 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Capt_Dave
Site Admin
Joined: Mar 29, 2004
Posts: 3844
Location: Cape Fear, NC
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:54 am Post subject: STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAVE HOBSON - FY 2005 ENERGY AND WATER |
 |
|
STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DAVE HOBSON - FY 2005 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL
Subcommittee Markup
June 9th, 2004 - -
This is my second year as Chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. It has been a challenging and rewarding process so far.
Before I describe our FY2005 bill, let me talk for a minute about last year’s bill. We did some good things in fiscal year 2004:
We were able to hold OMB at bay in their efforts to cut back the Corps Civil Works program.
We funded Yucca Mountain at a level much closer to the request than we have been in many years.
We forced DOE to compete a number of its laboratory contracts that have not been competed in over 50 years.
We put the brakes on a number of new nuclear weapons initiatives, including the Modern Pit Facility, Advanced Concepts, and the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.
We also did something last year that was probably under the radar screen for most people, but which paid dramatic benefits this year. In late 2001, President Bush signed the Moscow Treaty committing to significant reductions in the number of deployed U.S. strategic nuclear warheads by the year 2012. Since then, this Committee has been pressing DOE to work with DoD to produce a revised stockpile plan that reflects the President’s commitment. After several years of frustration, we finally put a fence around some of DOE’s advanced concepts funding and said that it would not be available until the Department delivered a revised stockpile plan.
We finally received the plan last week. While the details remain classified, this plan will reduce our nuclear stockpile to roughly half of its current size. After years of maintaining a nuclear stockpile sized for the Cold War, we are finally bringing the numbers down to a more realistic and responsible level. I admit that we held a DOE program hostage until they produced this revised stockpile plan, and you know what? -- the power of the purse does work!
I would like to follow up last year by saying that, in some important ways, our bill for fiscal year 2005 is even better. However, for one key program – Yucca Mountain – it is much worse.
We did the right thing for the Army Corps of Engineers in this bill: We provide a total of $4.82 billion for the Civil Works programs of the Army Corps of Engineers, an increase of $243 million over fiscal year 2004 and $703 million over the budget request.
The Corps has been in an unhealthy situation the past couple of years. We have given them more work to do but not enough money to do it. This year, we were determined to correct that situation and put the Corps on the road to fiscal recovery. For a change, we have not over-subscribed the Civil Works budget. We provide a reasonable increase over the current year but exercise restraint on the number of projects we put on the Corps’ plate.
My Ranking Member and I decided to concentrate on protecting existing infrastructure and completing ongoing projects. This country has invested over $300 billion in current dollars in our existing water infrastructure, and this system of ports, waterways, locks and dams already provides over $38 billion in annual benefits to the economy. But if we don’t take care of our infrastructure, the added costs to our economy will be enormous. Imagine the impact if we have to close down part of our inland navigation system for several months because one of the lock structures fails. We can’t afford to ignore the maintenance and rehab of this critical infrastructure.
Over recent years, we have created a huge backlog of work for the Corps. We have put too many in the projects in the Corps shopping basket but haven’t given them enough money to pay at checkout. The consequence is that all of these existing projects take longer to complete and cost more, both for the Federal taxpayer and the local sponsors. A project that should take 3 years to complete now takes 5 years. During that extra period, the project cost not only increases, but we also defer realizing the project benefits for a couple years. We have to reverse that trend. We do not include any new project studies or construction starts or new project authorizations. We have to finish what we started.
We task the Corps to begin preparing five-year budget plans, similar to what the Department of Defense prepares in its Future Years Defense Plans. Consistent with the action of the full Committee this morning, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, is now funded in our Energy and Water bill rather than in Defense appropriations. I expect the Assistant Secretary to become a strong advocate for the Civil Works program in the future, and I should warn that office now that I’m a big believer in pay for performance.
Title II our of bill provides $1.1 billion for the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation, an increase of $36 million above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and $46 million over the budget request. The Committee does not provide funding for the California Bay-Delta Restoration program in California pending the enactment of authorizing legislation, but includes funding for several authorized components of this program.
The Department of Energy receives a total of $22.48 billion in our bill, an increase of $511 million over fiscal year 2004. As with the Corps, we task the Department of Energy to begin preparing five-year budget plans, first for individual programs and then an integrated plan for the entire Department. This plan must include business plans for each of the DOE laboratories, so we understand the mission and resource needs of each laboratory and can get them to stop tripping over each other in pursuit of new missions.
The Committee funds the Yucca Mountain repository at the Administration’s net budget request of $131,000,000, and does not include the proposed authorization language to reclassify the fees paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund.
As I have mentioned many times, OMB played Russian roulette when they assumed the House and Senate would pass the proposed reclassification language. By assuming the offset of $749 million, OMB reduced the total request for discretionary spending by that amount. The House Budget Resolution reduced it even more.
I don’t like going forward with so little money for Yucca Mountain, but we are playing the hand that we were dealt. I remain supportive of the proposed reclassification language, and hopeful that the Administration will come to its senses or that the Senate will find a creative way to keep Yucca alive.
We provide an increase of $168 million for the Office of Science to support research on an advanced leadership-class scientific computer and nanoscale science, and to increase the availability DOE user facilities to the scientific community.
We also provide a modest increase of $51 million for the Office of Nuclear Energy, with a focus on improving the infrastructure at the Idaho National Laboratory.
Funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), is $9 billion, an increase of $372 million over fiscal year 2004 and a decrease of $22 million from the budget request. As I mentioned earlier, we just received a plan that finally shows major reductions in our nuclear stockpile. However, much of the DOE weapons complex is still sized to support a Cold War stockpile. The NNSA needs to take a “time-out†on new initiatives until it completes a review of its weapons complex in relation to security needs, budget constraints, and this new stockpile plan.
We provide no funds for advanced concepts research, the robust nuclear earth penetrator study, the modern pit facility, and enhanced test readiness. Our bill does provide significant increases for weapons dismantlement and for security upgrades in the weapons complex. For nuclear nonproliferation, the Committee provides the request of $1.35 billion. We reduce funding for the domestic MOX plant and spend the resources on other high-priority non-proliferation needs.
We provide the requested amount of $943 million for non-defense environmental management.
For defense environmental management activities, the Committee provides $6.9 billion, $301 million more than fiscal year 2004 and $65 million less than the budget request. The Committee does not provide the full request of $350,000,000 for the Administration’s high-level waste proposal for Waste Incident to Reprocessing, and does not support partial solutions that do not address all of the affected States.
Across the entire Department of Energy, we fully fund the request of $1.4 billion for safeguards and security to protect sensitive materials, facilities, and information, and provide additional funds to address selected high-risk areas.
Title IV of our bill provides $202 million for several Independent Agencies. The requested funding is provided for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Board, the Delta Regional Authority, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its Inspector General, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and the Office of Inspector General for the Tennessee Valley Authority. Reduced funding is provided for the Appalachian Regional Commission and no funding for the Denali Commission.
As I said earlier, I believe we do some good things for the Nation in our bill. Members won’t receive as many water earmarks as they might like, but we did take care of their top priorities. Instead of a steady regimen of pork, we try to put the Corps back on a balanced diet. We hope that we can leave the Corps Civil Works program in better shape than we found it, and I am confident the changes we make in this bill will have lasting positive effects. The same holds true for DOE.
Lastly, I would like to thank all of the Members of this Subcommittee for their cooperation, and especially thank my Ranking Member, Pete Visclosky. Pete, it has been a pleasure working with you and your minority staff, Dixon Butler and Peder Maarbjerg. It is a credit to the bi-partisan nature of this Subcommittee that we were able to reach agreement on so many of the important issues dealing with the Corps and DOE in this bill.
I thank the Committee staff – Kevin Cook, Dennis Kern, Scott Burnison, and Tracey LaTurner, and Kenny Kraft on my own staff. I also want to recognize our agency detailees, Tim Winchell and Jim Spratt. Their assistance was invaluable in putting this bill and report together. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
