[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 22]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 30444-30445]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2754, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
                        APPROPRIATION ACT, 2004

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, November 18, 2003

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. 
But I do have reservations about a number of provisions included in it.

[[Page 30445]]

  As co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus in 
the House, I have worked for years to increase--or at a minimum, hold 
steady--funding for DOE's renewable energy and energy efficiency 
research and development programs. So I am disappointed that for yet 
another year, the bill shortchanges these important clean energy 
programs.
  Given our finite supply of fossil fuels and increasing global demand, 
investing in clean energy is more important than ever. DOE's renewable 
energy programs are vital to our Nation's interests, helping provide 
strategies and tools to address the environmental challenges we will 
face in the coming decades. By reducing air pollution and other 
environmental impacts from energy production and use, they also 
constitute the single largest and most effective federal pollution 
prevention program.
  Investments in sustainable energy technologies meet multiple other 
public policy objectives. Far from decreasing, U.S. dependence on 
imported oil has increased to record levels over the past 25 years. 
These programs are helping to reduce our reliance on oil imports, 
thereby strengthening our national security, and also creating hundreds 
of new domestic businesses, supporting thousands of American jobs, and 
opening new international markets for American goods and services.
  While these technologies have become increasingly cost-competitive, 
the pace of their penetration into the market will be determined 
largely by government support for future research and development as 
well as by assistance in catalyzing public-private partnerships, 
leading to full commercialization.
  For our investment in these technologies to pay off, our efforts must 
be sustained over the long term. This bill does not do that. This bill 
is fully $75 million less than last year's bill in the area of research 
energy research. Much of this reduction is used to fund a new Office of 
Electricity Transmission and Distribution. Cuts to renewable energy 
accounts are also used to boost hydrogen programs fully $38 million 
above last year's levels. Although I'm certainly supportive of both the 
electricity and hydrogen programs, I believe they should be additive to 
take advantage of the synergies they present with the other important 
and established programs at DOE. Instead, the bill cuts biomass/
biofuels by $14.4 million, solar energy by $9.4 million, and geothermal 
by $3.8 million.
  I believe that the reductions in funding levels for the core 
renewable energy programs are ill-advised at a time when the need for a 
secure, domestic energy supply is so crucial. Clean energy technologies 
have a critically important role to play in promoting public health and 
enhancing the energy security of the nation by promoting fuel 
diversity, harnessing safe and abundant domestic resources, and 
expanding the use of small-scale, dispersed technologies.
  Overall, the bill provides necessary funding for some important Army 
Corps of Engineers projects and for DOE's Office of Science and non-
proliferation programs. It also includes critical funding for defense 
environmental management programs--in particular, funding for Rocky 
Flats, the former weapons production site in Colorado. Funding in this 
bill keeps Rocky Flats on track for finishing cleanup and closure by 
the end of 2006.
  So on balance, Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill contains more good 
than bad. Although I am not satisfied with the levels of funding in 
this bill for DOE's clean energy programs, I will continue to work to 
increase funding for these programs in years to come.

                          ____________________