this body without the looming shadow of Hurricane Katrina and its huge devastation.

This historic storm--encompassing 90,000 square miles in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama--raised issues that the Corps and the Congress must consider in the months ahead as we look to rebuild the Gulf Region and protect others susceptible to same kind of natural disaster.

Let's be blunt. A Katrina could--and will--happen again and we must heed its ``lessons learned.''

In the near term, we must be a careful steward of the taxpayers' dollars.

In the long--term, Congress needs to revisit how we prioritize ongoing Corps water infrastructure projects in a way that allows flood control, navigation, beach erosion to be completed once they are begun.

The Coast

The Army Corps of Engineers keeps our waterways open for business, prevents our communities from flooding and our beaches from eroding.

In New Jersey alone, the Army Corps budget helps keep the 127 miles of New Jersey coastline open to visitors from across the country. Serving as one of New Jersey's greatest attractions, our beaches generate over 30 billion dollars for our State's economy each year, while providing over 800,000 people with jobs. This bill provides $71 million dollars for beach preservation and restoration.

Port

One of the most important Army Corps projects is the Port of New York and New Jersey Harbor Deepening. For the third year in a row, President Bush's budget message recognized the dredging of this port as a national priority and it called for it to be one of five national navigational projects.

It goes without saying that projects like the Port drive our national economy. The Port is a national asset. As the largest port in the northeast and a leading job center for the New Jersey/New York Metropolitan Region, we must continue to focus our efforts on deepening its major navigation channels so that the port is able to meet the 21st Century needs of our economy.

floods

Of course, the importance of the Army Corps budget is not limited to just navigational projects. In an effort to protect New Jerseyans, their homes, and their businesses from the destruction and devastation of flooding, this bill also provides the framework and the funding to purchase wetlands for natural storage areas, and to work with the local governments across northern New Jersey to develop long-term solutions to re-occurring floods. In New Jersey this means that important corps initiatives like the Jackson Brook Flood Control project in my own district and the ongoing acquisition of wetlands critical for the preservation of flood storage areas, among several other critical local projects have the funding to remain on track.

energy

Mr. Speaker, our country continues to benefit from advances in science, technology and engineering. We've discovered the potential for fusion energy, advanced renewable energy, and improved energy efficiency. Through cutting edge research and the development of these programs at the U.S. Department of Energy, we are rapidly advancing our scientific knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, I have long supported funding for renewable energy sources. The Committee's investment of $1.2 billion in renewable energy resources will be integral to creating alternative energy solutions for our nation. The Department of Energy is pursuing other new technologies to meet future energy and environmental needs. These technologies will change how we use and produce energy.

I am pleased that year after year this Committee continues to recognize the incredible potential of fusion energy by providing a $30 million increase in funding for a total of $296 million in funding for the program--which will advance the vital work of the domestic fusion community to prosper at sites such as New Jersey's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.

The money in this bill for energy efficiency and renewable energy will fund continuing improvements in technology for programs I strongly support like hydro-electricity, wind and solar power. Since FY2000, the U.S. Congress, through this committee has invested over $3 billion in renewable energy.

The Chairman and his staff have worked extremely hard to craft a good bill. Kevin Cook and his team deserve a lot of credit. For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.