[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 80 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3347-H3356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2013
General Leave
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 667 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5325.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 2009
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5325) making appropriations for energy and water development and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Woodall in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
{time} 2010
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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.
[[Page H3348]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.005
[[Page H3349]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.006
[[Page H3350]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.007
[[Page H3351]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.008
[[Page H3352]]
Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.
{time} 2020
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. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. 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.
[[Page H3353]]
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. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. 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.
{time} 2030
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.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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. WOMACK. I want to thank the chairman of our committee and the
ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for their great leadership.
As has been mentioned in the limited discussion we've had already,
great kudos have been given to Rob and the staff team here that have
done such a remarkable job. I'm just a freshman on this committee, and
this is my first trip through these appropriations processes. But I've
got to tell you that when I go back to my district, I brag on the
competence of the staff that work so hard to ensure that the intent of
the Congress and of our committee is carried out. So to Rob and his
team, I can't thank them enough for the work that they've done.
We've also mentioned Chairman Rogers and the ranking member, Mr.
Dicks, and the full committee for the great leadership that they
provide. Hopefully, tonight people can see that amidst all of our
difficulties and all of our divisions between the Congress, that people
can understand that there are things that we can agree on.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this Energy and Water bill reflects the
priorities of our country. There's no question that one of the great
priorities facing our country today is the fiscal condition that we're
in. And while we'd like to see funding levels at greater than what
we're marking tonight, clearly the fiscal condition of our country,
money is an object, and it is something that we have to take into
consideration.
But I think, as I said, it reflects the priorities, conservative
values that lead, guide and direct our fiscal position; but it also
addresses some very key national security issues with regard to the
National Nuclear Security Administration. And as has already been
mentioned, it does put money into programs that drive energy--
commonsense, all-of-the-above energy strategies for our Nation.
So, with that, I would commend this bill to this Congress in hopes
that we can run rapidly through it. I know there will be amendments.
The open rule is a great process, and we're fully supportive of that.
But again, I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for
the great leadership, their staffs, and encourage support for this bill
and look forward to the process with amendments.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy
and
[[Page H3354]]
Water, Mr. Frelinghuysen and Mr. Visclosky, on the Army Corps of
Engineers' policy on vegetation on levees.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to engage in a colloquy
with the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentlemen from New Jersey and Indiana.
Mr. Chairman, in many areas of the country, such as the communities I
represent, Federal flood control projects are essential. Indeed,
Sacramento, California, is the most at-risk city in the Nation for
potentially catastrophic flooding.
I am a strong supporter of the work done by the Army Corps of
Engineers to protect our communities and strengthen our levees. It is
therefore with some reservation that I rise to address a matter where
the Corps' good intentions could inadvertently have adverse
consequences.
In its laudable efforts to ensure that flood control levees function
as intended, the Corps has issued draft guidelines regarding the
presence of vegetation on and adjacent to flood control levees that
could, if implemented without close collaboration with State and local
authorities and without flexibility to take into account site-specific
conditions, result in the unwarranted and unacceptable loss of critical
environmental resources as well as the misapplication of limited
Federal and non-Federal dollars.
On May 18, I introduced H.R. 5831, the Levee Vegetation Review Act, a
bipartisan bill which is cosponsored by 30 of my colleagues. The bill
directs the Corps to review its current policy, taking into account a
broad array of factors, including potential regional or watershed-based
variances to the national policy where appropriate. It also provides
flexibility to the Corps to exempt certain areas from the policy where
deemed necessary by the Corps.
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, I ask that you consider the
objectives of our bill and the potential impacts of the Corps' current
policy, not just on California, but on the Nation, as you move to
conference with the Senate on the Fiscal Year 2013 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill.
I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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.
Ms. MATSUI. I thank the chairman and the subcommittee ranking member.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. It is my privilege to yield such time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give
special thanks to Mr. Visclosky and his staff, as well as Congressman
Dicks and his staff, for their tremendous support for fusion energy in
this bill.
I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman
of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, since the need for a national ignition facility was
first established in the 1990s, the project had a mandate of supporting
nuclear weapons science expertise required for stewardship of our
Nation's stockpile and the development of fusion power.
Basic science research has always been a central mission of NIF. In
the 1997 Facility Use Plan for NIF, the Statement of Mission projected
that the uses of the facility fall into five major areas: one, ignition
physics; two, weapons physics; three, weapons effects; four, inertial
fusion energy; and, five, basic science and technology.
{time} 2040
I want to affirm with you that the mission of NIF has not changed and
that inertial fusion energy and basic science research, as well as
stockpile stewardship, will continue to be vigorously pursued at NIF.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that
reassurance. And thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.
I also want to thank the chairman and his staff, the ranking member
and his staff for the help that they've provided on this very important
issue.
Mr. Chairman, and Members, the Bureau of Reclamation manages Lake
Berryessa in my district. They manage it for the purposes of
recreational access, and they ensure that the facilities are safe and
accessible to local residents and visitors. As part of this, they award
concessions to third-party bidders for resort operations.
Since the Bureau of Reclamation began the most recent bidding process
in 2007, their performance has been disappointing, at best. The
concession contract was finally awarded in January 2010, and the third-
party contractor has not met the terms of that agreement.
The BOR is the responsible agency for concession bidding, and they
conducted an inefficient process, provided lax oversight, and refused
to take action in a timely manner, despite constant requests from me
and local government officials. Now, BOR is entering into mediation,
which means even more time to dispute the concessionaire's shortcomings
and provide yet another second chance.
Mr. Chairman and Members, enough is enough. Reassurances and
placations from the Board of Reclamation that they're fixing the
problem are no longer enough. We need the matter resolved. The
residents of Lake Berryessa and the tourists who visit the area deserve
to have this situation fixed.
Recreational access to the lake has been restricted, tourism is down,
and the local economy has taken a hit. The summer season officially
began last weekend, and there's no solution in sight to these problems.
I expect the Bureau of Reclamation to take immediate action to right
these wrongs and take steps to prevent a similar nightmare from
happening in my district or any of your districts.
[[Page H3355]]
I trust that the chairman and the ranking member share my concerns of
the mismanagement of Lake Berryessa by the Bureau of Reclamation and
ask that you, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member work with me to find
a way to correct BOR's previous errors and amend the concession bidding
process to ensure this doesn't happen again.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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. VISCLOSKY. 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. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and
the ranking member for their commitment to work with me on this. It's a
serious problem. It's hurting people in my district and the surrounding
area. I want it stopped, and I don't want to see any of you have to
suffer through this process again.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the
subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee for working with me
to try to rectify a problem with the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and
the big-time shortfall we've got in dredging funds going forward.
Our top 60 ports in the country are not being dredged to their
authorized specifications, and this is hurting commerce. It's
inhibiting our ability to export. It's creating all kinds of problems.
It's a jobs bill if we can get these ports and waterways dredged
adequately.
It's at a crisis level. For instance, the Lower Mississippi River,
for every foot of draft we lose, it's $1 million per ship per day lost
in economic activity.
Now, the Harbor Maintenance Tax generates $1.3 to $1.6 billion a
year, but little over half of it's being used for the appropriate
purpose. The rest is being funneled off into other accounts. This is
not fair to those who pay this tax, which, in effect, is a user fee. It
was designed as a user fee.
And so I hope that the chairmen of the subcommittee and full
committee will continue to work with me to correct this inequity. This
is not right, and it's hurting American competitiveness. We can do
better than this.
This tax is a tax that was created as a user fee. It's ad valorem tax
on the owners of the goods based on the value of the goods. This is
supposed to be used for operations and maintenance dredging. And as the
chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee on Ways and Means, where we have
oversight on the tax revenues, I have a problem with the misuse of
these funds. It's hurting American competitiveness.
We can do better, and I hope that the chairman of the subcommittee
and the chairman of the full committee will continue to work with me to
solve this problem. We can solve it without adding a single dime to the
deficit. It will help create jobs. We've got numerous studies to show
the job impact, the commercial impact, the impact on trade.
It is imperative that we move forward on things that we can fix, and
it really is disappointing to me that we've not done better.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, if I could ask how much time each side has,
please, remaining in general debate?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana has 10 minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from New Jersey has 16 minutes remaining.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr.
Chair.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Harris).
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise with my colleague from New Jersey to
discuss the funding provided to the Department of Energy for
unconventional fossil energy research and development.
I first want to commend Mr. Frelinghuysen, the chairman of the
subcommittee, for his strong support of the unconventional fossil
energy research at the Department of Energy. As the committee report
notes, the United States' oil shale reserves are estimated to exceed 2
trillion barrels of oil, more than five times the proven oil reserves
held by Saudi Arabia. However, additional research is necessary to
enable economic and environmentally safe production from this
incredibly plentiful domestic resource.
In order to accelerate the safe and effective development of the
Nation's oil shale reserves, this legislation provides $25 million for
oil shale technology research and development activities.
{time} 2050
As chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment, I recently chaired a hearing to examine the
challenges and opportunities associated with expanding the development
and use of unconventional oil and gas production technologies. The
subcommittee received testimony from expert witnesses about the need
for targeted government research to address specific issues associated
with developing these unconventional oil resources.
These research areas include but are not limited to: oil shale
resource characterization, the minimization and reuse of process water,
the use of high-end computing applied to the physics and chemistry of
oil shale production, the modeling and simulation of oil shale
exploration and production technologies, and surface and groundwater
protection.
It is my hope that the funding provided in this bill will address
these and other key science and technology areas that are critical to
enabling oil shale production and will be used to advance the
environmentally sound and efficient production of our resources rather
than a regulatory agenda aimed at restricting such production or
limiting access to oil shale reserves located on Federal lands.
I would now like to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.)
Mr. ANDREWS. 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.
[[Page H3356]]
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.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. ANDREWS. 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.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
West) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, Chair of the Committee of
the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5325) making
appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes,
had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________