Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3183) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 788, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 3183) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 3183.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the conference report on H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act for fiscal year 2010.

The conference agreement before us is a good one, and it merits the support of all of the Members of the House.

The agencies and the programs under the jurisdiction of energy and water development contribute to solving many of the most pressing challenges facing our country, including strengthening and maintaining our water infrastructure, advancing U.S. scientific leadership, combating global climate change with renewable and cleaner energy technologies, and providing security against nuclear threats. I believe the conference agreement provides strong support for these agencies and programs.

The total amount of funding included in the energy and water conference agreement is $35.5 billion. This constitutes an increase of $204 million from the enacted level for fiscal year 2009. While the conference agreement is below the budget request, the primary reason for this difference is the Congressional Budget Office score of the Department of Energy's budget. The conference agreement provides $571 million above the budget request in program scope to further critical energy, water development and related goals.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Senate counterpart, Chairman Byron Dorgan, and his ranking member, Robert Bennett, for their hard work during this conference. I especially want to extend my appreciation to my ranking member, the Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, for his extraordinary cooperation and insight. I truly value his support and advice and that of all of the members of our Energy and Water Subcommittee. I believe we are all proud of this bipartisan product.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I would also like to thank the staff for their help in shepherding this bill through the House and through conference with the Senate. The subcommittee staff includes Taunja Berquam, Robert Sherman, Joseph Levin, James Windle, Casey Pearce, and our detailee from the Corps of Engineers, Lauren Minto.

I also want to thank Richard Patrick of my staff and Rob Blair and Kevin Jones of the minority staff, and Nancy Fox and Kathleen Hazlett of Mr. Frelinghuysen's staff.

Mr. Speaker, I urge unanimous support in the House for the adoption of this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the conference report on H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010. The agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of Energy and Water Development contribute to solving many of the most pressing challenges facing our country, including strengthening and maintaining our water infrastructure, advancing U.S. scientific leadership, combating global climate change with renewable and cleaner energy technologies, and providing security against nuclear threats. I believe the conference agreement provides strong support for these agencies and programs.

The total amount of funding included in the Energy and Water conference agreement is $33.5 billion. This constitutes an increase of $204 million from the enacted level for fiscal year 2009, and is approximately $929 million below the budget request. While the conference agreement is below the budget request, the primary reason for this difference is a Congressional Budget Office score of $1.5 billion for the Department of Energy's budget request for the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program. The conference agreement provides $571 million above the budget request in program scope.

Title I of this conference report provides funding for the Civil Works program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, including the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program. The conference agreement provides the Corps with $5.4 billion in fiscal year 2010, slightly above fiscal year 2009, and $320 million over the budget request. These investments will provide increased transportation efficiency on our nation's waterways, job creation, clean water, and, most importantly, will ensure the safety of our citizens. The conference agreement also recognizes the increasing cost of aging infrastructure through significantly increased funding for the operation and maintenance of existing projects.

The conference agreement continues to limit new contract obligations that require funding from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund due to the insolvency of the Fund. If the revenue stream is not addressed, the level of investment must be adjusted to the available resources-- resulting in increased costs to existing projects as they are suspended, as well as the deferral of new projects in need of recapitalization. I would urge the administration and interested parties to pursue this issue with the relevant authorizing committees.

Funding for title II, which includes the Central Utah Project Completion Account and the programs of the Bureau of Reclamation, is $1.13 billion, $12 million above the amount appropriated last year and $67 million above the budget request. The conferees support funding for two projects to alleviate water supply and conservation issues in the California Bay-Delta, as proposed by the House. The conference agreement provides $133 million, $69 million above the request, for rural water projects to bring clean water to tribal and rural communities in Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, and South Dakota.

Total funding for title III, the Department of Energy, is $27.1 billion, $318 million above fiscal year 2009 and $1.3 billion below the budget request due to a score by the Congressional Budget Office of $1.5 billion for the Department of Energy's budget request for the Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program. This conference agreement, when combined with the $36.6 billion of American Reinvestment and Recovery Act funding, represents a historic investment into energy and science technology, as well as the cleanup of the nation's nuclear legacy. The conference agreement also supports the national security missions of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Our nation's ongoing energy crisis affects our economy, security, and environment, and the conferees have taken. action with this agreement to develop lasting solutions for our energy challenges. Americans today face rising electricity prices, a transportation system still dependent on foreign oil, and the looming uncertainty of global climate change. A broad portfolio of approaches across energy technologies at the Department of Energy will be required to transform our energy economy and address this energy crisis. To further diversify this portfolio, the conferees provide a prudent level of funding for Energy Innovation Hubs, Hubs, a new research model that will gather a broad array of researchers around critical energy challenges. The conference agreement provides the Department of Energy with the opportunity to establish three Hubs to research the next generation of clean and safe nuclear power, cutting-edge science and technology to convert sunlight to transportation fuels, and systems to reduce energy use in buildings.

The conference agreement provides a record investment of $2.24 billion in renewable energy and efficient energy technologies, $314 million above the fiscal year 2009, to develop and deploy long-term solutions to our energy challenges. By investing in ways to harness energy from solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and water sources, the conference agreement takes steps to advance technologies that will provide affordable, clean energy from domestic, renewable sources. Although they offer vast, untapped renewable energy resources in the United States, these technologies currently account for less than 3 percent of our electricity generation. Applied research and development for these renewable energy technologies is funded at $620 million, an increase of 17 percent over the fiscal year 2009, to launch our nation into the next generation of clean and secure electricity generation.

To bring electrical power from these new renewable resources to the population centers that use it, and to reduce energy losses during power transmission, the conference agreement boosts funding by 26 percent over 2009 for electricity delivery and energy reliability. In addition to funding research and development for smart grids, energy storage, and other ways to modernize the nation's power transmission and distribution system, the conference agreement more than triples funding over the fiscal year 2009 for cyber security research and development to secure the nation's electric power system as cyber attacks increase worldwide while the grid is becoming increasingly network-connected.

Chronically high fuel prices and dependence on foreign oil continue to hinder our nation's economy and transportation sector. The conference agreement invests nearly $950 million in activities at the Department of Energy to permanently reduce our dependence on petroleum fuels. The agreement provides $311 million for vehicle technologies, $38 million above the fiscal year 2009, to increase vehicle efficiency, advance alternative fuel technologies for next-generation biofuels, and develop electrified vehicles that can run petroleum-free. Further, the conference agreement provides $174 million for hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, to continue the work at the Department of Energy, in conjunction with private industry and research institutions, furthering one of a small handful of pathways that may reduce the need for imported petroleum fuels.

The conference agreement invests $570 million in programs that cost- effectively cut energy consumption now and in the future by developing and deploying efficient energy technologies. Americans will save money and energy in the near-term through $210 million in funding for weatherization assistance grants, a

5 percent increase over the fiscal year 2009. Further, the conference agreement increases funding for Industrial Technologies and Building Technologies to develop innovative technologies that will help our homes, businesses and industries save energy and money while reducing harmful emissions.

The conference agreement is a measured commitment to positioning nuclear energy to play a role in the nation's energy future. The conference agreement provides $787 million for nuclear energy, $5 million below fiscal year 2009 and $10 million above the request. This funding supports the licensing, research, and development of nuclear reactor technologies.

In addition, the conference agreement supports fossil energy funding to emphasize carbon capture and sequestration--the key to enabling the use of our extensive reserves of coal while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Fossil Energy research and development programs are funded at $672 million, $55 million above the request, of which $404 million is for fuels and power systems and $37.8 million focuses on natural gas and unconventional petroleum research.

There is a legacy of contamination from the past 60 years of nuclear weapons manufacturing and research. This conference agreement is a major investment in mitigating the environmental effects of the nation's nuclear legacy and, for the first time, meets virtually all of the cleanup regulatory compliance milestones at sites around the country. The conference agreement provides $6.4 billion for environmental cleanup, which includes national defense and non-defense sites, as well as Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning (UED&D). Defense sites are funded at $5.6 billion, $147 million above the request. The conference agreement provides non- defense sites with $245 million, $7 million above the request, and $574 million for UED&D, $14 million above the request. The clean-up projects and activities take place around the country, in places like Hanford, Washington; Savannah River, South Carolina; Los Alamos, New Mexico; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Portsmouth, Ohio; Idaho; and Paducah, Kentucky, among others.

The conference agreement increases funding for the Office of Science 3 percent from fiscal year 2009, progress in these constrained times. The conference agreement provides $394 million for advanced scientific computing research, $25 million above fiscal year 2009. The Office of Science conducts world-leading scientific research and development, both in exploring the fundamental nature of matter and energy, and in laying the technological foundations upon which are found our best prospects of building energy independence and control of climate change.

While the administration is determining national policy regarding how to dispose of high-level radioactive waste and nuclear spent fuel, it is prudent to continue to learn from the investment that has been made to the Yucca Mountain waste repository. For nuclear waste disposal activities, the conference agreement provides a total of $197 million to continue the licensing process at Yucca Mountain. Within these funds, the conference agreement provides $5 million to create a Blue Ribbon Commission to evaluate all alternatives for nuclear waste disposal.

The programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, reduce the threat of nuclear proliferation overseas, maintain the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, and provide reliable nuclear propulsion for the U.S. Navy. The conference agreement provides a total of $9.9 billion for the NNSA, which includes $666 million of construction activities for the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility not funded in the NNSA in fiscal year 2009. Adjusting for the new activities, the conference agreement for the NNSA is $9.2 billion, the same as fiscal year 2009.

Nuclear weapons or material with nuclear weapons potential, in the hands of terrorists are a priority national security threat to the United States and our allies. The NNSA programs address the full spectrum of the proliferation threat by supporting multilateral agreements, securing nuclear materials overseas, detecting illicit trafficking, and researching and developing the leading-edge technology to support nonproliferation. Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation activities are funded at $2.1 billion. The International Nuclear Material Protection and Cooperation program that works in Russia and elsewhere to secure nuclear material and enhance border and port security receives $572 million, $20 million above the request and $172 million above fiscal year 2009. The conference agreement includes funds for the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Waste Solidification Building, and supporting activities at Savannah River, South Carolina.

Given the serious international and domestic consequences of the U.S. initiating a new nuclear weapons production activity, it is critical that the administration lay out a comprehensive course of action before funding is appropriated. Major transformation of the weapons complex can only be produced with significant bipartisan support, lasting over multiple sessions of Congress and multiple Administrations.

The Nuclear Posture Review should inform an enduring strategy and provide the basis of the underlying complex necessary to ensure the nation's nuclear weapons continue to keep our nuclear weapons safe and reliable. The conference agreement provides $32.5 million for a limited study of how to improve the non-nuclear components of the B61 bomb. The agreement also includes direction for the NNSA to commission two independent studies to ensure that the B61-12 is both necessary and technically sound. In particular, the second study will examine whether the B61-12 has sufficient technical advantages to constitute a long- term 21st century weapon, or whether it is likely to need near-term replacement or retirement. Should the Nuclear Posture Review confirm the B61-12 as a national security requirement, the agreement includes a provision allowing the NNSA to reprogram funds from other, limited, activities to address technical issues associated with the non-nuclear portion of this program. In the interim, this agreement maintains B61- related technical expertise while evaluating whether the program is essential for national security.

For Naval Reactors, the conference agreement provides $945 million, $117 million above fiscal year 2009, in order to support the next- generation nuclear reactor for the U.S. Navy.

Funding for title IV, Independent Agencies, is $292 million, a decrease of $16 million from the previous fiscal year and $27 million below the budget request. The conference agreement funded the Appalachian Regional Commission at $76 million and the Delta Regional Authority at $13 million, the same as the request. The conference agreement also provides $12 million for the Denali Commission, the same as the request. Two new commissions have been funded by conference agreement: the Northern Border Regional Commission at $1.5 million and the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission at $250,000. The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board is funded at $3.9 million, the same as the request, and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is funded at $26 million, the same as the request. The Federal Coordinator for the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects is also funded at the budget request level of $4.5 million. Finally, the conference agreement provides $154.7 million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, $29 million below the budget request.

We have a responsibility to do everything possible to address our current energy crisis and the state of our infrastructure. This conference agreement invests in the energy areas that will put us on the long-term path to increased energy independence, reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, and lead global efforts to confront global climate change. Further, it provides funding to build and maintain our nation's navigation, flood damage reduction projects and water supply facilities to strengthen our economy, protect our citizens and provide those who do not have it, clean water.

I want to thank my Senate counterpart, Chairman Byron Dorgan, and his Ranking Member, Senator Robert Bennett, for their hard work during this conference. I especially want to extend my appreciation to my Ranking Member, the Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, for his extraordinary cooperation and insight. I truly value his support and advice, and that of all the members of our Energy and Water Subcommittee. I believe we are all proud of this bipartisan product.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude I would also like to thank the staff for their help in shepherding this bill through the House and through conference with the Senate. The Subcommittee staff includes Taunja Berquam, Robert Sherman, Joseph Levin, James Windle, Casey Pearce, and our detailee from the Corps of Engineers, Lauren Minto. I also want to thank Richard Patrick of my staff, and Rob Blair and Kevin Jones of the minority staff, and Nancy Fox and Kathleen Hazlett of Mr. Frelinghuysen's staff.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

I wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I've done this bill, and I have to tell you that one of the lessons I learned is that the inland waterway is of great value to our country, and we have not paid enough attention to it. So I would agree with my colleague that it's a problem that we need to solve.

The Inland Waterway Trust Fund is the vehicle which would construct and maintain these locks. But at this point, we haven't been able to solve that problem. And the gentleman is right. We did help him here in the House when we passed this bill, but I have to tell him with great regret that in the conference we found very little support from the Senate in this particular lock, and in working out the conference bill, we had to go back to the $1 million.

At this moment, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, when we were doing this bill, and in fact, when this bill was on the floor, we assisted, to the best of our ability, in terms of providing authorization and also money, and in some cases we waived matching restrictions so that we would have both the authority and the financial resources to deal with the problem.

What the previous speaker had asked us to do was to waive the environmental impact statements that were required, and we did not have the ability to do it, and the authorizing committee would not allow us to do it. So we did not have that ability to do it. But we did try, and it was kept in the conference to provide the authorization and the financial resources to continue to, in the short term, deal with the water shortages in central California.

At this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend and a member of

the subcommittee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

In response to the comment from my friend from Florida, all new starts in this bill--and there were a few, and the Everglades got two. We have the number of 100,000, but that was to signify that a new start is available for this project. By designating the new start for the Everglades, that means that recovery money can be used now for the purpose that you spoke about.

Secondly, the Corps will now be able to reprogram moneys that now you designated as a new start, can reprogram moneys to continue the efforts on this lagoon.

And so we thought that the new start was not a cutback in money but was a vehicle that would make more money available so that the Everglades program could go forward. That's how we attempted to solve this problem. Hopefully, that will be the result.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Transportation Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Speaker, in response, I have to tell you that the conferees on the House side, the House managers, were united on this front, as well as the chairman of the other body's committee. We felt that the alternative that was desired did not provide additional protection and it would have delayed the permanent protection of New Orleans by anywhere from 18 to 36 months, which we thought was too long of a period of time to keep New Orleans unprotected. The cost, we believe, would have been $3 to $4 billion more.

And so for that reason, we felt that, in fairness, that we should continue with the program that the Corps has for New Orleans.

At this time, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. Speaker, in reference to Mr. Deal, it's our understanding that that is right, the language in this conference requires two studies to determine the critical yield of the Federal projects. But we don't know, first of all, what the outcomes are going to be, so that's why we're having these studies. We don't want to get into the water wars, and we don't think that the consumption issue is an issue that will be part of the studies. Well, the language is report language, and this administration could do what it wants with the Corps of Engineers.

At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify that the Corps was wanting to do these studies, and defeating this conference report is not going to stop the Corps from doing these studies. I have committed to the gentleman from Georgia that we will work with him because we don't believe that the consumption of water by the residents of Atlanta or Georgia should play a role, and it should be a factor in these studies.

I now yield 3 minutes to my colleague from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, Tom Bevill used to describe this bill as the ``all-American bill'' because it meets the needs of America. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California, my friend, for yielding me the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule--once again, a closed rule--coming out of the Rules Committee and the process that brought this bill to the floor. My friends on the other side of the aisle for the first time in history shut down the appropriation process by placing extremely restrictive rules on every single appropriation bill that has come to the floor of the House this year. Chairman Obey set an arbitrary timeline to finish the fiscal year 2010 spending bills, which has forced the Democrat Rules Committee to limit every Republican and Democrat's chance to offer an amendment on the floor.

Why? For what reason? There are hundreds of good amendments which were offered by all of my colleagues which were rejected in this unprecedented fashion. Now that this House has finished all the appropriation bills, you would think that my friends on the other side of the aisle would allow for an appropriate time and an appropriate process for consideration of the conference reports, not just come to this House floor but for Members to be heard from and for us to go back to a process which this House was used to in its precedents for so many years.

But no. Last night the conference report was filed after 6 p.m., I believe 6:17, and the Rules Committee met at 7:15 to report out a rule for floor consideration. Our Democrat colleagues in the committee waived the House rule that requires a 3-day layover of conference reports and scheduled a bill on the floor first thing this morning. Additionally, just last week this House voted to adopt a motion to instruct that stated that the conference report, a bill that we are discussing on the floor here today, should be available online in a searchable format for at least 48 hours before it's voted on.

Well, Mr. Speaker, forget the 3-day rule. Forget the 48-hour motion to instruct; this House was given just less than 24 hours to review the conference report and its changes. I don't know when my Democrat colleagues will allow for the open, honest and ethical Congress that they once called for, but we're on the floor once again saying, We have met the deadline that Chairman Obey wanted. Can we get back to a normal process now, a normal process that is not good just for Republicans and not just for our Democratic Members but good for this House to follow?

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing the Energy and Water appropriation conference report for fiscal year 2010. Today it is my intention to focus on the increase in spending over last year's level and destructive initiatives that the Democrat majority continues to pursue that have only killed jobs and led to record deficits. This administration and this Democratic Congress promised the American public jobs, economic growth, economic recovery, health care, a cleaner environment, better education and just a wonderful, wonderful life, all contained within their appropriation bills. And the list goes on and on with other promises.

Yet the only thing up to now that they really have accomplished is record deficits, record spending and record unemployment numbers all across America. The fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water appropriation conference report provides $33.5 billion in total funding, which is hundreds of millions of dollars above last year's level, and this is in addition to the $58.7 billion provided in fiscal year 2009 emergency funding just from a few months ago, mostly from the stimulus bill.

We have seen massive government spending. Now this bill does not represent any commitment to fiscal sustainability. More promises, more spending, more deficit, more record unemployment. Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration promised America, if Congress passed the stimulus bill, that unemployment would not go beyond 8 percent, that it would create and save millions of jobs. Here we are 8 months later with a record 9.7 unemployment rate, the highest in 26 years, and more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs since the passage of the $1.2 trillion ``stimulus employment plan.''

This summer when discussing the stimulus, Vice President Biden said the Obama administration--and I quote--``misread how bad the economy was,'' even though as a candidate for President and Vice President both of them had been all over the country. They had seen firsthand exactly the circumstance this country was in.

The Obama administration got it wrong. They got it wrong when it came to the stimulus, and the American people know they got it wrong also. The American people can no longer afford this Democrat-controlled House, Senate and White House. We've got to start getting it right, not guessing and getting it wrong. Spending hundreds of millions of dollars more in addition to the $58 billion additional spending this year is not a way to fix the problem. In June of this year, my friends on the other side of the aisle passed a cap-and-trade bill that will raise prices on energy, goods, and services, and every single hardworking American across the country will pay that price.

In my home State of Texas, the average household can expect to pay more than $1,100 a year extra as a result of that legislation. Additionally, this legislation could ultimately kill over 1.38 million jobs that are in the manufacturing sector of this economy. That's 1.38 million more jobs.

Mr. Speaker, some time this month the Democrat-controlled House wants to pass sweeping health care reform. Effectively, it will diminish the employer-based insurance market and forces 114 million Americans into a government-run program. This $1.2 trillion package raises taxes once again, raises taxes once again, raises taxes once again, which is what this Democratic-controlled Congress is about. Raise $1.2 trillion in taxes on individuals and small businesses that do not participate in the government plan and $800 billion, which the President talks about will be necessary to fund this massive government takeover and will result in 4.7 to 5.5 million more private-sector jobs being lost in America.

In July, the Congressional Budget Office director stated that the Democratic health care proposal ``significantly expands the Federal responsibility for health care costs.'' Mr. Speaker, I thought that the goal of health reform was to bring costs down for Americans, not to increase the cost, further America toward bankruptcy and to cost 4.7 to 5.5 million more enterprise system jobs. By the way, those are jobs that are not in Washington, D.C.

The American people know that you cannot spend what you don't have, and that's exactly what we are doing here today with the Democratic majority. Earlier this month, the Treasury Department released a statement reporting that the Federal budget deficit reached a record $1.378 trillion and that the national debt reached $11.8 trillion by the end of August. This means that since 2007, this Democratic Congress has increased the Federal deficit by $1.217 billion and increased the national debt by over $3 trillion. What a record.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will continue to point out that our friends on the other side of the aisle should not tax and spend not only this country but also hardworking families into a further economic recession.

My Democratic colleagues need to get a handle on the out-of-control spending which they dogged us repeatedly about when we were in the majority at far lesser levels.

Rising unemployment and record deficits cannot be remedied with massive increases in spending by Uncle Sam. Huge energy and health care costs that raise taxes and kill jobs is not what our economy needs right now. Americans need a balance. They need to listen to what is happening in Washington only to see that Washington is the problem, not the answer. Americans are tightening their belts because they get it. Congress should be doing the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, we have talked today about the process. We have talked today about spending. And we have talked about the overall agenda of this

Democratic majority that is about taxing, it is about spending, it is about record unemployment, rather than working on the things that the American people, the people back home who sent us here to do our job, are working on.

I encourage a ``no'' vote on this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, the thought process here in Washington is that we can solve all the problems that our country has, just trust Washington. I think now more than ever we are seeing at the end of this year that the leadership in Washington, D.C., the bills that are on this floor, the votes which we take virtually every single time, every single vote is about more taxes, more spending, more rules and regulations that are thrown to the American people with this package about how great this is for the American people.

Yet what happens is that Members of Congress, lots of them in our body on both sides, go back home and they listen to the American people. And they listen to the American people talk what I think is a lot of common sense: common sense about how to fix our health care, how to fix our spending, how to fix the unemployment, how to encourage manufacturing rather than deleting it.

Then they look up and see the political agenda of the Democratic Party, that in the three biggest political bills that represent the Democratic Party we will lose almost 10 million jobs in this country; and the political agenda of the Democratic Party, one which this body is barreling down that pathway to meet and match, has resulted in disaster for people back home.

So the Republican Party will continue to come to Washington and be faithful after listening, and we will go to our committees and we will throw our ideas on the floor and ask the committees to vote on them. We will continue to have Members come to the Rules Committee that seek time, permission to speak about ideas that will better the bills.

Yet we find that in these instances before the Rules Committee, it really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter not just for Republicans, but it really doesn't matter to a Democrat either. They will block the best ideas that come from the heartland.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a way to continue. We are once again coming to the floor, as I have done all year, and my colleagues David Dreier, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, and Virginia Foxx, as we explain the rules and explain the Rules Committee, explain what is happening: receiving a bill at 3 o'clock in the morning; getting a bill, as we did last night, 1 hour before the meeting; not even following the rules from a resolution we had just the week before about online availability of bills.

Mr. Speaker, no wonder the American people are up in arms and insisting that Members of Congress read the bill first; that every single Member of this body is given a chance every single time to say, I disagree with the direction that the Democratic leadership is taking us.

We need to read the bills. We need to take the ideas from people in the heartland, through their Representatives in committees and up in the Rules Committee, and make these in order and follow a process that the American people, if they were sitting in, would say, Why not take more time? Why not understand the bill? Why not cut spending? Why not make some commonsense directional issues happen in this Congress? This leadership, these bills continue to follow a process that the American people are questioning.

We will continue coming to the floor and politely, on behalf of people back home, say that we would hope that we would go back to regular processes instead of setting a new record every time for closed rules. I think it's important. I think it's important.

We will keep coming to the floor, and we will dutifully keep speaking up, and we will make sure that we are properly representing those people who are talking about better process, better direction, and doing the things that will work.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding the time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 788 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 788.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 788 provides for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2010. The rule is a standard conference report rule. It waives all points of order against the conference report and against the consideration and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. However, I want to point out that although the rule waives all points of order, the conference report does not violate either clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Obey as well as Mr. Pastor for their work to bring this conference report before the House today.

When we think of the long-term health of our country, the Energy and Water appropriations bill is one of the most important bills that we consider. The conference report before us today will keep communities safe from flooding, invest in clean energy and renewable technologies, fight nuclear proliferation, and create jobs through infrastructure development.

Without this bill, millions of homes would be exposed to devastating floods, clean energy research that will power the next generation of money-making technologies will stop, nuclear weapons proliferation would pick up again, and the pace of job creation in the clean energy sector would slow to a crawl or even stop altogether. These are the reasons why today's conference report is so important.

In the field of energy, the conference report fulfills Congress's promise to chart a new path for a national energy policy. The conference agreement provides $27 billion for the Department of Energy to help fund clean energy development and perform basic scientific research. It devotes millions of dollars to solar energy development, advanced vehicle technologies, energy-efficient buildings, and biofuels that can be grown right here at home.

When we make our own fuel, Mr. Speaker, we create domestic jobs and also take steps toward becoming energy independent. We recognized this fact in the Energy and Commerce Committee when we wrote the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which is why I'm pleased to see these provisions part of today's conference report.

This appropriations bill also funds a number of applied research grants at the Department of Energy for potentially high-reward activities like fusion energy, high-energy physics, and biological research. Future generations will look back at these investments and thank us for having the foresight to recognize that one generation's long-term research is future generations' short-term gain.

Many of my colleagues would be satisfied to know that the conference report also devotes resources to fossil fuel-based energy that can provide a boost to our energy independence efforts in relatively short order. In it, $672 million is provided for research and development into things like carbon capture and sequestration, natural gas recovery, and unconventional petroleum research activities. This research will benefit independent petroleum producers and can also help make our country more energy independent for the short term.

Also to that end, the conference report takes a responsible approach toward nuclear energy by investing in fuel cycle research and development. By providing more than $700 million for nuclear energy, the conferees made the pragmatic calculation that nuclear will be part of our energy mix in the short term. But no matter how electricity is generated, one challenge we face is delivering it effectively to its destination. For this reason, the conference report provides more than $100 million to modernize and secure our national electricity grid. By almost tripling the amount of funding for grid-connected energy storage and cybersecurity, the conferees have recognized how closely our energy policy is tied to our national security.

The energy portion of this conference report is only half the story though, Mr. Speaker. For my district and for people living in floodplains across the country, this energy and water conference report is a major victory. Funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is increased over both 2009 levels and over the President's request for a total of $5.4 billion. For my constituents, this funding can be a matter of life and death. My district is where the Sacramento and American Rivers converge. As a result, Sacramento is the most at-risk city for major flooding in the United States. More than 440,000 people, 110,000 structures, the capitol of the State of California and up to $58 billion are at risk from flooding in my district alone. Nearly $90 million of vital funding in this conference report will reinforce levees along the American and Sacramento Rivers to keep these national assets safe and dry.

For all of Sacramento, this means safer homes, more secure schools, better protected community centers and a higher quality of life. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, Federal levees currently provide a 6-to-1 return on flood damages prevented when compared to initial building costs.

But the flood protection funding in this conference agreement is more than just dollars and cents, Mr. Speaker. When I go home and walk along the Sacramento River, and when I look at the houses and schools and parks that sit behind the levees, I'm reminded how vital the Energy and Water bill is. In many parts of the country, it can mean the difference between a thriving city and a disaster area. Flood protection is a regional undertaking though. Floodwaters do not stop and start based on congressional district boundaries. That is why I am pleased that the conference report contains more than $60 million to improve the ability of Folsom Dam to protect my constituents who live below it. This money will also help the Joint Federal Project to provide greater efficiency in managing flood storage in Folsom Reservoir.

Around the whole country, from Sacramento to the Mississippi River Delta, from rural Ohio to the Bronx River Basin, this conference agreement protects our communities by investing in our aging infrastructure. And when we rebuild our infrastructure, we rebuild our economy. The infrastructure funding in this conference report before us today will continue this pattern of creating jobs while investing in public

safety. For that reason, I strongly support the rule and the underlying conference report, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank Mr. Obey and the Appropriations Committee for their hard work on this conference agreement.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleague on the other side of the aisle that we're not debating the American Clean Energy and Security Act or the health care reform bill. We are dealing today with the conference report for Energy and Water Development.

And I must say that this is a bill, a conference report, that has strong bipartisan support. As far as job creation, this is about infrastructure, spending on public safety projects that will save jobs across America. As I said before, it's a smart investment, the type of smart investment the American people want this Congress to be making at this difficult point in our history.

Our Nation's levees are crumbling, and we're putting public health at risk because of things like that. This is the time to invest in infrastructure like this.

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

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

The rule before us today is a fair rule that is aligned with the customary practice of the House for rules governing debate on conference reports.

After numerous hearings and constructive negotiations with the Senate, the Appropriations Committee has crafted an important and balanced bill. It invests in new technologies, scientific research, and conservation efforts that are critical to the long-term health of our economy and our planet.

Most importantly for my district, this legislation increases funding for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. Every dollar is crucial for my constituents in Sacramento as we work to improve our water infrastructure, as I know it is to all my colleagues in the House with similar bills.

I want to thank Chairman Obey and Chairman Pastor for recognizing how critical this funding is to all of us. We rely upon it to fortify our levees, raise our dams, and keep our communities safe and dry.

This bill also looks to the future by investing in the development of a new smart grid to ensure electricity delivery and energy reliability. And it makes a strong commitment to renewable energy and scientific research.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

I rise in support of the Energy and Water appropriations conference agreement for 2010. I would like to recognize Vice Chairman Pastor for his friendship and leadership--it has been a good working partnership-- and all members of the committee.

I would also like to thank all of the staff on both sides of the subcommittee as well as in my office and his for their dedication and hard work. On the majority side, Taunja Berquam, the Clerk Bob Sherman, Joe Levin, James

Windle, Casey Pearce, and Lauren Minto. On the minority side, Rob Blair and Kevin Jones. In my personal office, Katie Hazlett and Nancy Fox; and in Mr. Pastor's personal office, Rich Patrick. All of these individuals worked tirelessly to put together the product before us which meets the needs of every congressional district in the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement totals $33.465 billion, which is $928 million below the President's request, and $167 million, or 0.6 percent, above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.

However, the conference agreement was preceded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and other emergency stimulus appropriations for the fiscal year 2009, which gave more than $58 billion in new money to the agencies under our jurisdiction. In fact, nearly 39 billion new dollars alone went to the Department of Energy.

So while the growth from the fiscal year 2009 regular appropriation to this conference report is minimal, the Department of Energy is going to have a difficult time spending and accounting for all of the new money it has received.

However, Mr. Speaker, in general, this conference agreement is reasonable and balanced.

I do want to highlight one area in which I have significant concerns: the future of nuclear power in this country and what happens when political science trumps sound science.

During the Republican motion to recommit the House Energy and Water bill, my colleague from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) spoke eloquently about the perils of following the President's plan to terminate our current nuclear waste management plant at Yucca Mountain. My biggest regret with this conference agreement is that we were unable to overcome Senator Reid's influence, and consequently, the disposal plan is barely on life support.

The amount of funding in this bill for continuing with the Yucca Mountain license application is now half of what is requested, further delaying the progress on the establishment of a national nuclear waste disposal site.

And what will the results be of this decision? Spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste is being stored on site at 121 locations across 39 States. These are our States; they're our constituents. I am sure this fuel is safe where it is today, but I know many of our constituents want it stored somewhere where the environment will not be affected and where the material will be kept safely.

The President's and the majority leader in the Senate's decision will ensure that the fuel stays where it is for at least 15 or 20 years with each site bearing all of the major costs and responsibilities for management and security of the waste material.

Second, their plan will rob our country of potential jobs and tax revenue. These jobs range from Ph.D.s in physics to pipe fitters, from welders to plumbers. Operating nuclear power plants can sustain 700 permanent jobs while new plants generate as many as 2,400 construction jobs.

Currently, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has applications for 26 new plants. That's at least 60,000 jobs at stake. I don't understand how the President can push for an economic revitalization and reduce carbon emissions while gutting the single technology which will help accomplish both of those goals.

Our constituents need these jobs and the clean power source that they create.

Third, killing Yucca Mountain would bring billions of dollars of liability against the Federal Government, anywhere from $11 to $22 billion. This is money which the Federal Government owes industry because we have failed to live up to our responsibilities. We've signed contracts with these companies to take the waste off their hands. And because of the political arrangement between the White House and the Senate leader, we have failed, taxpayers and ratepayers must now carry that burden for the foreseeable future.

These are not empty threats or dire predictions. They are facts. Last week, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had a vote that basically denies the go-ahead for the construction of new nuclear power plants because of the administration's plans to terminate Yucca Mountain.

Those 54,000 jobs I mentioned earlier are on hold. The nuclear waste in our districts is still there and not going anywhere. The billions of liability that our children will have to repay? Well, that's another few billion on top of our current $1.6 trillion deficit.

The one bright side of the conference agreement is that we were able to keep the license application alive, but just barely. Until the American public wakes up to the pitfalls of this political arrangement between the White House and the Senate leader, we will all have to bear the costs.

With that said, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Vice Chairman Pastor for his leadership and friendship. Overall, this is a great conference agreement, and I intend to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of our committee.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank the chairman, and I thank the ranking member and the Speaker. It's my 15th year here. I have been on this committee for 13 years, and I inherited a district that is really heavy in this bill, and I know that. I represent Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

The committee has been incredibly good through the years to recognize the needed investments in science, energy research, national security and environmental management, and yet again this conference report recognizes those critical priorities on behalf of our country, and I'm grateful for that. But much like Paul Revere, I have come to the committee, the subcommittee, and the House again today to say we have a huge problem at the Chickamauga Lock on the Tennessee River.

We began construction of the replacement lock a few years ago. The cofferdam is complete. Inside this cofferdam, we will dry out the Tennessee River in the next few months to test that the cofferdam works. The cofferdam is about the size of this entire building, the Capitol Building, in the middle of the Tennessee River.

We are ready now to begin pouring the foundations in the middle of the river to replace the lock. The current lock will close. I just had the briefing today from the Corps.

Yesterday at the conference committee closing this out, and I signed the conference report, I offered an amendment to put language and up to $14 million in the bill to make sure we can move the project forward. It failed on a 10-8 vote. I appreciate Lincoln Davis, the only member of the majority for voting ``yes.'' Everyone in the minority voted ``yes.'' This is a critical problem.

I say to the administration, you only made a $1 million funding request. It's not sufficient to move it along. The current lock will close. The Corps just briefed us again today. They cannot keep it open. It will be the largest inland waterway system in the history of our country to close.

The current lock was set to close at 2014. We are not building the lock yet. The cofferdam is complete. The Kentucky lock only got $1 million, but their stimulus money allows them to start construction. We could not. I made this case at the subcommittee, at the full committee, and on the House floor Mr. Pastor helped us. We put $14 million in, and just like happens in this place, somehow by the time we got to the conference meeting, it was taken back out. We tried to restore it yesterday, change of support, went down virtually party lines.

I'm telling you, we got a problem. We need help. And it's not me. It's the entire eastern system. It's the largest inland waterway system in the country. It is going to close. We've got to do something.

Please, to the committee, to the Senate, to the House, both parties, administration, when there is an emergency supplemental, let's get together ahead of time and fix the Inland Waterway Trust Fund problem. This is a crisis for all the inland waterway system, and the first big failure will be Chick Lock unless we exert the leadership that we are elected to do. It's a can that has been kicked down the road too long.

I plead with you on behalf of the constituents, not just in my district, not just in my State, but in the entire eastern part of our country. From Peoria to south Georgia, you will have truckloads of cargo and goods, 150,000 18-wheelers a year added to carry the cargo that currently goes through this lock, and it is about to close because we're not doing our job. That's the truth. And I hate it. And I have done my best, but I am only one. I need help. Our people need help. Our country needs help. We need leadership.

Let's keep the Chickamauga Lock open. If there's an emergency supplemental that moves, we need to step up and fix this problem before the 2011 cycle. I'm going to do everything I can. I've been here long enough to know how to cooperate, how to get it done and sometimes how to keep the trains from going any further until the right things are done. That's not a warning. I need your help. That's a plea.