House appropriators approved a $31.6 billion spending bill Wednesday that would boost funding for energy research and other accounts while scaling back various nuclear weapons and energy initiatives.

Funding for physical sciences, nuclear non-proliferation and water programs also would increase under the legislation.

The Appropriations Committee approved the fiscal 2008 Energy-Water spending bill by voice vote after rejecting two amendments. The bill covers funding for the Energy Department, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation and several independent agencies.

Overall spending under the bill would increase 4 percent.

Energy-Water Subcommittee Chairman Peter J. Visclosky, an Indiana Democrat, said the bill would provide much-needed investments in energy research that could help address high costs down the road.

“There is nearly half a billion dollars provided in this bill for research, development and demonstration efforts in biofuels and vehicle technologies,” Visclosky said, noting that the legislation would more than double the president’s request in those areas. “These efforts will not bring prices down immediately, but they will help put us on a path to decreased dependence on imported oil and greater fuel efficiency.”

To help pay for the initiatives, Visclosky said the bill would cut $396 million from 37 nuclear weapons programs, funding them at $632 million less than President Bush’s request.

The bill would zero out a proposal to build a new nuclear warhead.

It would provide $120 million for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a cornerstone in the Bush administration’s vision for advancing nuclear power around the world. The White House requested $405 million for the program to develop reprocessing technologies for converting nuclear waste into fuel for advanced reactors.

New Mexico Democrat Tom Udall said he would oppose the bill because it would not provide a path forward for Energy Department laboratories, including Los Alamos National Laboratory, whose budgets are currently tied to the nuclear weapons program. He said he wants the bill to provide a mechanism to ensure the labs can compete for money being transferred from the weapons programs into energy research and basic science.

“This is going to have an impact on these laboratories,” he said. “When this bill passes today, there will be headlines about job losses.”

Visclosky and ranking Republican David L. Hobson of Ohio have repeatedly said the Energy Department needs to improve its management and shift away from what they call a Cold War configuration. The labs have repeatedly failed to develop business plans for moving forward with that effort, although they are now beginning that process, Hobson said.

Hobson and Visclosky have worked closely to achieve a consensus draft, but that did not prevent extensive debate on the Democrats’ decision not to include earmarks in the fiscal 2008 spending bills at this stage in the process.

Democratic leaders have promised to handle member requests when the bill goes to conference with the Senate, which is expected to include earmarks in its spending bills. California Republican Jerry Lewis, ranking member on the full House Appropriations Committee, noted that the bill recommends several billion for the Army Corps of Engineers without specifying any projects.

“What that really means is that the bill before us recommends a $4.3 billion pot of money with zero direction from Congress” on how the corps will spend the money, Lewis said, suggesting that leaves House appropriators in a “very dangerous and exposed position” when the bill goes to conference.

Committee Chairman David R. Obey of Wisconsin said Democrats are still trying to go through thousands of earmark requests and lay out a new process that will make members more accountable.

“I am not going to be rushed into resurrecting the earmark process until I make sure, as much as you humanly can, that it is done right,” Obey said.

The committee rejected, 30-35, an amendment by Maurice D. Hinchey, D-N.Y., that would have blocked funding for a program in the 2005 energy law (PL 109-58) intended to streamline construction of new transmission lines. The law allows the government to override state decisions in certain circumstances and authorize electric transmission lines in national transmission corridors designated by the Energy Department.

Hinchey said the program allows the federal government to trample on states’ rights and private property rights — if necessary by using eminent domain to confiscate property. But supporters argued that the program provides a solution to address national problems with electricity transmission.

The committee also rejected an amendment by John E. Peterson, R-Pa., that would have boosted funding for oil and gas research.

The bill would provide more than $25.2 billion for the Energy Department, up from $24.1 billion in fiscal 2007; the White House requested $24.3 billion. The corps would receive roughly $5.6 billion, $713 million more than the administration’s request. The Interior Department would receive almost $1.1 billion, most of which would go to the Bureau of Reclamation.