[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 101 (Friday, July 8, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4776-H4786]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2012
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reed). Pursuant to House Resolution 337
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 2354.
{time} 1245
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Poe of Texas in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring the fiscal year 2012 Energy and
Water appropriations bill before the House this afternoon.
Before I begin my remarks, let me thank the full chairman, Mr.
Rogers, as well as the ranking member, Mr. Dicks, for their support of
a very open process and their support of me as well as the ranking
member. I would particularly like to thank my ranking member,
Congressman Pete Visclosky, for his dedication to our joint mission and
our close working relationship. The bill is stronger for his input and
knowledge.
I would also like to thank the committee staff, Rob Blair, the clerk;
Joe Levin, Loraine Heckenberg, Angie Giancarlo, and Perry Yates. On the
minority side, I would like to thank Taunja Berquam. I would also like
to thank my personal staff, Nancy Fox and Kathleen Hazlett, and
certainly recognize Mr. Visclosky's personal staff in the form of Joe
DeVo.
Mr. Chairman, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill
supports programs critical to our Nation's security, safety, and
economic competitiveness. Mr. Chairman, for far too long Federal
agencies have been assuming ever-increasing budgets, leading to
programs with poor rationale and even less accountability. Those days
are behind us now. This bill clearly shows that much greater fiscal
discipline and a strong national defense and a strong economy can be
achieved together.
The bill for fiscal year 2012 provides $30.6 billion, $1 billion
below fiscal year 2011, and $5.9 billion below the President's request,
bringing the total spending levels for our bill down to approaching the
fiscal year 2006 level. An additional $1.03 billion is emergency offset
funding which is provided to help recovery and repair efforts due to
the severe floods we have seen in the Mississippi and Missouri River
regions. These floods have resulted in immense devastation and loss of
life and livelihoods. I commend the good work of the Army Corps, which
is in the front lines, along with municipal, county, State, and other
Federal first responders when tragedies like this occur.
Mr. Chairman, there are no congressional earmarks in this
legislation. The highest national priorities are protected by
supporting the Department of Energy's national defense programs
[[Page H4777]]
and by preserving activities that directly support American
competitiveness, such as water infrastructure and basic science
research.
The bill also supports critical national security programs by
providing $10.6 billion for the National Nuclear Security
Administration, including $195.3 million above fiscal year 2011 for
weapons activities to support the modernization of our nuclear
stockpile.
The bill also supports urgent, ongoing efforts to secure vulnerable
nuclear materials worldwide and the full request to design a reactor
for the replacement of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine.
We've seen how catastrophic flooding can affect many lives locally
and the economy nationally, and we know that yesterday's crisis could
be anywhere tomorrow. This bill protects public safety and keeps
America open for business by providing $4.7 billion for the Army Corps
of Engineers, $195 million above the President's request, and $89
million below fiscal year 2011. The bill makes funds available above
the President's request for navigation and flood control, the
activities most critical to public safety, jobs, and the economy, and
gives the Corps 45 days to deliver and justify their spending plans.
{time} 1250
This will give each project, whether in the President's budget or
not, the opportunity to compete for these funds and ensure we
understand how the Corps really develops its request.
Science research at the Department of Energy strengthens American
competitiveness and enables true breakthroughs in the energy sector,
and the bill preserves strong funding for this program at $4.8 billion,
just $43 million below fiscal year 2011.
The committee continues to support nuclear energy, providing $8
million above the request for ongoing research in promising new
programs such as small modular reactors, which it funds at the request
level. By reducing funding where stimulus funds are still available or
where the private sector is able to invest without Federal help, the
bill reduces funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy to $1.3
billion, $491 million below fiscal year 2011.
The bill also upholds historic cleanup responsibilities by funding
defense environmental cleanup at $4.9 billion, less than 1 percent
below last year's programmatic level, and includes language to curb the
department's use of bartering to evade congressional oversight.
Finally, this bill includes numerous steps across all accounts to
ensure the administration follows the will of Congress. For example, it
includes funding and restrictions enforcing that Yucca Mountain is the
law of the land and cannot be stopped by executive action alone. Over
the years, this House, in a bipartisan fashion, has been fighting this
administration's disdain for sound science and the hard-earned tax
dollars of our constituents that went into building that disposal site.
Now the Government Accountability Office has issued a report saying
that there is no scientific reason for shutting down Yucca, and the
administration has been forced to release its own review showing that
the science actually supports Yucca. Even the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's own Inspector General has released findings highly
critical of the way the NRC chairman has withheld information regarding
Yucca Mountain from the public and his fellow commissioners. This bill
supports these findings by including $35 million to keep Yucca Mountain
going and language to ensure that political appointees at the NRC can
no longer inappropriately use their insider positions.
It also includes new reporting requirements so the administration
must track, and show, that the investments we make in science and
technology are effective uses of taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I take seriously our responsibility to rein in Federal
spending in fiscal year 2012. The bill is premised upon hard questions,
and focused cuts where the answers didn't hold up to scrutiny. This is
the sort of analysis that will get our fiscal house in order. This bill
deserves our Members' support, and I look forward to an open and full
process and discussion.
[[Page H4778]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JY11.001
[[Page H4779]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JY11.002
[[Page H4780]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JY11.003
[[Page H4781]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JY11.004
[[Page H4782]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JY11.005
[[Page H4783]]
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman
Frelinghuysen and his staff for their efforts to be inclusive and
transparent in drafting this legislation. The chairman has ensured that
the Energy and Water Subcommittee continues its tradition of
bipartisanship and, within the constraints of the allocation, he has
done wonderful work. While I hope that we can modify some elements of
the bill, I would observe that our differences are marginal and our
agreement is fundamental. Also, I would like to join the chairman in
thanking the other members of the subcommittee and also all of our
staff for their exceptionally good and dedicated work.
As the chairman mentioned, the allocation for Energy and Water is
more than $1 billion below fiscal year 2011. This allocation has
necessitated severe cuts to crucial programs. While I appreciate the
chairman's considerable efforts and recognize difficult choices must be
made to address the Nation's serious financial situation, this bill
starkly illustrates the shortsighted nature of the spending cap set by
the House budget. The allocation for Energy and Water is simply
insufficient to meet the challenges posed by the economic downturn and
to guarantee our national security.
Importantly, the chairman continues efforts to improve program and
project management at all of the agencies under the bill's
jurisdiction. He has honed provisions carried in the past and
instituted others aimed at increased oversight. To point out one
example, the bill includes a requirement that the Department of Energy
complete independent cost estimates at major milestones for projects
with a total cost in excess of $100 million. A recent review of the
department's cleanup-related construction projects by the Army Corps of
Engineers paints a bleak picture of the management system for such
projects and casts doubt on recent reforms intended to remove the
department off the Government Accountability Office's list for high
risk, a list that the department has been on for the last 21 years
running. I am pleased the chairman has included a number of reporting
requirements and statutory limitations that will contribute to
increased transparency and improved management, and I strongly support
his actions.
The science account, critical to the competitiveness of our Nation,
is essentially the same as in 2011, not an insignificant achievement in
light of the challenge the allocation provided. The bill also provides
funds for the continuation of a promising new program called ARPA-E,
which can drive innovations to support our scientific competitiveness.
While ARPA-E has shown some promise as a new organizational model, I am
troubled that the same vigor that led to its creation has been largely
absent when it comes to addressing the systemic management and
communication problems in other existing applied programs.
I support and appreciate the inclusion of emergency funding to
respond to the historic flooding in the Mississippi and Missouri River
basins. Communities devastated by natural disasters deserve our full
support. I am, however, disappointed that the bill offsets this funding
by withdrawing critical investment dollars from economic infrastructure
in the United States. I would note that this is the second time this
year that the committee has transferred funds between bills, the first
time from Energy and Water Development to Homeland Security, and now
from Transportation to Energy and Water. We need to reconsider this
practice and not strip investments in one area to pay for emergency
needs in another.
I disagree with the notion that all funding for domestic emergency
response should be offset immediately from domestic investment. In
every year except two since 1997, the Congress has recognized the need
for emergency funds to respond to the impacts of natural disasters on
the Nation's water resource infrastructure. Since 2001, the Congress
has provided more than $24 billion to the Corps for this purpose. While
I grant that this figure is inflated by the enormous cost of
reconstructing New Orleans and the surrounding areas, perhaps New
Orleans would not have flooded in 2005 had we invested in critical
infrastructure in the prior years.
As we debate the long-term trajectory of taxes and spending, we
cannot forgo actions necessary for the security and safety of our
citizens. Yes, we must make difficult choices that will impact the
future of this Nation, but we cannot allow those decisions to fall on
the backs of those who have already suffered. Our country has provided
billions in infrastructure funding on an emergency basis for dams,
schools and roads in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet we don't have the
fortitude to acknowledge that it costs money to protect our citizens at
home. We must stop disinvesting in the United States economy. In its
2009 report card on America's infrastructure, the American Society of
Civil Engineers estimated an investment of $2.2 trillion is necessary
to bring our Nation's infrastructure up to a good condition. Moving
forward, we must have the strength to budget for emergencies on an
annual basis. We know they happen every year, and it is time to begin
to responsibly budget for them.
I appreciate the chairman increasing Corps funding by $195 million
above the President's woefully inadequate request, ensuring that some
ongoing projects will not be terminated.
{time} 1300
Even with this additional funding, the bill provides $677 million
less than it did in 2010.
Our ports, harbors, navigational channels and locks continue to
provide the foundation for long-term economic growth. At this funding
level, we are not close to addressing the dredging backlog that plagues
waterborne commerce in the United States.
Currently, for the top 59 ports in the United States, the Corps is
only able to maintain authorized steps within the middle of the channel
33 percent of the time. Every day, this costs companies that rely on
these ports money and serves as a major impediment to expanding their
workforce. This is merely one of the reasons why in 2009 the American
Society of Civil Engineers gave our Nation's dams, levees and inland
waterways grades of D or D minus.
Renewable energy programs in this bill are reduced. We can debate
whether our dependency on imported oil and other carbon fuels is an
environmental problem or an economic problem. Either way, it is clearly
a national security problem. We must expand the mix of our energy
supply, and we must use the energy supply we have more efficiently, and
we must also transport it more effectively. We have to make an
investment to do that, and I do not believe that the allocation allows
for the support necessary.
I would note that the bill adds two hubs to the Department of Energy
while cutting both the Science and Renewable Energy accounts that fund
them, giving the Department a total of five. This organizational model
has not yet been proven, and I have serious reservations about starting
two new hubs in light of the cuts to the underlying accounts.
Nonproliferation accounts are reduced significantly, and while I
appreciate the chairman's efforts to preserve some of the most critical
activities, the bill reduces our ability to counter the most serious
threat confronting our national security and that is the threat of
nuclear terrorism.
The bill cuts the defense nuclear nonproliferation account by more
than $460 million from the request. This comes on top of more than $360
million cut from the request that was provided in final fiscal year
bill 2011. These cuts reduce our ability to secure vulnerable nuclear
materials around the world, delaying the removal of bomb-grade uranium,
and limiting our capacity to detect illegal and illicit trafficking of
nuclear materials.
And, finally, I am troubled that the bill includes a misguided
prohibition on funds to develop, adopt, implement, administer or
enforce a change or supplement to rules related to the Clean Water Act
regulatory guidelines. This provision applies not only to this fiscal
year but to any subsequent energy and water act. We should be taking
actions that address legitimate concerns while providing some clarity
and certainty to the regulatory process, not prolonging the confusion,
as this provision ensures.
In closing, I am truly appreciative that we are again doing the work
of
[[Page H4784]]
this committee, and I commend Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks
for their efforts to this end. And as I said at the beginning of my
remarks, Chairman Frelinghuysen has done a superb job. While marginal
differences exist, our agreement on the overall bill is fundamental.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of
the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, this is a great bill. It's a
model of fiscal restraint. I can attest to the fact that the committee
has taken a long, hard look at each and every line in this bill to make
sure that we are getting the greatest value from each and every
taxpayer dollar spent, cutting back funding for programs that are not
operating up to par. This bill is also proof that we can make these
commonsense spending reductions without damaging or impairing the
programs that help keep our country safe and our citizens at work.
This legislation rightly appropriates taxpayer dollars where they
should be, in programs that provide the greatest benefits to the
American people and that get the economy moving again. This includes
$30.6 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy
and a host of independent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. Now, that is $5.9 billion below the President's request;
it's a billion dollars below current spending levels.
The Energy and Water appropriations bill funds important work that
affects every community in every single one of our colleagues'
districts. These are the quality-of-life programs that preserve our
public safety and our economic competitiveness, including
energy independence programs and national defense programs within the
Department of Energy. This bill supports Army Corps construction
projects, projects which are vital to national security and which are
of a tangible impact on job creation.
But this year's bill is unlike any Energy and Water appropriations
bill in recent memory, or perhaps even in history, in one major way.
Some of our colleagues and critics were no doubt wondering how we could
write this bill under the earmark moratorium, but I am proud that we
have been able to craft a responsible bill that funds projects across
the Nation without one single earmark. By doing so, we have made the
process much more transparent, requiring that organizations like the
Corps provide an outline of how, when, and why they are spending
precious Federal dollars while maintaining the constitutionally
mandated congressional authority over budget decisions. We have
retained the power of the purse and strict oversight of these agencies.
On the subject of oversight, I would like particularly to note that
$35 million is included to continue the Yucca Mountain review process.
The committee has supported these efforts for years, and I am relieved
to see that the rest of Congress is finally beginning to see the light
and support this program and to realize the extent to which the
administration's position ignores good science and wastes billions of
taxpayer dollars.
While providing the vital funding for our Nation's energy and water
programs, the bill abides by the committee's promise, and my promise as
chairman, that we would cut spending wherever and whenever we can.
I must commend Chairman Frelinghuysen and the subcommittee members
and staff and the ranking member who have worked so closely together on
this bill. They have found the significant spending reductions in areas
that seem excessive and unnecessary increases, and in these accounts
with large unspent balances. This is the responsible and serious way to
get our budgets back into balance and to help keep us on track toward
economic recovery.
Again, I want to thank Mr. Visclosky and Chairman Frelinghuysen for
doing a great job in bringing a bill to the floor under difficult
circumstances. They work collegially and they work intelligently
together, and I want to particularly thank the subcommittee staff on
both sides of the aisle for their tireless effort putting together this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill that all of us can support, and I
urge that we do just that.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I deeply respect my colleagues coming
here and raising the subject of increased funds in this bill for the
Corps of Engineers. I also want to thank Mr. Frelinghuysen and Mr.
Visclosky for understanding this very important need. That money, in
construction accounts and the Mississippi River and Tributaries
account, will go to address an immediate need to repair and rebuild
flood protection so that the victims of the historic flooding all up
and down the Mississippi River and the Missouri River can recover from
the terrible losses they have suffered.
It's not just the people in the southern Missouri district I
represent who need help; it's also people in Louisiana, in Iowa, in
North Dakota, in Kentucky, in Mississippi, Illinois and a host of other
States.
{time} 1310
Throughout the country, people who rely on flood protection to
shelter their homes, their schools, their churches, and their
workplaces have seen their lives and their livelihoods totally
disrupted. In one Missouri county alone, the economic losses from
flooding are estimated at over $300 million. In the entire MR&T, the
total exceeds 4 billion.
Without the certainty of future repairs to the levee systems that
protect them, these Americans will remain at risk. They will be unable
to rebuild. They'll find it difficult to get insurance. They'll watch
their family businesses slip away with the receding floodwaters. Long
after the disaster, there will be many, many personal disasters--even
if it never rains another drop.
I know that some of our colleagues have raised concerns that this
funding will come at a cost to future years of high-speed rail
development. I greatly appreciate the desire to retain the promise of
funding for those projects, but I must ask them to weigh the immediate
need for flood protection against the future need for high-speed rail.
If these repairs aren't completed by next spring, a flood protection
system that barely holds against the record flood of 2011 will be in
extreme danger in 2012. The Corps would not have the same tools at its
disposal to avert flooding in many parts of the country, including
major urban areas along the river, like Memphis, Tennessee, just for
example.
The funds in this bill respond to an unanticipated disaster of
enormous magnitude. Failure to fund the effort to reset the levee
system nationwide is an unnecessary risk with widespread economic and
public safety implications.
I urge my colleagues to recognize the certainty this funding provides
to distressed families all over the country, and I ask them to support
a responsible arrangement to fund the Corps of Engineers during a very
difficult budgetary climate for the Congress and the Nation.
In closing, I'm very, very grateful for the support of Chairman
Frelinghuysen for this funding increase.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member on the Natural Resources
Committee.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Indiana.
We continually hear from the Republicans that the pain of budget cuts
has to be spread all around. Everyone has to deal with some pain. But
we saw that was completely untrue in their budget plan. The GOP said,
Sorry Grandma, not enough money for Medicare; sorry, low-income kids,
we can't afford Medicaid. But billions, billions in tax breaks for Big
Oil companies, they all stay on the books. They don't even touch any of
the tax breaks for Big Oil, for Big Gas, for Big Coal. Tax loopholes
that help keep companies offshoring jobs, those were too important to
cut as well.
The Republican plan is about misplaced priorities, and we see it in
full
[[Page H4785]]
display here, once again, today in this bill on the House floor. When
it comes to nuclear power, the Republicans want to spend more taxpayer
money after Fukushima. When it comes to coal, Republicans want to spend
more taxpayer money. This bill even keeps alive the deepwater drilling
program, ensuring that millions in tax breaks continue to be wasted on
developing oil drilling technologies that rich oil companies already
have and can afford to pay for themselves by tipping American consumers
upside down at the pumps every time they go to refill their gas tanks.
They don't need taxpayer money to do this. The last in line should be
oil companies. They're the first in line. They are the first in line
under the Republican agenda.
Now, when it comes to clean energy, though, when it comes to the
future, what young people think should be the future of our country--
solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, clean vehicles, hybrids, plug-in
vehicles, all-electric vehicles, more efficient buildings, increases in
science spending for research so we make the breakthroughs in energy
research and weatherizing homes and buildings--what does this budget
do? Down, down, down, down, down. They cut those budgets, every one of
them. They cut the future. They cut the future. What do they do for the
past, for oil, for coal, for gas, for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
dump? Up, up, up with the past. That's what this whole debate is about.
It's a debate about the past versus the future.
And their budget, this budget, cuts the future. It cuts it in a
radical way. And it says to the young people in our country, you're
going to have to wait for another generation before we see the
breakthroughs in wind and solar and all-electric vehicles.
That's the message to young people all across our country in this
Republican budget. They cut wind and solar $134 million. They cut clean
vehicle technology $46 million, green building technology $61 million,
science research $43 million, weatherization $141 million. The list
goes on and on and on--more money for technologies of the past, less
money for technologies of the future.
I will have an amendment next week that will give us an opportunity
to rectify some of these misplaced spending priorities. But I have to
hand it to my Republican colleagues for one thing. They are actually
being honest.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
I have to hand it to my Republican colleagues. They are being honest
with this bill. For the first time, unequivocally, the Republicans are
telling Americans that their plan is to retreat from a clean energy
future, from a solar, wind, biomass and all-electric future. They are
saying it here, We want to cut all of those programs.
There's no hiding behind the numbers. They're screaming out here at
the Members of the House on the floor and to the young people of our
country. They're screaming, We are going to retreat from the future.
They can't talk about their all-of-the-above energy program anymore.
No, ladies and gentlemen. Their program is not all of the above. It's
oil above all. That's what it's about. That's how they keep the tax
breaks. That's how they keep the subsidies for the oil industry. They
cut the programs for wind and solar.
Now, which industry in America is the last one, right now, that needs
a tax break? It's the oil industry. They're recording the largest
profits of any corporations in the history of America. If we're going
to begin anywhere, can we begin with them? Do we have to take it out of
clean energy to keep all the tax breaks for those wealthiest companies?
Do you know who's the happiest right now, who is really smiling? The
corners of their mouths are turned upwards all across Venezuela, all
across Saudi Arabia, and all across OPEC. They're looking out here at
the Republican budget for the future, and they're saying, Ah, we can
sleep at night. We don't have to worry that there will be more
efficient vehicles. We don't have to worry that they're moving to an
all-electric vehicle future. We don't have to worry that they're going
to tell us that they don't need our oil any more than we need their
sand. No. Their message is going to be, Bring it on. Let us continue to
go on our hands and knees and beg for them to please produce more oil,
please sell us more oil at $100 a barrel. Please do that. That's what
this Republican budget says.
Vote ``no.''
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. I thank Mr. Frelinghuysen for the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and simply to make a
point about the emergency funds and the offset that's provided to the
Army Corps of Engineers.
I think everyone is aware, but I want to emphasize the dire situation
we have today on the Mississippi River and, certainly, the very dire
situation we have on the Missouri River that is costing lives, costing
livelihoods, businesses, and the futures for so many families.
We also, Mr. Chairman, have a dire situation with our deficit today,
and we've got to address that. In order to fund the immediate repairs
for the lifesaving levees, the committee proposed an offset from the
high-speed rail. And that's really a program that they're talking about
that in 10 years still won't be beyond the planning phases.
{time} 1320
As the chairman of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
Subcommittee on Appropriations, I understand that a portion of this
money would have gone to very important projects in the Northeast
corridor. Some of these projects have great merit, and Chairman
Frelinghuysen has been the strongest advocate for funding for these
programs that do have merit. He understands it; I understand it. We
will do everything that we can to fund those projects because they are
needed up there.
But I will also say that today we have an emergency beyond anything
that I have ever seen before in my years. It would be a week ago
Wednesday that I was standing on a levee by the Missouri River by the
town of Percival, Iowa. Farmers were there on the other side of the
levee trying to fix boils that were coming through underneath the
levee, trying to save their farms, their communities. Some of those
farmers, they were fifth- and sixth-generation farms, and they were
fighting desperately to save their livelihood and their family's
heritage. That was 3 in the afternoon on Wednesday. At 4 the next
morning, Thursday morning, that levee blew out. And those livelihoods,
those thousands of acres of farmland, the town of Percival itself is
now underwater.
That is why these funds are desperately needed today, as soon as
possible, to make sure that we can fund the type of emergency that we
have going on today.
The Army Corps of Engineers needs that money today so they can repair
those levees so we can save lives and livelihoods and the heritage for
generations to come.
Mr. Chairman, today is not a question of what we want. We all want to
see improvements in the Northeast corridor, and we are going to do
everything we can to make that happen. But it is about what is needed
today, what is an emergency today, what funds have to go to dire
problems that we face and the dire consequences we will face if, in
fact, we do not do the work that we need to do today.
I commend the chairman for his great work.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair and the members of the
committee and the exceptional staff that we have for their good work.
I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Johnson of Ohio) having assumed the chair, Mr. Poe of Texas, Chair of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that
[[Page H4786]]
Committee, having had under consideration 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,
had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________