[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 101 (Friday, July 8, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4762-H4765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1000
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2354, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 337 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 337
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2354) making appropriations for energy and
water development and related agencies for the fiscal, year
ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived. During consideration If the bill for
amendment, the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and
reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that
the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my
colleague on the Rules Committee, pending which I yield myself such
time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this rule and the
underlying bill.
House Resolution 337 provides for an open rule for consideration for
H.R. 2354, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of 2012. This rule provides for ample debate and
opportunities for the Members of the minority and majority to
participate in that debate. The rule places no limitations on the
number of amendments that may be considered, as long as they comply
with the rules of the House.
This continues the Speaker's and the Rules chairman's desire and
commitment to have transparency and openness, which was demanded by the
American people. It's been a long time since we had this type of
process, and it's great to have an open process. I think it helps with
the partisanship that we have experienced.
The underlying bill funds the Department of Energy, while also moving
forward several ongoing construction and operation and maintenance
efforts by the Corps of Engineers. It also provides $1.2 billion in
emergency funding for the communities of the Midwest and South ravaged
by tornadoes, storms, and floods earlier this year. $477 million is set
aside for fossil energy research and development. Nearly three times
the amount, $1.3 billion, is appropriated for energy efficiency and
renewable energy programs to ensure that we continue to move forward in
developing next-generation power sources and fuels. Critical defense
environmental cleanup efforts are funded at a total of $4.9 billion.
This bill recognizes the importance of a long term nuclear waste
disposal policy for the United States; $3.5 million is provided for
nuclear waste disposal for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage
site in Nevada. Further, no funds in this bill will be used to shut
down Yucca Mountain. Since 1983, taxpayers have spent over $15 billion
for the construction of this facility, and this bill reasserts the
sense of the body that Yucca Mountain is the future repository for
nuclear waste.
Is every program or project funded at the levels that we would like?
Probably not. For example, long-awaited Federal funds for the
Everglades effort in my home State of Florida are significantly pared
back in this bill. I am sure almost every Member of this body could
find some program, some project or effort that they would like to see
plussed up. This is not a perfect world, however, and at the end of the
day the funding levels in this bill represent only a 3.3 percent modest
cut from last year.
We have to scale back our spending. Appropriations in the last
Congress accrued about $1.65 trillion in deficit spending. That's the
largest ever. We borrow about $4.5 billion every day. And we just have
to pare back.
Will the cuts made in this bill alone right our Nation's fiscal ship?
No, but it's a start. It moves the rudder; maybe a half a degree, but
it does move the rudder to turn it around. The bill changes the way
Washington has spent taxpayers' money in the past. For example, there
are no earmarks in this bill. Also, because this bill is being
considered in an open rule, any Member can offer an amendment to
increase
[[Page H4763]]
or decrease funding levels. Again, a 3.3 percent cut to the Department
of Energy and Corps of Engineers budget will not solve all of our
Nation's fiscal problems, but at least it's a step in the right
direction.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the
underlying legislation. Given our current budget situation, the
Appropriations Committee has worked diligently to provide us with a
fiscally responsible bill that allows Congress to begin living within
its means, just like American families and businesses are forced to do
every day.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on
the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to thank my colleague from Florida for the time, as well
as to thank the majority members of the Rules Committee for a fair rule
that will enable a wide variety of floor amendments to be brought
forward.
I do rise in opposition to the underlying bill unless there are major
changes made, which I hope a majority of the House successfully
achieves in doing under this fair open rule.
The current political debate in Washington is dominated by the
question of Federal spending. And I think it's a question that we need
to revisit under each appropriations bill. We need to cut wasteful
spending. We should eliminate programs that don't work, eliminate
corporate giveaways, look at the cost of tax subsidies that cost
billions of dollars to Americans but fail to create jobs, and really
serve to enrich special interests.
We also need to make sure that we don't lose sight, in our drive to
reduce the deficit, that we impact investments that are creative and
help our economy and reduce deficits over time. Just as a successful
business making cuts in a recession would make the cuts intelligently
and wouldn't cut essential investments on capital resources, Congress
shouldn't slash domestic investments that create jobs while also at the
same time continuing to give handouts to multibillion dollar
corporations.
Given the approach to budgeting this year in this body, it seems like
the majority isn't basing their decisions on cold arithmetic that's
needed to balance a budget. Rather, there seems to be a different
equation in play, an approach driven by ideology and special interest
lobbying, not by a real concern for deficit reduction. With this
appropriations bill, I think what we are seeing is more of the same.
How else can we explain a budget that ends Medicare while preserving
tax subsidies for Big Oil, tax subsidies for corporate jets, and
continues wasteful defense programs, in fact actually increases the
defense budget when we know that we have more defense than we can
afford in this country? Why is wasteful spending prioritized over
health care for our seniors, the education of our children, and
investments under this bill that keep our air and water supply clean
and healthy, reducing health care costs in the long run?
Now, again, when we talk about these appropriations bills it's not a
debate over whether we should cut the deficit. I think Republicans and
Democrats agree that we need to cut the deficit. It's a debate about
how we restore fiscal discipline that has been abandoned over the last
decade. Let's have that debate here in the U.S. House. And I am glad
that this rule allows us do it under this bill. And I hope we are able
to make some major changes to this bill.
{time} 1010
Unfortunately, the Energy and Water bill as presented before the
House under this rule exemplifies a reckless and ideological approach
to the budget.
This bill actually increases funding levels, increases deficit
funding levels for fossil fuel research and development, oil and gas
research, increases Federal spending on these programs, while cutting
investments in clean energy research. In the past, Republicans have
claimed that they were for an ``all of the above'' approach to energy
policy, looking at optimizing exploitation of fossil fuels and also
investing in new energy research, but instead of ``all of the above,''
this bill represents an ``oil above all'' approach to national energy
policy. It's simply not a serious response to America's need for
cleaner, more affordable domestic energy.
At a time when we all agree we're confronting a fiscal crisis, how
can we ask American taxpayers to foot the bill for ExxonMobil's R&D?
That's exactly what we do under this bill. It's one of a series of
subsidies for Big Oil that the majority has chosen to protect at a time
that they're also demanding Americans see funding cut for schools and
for seniors. Instead of increasing wasteful spending which benefits
only the fossil fuel industry, we should invest in the American clean
energy innovation that will benefit our national security, our
environment, and our economy.
This legislation cuts total funding for the Energy Department's
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 42 percent compared
to 2010, at the same time increasing subsidies to oil and gas. These
cuts will mean less innovation, dirtier energy and fewer clean energy
jobs. In my home State of Colorado alone, over 5,000 jobs have been
spun off of research that was conducted at the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory, and the lab gives an estimated $714 million annual
boost to our State's economy. It's that kind of research that is
devastated under this bill. Through this open amendment process, I call
upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support efforts to
restore that funding.
These labs, like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the
basic Federal research, are incubators for the private sector. The
investments don't go to bloated bureaucracies or government bureaucrats
in Washington. They go to the actual hiring of experts and innovators
that will spin off their ideas to entrepreneurs to bring to the
marketplace, a model for private sector job growth that's critical for
our Nation's economy and critical for our national security in meeting
our own energy needs domestically.
The Department of Energy's investments in clean energy are the first
step in a job create domino effect. As of August 2010, as an example,
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory had 329 contracts with
Colorado companies totaling $414 million, including $75.3 million in
the most recent fiscal year. NREL had cooperative research and
development agreements with 23 Colorado companies, and NREL supports
interactions with companies from across the Nation. That's just one
example of the many research initiatives and public-private
partnerships that this bill as written would call into jeopardy.
And while again calling into jeopardy much of this fundamental
research that has private sector applications, we're again increasing
subsidies to the fossil fuel industry's research. There is a $141
million or 81 percent cut to weatherization initiatives that help
insulate the homes of low-income, elderly and disabled individuals in
this bill, while continuing and increasing subsidies to the fossil fuel
industry.
Another dangerous cut in this bill is cutting funding to the Advanced
Research Projects Agency, ARPA-E, by 44 percent compared to the current
year. ARPA-E has strongly had bipartisan support for years and helps
fund innovation in the economy based on a proven successful model we've
had in defense for many years called DARPA. It funds path-breaking
ideas that are unlikely to get funding anywhere else at an early stage.
This creative model is crafted after DARPA, which has led to things
ranging from cell phones to the creation of the Internet itself, and it
has tremendous implications for America to meet its renewable energy
needs.
The bill before us is not smart, and it's not sensible. It's simply
not a fiscally responsible bill that meets our Nation's future energy
needs and cuts our deficit. I urge my colleagues to improve this bill
through amendments during this open amendment process and, if it's in
anything close to its current form, to oppose the final bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to address a couple of items: number one, the tax
policy we've been talking about and how we could raise extra revenues.
The tax policy we have today was given to us by the 111th Congress. I
assume if they had wanted to change it, they would have when they had
the majority. They didn't. They gave us the tax policy. We
[[Page H4764]]
haven't gotten to that yet, but we will at some point in time.
As far as the money we're using in this budget, it is a small
decrease, but we have to do it. We're borrowing 40 cents on the dollar;
$4.5 billion a day. We cannot afford it. If we were to increase the
allocation in this particular bill, then we would actually be borrowing
100 percent of that allocation increase because we do not have the
cash.
So to me, we are here with a good bill. The rule certainly is a good
rule. It's an open rule. It's the perfect opportunity for anybody that
wants to change this bill to do so. However, the underlying bill is
also a good bill. It's done very well.
Just to give you a picture of what the minority said about it in
their views that serve on the committee:
``We commend the chairmen, both the sub chair and the full chair, for
their efforts to assemble this bill in an inclusive manner. The bill
funds critical water resource projects, supports science activities
necessary to American competitiveness, and contributes to our national
defense through vital weapons, naval reactor research and
nonproliferation funding, all priorities that unite rather than divide
us.''
There was a disagreement and that is over the allocation, but we
simply cannot afford any more of an allocation for this than we have.
The budget that was done is an excellent one under the circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California, a former colleague of mine on the Rules Committee, Ms.
Matsui.
Ms. MATSUI. I want to thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding
me time.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a tireless advocate on behalf of
Sacramento's flood protection priorities. Sacramento is the most at-
risk metropolitan area for major flooding, as it lies at the confluence
of two great rivers, the Sacramento and the American. The city is home
to California's State Capitol, an international airport, the State's
water and electric grids and over a half million people. If Sacramento
were to flood, the economic damages would range between $28 and $40
billion. The consequences of such a flood would be felt across the
Nation.
Even in this austere budget environment, it is critical that
Sacramento's basic flood protection needs are met. I want to applaud
the Energy and Water appropriations subcommittee for including funding
for Sacramento's top flood protection projects. Each one of these
projects is a critical component to improving the flood protection for
the entire Sacramento region. Taken together, the completed projects
will bring us closer to the level of flood protection that families and
businesses throughout the region need and deserve.
Moreover, these projects are already in the midst of construction. A
lapse of funding would not only postpone the safety that the completed
projects will provide but would also increase project costs, something
that we cannot afford. In fact, these projects have already been funded
at the local and State level and are awaiting a sustained Federal
match. For example, Federal funding will help finish the Folsom Dam
Joint Federal Project, the JFP, where continued construction on the
auxiliary spillway will provide greater efficiency in managing flood
storage in the Folsom Reservoir. The hundreds of thousands of residents
living below the dam will be better protected once the project is
finished.
The JFP and our levee improvements will go a long way toward
protecting and preventing flooding in Sacramento, but the funding in
this bill does not fully support Sacramento's flood protection needs.
The levels in this bill are actually below the Corps of Engineers' full
capability.
This winter, we have had record-breaking snowpack in the Sierra
Nevada mountain range, which rests just above Sacramento.
{time} 1020
We are fortunate that the snowpack did not melt all at once. When
this occurs, our dams and levees are put to the test.
Mr. Speaker, luck is not something that the American people should
have to rely upon. Hurricane Katrina and this year's flooding in the
Midwest taught us that we need to take large leaps forward in shoring
up our Nation's flood protection infrastructure.
Let's take the opportunity to fix our Nation's flood protection
system while the sun is out and not watch another American community
get swept away in high water.
Mr. WEBSTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I have no additional speakers and would inquire of the
gentleman from Florida if he has any remaining speakers.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, again, while we appreciate the open amendment
process, will need an open amendment process to correct because it's so
highly flawed in its current form.
It serves as the majority's vehicle for a whole series of anti-
environment, anti-public interest riders. These riders undercut the
Clean Water Act, putting at risk public health and increasing economic
burdens on local communities.
The bill prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from applying anti-
pollution protections to many rivers, streams and wetlands that supply
drinking water and prevent flooding. Over 100 million Americans get
their drinking water from public supplies provided in whole or in part
from waters that are at risk of losing Clean Water Act safeguards under
this bill as written.
Furthermore, the committee report language that accompanies the bill
contains even more explicit policy directives, including the mandate
that what was to be an independent advisory board on the safety of
shale gas drilling be dominated by industry representatives, which
would be a prime example of the fox guarding the chicken coop.
Unconventional shale gas has been expanding into new areas at a
breakneck pace and has been accompanied by growing health and pollution
problems experienced by residents and communities when the drilling is
taking place in close proximity to where families are living. Its
growth is outpacing current safeguards and exemptions already give the
industry too much isolation from public safety assurances.
I have grave concerns that the committee felt the need to interfere
in a balanced and truly independent technology advisory panel with the
aim of silencing public voices in favor of representing the industry
above all other legitimate stakeholders. In fact, the advisory panel is
already heavily tipped in industry's favor, and the language shows us
exactly whose side this legislation is on--entrenched industries and
polluters, not the public interest.
The annual Energy and Water appropriations bill is important funding
legislation. Historically, it has been broadly bipartisan, and it
shouldn't be a playground for special interest handouts. Yet under this
majority, that's what this bill has become that we are considering
today.
The bill in its current form undermines our energy future, undermines
our national security and subsidizes an energy industry that has given
us record gas prices, fracking health hazards and dirtier air. It
attempts to drive a supertanker-sized loophole through the laws that
keep our clean water safe.
This bill should be focused on investing in innovation to strengthen
our country and our national security and our energy future, not
focused on wasteful spending to special interests supporting entrenched
industries and harmful cuts to their clean competitors.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
I urge my colleagues to come forth and try to improve this bill under
the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, as you heard me say earlier, my Republican
colleagues and I are committed to providing a more open, accountable,
and transparent process. And the underlying bill went through regular
order, including eight different subcommittee hearings. Several
Democrat amendments were adopted on the committee level. It has
provided an open rule to allow Republicans and Democrats alike to offer
their ideas in open, honest debate.
[[Page H4765]]
This vote is on the rule, which provides for an open, transparent
process where the ideas and policies will rise and fall on the basis of
their merit, not on their party affiliations. This is what the American
people expect of their elected officials. It's an expectation that's
being fulfilled by this rule, and I encourage my colleagues to join me
in supporting its passage.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________