I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. This is a good bill because it is a significant improvement over the…
I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. This is a good bill because it is a significant improvement over the administration's budget request, and it was put together in a very bipartisan manner.
Before I turn to the contents of the legislation before us, like Mr. Pastor, I would like to thank the fantastic staff--Taunja Berquam, the Clerk; Bob Sherman; Joe Levin; Jim Windle; Casey Pearce; and Lauren Minto. On the minority side, I would like to thank Rob Blair and Kevin Jones. In my personal office, I would like to thank Katie Hazlett and Nancy Fox. In Mr. Pastor's personal office, I would like to thank Rick Patrick. All of these individuals have worked tirelessly to put together the product before us.
No one has worked harder than Mr. Pastor, and I want to thank Mr. Pastor for his friendship and for his leadership and guidance on this bill. The gentleman from Arizona is a pleasure to work with. I thank him for his leadership and for his assistance.
Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee's recommendation totals $33.82 billion, which is $1.1 billion below the President's request and $200 million over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. While the dollar amounts are significant, the issues contained in this bill are at the core of our Nation's economic prosperity and national security, especially the energy portfolio, and our historic responsibility for the reliability and the protection of our nuclear stockpile. Thus, it is worthy of debate and amendment on the House floor.
The bill was preceded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which gave more than $44 billion to the agencies under our jurisdiction. In fact, nearly $39 billion alone went to the Department of Energy. The Department has nearly one-and-a-half times more money to manage even before we consider this annual appropriations bill, so our bill cannot be viewed simply through the traditional lens of annual appropriations. With the passage of the stimulus bill, Secretary Chu and his new team assumed new roles as major grant managers and accountants for billions of dollars for new Federal and State programs and hundreds of new employees.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we were able to improve upon the administration's request in several ways. For example, the legislation before us increases the budget request by over $400 million for the Army Corps of Engineers, enabling us to address more water needs across our country. The Army Corps projects touch virtually every congressional district; and I know Mr. Pastor and I highly respect the interests of all Members who, knowing their district needs, have sought some assistance; and we've done our best to accommodate them. Our recommendation increases research and development for both renewable energy and nuclear power while supporting clean coal initiatives and other technologies, such as geothermal, solar, fusion and wind power. I am exceptionally pleased that our bill keeps the Department on track for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant program.
There are some areas that I would have done a bit differently, of course. Not surprisingly, I would have preferred to have done more to reverse the administration's decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada, where we have spent over $11 billion of taxpayer and rate payer moneys--in fact, $7 billion of rate payer moneys--with little apparent return. We still have tons of waste to dispose of and to protect. The bill before us does contain the administration's significant cut to the program, and I am deeply concerned that this basically political decision will be followed by others trumping future scientific recommendations and judgments. However, our bill directs $70 million to ensure that the questions raised during the Yucca license application process can be answered; and it requires that funding for the President's suggested Blue Ribbon Panel is only available for a review, which includes all alternatives, including Yucca Mountain. I think this is the only way future review could be credible.
I would also have preferred much more support for nuclear power here in the United States and the greater availability of nuclear loan guarantees. Given what China and other nations are doing to build new nuclear power plants, we could produce much more electricity ourselves while adding American jobs, which we need if the administration as well as House and Senate majority leadership were more supportive. American companies are working abroad building nuclear power plants while we dither here. The President and congressional leadership appear to have a strong bias against nuclear power as well as oil and gas production, which will leave our Nation severely disadvantaged. Energy-intensive industries, like what is left of our American manufacturing base, will no longer be able to compete with nations who are making nuclear and other types of capital investments a priority, and they're not subjecting themselves to self-imposed cap-and-trade emissions reductions. Our lack of investing in nuclear power, so well illustrated in the recent passage of the so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act, is a gift that keeps on giving to our economic competitors China and India, whose economies are already sucking away U.S. jobs at an alarming rate.
We also improved that portion of the committee's jurisdiction that involves nuclear weapons activities, not to promote more nuclear weapons, but to provide more funds to reduce the weapons stockpile. The President's recent trip to Russia and his call for major changes in what is called our nuclear ``posture'' must be matched by the administration's funding requests that will pay for our country's nuclear dismantlements and for the science to certify the reliability of what's left. And we must provide adequate funding to retain our highly specialized nuclear scientists and technicians and to maintain the facilities and laboratories where they do their work. The only way to support our national security is by increasing this account, not by holding it flat. Talk about a delicate balance between nuclear and renewables is only talk, for investments in renewables received $60 billion in the $800 billion stimulus--all of that borrowed money, I should add--and nuclear received nothing. I do hope that we can address this disproportionality in conference.
One of my biggest disappointments, however, is not with the bill but the way it was brought to the floor. With all the debate about climate change, global warming, conservation, carbon footprints and green jobs, Members of Congress in both parties should have the right to propose amendments to address their concerns and support sources of power that they specifically favor and know about, whether that be nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, oil- or gas-based, fuel cell or fusion. That traditional right to amend our appropriations has been severely curtailed by the House leadership. Our appropriations bill affects virtually every
part of our economy, the household budgets of every American family and job prospects for thousands, and the thought that renewables alone are going to give us energy independence is, of course, on its face, absurd.
Before I close though, I'd like, on a positive note, to thank the Army Corps of Engineers, both military and civilian who, as we gather here today, continue to do their remarkable work in dangerous territory in Iraq and Afghanistan. We thank them for their courage, their work and their professionalism. Mr. Chairman, again I'd like to thank Vice Chairman Pastor for his leadership. Despite my unhappiness about the energy policy issues I have discussed, I intend to support the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) for purpose of a colloquy.
I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.
Yes. Mrs. Schmidt, I agree that 11 months is more than enough for the Department of Energy to act upon the loan guarantee submission for the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. It is a personal priority of mine to ensure that this program is run efficiently and in the best interest of U.S. taxpayers. While it needs to move quickly, the loan
guarantee application process should be open and fair to all applicants.
Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Chris Smith.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Calvert of California, a member of our committee.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time and ask how much time is available on both sides.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
Let me say I would be happy to work, like Mr. Pastor would, to see what we could do to be helpful to all involved.
Mr. Kingston, as you know, we have yet to go to conference, but this is an interest that you and other Members have in terms of its effects on your particular States. You have my commitment, as well as the ranking member as you heard, to work with you and work it out.
We reserve our time, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I don't have any real problem with the content of my chairman's amendment. I do, however, have a problem with carrying the idea of a manager's amendment, which was once only for our full committee's consideration, right on to the House floor.
In committee, this sort of amendment is used for noncontroversial items. Many of these are. They're generally accepted by unanimous consent. But now it's largely used, in many instances, for partisan purposes on the House floor.
None of the content of this chairman's amendment was discussed with the minority, and none of the changes were made or suggested by the minority. If the changes are important, then I think we should be able to discuss them. Otherwise, I fear it is only a matter of time before the majority will include everything they can in this sort of en masse amendment. This will be bad for the institution and I think bad for the American people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I'm not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The gentleman's amendment would transfer $7 million to restore and protect a nationally and regionally important resource. These fisheries provide hundreds of jobs, if not thousands, to local oystermen.
I would only say that this is a huge project and must be balanced against other national priorities and ask the gentleman to work closely, as I'm sure he will, with the Corps to ensure that their budget request reflects the needs for the program against the background of other demands the Corps is facing.
With that, I'd be pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Would the gentleman yield?
Let me associate my remarks with your statement and commend both Mr. Wamp and Mr. Davis for being articulate, ardent supporters of this move forward.
I have been to the Chickamauga Lock. I can certainly attest to Mr. Wamp's boundless energy and determination to make this thing happen. He's made me aware of the dangers of what happens if we have inaction. I want to commend you. Obviously this issue is moving ahead, but there's some complex issues that need to be addressed that Mr. Pastor has appropriately commented on.
I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me, Mr. Chairman, associate myself again with Chairman Pastor's remarks. I've been to Congressman Hastings' district. When he talks about hydropower, he knows what he's talking about. He's obviously been a strong proponent of nuclear power.
So we're pleased to accept the amendment. Thank you for recognizing me.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, though I am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Let me say that while I am supportive of this amendment, it is Congressman Devin Nunes who's been on this floor repeatedly calling Members' attention to the catastrophic situation in California, and I'm admiring of both Representatives Costa and Cardoza's effort. But it's been Devin Nunes who's been really carrying this issue in a very visible way. He went to try to get three amendments in order before the Rules Committee yesterday afternoon and evening, and he was denied that opportunity.
But I'm no expert on California water, but let's give credit all around to Members of Congress that have stood up on this issue to articulate their position, indeed, their passionate position.
I support the amendment, but I certainly want to recognize all members of the California delegation, and since Mr. Nunes' name was not mentioned in earlier comments, I would certainly like to highlight his role making this a priority for our attention.
I yield back.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, though I am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I served on the Energy and Water Committee when I was first elected to Congress in 1994. I took a 2-year hiatus when I chaired the D.C. Committee, working with Mr. Fattah as ranking member.
There is a water crisis out in your neck of the woods, and we are respectful that Republicans and Democrats didn't work together on these issues. I have to say I'm hugely disappointed at your lack of inclusiveness. You may be spitting mad at Congressman Devin Nunes. Yet, for many Members of Congress, he put a human face on the water crisis out there. I'm not going to get into the issues of biological studies and things of that nature, but you at least ought to give your congressional colleague from California credit for raising this issue.
He tried to raise the issue, but quite honestly, he was voted down on the floor a number of times. When he went to the Rules Committee, his amendments were not put in order. Yours were. Basic courtesy would have called for his name to at least be mentioned as he rose to the floor today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, but I am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to recognize for 1 minute the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to recognize for 1 minute the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
I want to commend Mrs. Miller for being a strong and articulate advocate, and I support her amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, though I am not in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate my comments with Chairman Pastor. These are tight budget times, and I think we worked hard to provide the right balance for priorities on our Energy and Water bill. Many of us would have liked much more, shall we say, money spent on the safety and security of our nuclear weapons stockpile; but quite honestly, that was not to be. We all had to compromise, and this package is a fair, balanced one.
A few comments about the LDRD, the Lab Directed R&D programs. These programs often allow our laboratories to skirt congressional priorities laid out in our legislation. Historically these funds have been used by labs to perform research and development on issues that at times are not at all germane to the Department of Energy. I have seen it firsthand. At the same time, these programs can be most innovative and give our researchers creative opportunities for work. So I don't oppose the amendment. But I want to make it clear that all members of the committee, I am sure, will be watching very carefully to ensure that these funds are used to support the mission of the department.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
We support the gentleman from Louisiana's amendment and commend him. It's actually a perfecting amendment of what Mr. Kingston had in the full committee. So we commend you for your efforts and support it. Thank you for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
I also rise in opposition to the amendment. Certainly, I commend the gentlewoman for her hard and repeated attempts to cut the Federal budget. But I agree with the chairman that we have a good bill. It is well balanced. It has been done in a bipartisan way.
I worry about indiscriminate cuts to a bill that affects the protection and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. That is important. We crafted some good things out of the energy portfolio which I think are worthy and defensible. This bill also includes funding that only begins to address a $1 billion-plus retirement pension shortfall through the individual accounts. That is something which I commend the chairman for his and staff leadership on.
This across-the-board cut would take a $1.6 billion bite across each of these initiatives. And I think that would be pretty devastating.
As a result, I rise with him to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Washington State, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers.
I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.
I yield back.