Dave Hobson

Mr. HOBSON

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

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment cuts $20 million from the Department of Energy's departmental administration account and adds $20 million to the Corps of Engineers' operation and maintenance account. This bill currently provides $253 million for the Department of Energy's departmental administration account for fiscal year 2006, and the committee recommendation is a cut of $26 million from the request. The gentleman's amendment would further reduce appropriations from the Department of Energy's salaries and expenses $5 million below the current-year enacted level. Cuts of this magnitude will require reductions in staff at the Department of Energy. Government employees may potentially be RIF'd for a period of time. The amendment also seeks to add $20 million to the Corps' operation and maintenance account, for which the committee recommendation includes $2 billion. The amendment, if adopted, would have the effect of increasing funding for operation and maintenance by 1 percent. Frankly, I sympathize with the gentleman. Funding needs are great, but the resources we have are limited. The Corps cannot, and we cannot, spend money we do not have. We need to ensure that the funds that are provided to the Corps are expended efficiently, consistent with the law and on the projects we appropriate. I would like to point out to the gentleman that the bill provides $12.4 million in operation and maintenance funds for the projects he has expressed an interest in. In the past, the Corps was able to reprogram these funds and use them on other projects. In addition, the Corps would take ratable reductions against projects in the name of savings and slippage and use those funds on other purposes, not this year, as the bill includes reprogramming limitations and eliminates savings and slippage. So while the gentleman may believe the funds provided in this bill are insufficient, I can assure him that the funds provided in this act will be used for those projects and not siphoned off for other uses. I would suggest the gentleman withdraw the amendment. Failing that, I would oppose the amendment. I also might point out that in the gentleman's district there is a total of, in North Carolina in O&M, there is $38 million put into this bill. With the limited resources that we have, I think the State did pretty well. I will fight with the administration, for example, for the beach renourishment, for which they do not put anything in. But we do in the House and we have supported that because I do believe that that is an economic tool that the States need. But at this point I would have to oppose the amendment and urge it not be adopted, but I would hope the gentleman would withdraw the amendment. Hopefully, next year, we will get a better allocation and we will do a better job on some of these things. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. The capacity of the strategic petroleum reserve is 727 million barrels. By August of 2005, the President's direction of 700 million barrels will be achieved. The 2006 Presidential budget does not request additional barrels to be contracted. However, should the President determine in 2006, for reasons of national and economic security, to increase the supply of oil for the reserve, this amendment could prevent that. One cannot predict the future, if there will be a national emergency to release the oil from the reserve, or a need to contract for more. This amendment unnecessarily restricts the President from acting in a time of national need by setting an arbitrary limitation on the use of funds. Last year after hurricanes ravaged the Gulf of Mexico, there was a disruption in production at individual refineries. DOE made a short- term loan of 5.4 million barrels of oil to refiners that had a shortened supply of feed stock. If the Stupak amendment was in place at that time, these loans would not have happened because the oil would not be able to be repaid back to the reserve. I do not think that we want to be in the business of restricting emergency powers only to make a statement on the price of oil today. Therefore, I oppose the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

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

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

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 2419 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 291, the amendment I have placed at the desk be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole and be considered as original text for purpose of further amendment; and that no further amendment to the bill, as amended, may be offered except: Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate; Amendments printed in the Record and numbered 1, 2, and 5; The amendment printed in the Record and numbered 3, which shall be debatable for 24 minutes; The amendment printed in the Record and numbered 4, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes; An amendment by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) regarding funding for Energy Smart schools; An amendment by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) regarding Laboratory-Directed Research and Development; An amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) regarding funding for interim storage and reprocessing; An amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) regarding security assessments; An amendment by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) regarding promulgation of regulations affecting competitiveness; An amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) regarding contribution of funds to ITER; and An amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) regarding funding for operation and maintenance for the Corps of Engineers. Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, the legislation now under consideration by the House would permanently name the Dayton Ohio Federal building in honor of our good friend and former colleague, Tony Hall. This legislation which, as I introduced, as you have heard, has been cosponsored by every member on both sides of the aisle of the Ohio delegation. For nearly 24 years Tony Hall represented Ohio's Third Congressional District with honor and distinction. And he currently serves as United States ambassador to the United Nations food and agriculture agencies in Rome. There he has been a tireless advocate on behalf of those who face the hardships of hunger around the world. In Congress, Tony was always guided by his faith and family. He spent 21 years on the House Rules Committee, was a founding member of the select committee on hunger, and a founder and chairman of the congressional hunger center. As colleagues, Tony and I worked together in a partnership for the benefit of citizens of the Miami Valley on numerous projects and initiatives, including those involving Wright Patterson Air Force Base and the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historic Park, which is the first bill that I passed in this legislature. A leading humanitarian, Tony has been nominated three times for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work with hunger, relief aid programs, and improving international human rights conditions. Tony was a football star, a little All American at Denison, a Peace Corps volunteer, a noted world traveler, and a devoted husband and father and a dedicated public servant. We are all better people today because Tony Hall was in Congress. The example he set in working to improve the lives of others is something that all of us can learn from. This legislation is a lasting way to pay tribute to Tony's efforts over the years, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. And I hope we will meet with better success this year in the other body than we did in the two previous years. And I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my fellow Ohioan and good friend, Tony Hall. For years, Tony and I have worked together for the benefit of the citizens of the Miami Valley on numerous projects and initiatives. I am very happy that he has this new opportunity to work directly on hunger issues at the United Nations, but it is still very said to see him leave the House of Representatives. Tony is now at the end of a nearly 24-year career representing the people of Montgomery County on Capitol Hill and is taking his crusade against hunger to a global stage. The youngest son of one of Dayton's most beloved mayors, Tony has been a football star, a Peace Corps volunteer, a noted world traveler, a devoted husband and father, and a dedicated public servant. Tony has become the area's longest-serving Congressman and a three-time Nobel nominee known worldwide for his work against hunger. In Congress, Hall has been guided by faith and family and never chosen Capitol Hill events over the importance of being home with his wife and children. He has spent 21 years on the House Rules Committee, and I have been pleased to work with Tony on numerous local projects for the Miami Valley: from supporting the National Composites Center, to saving the Air Force Institute of Technology. Ten years ago, Tony and I worked to establish the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park and we just recently embarked upon a new effort to create the National Aviation Heritage area to preserve Ohio's aviation heritage for the future. When I first came to Congress, Tony was one of the first Members of Congress to reach out to me, and show me the ropes. He didn't have to do that, and I have always appreciated his willingness to make me feel comfortable in this new environment. Nobody goes around Capitol Hill grumbling about Tony Hall. He is the genuine article, he works hard for his constituents and he is a man of principle, and of his world. Tony has managed to be a positive force, despite the difficult challenges he has faced in his personal life. We are all better people because Tony Hall has been here. As Ohio's Seventh District Representative to the Congress of the United States, I take this opportunity to join with members of the Ohio delegation to honor the efforts and the many outstanding achievements of Rep. Tony Hall. His many contributions as a member of the House of Representatives and leadership will be remembered.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today on this issue. I think this is, in all the years I have been in politics, one of the most base, outrageous acts to take place. The Democratic State chairman in our State has not challenged, to my knowledge, the count or the outcome in any county. His name is Denny White. The Democratic chairman of no county that I know of has challenged either the count or the outcome in any county. The Democratic board of election members have not challenged the count or the outcome in any county. This should be voted down. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart on this issue. In all of the years that I have been in public service, I think this is one of the most base, outrageous acts to take place. Ohio's State Democratic Chairman, whose name is Denny White, has not, to the best of my knowledge, challenged the count or outcome of this election. No Ohio Democratic County Chairman has challenged the count or outcome of this election in any county. No Ohio Democratic Board of Election member has challenged the count or outcome of this election in any county. The people of the State of Ohio are not challenging the results of the election. The challenges we are hearing today are politically motivated by partisan politicians. They are casting aspersions on the bipartisan electing officials within the State of Ohio. This is unfair and wrong to do to those hardworking, dedicated officials. All of the major newspapers in Ohio have editorialized against this despicable action taken by the minority. Mr. Speaker, the American people want us to work together in a bipartisan fashion. My constituents ask me why we don't work together more often. What we are seeing here today, two days after being sworn in, is why we don't see more comity in the House. this action is setting the wrong tone for the beginning of the 109th Congress. This debate today is not going to change the result of the election, but it will poison the atmosphere of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, this challenge should be overwhelmingly defeated.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with Mrs. Pryce and Mr. Tiberi to congratulate Battelle, a global science and technology enterprise, on its 75th anniversary. Although founder Gordon Battelle never lived to see his dreams come to fruition, it was his and his mothers' estates that led to Battelle's existence. The estates were generously left for the establishment of the ``Battelle Memorial Institute . . . for the purpose of education in connection with and the encouragement of creative and research work and the making of discoveries and inventions . . .''. It was Mr. Battelle's desire to recover zinc from Ozark mines that led him to his first patent. This initial success produced the grand vision which Mr. Battelle's business partner, Joseph Frantz, is credited with carrying out. In 1929, Battelle opened for business with only 30 staff members. Today, including the national labs that they manage, Battelle oversees 16,000 staff members and conducts $3 billion in annual research and development. It is hard to believe what this Columbus, Ohio-headquartered institution has accomplished since those humble beginnings. In fact, their innovative technologies touch most Americans on a daily basis. Possibly the most well known of Battelle's innovations is the development of xerography, which eventually led to today's copying machines and the company Xerox. Other innovations include: armor plating for U.S. Army tanks during WWII, fuel for the first nuclear powered submarine Nautilus, the metal composition of most of the 52.5 million coins produced each day by the U.S. Mint, cruise control for the automotive industry, the technology that led to the compact disc, and ``no-melt'' chocolate. In addition to their commercial customers, Battelle provides services to over 800 federal, state, and local government agencies concentrating on important issues from national security to transportation and space. As Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, I have the distinct pleasure of working very closely with Battelle on a number of issues. Through the annual Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, I provide funds for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Labs. One of Battelle's primary services includes the management or co-management of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the National Renewable National Laboratory. In fact, just last week, Battelle won a 10-year contract to operate the newly created Idaho National Laboratory, and congratulations are certainly in order regarding this new addition to the Battelle family. As we look forward with great anticipation to the next 75 years of Battelle innovations, one can only dream of what may come. Battelle projects that they will concentrate on a broad range of issues in the upcoming years including: advanced healthcare, sustainable and renewable energy, clean water, and nuclear power. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work with Battelle on these issues, and many more, and I congratulate them on their continued success.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 464 honoring the 10 cities named 2004 All-America Cities, and I would like to thank Representative Robin Hayes for his leadership in introducing this resolution. Each year, the All-America Cities Award recognizes communities whose residents have been successful at identifying problems and working cooperatively to solve them. While all 10 cities named All-America Cities this year are deserving of this honor, I am particularly proud that Springfield, Ohio, my hometown, is one of them. Springfield is a city that typifies an American heartland community. While it embraces its manufacturing past, Springfield has a clear goal of transitioning to a more diverse economy. This new focus emphasizes research and development. Recently, the Springfield Technology Park was established, which includes the new Lexis-Nexis data center and the new Ohio Supercomputer Center. Other high technology businesses are following. Not only is Springfield securing its economic future, it is developing proactive solutions to the other challenges it faces. Springfield's All-America Cities application highlighted three programs that were designed to meet these challenges. The projects truly demonstrate the positive results that can be achieved through cooperation between public and private entities. First, the Neighborhood Housing Partnership of Greater Springfield is an organization dedicated to making residents' dreams of home ownership come true. Government, private foundations, lenders, corporations, and realtors have all come together to provide financial assistance and support services to first-time homebuyers. The second program, the Clark County Literacy Coalition, is a community partnership designed to help adults to acquire literacy skills. The Springfield-Clark County Chamber of Commerce, the Warder Literacy Center, and the Clark County Public Library are just three of the groups working cooperatively to help the residents of Springfield improve their reading and parenting skills. A third organization, Rocking Horse Center, provides comprehensive health care services for children and young families. The local government, local hospitals, and other community organizations have come together to provide health services and child care advice to the community and to ensure affordable health care to those children who need it most. In closing, I would like to congratulate the City of Springfield, the Springfield-Clark County Chamber of Commerce, and the Neighborhood Housing Partnership of Greater Springfield for their hard work in making sure that Springfield's All-America Cities application would be successful. The citizens of Springfield are also to be commended for making Springfield such a great place to live and work. Mr. Speaker, I join today with my colleagues, the proud citizens of Springfield, and the residents of the other nine 2004 All-America Cities in support of this resolution.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4492, which contains the authorization of the National Aviation Heritage Area Act. I would first like to thank Chairman Pombo, the Members of the Resources Committee and their staff, for their leadership and cooperation in advancing this idea. I introduced legislation to create the National Aviation Heritage Area, which has been supported by Representative's Ralph Regula, Mike Turner, John Boehner, and all of the Ohio Delegation, to enhance significant historical resources of interest to all Americans and to further national awareness of Ohio's key role in the history of aviation. I can think of no better way to preserve and carry on the years of hard work and preparation leading up to last year's 100th anniversary of the first powered flight, than to establish this heritage area. Few technological advances have transformed the world or our Nation's economy, society, culture, and national character as the development of powered flight. Ohioans such as the Wright Brothers, John Glenn, and Neil Armstrong have been at the forefront of every major development associated with flight. But just as important are the inventors, scientists and engineers that have made it possible in less than 100 years to not only fly between continents, but also to fly to the moon and maintain a presence in space. My provision is fully in the spirit of President Bush's recent ``Preserve America'' executive order that declared, ``It is the policy of the Federal Government to provide leadership in preserving America's heritage . . . by promoting intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships for the preservation and use of historic properties.'' The Members of Congress from Ohio have a long record of promoting the preservation of aviation sites in Central Ohio. We have previously worked together to secure funding for the U.S. Air Force Museum, the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, and the National Aviation Hall of Fame. We also worked closely with the community to make sure that last year's Centennial of Flight celebration was a huge success. For these reasons, it is vitally important that we move forward with this legislation, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 4492.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I can think of no bill more important than this bill, especially at this time. And I want to thank the committee on both sides for doing great work on this. The quality of life for our troops is very important. Their ability to come home and live in appropriate housing is of the highest need. When I was the chairman of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, we began in earnest to do the privatization of housing on our bases because we realized that we did not have enough money to build housing under the old MILCON way. I can tell my colleagues that as we go around and visit the bases today where we have gotten these programs going, people are thrilled at the quality of the housing that is now there. I think CBO has done a very great disservice to this country in not understanding how these deals are put together. These deals are put together at no risk for the most part to the Federal Government. There is only a couple who have a BRAC guarantee. All the rest of them are a simple, lease-back proposition with no guarantee by the Federal Government. So let us take a base that has been done. Let us go to Fort Hood, Texas. If we go to Fort Hood, Texas, we have a company that has built this housing, and they have agreed that they will provide this housing to the military; and the military has said we will rent it, we will rent it from you, but if it at some time Fort Hood does not need the housing, the government does not pay for it. The risk of the private financing on this is in the private sector, not to the Federal Government; and I do not think CBO understands that. We do not have to pay for it, if we do not need it. That is the best deal for the taxpayer. That is the best deal for the troops. He is getting housing that he is entitled to, that is the same type of housing if he were in the private sector, and that is the kind of housing our troops are entitled to; and we are giving it to them. I urge the support for this bill and to keep this provision in this bill.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill, H.R. 4614, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides the annual funding for a wide range of Federal programs, including such diverse matters as flood control, navigation improvements, environmental restoration, nuclear waste disposal, advanced scientific research, maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear nonproliferation. Total funding for the energy and water development in fiscal year 2005 is $27.988 billion. This funding amount represents an increase of $50 million over fiscal year 2004 and $734 million over the President's budget request. The bill is right at our subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and provides adequate funds to meet the priority needs of the House. I believe we do some good things for the Nation in our bill. Members will not receive as many water earmarks as they might like, but we did take care of their top priorities. Instead of a steady regimen of pork, we try to put the corps back on a balanced diet. We hope that we can leave the corps civil works program in better shape than we found it, and I am confident the changes we make in this bill will have lasting positive effects. The same holds true for DOE. Lastly, I would like to thank all of the members of this subcommittee for their cooperation and especially thank my ranking member and partner, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). It has been a pleasure working with the gentleman and his staff on this bill, Dixon Butler and Peder Maarbjerg. I want also to thank the committee staff, Kevin Cook, Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, and Tracey LaTurner, as well as Kenny Kraft on my own staff. I also want to recognize our agency detailees, Tim Winchell and Jim Spratt. Their assistance was invaluable in putting this bill and report together. I think this is a good bill. We ought to pass it expeditiously. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to submit to the House for its consideration H.R. 4614, the 2005 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2005. The Appropriations Committee approved this bill unanimously on June 16th, and I believe it is a good bill that merits the support of the entire membership of the House. I want to thank all the members of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the floor today. I especially want to thank my Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky of Indiana, for his extraordinary cooperation. This is truly a bipartisan bill-- that is not to say we agreed on every issue, but we did agree to work together in a professional manner to resolve our differences. I am proud of the product and equally proud of the process behind this bill. I also want to thank the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Young, and the Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Obey, for allowing us to move this bill forward in an expeditious manner. Mr. Chairman, this bill provides annual funding for a wide range of Federal programs, including such diverse matters as flood control, navigation improvements, environmental restoration, nuclear waste disposal, advanced scientific research, maintenance of our nuclear stockpile, and nuclear nonproliferation. Total funding for energy and water development in fiscal year 2005 is $27.988 billion. This funding amount represents an increase of $50 million over fiscal year 2004 and $734 million over the Presidents budget request. This bill is right at our subcommittee's 302(b) allocation, and provides adequate funds to meet the priority needs of the House. Title I of the bill provides funding for the Civil Works program of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program which is executed by the Corps, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. The Committee recommends a total of $4.833 billion for Title I activities, $252 million above the current year and $713 million above the budget request. That gives you an idea of how inadequate the budget request for the Corps really was. The Corps has been in an unhealthy situation the past couple of years because Congress has given them more work to do but not enough money to do it. This year, we were determined to correct that situation and put the Corps on the road to fiscal recovery. For a change, we have over-subscribed the Civil Works budget. We exercise restraint on the number of projects that we put on the Corps plate and we provide sufficient funds to get the work done. For the projects that we do fund in fiscal year 2005, we decided to concentrate on protecting existing water infrastructure and completing ongoing projects. This country has invested over $300 billion in current dollars in our existing water infrastructure, and this infrastructure provides over $38 billion in annual benefits to the economy. We can't afford to ignore the maintenance of this critical infrastructure. Imagine what would happen if we have to shut down part of our inland navigation system because one of the lock structures fails--the consequences to our economy would be enormous. Over recent years, we have created a huge backlog of work for the Corps. Existing projects take longer to complete and cost more. Let me give you just one example from my part of the country, the replacement of the McAlpine Lock on the Ohio River. Ideally, this lock replacement should take no more than 4 years to complete and should cost roughly $230 million. However, it will cost the taxpayer an additional 10 percent for every year of additional delay on this project. We have to reverse that trend and finish what we started, and finish projects in a timely and cost-effective manner. We do not include any new project studies, new construction starts, or new project authorizations in our bill. We task the Corps to begin preparing 5-year budget plans, similar to what the Department of Defense prepares in its Future Years Defense Plans. This should provide some consistency and stability if Congress has a clear picture of the future Civil Works program. Also, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works is now funded in our Energy and Water bill rather than in Defense appropriations. Title II of our bill provides $1.1 billion for the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of $36 million above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and $46 million over the budget request. The Committee does not provide funding for the California Bay-Delta Restoration program in California pending the enactment of authorizing legislation, but includes funding for several authorized components of this program. The Department of Energy receives a total of $22.48 billion in our bill, an increase of $511 million over fiscal year 2004. As with the Corps, we task the Department of Energy to begin preparing 5-year budget plans, first for individual programs and then an integrated plan for the entire Department. This plan must include business plans for each of the DOE laboratories, so we understand the mission and resource needs of each laboratory. The Committee funds the Yucca Mountain repository at the Administration's net budget request of $131 million, and does not include the proposed authorization language to reclassify the fees paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund. As I have mentioned many times, OMB played Russian roulette when they assumed the House and Senate would pass the proposed reclassification language. By assuming the offset of $749 million, OMB reduced the total request for discretionary spending by that amount. The House Budget Resolution reduced it even more. I don't like going forward with so little money for Yucca Mountain, but we are playing the hand that we were dealt. I remain supportive of the proposed reclassification language, and hope the efforts of the Energy and Commerce Committee to enact such legislation will be successful. For the Energy Supply account, which funds the Department's research on renewable energy, nuclear energy, and electricity transmission and distribution technologies, the Committee provides $817 million, an increase of $84 million over the current year by $18 million below the request. The Committee provides a modest increase of $51 million for the Office of Nuclear Energy, with a focus on improving the infrastructure at the Idaho National Laboratory. We reduced the funding for hydrogen research by $31 million below the request because the Department failed to comply with House and conference guidance regarding competition and cost sharing of hydrogen research. The Committee provides an increase of $168 million for the Office of Science to support research on an advanced leadership-class scientific computer and nanoscale science, and to increase the availability DOE user facilities to the scientific community. Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), is $9 billion, an increase of $372 million over fiscal year 2004 and a decrease of $22 million from the budget request. The Congress just received a plan that finally shows major reductions in our nuclear weapons stockpile. However, much of the DOE weapons complex is still sized to support a Cold War stockpile. The NNSA needs to take a ``time- out'' on new initiatives until it completes a review of its weapons complex in relation to security needs, budget constraints, and this new stockpile plan. The Committee provides no funds for advanced concepts research, the robust nuclear earth penetrator study, the modern pit facility, and enhanced test readiness. Our bill does provide significant increases for weapons dismantlement, for consolidation of weapons-grade materials, and for security upgrades at several sites in the weapons complex. The Committee fully funds the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and directs the National Nuclear Security Administration to complete NIF by 2008 and conduct all necessary experimental work to support first ignition in 2010. For nuclear nonproliferation, the Committee provides the request of $1.35 billion. We reduce funding for the domestic MOX plant and spend the resources on other high-priority non-proliferation needs. The Committee provides the requested amount of $943 million for non- defense environmental management, the same as the budget request. For defense environmental management activities, the Committee provides $6.9 billion, $301 million more than fiscal year 2004 and $65 million less than the budget request. The Committee does not provide the full request of $350 million for the Administration's high-level waste proposal for Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, and reduces the request by $77 million for two specific projects at the Savannah River Site. The Committee does not support partial solutions to the Waste Incidental to Reprocessing problem that do not address all of the affected States. Across the entire Department of Energy, the Committee fully funds the request of $1.4 billion for safeguards and security to protect sensitive materials, facilities, and information, and provide additional funds to address selected high-risk areas. Title IV of our bill provides $202 million for several Independent Agencies. The bill includes the requested funding for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, the Delta Regional Authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its Inspector General, and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. Reduced funding is provided for the Appalachian Regional Commission, and no funding for the Denali Commission or the Office of Inspector General for the Tennessee Valley Authority. I believe we do some good things for the Nation in our bill. Members won't receive as many water earmarks as they might like, but we did take care of their top priorities. Instead of a steady regimen of pork, we try to put the Corps back on a balanced diet. We hope that we can leave the Corps Civil Works program in better shape than we found it, and I am confident the changes we make in this bill will have lasting positive effects. The same holds true for DOE. Lastly, I would like to thank all of the Members of this Subcommittee for their cooperation, and especially thank my Ranking Member, Pete Visclosky. Pete, it has been a pleasure working with you and your minority staff, Dixon Butler and Peder Maarbjerg. I want to thank the Committee staff--Kevin Cook, Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, and Tracey LaTurner, as well as Kenny Kraft on my own staff. I also want to recognize our agency detailees, Tim Winchell and Jim Spratt. Their assistance was invaluable in putting this bill and report together. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JN04.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JN04.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH25JN04.003 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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