Levee Vegetation Review Act of 2012

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

I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to Chairman Frelinghuysen for his efforts to be inclusive and transparent in drafting this legislation. The process has been collegial, and the chairman has ensured that the Energy and Water Subcommittee continues its tradition of bipartisanship and cooperation. I would like to join the chairman in thanking the other members of the subcommittee and also all of their staffs for their exceptionally good and dedicated work. Finally, this bill could not have been written without the dedication, hard work, and sound judgment of our committee staff. The chairman has kindly enumerated them by name.

Given the constrained allocation that the subcommittee was dealt, I believe that Chairman Frelinghuysen has crafted a good bill. While I hope that we can modify some elements of the bill going forward, I would observe that our differences are marginal.

As the chairman mentioned in his remarks, the allocation for the Energy and Water bill is $31.2 billion, which is $964 million below the administration's budget request and $88 billion above last year's level. As a result, the bill makes dramatic reductions to vital energy programs to stay within the allocation.

While I recognize that difficult choices must be made to address the Nation's serious financial situation, and I believe that Chairman Frelinghuysen has made a considerable effort to craft a balanced bill, this legislation is severely hampered by the shortsighted nature of the spending cap set by the House-approved budget resolution. The allocation for Energy and Water is simply insufficient to meet the challenges posed by our energy crisis, the need to maintain our water infrastructure, and our national security requirements.

That being said, I would like to point out some of the very positive aspects of the bill. I am grateful that additional funds for core Nonproliferation activities and Vehicle Technologies were included. These are very smart investments. The first is vital to our national security as securing, removing, and curbing the spread of nuclear materials is one of the great international challenges our country faces. I would argue the increased funding for Vehicle Technology is also a smart national security investment. Specifically, the program researches the development of lightweight materials, high-powered batteries, and hybrid electric drive motors. As the cars and trucks of our citizens and the ships, planes, and tanks of our military rely heavily on petroleum fuels, technology breakthroughs and fuel efficiency are crucial to reducing our dependency on carbon fuels and crucial to improving our national security since so much of our current fuel mix is imported from unfriendly nations.

Additionally, I truly appreciate the chairman's commitment to American manufacturing. This was a theme of many of our subcommittee hearings this year and he has included strong language in this regard. I believe we need to pull out all the stops to support domestic manufacturing, which remains one of the most important drivers of our economy.

Further, I see very little merit to using Federal dollars to foster breakthroughs for products that are not ultimately manufactured domestically. The bill upholds and continues many of the efforts to improve program and projects management at all of the agencies under its jurisdiction. I strongly support the committee in this effort and all the provisions, old and new, aimed at increased oversight and improved project management at the Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy. I am grievously disappointed that the bill has to carry these commonsense provisions year after year after year, and I hope that the agencies begin to incorporate these policies into their management structure.

That being said, with the recent Inspector General report detailing egregious overpayments to lab employees by DOE, including an example of one worker receiving a taxpayer-funded per diem for more than a decade, I am not optimistic that the message is yet engrained in Energy's culture. Where were the auditors? Where was the Inspector General for the last decade?

The bill includes continued funding for the Office of Health, Safety and Security and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. These Agencies play important roles in oversight of DOE and NNSA projects. Their independent assessment and enforcement are crucial to worker health and safety at these facilities.

With regard to the Army Corps of Engineers, I am pleased that the bill provides $83 million above the President's woefully inadequate request, ensuring that some ongoing projects will not be terminated. However, the bill provides $188 million less than current-year funding. We must invest in our infrastructure by making preventive and proactive investments. Just last year, this bill carried more than $2 billion in emergency funding to respond to natural disasters. I believe this again proves that it makes more fiscal sense to prevent a disaster than to respond to one.

Specific to the applied energy programs at the Department of Energy, the bill provides appropriate funding for fossil and nuclear energy, which continue to provide the bulk of our energy needs. However, I am disappointed that renewable energy programs in this bill are reduced by over $400 million from 2012 and nearly $900 million from the President's request. This disinvestment is a serious setback to our energy future. We know energy can achieve cost competitiveness, but at this time a continued and sustained research and development program is necessary and appropriate.

Lastly, I would like to express my support for the chairman's inclusion of funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal project and for including the provision to prohibit the use of funding to abandon the project. I agree with him and the other subcommittee members that the administration's actions to close the project run counter to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

In closing, I am pleased that we are considering this bill under an open rule and that the Appropriations Committee continues to function amidst the turmoil that has stagnated so many other legislative efforts. Much of this credit is due to Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks. I commend them for their efforts in this regard. I would also like to reiterate my sentiments at the beginning of my statement that Chairman Frelinghuysen has done an excellent job, and I support the bill we are considering today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

I thank the gentlelady from California for bringing this important matter to our attention.

The committee has heard from a number of our colleagues on the Corps' vegetation-on-levees policy. While we commend the Corps for its continued efforts to improve its policies and thereby improve public safety for everyone, we also understand and appreciate that occasionally new policies have unintended consequences. As we move forward with this bill, we intend to have further discussion on this subject.

I commend, again, the gentlewoman from California for her leadership on this issue.

It is my privilege to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Chairman, I want to add my remarks, along with the chairman, to thank the gentlewoman for her vision of our energy future, for her doggedness, and for her commitment to basic scientific research in this country, as well as the issue of fusion.

Too often people lose sight that we have to be consistent, we have to be persistent and dogged, and some day we are going to achieve success and primarily because of the gentlelady from California. I appreciate her remarks very much.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Chairman, I would also be happy to work with the gentleman from California to ensure that Reclamation is executing its mission in the best interests of the taxpayer. I expect the Bureau of Reclamation to take immediate actions to right these wrongs and to take steps to prevent a similar situation in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I would only add that I hope to avoid any further confusion in addressing this issue. And I do appreciate the gentleman's very serious concern here.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, if I could ask how much time each side has, please, remaining in general debate?

I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chair.

My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that we have one more speaker on this side and that the other side does not have any more speakers.

With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I would note that we have no further requests for time and would conclude by simply, again, thanking the chair, all of the subcommittee members and staff for their very good work that has brought us to this point.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5325, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to bring the fiscal year 2013 Energy and Water bill before the full House.

Before I begin my remarks, let me thank the full chairman, Mr. Rogers, as well as the ranking member, Mr. Dicks, for their support of a very open process. I would also like to thank my ranking member, Congressman Pete Visclosky, for his dedication to our joint mission and our close working relationship. The bill is stronger for his input and knowledge.

I would also like to thank the committee staff: Rob Blair, our clerk; Joe Levin; Loraine Heckenberg; Angie Giancarlo; Perry Yates; and Trevor Higgins. On the minority side, I would like to thank Taunja Berquam. I would also like to thank my personal staff, Nancy Fox and Katie Hazlett, and Mr. Visclosky's personal staff in the form of Joe DeVo.

Mr. Chairman, the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill supports programs critical to our Nation's security, safety, and economic competitiveness. Our recommendation prioritizes investments in our nuclear security enterprise, programs to address gasoline prices, and opportunities to advance American competitiveness, including the key role of the Army Corps of Engineers.

The bill for fiscal year 2013 totals $32.1 billion. Security funding is increased by $275 million over last year, while non-security funding is cut by $188 million.

Mr. Chairman, there are no earmarks in this legislation.

We also reclaim most unused funds from previous Congresses, so this bill actually cuts spending by $623 million below last year, forcing our agencies down to more appropriate sizes and to operate with less money. The only significant increases over last year's level are to nuclear security and to develop a true all-of-the-above energy strategy. We also provide more funding to the Corps, including $1 billion for Harvard Maintenance Trust Fund projects. The recommendation also fully funds Weapons Activities to ensure that the Secretary of Energy has the investments he needs to certify to the President that our nuclear stockpile is reliable.

We have also heard from the public frustration about ``stimulus fund'' investments into failed energy projects. This bill will remove the Energy Department back to its core responsibilities--to serve Americans by protecting their security and improving our energy independence. Our bill will help improve that independence by sustaining fossil and nuclear energy research development, the latter of which is leading to investments in new nuclear power plants and developing small modular reactors. And, unlike the President, we have always considered ``clean coal'' to be part of our national energy security.

At the same time, the Department of Energy's energy programs are cut by nearly $600 million, or 6 percent, by reducing programs which received the largesse of the largely failed so-called ``stimulus'' program. No funding is provided for the Solyndra-like loan guarantee programs in our bill.

All of our constituents are wrestling with how to pay for higher gasoline bills on limited budgets. This bill does not provide a quick fix, since there's little that the Department can do in its programs to immediately change oil supply and demand. However, the bill provides over $1.01 billion--$36 million above fiscal year 2012--to strengthen the Department of Energy's programs addressing the causes and impacts of higher gasoline prices down the road.

Within this, the recommendation funds a new program to promote shale oil recovery. If we could fully use this resource, our country's reserves could equal all global conventional reserves. This would make a major dent in oil prices and reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

Additionally, scientific research at the Department of Energy strengthens American competitiveness and enables true breakthroughs in the energy sector, and the bill preserves and protects it. The bill also protects public safety and keeps America literally open for business by providing $4.8 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, $83 million above the request and $188 million below fiscal year 2012.

As in fiscal year 2012, our bill maintains the constitutional role of Congress in the appropriations process by ensuring that all worthy Corps of Engineers projects have a chance to compete for funding. The bill provides $324 million in addition to the President's requested projects, investing in navigation and flood control--activities most critical to public safety, jobs, and our economy.

Finally, a word about Yucca Mountain. The recommendation includes $25 million for Yucca Mountain with language prohibiting activity which keeps that facility from being usable in the future. The recommendation also denies funding for Blue Ribbon Commission activities, which need legislative authorization. Research and development activities to support Yucca Mountain are permitted. This will ensure that we keep Congress in the driver's seat for nuclear waste policy.

Mr. Chairman, this is a tight, fiscally conservative bill which funds critical national security, jobs, and infrastructure priorities while helping to fight future gasoline price increases. This bill deserves our Members' support, and I look forward to an open and full discussion and open process.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.008

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a valuable and knowledgeable member of our Subcommittee on Energy and Water, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to engage in a colloquy with the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Chairman, I, too, commend the gentlewoman's efforts to bring this matter to our attention. She has described well the sometimes conflicting concerns regarding vegetation and levees. I look forward to continuing to work with her and our other colleagues interested in this issue to ensure that the Corps gives serious consideration to their concerns and perhaps conducts additional research if it is deemed advisable prior to finalizing its levee vegetation policy.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her concern about sustaining the mission of science, fusion energy, research, and other activities at the National Ignition Facility. I know she's a strong advocate for science, and I commend her for her attention and support.

While this facility's primary purpose is to support sustainment of our nuclear weapons stockpile, it was also envisioned to be a user facility. Basic science and fusion energy will always remain an important part of the NIF's mission.

I thank her for her advocacy and work on behalf of the NIF.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman, Mr. Thompson, for bringing this issue to our committee's attention. We take seriously our obligation of ensuring that Reclamation is efficiently using its appropriated funds to maximize the taxpayer return on investment, and I would be happy to work with the gentleman to continue congressional oversight of the actions at Lake Berryessa specifically.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding and for the additional and very valuable extra background information regarding his subcommittee's very important and critical work on shale oil.

As the gentleman noted, our bill's all-of-the-above energy strategy to address high gasoline prices includes $25 million for research to reduce barriers to the safe environmental and economic development of the United States' vast, untapped oil shale resources.

I strongly agree with the gentleman that this funding is intended for investments in technology and scientific research, not regulatory action, which can ultimately enable economic and environmentally responsible shale oil production. The gentleman has identified some very important, specific research areas in his remarks, and we will continue to consider these and other lines of work as we look to further shape the program. I look forward to continued discussion with my colleague as we move forward in that process, and I thank him for his work on this very critical issue.

Let me associate my remarks with the ranking member's. We thank all of those who have come forward. We look forward to a vigorous couple of days ahead as we consider the rest of the energy and water bill. I thank the gentleman and all those who have participated.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

I congratulate my colleague from New Jersey and you, Mr. Visclosky, for your very diligent and focused work on this bill. I know it was difficult.

Mr. Chairman, we thank these Members for their leadership.

Today, the people of the United States sent about $1 billion overseas to countries from whom we bought imported oil. This is $1 billion that could have been spent to employ American construction workers, to give more activities to American research scientists, to reward the investment of American entrepreneurs, and to create domestic energy and American jobs here in the United States.

One of the most effective ways to create a nearly $200 billion annual stimulus program paid for entirely by private sector dollars and not by government would be to dramatically reduce the amount of oil we import into our country. This is an issue on which I think there is strong agreement. We obviously part company on exactly how to do that, and I think this bill illustrates three of the ways in which there is some disagreement.

Let me begin by thanking the chairman and the ranking member for what I view as a very wise decision to make a funding investment in nuclear waste disposal at the Yucca Mountain facility. This is a very controversial issue, particularly in the other body, but I think that clean and well-managed nuclear energy is a key part of this country's economic future. Sadly, there has been a backpedaling from years of research and investment in the Yucca Mountain facility.

I think that the geological evidence is compelling, and I think that the national security arguments are compelling. I think that the best way for us to dispose of nuclear waste at one site is as isolated from any population center and geologically insulated from any water table that would be nearby. I think that the Yucca Mountain site has been proven to be the right move. I think for unfortunate political situations we've not invested in that.

I commend the chairman and the ranking member for reversing that decision to the extent possible in this bill and for moving forward with the further exploration of that option.

One of the areas of the bill in which I would agree with Mr. Visclosky is somewhat disappointing is its relatively meager investment in alternative renewable energy. Now, I do think, as the President has said and as our Speaker has said, that an all-of-the-above energy independence policy is the right choice for our country. So we must understand that investing in wind or solar or geothermal or hydrogen is not meant to be completely in lieu of more traditional fuels. It's meant to be a supplement and a transition.

I think that the transition here is insufficient for the possibility of powering our country through wind and the growing solar industry. Our State of New Jersey is actually number two in solar energy in the country, which is, I think, a tribute to our innovation given our relative climatological disadvantage relative to other States. There is promising research in hydrogen and other areas. I think that we are being, frankly, somewhat shortsighted and penny-wise and pound-foolish by not making a more robust investment in these areas of alternative energy in this bill, which leads me to my third point.

I understand the justification, not by the subcommittee chairman or the ranking member, but by the budget resolution that was passed. The justification for what I view as an unduly meager investment in alternative energy is because of the budget allocations adopted by the House several weeks ago.

I thank the gentleman.

That budget allocation was short of the agreement that the majority and minority in the House and Senate struck last year on August 1. We've adhered to that agreement in so many other ways. I think the right thing to do is what the other body is likely to do, which is to fund these appropriations bills at levels consistent with that August 1 agreement.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we will and should be back in this Chamber at some point this year enacting final legislation that is consistent with that August 1 agreement. That meager increase, that small increase in allocations, would, in my view, go a long way toward funding the wind and solar and hydrogen and other alternative energies that we should be seeking.

Let's continue to try to work together as the authors of this bill have. Let's try to truly have an energy independence policy where, instead of sending $1 billion a day to the Middle East, we are investing $1 billion a day of private sector money in manufacturing, innovation, and economic growth here in the United States. This bill, I think, makes an important step in that direction.

I commend the authors, but look forward to even a better result later in the year when the bill comes back from the other body.

I thank the chairman for that generous offer.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It is a hard-fought bill. It is a tough bill, and I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work because the allocation to this subcommittee was not greatest in the world. But Chairman Frelinghuysen and Mr. Visclosky, I think, have done wonders with a short allocation.

It funds the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation $32.1 billion. That's a cut of nearly $1 billion off of the President's request; and within the bill we've placed the highest priorities on programs that shore up our national security, help tackle skyrocketing gasoline and energy prices, and support American competitiveness.

We know this is a bill that can do a great deal to help promote job creation, improve public safety and regional commerce, and help relieve some of that pain at the pump in the future. So we've made those smart investments that will help boost the American economy.

Nuclear security programs, as the chairman mentioned, are increased by $275 million over last year. We've made the key investments that are needed to modernize our nuclear weapons stockpile and its supporting infrastructure, advance our nuclear nonproliferation activities around the world, and power the reactors that run our Navy--all in order to maintain the safety and readiness of our national defense. To achieve this, the President's request of $7.6 billion for weapons activities is fully funded.

In total, nonsecurity spending in this bill is cut $188 million below last year. Within this nonsecurity category, the committee prioritized programs that support energy security and American competitiveness.

For instance, the Corps of Engineers budget contains $83 million more than what the President requested, directing funds to ensure our waterways stay open in support of commerce that will help our economy thrive.

The committee also invests in finding ways to help America achieve greater energy independence, providing over $1 billion to strengthen DOE programs to help address rapidly rising gasoline prices.

The bill also creates a new shale oil research and development program, and promotes advanced research into coal, natural gas, and other fossil energy resources that provide more than 83 percent of our Nation's energy.

In order to strengthen defense programs and these other national priorities, the committee had to find cuts elsewhere in the bill, cuts that targeted inefficiencies and waste and did the least harm to our Nation's infrastructure and competitiveness.

We've also cut certain energy programs that aren't as valuable to manufacturing and commerce, and we've rescinded prior-year funds wherever possible.

I want to stress that we're still able to fund important programs at adequate levels in order to ensure the safety of our citizens and our future economic security. But as we face the dangers of unresolved debts and skyrocketing deficits, we simply cannot fund everything at elevated amounts. We have to cut back--just as families know they have to cut back in these precarious times.

As I said, Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky did an excellent job working together as they distributed their 302(b) suballocation in the most responsible and effective way possible. The subcommittee and its staffs from both sides of the aisle should be proud, as I know they are, of their hard work on this bill, and I want to thank them for the many hours they spent crafting this bill.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. I think any reasonable person looking at this bill will find that this committee did the very best that they could with the allocation that they have received. It gives priority to programs that boost our national defense, supports competitiveness and innovation, and helps reduce the volatility of gasoline prices. So I urge my colleagues to support this bill. And with that, I thank Mr. Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky and members of your subcommittee and staff for a job well done.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to commend Chairman Frelinghuysen, whom I've enjoyed working with both here and on the Defense Subcommittee, and Ranking Member Visclosky on their efforts to continue in the tradition of bipartisanship and cooperation. I know that all members of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, in addition to the staff, have worked hard to bring this bill forward and get us where we are today. And I want to commend our chairman, Mr. Rogers, for again presenting us with an open rule which allows the Members to have a chance to offer amendments. In an era when we don't have earmarks, it is very important that Members have an opportunity to come here to the floor and offer an amendment. I'm not trying to encourage anybody, but it is a reality.

Now, despite the decision made by the Republican leadership, unfortunately, to abandon the overall spending level contained in the Budget Control Act agreement reached last year, I'm encouraged that this bill provides funding above last year's level.

The reality, however, is that if we do not return to the overall levels we agreed to in August, proceeding with additional appropriations bills here in the House will be exceedingly difficult.

Many programs in the Energy and Water bill are sufficiently funded; however, I do have concerns about the funding levels provided to certain accounts. Of particular concern to me are deep cuts in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program, as well as steep reductions in the ARPA-E program. These programs are vital to continue our Nation's innovation in the energy sector.

I would also like to reiterate Mr. Visclosky's concern over the funding levels of the Army Corps of Engineers relative to FY12, particularly as the Corps struggles with its aging structure. The bill provides the Corps with $188 million less than 2012. We must invest in our infrastructure by making preventative and proactive investments.

Although this subcommittee mark does not fully fund the budget request for the clean-up at the Hanford nuclear site in Washington State, I understand that the funding level is sufficient for continued progress and a realistic work schedule for FY13.

I want to applaud the chairman and ranking member for continuing the funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility. During the amendment process of this bill, I expect to join an effort led by Chairman Shimkus to increase funding in this account in order to underscore the strong bipartisan support in the House for moving ahead with the plan to open the Nation's high-level waste storage facility. I believe, as many do in the House, that the administration's position to close the Yucca Mountain site runs counter to the letter and spirit of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act passed by the Congress.