Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 -- (House of Representatives - July 15, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is, indeed, a privilege to submit to the House for its consideration H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. The Appropriations Committee approved this bill unanimously by a voice vote on July 8. This is a good bill that merits the support of the entire House.
I thank all of the members of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the floor today. This has been a challenging year with our extremely compressed schedule, and I appreciate our Members' attention and participation in this accelerated process.
I particularly want to thank the ranking member--my dear friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen)--for his extraordinary cooperation, insight and friendship.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill that represents the fair and balanced treatment of competing priorities. This is the way our constituents expect their Representatives to work together, and I am proud of this bipartisan process.
I also would like to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, and the ranking member, Mr. Lewis, for their support.
I was given this assignment 3 weeks ago, and without the great work of the subcommittee staff, we would not be here today. So, today, this afternoon, I want to thank the staff of the subcommittee: the Clerk, Taunja Berquam; Robert Sherman; Joseph Levin; James Windle; Casey Pearce; Rob Blair; and Kevin Jones. They worked many hours and through the weekends to get this bill today on the floor.
I would also like to thank Richard Patrick, from my office, and Ms. Nancy Fox and Ms. Katie Hazlett of Mr. Frelinghuysen's office.
I want to acknowledge our agency detailee, Lauren Minto from the Corps of Engineers, for her assistance, talent and knowledge in putting this bill and report together.
These people have formed a great team, and without their work, we would not be here today. I have to thank them again because their support has been invaluable.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. As we talked earlier this morning, we said that we understand the importance of Hanford as well as all the other sites, and I told you of the possibility that some of us would need to go see the site and look at it firsthand. So you well know that I recognize the importance of cleaning up Hanford and also all of the EM sites. I will work with you on this issue and review the needs of Hanford's Richland Operations office, including the River Corridor Closure project, as we make our way through conference and write a final bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I can assure the gentleman from Washington that the committee is aware of this sustainable domestic energy source and its potential. We will continue to work with the gentleman from Washington through conference to highlight renewable marine and hydrokinetic energy development as a priority for the agency.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Pastor, several weeks ago the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition met with the Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu. He shared his vision of eight energy innovation hubs that would deliver transformational energy technologies. This bill only funds one of those important hubs.
When these hubs were first discussed with the committee, DOE's action plan was not fully developed. Since that time, they have made necessary revisions to develop the concept. While we support funding only proposals that are fully developed, we hope that you will work with the members of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition and the Department of Energy to continue working to fund this initiative as this process continues.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment provides funding for several important programs within the bill. On behalf of Messrs. ARCURI, MICHAUD, HODES, WELCH and Ms. Pingree, $2.5 million for the Northern Border Regional Commission to address economic challenges in border counties from Maine to New York.
On behalf of Mr. Klein of Florida, $1.8 million for the Corps of Engineers to help address the chronic backlog of regulatory permit applications.
And on behalf of Mr. Israel, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Dent, Mr. Massa, Mr. Inglis, $45 million for energy efficiency, renewable energy.
On behalf of Mr. Cuellar of Texas, the amendment prohibits funds in this bill from being used to purchase lightbulbs unless they the energy star or Federal energy management program designation.
Also, this manager's amendment has an amendment for Mr. Kissell which does not create any new programs or it follows the current language, and the amendment prohibits funds in the bill from being used to purchase passenger vehicles unless they're purchased from Ford, GM or Chrysler.
The amendment decreases funding for Corps of Engineers' programs and expenses by $10.8 million; the Department of Energy departmental administration by $30 million; the office of electricity by $15 million; and other defense activities by $.25 million.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. As I told you, I support this amendment since it simply adds money to the Corps construction account. However, I wish to point out that additional funds for Chickamauga Lock cannot be made available until the solvency of the Inland Waterway Trust Fund is addressed.
The project requires 50 percent of its funding from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and that trust fund isn't solvent. Before any new multiyear obligations are initiated, the revenue stream or alternative funding solutions for these projects must be addressed.
We have been working with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for a comprehensive solution to the issue for some time. I have sympathy for the project. I think I know more about this project because of Mr. Davis and Mr. Wamp. I congratulate both of them for bringing the amendment.
Again, the issue at hand is a lot larger than the $180 million project. I support the project.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
We understand how important hydropower is, and we need improvements at existing facilities so we can provide the reliable, efficient domestic emissions-free source of renewable energy. Investment in modern turbines has been a benefit of improving existing water quality and fish passage issues, in addition to increasing generation efficiency and capability.
As energy security and issues of global climate change are becoming increasingly important to the decisionmaking regarding infrastructure investment, improving existing hydropower facilities, we must add some priority.
I urge the Bureau of Reclamation to work with local groups and public power entities as it looks to use its water resources most efficiently. I also urge the Bureau of Reclamation to continue to focus on its core water and related resource projects and not sacrifice that valuable work while engaging in this effort. I support the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would also like to thank him for bringing this amendment.
This amendment funds research and development for one of the small handful of technologies that may reduce the Nation's dependence on foreign oil. This increase in funding is consistent with the committee's efforts in this bill to address rising gasoline prices.
So I tell my dear friend from Oklahoma that we rise in support of his amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. First of all, to the manager's amendment and the issue about the purchasing of cars, I have been told that the current GSA policy that has jurisdiction in the purchasing of cars over the agencies in which this committee has jurisdiction thereof, that we have just restated that policy. It was not intended to be an earmark. It was not intended to do anything different. It is not authorizing on an appropriation bill. It's a restatement of GSA policy. If there is a reason to be against it, it would be because it was redundant. But we did not create any new legislation. We are just restating GSA policy as it concerns purchase of cars under the agencies.
I rise in support of this amendment from the gen tle lady from Michigan. In this bill the committee supports strong investment in renewable energy technologies, such as solar, wind and geothermal power. Water power is an important piece of this renewable portfolio. Refining conventional hydropower technologies can increase the efficiency of our Nation's hydropower dams and cost effectively increase clean power generation without the need for new dams. Research and development of technologies that use waves, tides and streams for power can deliver a new source of virtually untapped renewable energy. So we continue to be with the flow and support the young lady's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. The amendment proposes a 5 percent reduction to every account in this bill. If you exclude the recovery money, as I mentioned in my opening statement, this bill that is before you is $1 billion below the President's request and is slightly above last year's 2009 funding.
This Energy and Water appropriations bill is a key part of ongoing efforts to meet the infrastructure needs of the country; and after years of neglect, addressing the inadequacies of our national energy policies, we are trying to do it with this bill.
The Energy and Water bill is only slightly above last year's enacted level and is $1.1 billion below the budget request, as I mentioned. Balancing priorities with this allocation require a concerted bipartisan effort. We ended up with a bill that meets the priorities and supports fiscal responsibility.
A reduction of 5 percent would cut $1.7 billion from the bill and undercut a number of priorities at a time when we can ill afford to reduce them further.
I do not support the amendment and urge Members to vote ``no.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. With the indulgence of my colleagues, I'll take a few minutes to explain why we are in opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a notion that was given to you by my dear friend from Idaho (Mr. Simpson). For those of us who support nuclear energy and wanted to see it pull forward, as the ranking member knows and I know, the Speaker allowed that this form of energy go forward and balance with other interests that we have in the formation of alternative energy, et cetera. So we're here with a balanced bill today because of the Speaker's leadership and willingness for us to go forward.
When the Secretary of Energy appeared before us, he told us that Yucca Mountain was off the table and that the administration wanted a blue ribbon committee to be formed that would not include Yucca Mountain. Well, this bill says that that blue ribbon committee will be formed, but Yucca Mountain will also be considered with any other site that's being considered.
I agreed with my friend from Idaho when the Secretary said that $197 million that is used to continue the licensing for Yucca Mountain was not wanted. I wanted to zero it out because that way I would give my colleague from Arizona more floor time by giving him more earmarks. But the staff said no, and they persuaded me.
They said we need the $197 million to be in this account so that we will not breach the contracts that we have, as my good friend Mike Simpson told you, because then what we would do, we would probably increase the problem--we would increase the probability of billions of dollars being spent in liability, the likelihood the government would lose, so you would put this government further into deficit. It would provide an opportunity for all of us, including my Republican colleagues, to provide more opportunities for trial lawyers.
And so for those two reasons, I said let's keep the $197 million to continue the licensing, continue pushing nuclear energy as a form that we need in this country and that we protect Yucca Mountain to the extent that we don't create a greater deficit and we don't create a slush fund for more lawsuits.
So with that, I ask you to vote against the motion to recommit.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source