Statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce

HEARING ON THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET PROPOSAL

March 9, 2006

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I want to thank Secretary Bodman as well for appearing before the Committee today to discuss the Department of Energy’s (DOE) budget request for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. Secretary, this is the second time you have appeared before the Committee to discuss DOE’s budget and much has transpired since your last visit. First, after several consecutive years of failure, the Congress finally agreed on a comprehensive energy bill that was signed by the President last August. That bill was born out of difficult and hard-fought negotiations and touched on a number of important and complex topics. Given that, I am sure Members will be anxious to hear what progress DOE is making in implementing the various components of that bill.

Second, less than a month after the energy bill was signed, the Nation suffered one of the worst natural disasters in its history due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Nation’s energy infrastructure in the Gulf Coast was significantly damaged and the country saw even more volatile energy prices as a result. The Energy Information Administration reports that gasoline prices hit an average high of $3.11 per gallon and natural gas prices reached $16.11 per mcf. While prices have abated since then, they remain high. Hurricane season will soon be upon us again and I would appreciate your comments as to lessons learned that could be applied should we be unfortunate enough to experience similar disasters this year.

Your budget request raises several interesting questions that also merit attention. First, in the President’s State of the Union address, he announced an “Advanced Energy Initiative” that would help achieve an Administration goal of replacing “more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.” Is that a realistic goal? And, if so, how precisely do we get there? Does this initiative consist of new programs or just funding for the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and other statutes?

Second, and as I asked in my February 8, 2006, letter to you (which I note remains unanswered), we are interested in the degree to which the Administration’s budget request matches the levels of funding we authorized in the energy bill for important programs such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), weatherization, and the EnergyStar program. I hope that your visit with us today will shed light on these questions.

Third, the budget request is also noteworthy for its emphasis on nuclear programs, specifically the sweeping “Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.” While certain of its stated purposes, such as nonproliferation, are laudable, others require closer scrutiny. Moreover, I am concerned that this sprawling new venture may divert DOE’s attention from other immediate concerns, such as fulfilling its current responsibilities under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act with respect to Yucca Mountain. In this connection, I would ask that a November 10, 2005, letter that Representative Boucher and I sent DOE regarding various nuclear matters, and the Secretary’s response of yesterday, be included in the hearing record.

Mr. Secretary, all of us here appreciate the magnitude of DOE’s tasks. I can hardly disagree with goals that purport to wean us from dependence on foreign oil, and I applaud you for attempting the difficult task of envisioning a long-range nuclear energy policy. I hope, however, that we can focus on the policies that the Congress has already put in place that address some of the important problems of the day and that affect our citizens right now, such as conservation, efficiency, and nuclear waste.

Again, I appreciate your appearance before us today and look forward to your testimony.

- 30 -

(Contact: Jodi Seth, 202-225-3641)