[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 102 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4799-H4822]
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. Graves of Georgia). 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 further 
consideration of the bill, H.R. 2354.

                              {time}  1410


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Friday, July 8, 
2011, all time for general debate had expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment who has 
caused it to be printed in the designated place in the Congressional 
Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2354

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for energy and water 
     development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, namely:

                   TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--civil

       The following appropriations shall be expended under the 
     direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of 
     the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the 
     Department of the Army pertaining to rivers and harbors, 
     flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, and related efforts.

                             investigations

       For expenses necessary when authorized by law for the 
     collection and study of basic information pertaining to river 
     and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore 
     protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related needs; 
     for surveys and detailed studies and plans and specifications 
     of proposed river and harbor, flood and storm damage 
     reduction, shore protection, and aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration projects and related efforts prior to 
     construction; for restudy of authorized projects; and for 
     miscellaneous investigations and, when authorized by law, 
     surveys and detailed studies and plans and specifications of 
     projects prior to construction, $104,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That except as provided 
     in section 101, the amounts made available under this 
     paragraph shall be expended as authorized by law for the 
     programs, projects and activities specified in the text and 
     table under this heading in the report of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives to accompany 
     this Act.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that decreases a line 
item by a million dollars and then increases it by a million dollars is 
the parliamentarily approved method by which we direct some intent into 
this appropriation legislation that we have.
  As a lot of the world knows by now, and as I viewed from this morning 
as it was getting light as we took off from the Omaha airport, we have 
water that is a mile to as wide as 11 miles wide, and that's just 
getting to Missouri, and it may well be wider downstream Missouri. The 
Missouri River itself, which flooded in 1952, and in that year it was 
the last flood they hoped for all time. They built the Pick-Sloan 
program. That is six dams in the Upper Missouri River. The Corps of 
Engineers' construction of those was designed to prevent a flood of 
similar magnitude of 1952.
  What has happened is that in 1952--for awhile this year they had the 
largest amount of water to flow down the Missouri River--came down in 
1952 in April, and that was 13.2 million acre-feet of water. In May of 
this year, coming out of the Missouri River, it was 10.5 million acre-
feet of water. And one might think we can deal with that. Well, we 
could not.
  We are flooded, and this water is going to stay up now for another 
month or longer. And we got the records from June of this year, and 
that became not 13.2 but 13.8 million acre-feet, more water in a single 
month than to ever come down the Missouri River since we have been 
keeping records. And, Mr. Chairman, that is just 2 months, and this 
continues. This year will be the largest volume of water to go down the 
Missouri River since we have been keeping records.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  We don't have a copy of the gentleman's amendment. If we are going to 
start out this way without cooperating----
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I might point out I didn't yield, but 
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman and hopefully get you a 
copy.
  Mr. DICKS. We would like to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I will personally deliver it to you if this version 
is okay.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa controls the time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  This year, we will see more water come down the Missouri River than 
ever before in recorded history. And the result is the Corps of 
Engineers is releasing 160,000 cubic feet per second from Gavins Point 
Dam. That is the lowest one of the six dams. What it

[[Page H4800]]

brings about is massive flooding all of the way down the river for a 
sustained period of time.
  Now I'm not here to take issue with the design, the engineering, or 
the management of this river; but what this amendment does is it takes 
a million dollars out and puts a million dollars back in. What I'm 
asking is to direct the Corps of Engineers to conduct a new study and 
come back and let us know how they would have had to manage this river 
in the event that they had been able to see this massive amount of 
water coming, how they would have been able to protect not only all of 
the people downstream from each of these reservoirs, but also the 
additional component of that is although a year ago last May we had 
record flooding in the tributaries downstream from Gavins Point, the 
dam that is the lowest. We need to be able to look at two catastrophic 
events. All of this snow runoff and rain that we got, particularly in 
Montana in the mountains, coupled with the record rainfall coming down 
the tributaries from below Gavins Point Dam that we saw a year ago last 
May, those two laid on top of each other, how do they have to manage 
the reservoirs for the purposes of protecting all of that valuable real 
estate and infrastructure.
  My constituents have spent millions of dollars to try to protect 
themselves. They built miles of levee, watching the water come down the 
river. They have hauled dirt with water coming up on one side of the 
levee. This amendment urges and actually directs the Corps of Engineers 
to commence with that study. And we will have more information as it 
unfolds. I urge its adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we have not had a chance to really 
study the implications of the gentleman's amendment.
  First of all, we would like to extend our sympathy to the gentleman, 
his constituents, and to many Members of Congress and those affected by 
the devastation and, in many cases, loss of life, loss of income and 
livelihood. But we are not quite sure what $1 million in and $1 million 
out means, and we need a little more time to further investigate.
  Would the gentleman be willing to work with us to accomplish this 
objective without moving ahead on the amendment? Would you be willing 
to work with the committee, the ranking member and yours truly?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman would yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I think the chairman has made a significant point 
here. Sometimes we are playing catch-up. I would like to have had the 
lead work done so that this information was out in front of the 
majority and the minority. I think you've seen the water coming down 
the river. But I would ask this, that if we are willing to work on 
this, Democrats and Republicans, to bring about a review of the master 
manual management, then I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are highly sympathetic to working with the 
gentleman and look forward to working with him to address this crisis 
and what he is talking about, future crises and devastation.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield for a moment?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would be happy to work with the chairman, but I 
would note, we are on page 3 of the bill and would hope that as we 
proceed today and into the future, that we have advance notice of 
amendments. So I would direct my comment in this case to the gentleman 
from Iowa and those who may be thinking about offering additional 
amendments. But I would be happy to work with the chairman on this 
issue.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentlemen.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              Construction

                    (Including Rescission of Funds)

       For expenses necessary for the construction of river and 
     harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects 
     authorized by law; for conducting detailed studies and plans 
     and specifications of such projects (including those 
     involving participation by States, local governments, or 
     private groups) authorized or made eligible for selection by 
     law (but such detailed studies and plans and specifications 
     shall not constitute a commitment of the Government to 
     construction), $1,615,941,000, to remain available until 
     expended; of which such sums as are necessary to cover the 
     Federal share of construction costs for facilities under the 
     Dredged Material Disposal Facilities program shall be derived 
     from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as authorized by the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-303); 
     and of which such sums as are necessary to cover one-half of 
     the costs of construction, replacement, rehabilitation, and 
     expansion of inland waterways projects (including only 
     Olmsted Lock and Dam, Ohio River, Illinois and Kentucky; 
     Emsworth Locks and Dam, Ohio River, Pennsylvania; Lock and 
     Dams 2, 3, and 4, Monongahela River, Pennsylvania; and Lock 
     and Dam 27, Mississippi River, Illinois) shall be derived 
     from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund: Provided, That of the 
     unobligated balances from prior year appropriations available 
     under this heading, $50,000,000 is rescinded: Provided 
     further, That no amounts may be rescinded from amounts that 
     were designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended: Provided further, That except as provided in section 
     101, the amounts made available under this paragraph shall be 
     expended as authorized by law for the programs, projects, and 
     activities specified in the text and table under this heading 
     in the report of the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives to accompany this Act.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $133,822,000)''.
       Page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $51,759,000)''.
       Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $92,790,500)''.
       Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $92,790,500)''.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is relatively 
straightforward. It ensures that two important Army Corps of Engineers 
accounts--construction and operation maintenance--be funded at last 
year's levels. I certainly understand that the committee was challenged 
by the allocation it was allotted, and that was $1 billion below fiscal 
year 2011 and nearly $6 billion less than the President's request.
  Despite that, I appreciate that Chairman Frelinghuysen has added $195 
million to the President's budget request for the Army Corps of 
Engineers. He is to be commended for that. Unfortunately, I think that 
Congress can and must do better. According to the Army Corps, we have 
59 ports and harbors that carry about 90 percent of our economic 
activity in this country--2.2 billion tons of cargo and $1.4 trillion 
in commerce.
  In testimony before the Senate committee last year, an official from 
the United States Chamber of Commerce discussed the importance of our 
ports, inland and coastal waterways to America's businesses. This is 
what the official said:
  The business community, from ports to barge operators to agricultural 
exporters, depends on a marine transportation system to move goods to 
domestic and international markets. They are also important parts of 
the Nation's economic engine and are drivers for job creation in 
America. Maintaining our Federal channels to their authorized and 
required dimensions is a critical part of ensuring that this commerce 
can continue uninterrupted.
  Yet we continue to have a significant dredging backlog, and I am 
concerned that this bill's allocation for the Army Corps is 
insufficient to appropriately

[[Page H4801]]

address that backlog. It doesn't just affect commerce; it impacts 
people's lives very intimately as well. I hear from constituents in my 
district, particularly those in Newburyport and the Plum Island part of 
Newbury, who tell me that their homes are quite literally about to fall 
into the ocean unless the Army Corps can rehabilitate a jetty that 
hasn't been repaired in 40 years. That's not an uncommon story on our 
waterways.
  The least we can do for these families is to ensure that the 
important Army Corps programs are funded at last year's levels. The 
subcommittee allocation makes that incredibly difficult for Members to 
address, and I understand that. Taking care of perceived deficiencies 
in a bill are going to need attention. I expect there will be some 
concerns, which I am perfectly willing to address in my further 
comments.
  In anticipation of what might be brought up, either Congress can fund 
these important Army Corps functions at last year's levels by making 
modest reductions to two Department of Energy programs that, when 
combined, receive more than $1 billion in this bill or Congress can 
choose to sustain the level of commitment to the Army Corps and 
slightly reduce the Department of Energy's fossil fuel energy research 
and development and the nuclear energy programs.
  I think it is a relatively easy call. For my constituents, it 
certainly is. Congress should be on the side of increasing its 
investments and repairing and modernizing its water infrastructure and 
putting people back to work, so support for this amendment would ensure 
that we don't diminish our commitment to those critical Army Corps 
functions.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I continue to reserve my point of order.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman continues to reserve his point of order.
  The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I share in the gentleman's support for smart investments in our 
Nation's water resources infrastructure and in the good work of the 
Army Corps of Engineers. I well understand on the committee the 
economic benefits of spending money on these needs. At the same time, 
we cannot ignore the importance of addressing our Nation's deficit 
problem and the other priorities of the bill, namely national defense 
and scientific innovation.
  The underlying bill balances these important goals, in part, by 
reducing the construction account from the fiscal year 2011 enacted 
level but not by nearly as much as that account was reduced in the 
President's own fiscal year 2012 budget request. With this level of 
funding, we are working to reduce the deficit, funding our national 
defense needs, supporting scientific innovation, and at the same time 
allowing the Corps to continue progress on the most critical water 
resources investments.
  We must preserve the careful balance that this bill strikes. 
Therefore, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to assert my point of 
order.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman may state his point of order.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend 
portions of the bill not yet read.
  The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule 
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in 
the bill.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule.
  To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an 
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority 
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Massachusetts proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in 
the bill, as argued by the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Appropriations, it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address 
portions of the bill not yet read.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Turner

  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $118,400,000)''.
       Page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $123,313,000)''.
       Page 33, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $129,353,000)''.
       Page 34, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $71,475,000)''.
       Page 35, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $40,885,000)''.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer this amendment and then 
request unanimous consent for its withdrawal.
  This amendment would restore funding to the most critically and 
historically underfunded portions of this bill: the defense activities 
of the Department of Energy as carried out by the semiautonomous 
National Nuclear Security Administration, the NNSA. I thought it was 
important to offer this amendment so that the record of the discussion 
of this bill could focus also on the importance of funding shortfalls 
that are occurring in this bill.
  The amendment would restore $241 million to NNSA defense activities, 
our nuclear weapons activities, with an offset from two water project 
catch-all funding lines, in the Corps of Engineers' account that were 
not requested by the President. This restoration is critically 
important to revitalize and modernize our nuclear security enterprise.
  I encourage my colleagues to consider these charts that depict the 
cuts in this bill to the vitally important national security programs:
  The FY12 Defense appropriations bill, as reported by the 
Appropriations Committee, cut Department of Defense spending by 1 
percent below the President's budget request, the smaller amount. The 
FY12 Energy and Water appropriations bill before us cuts funding for 
the defense activities of the NNSA by 10 percent, including a 7 percent 
cut for nuclear weapons activities and nuclear modernization.
  Again, there is only a 1 percent cut that is occurring as policy to 
DOD, but as you can see, NNSA, which is a defense activity, is being 
cut by 10, our nuclear weapons activities by seven. Meanwhile, the 
energy and water bill increases spending on water projects through the 
Corps of Engineers by over 4 percent of the budget requests, and that 
is leaving aside the $1 billion energy supplemental for water projects 
to address funding on the Mississippi River.
  The problem is that nuclear weapons spending is considered part of 
the Energy and Water appropriations bill instead of Defense 
appropriations. The funds cut from NNSA support critically needed 
nuclear modernization efforts that are strongly supported by people on 
both sides of the aisle, on both sides of this Capitol, and by the 
administration.
  I would like to yield at this point to the gentleman from Louisiana, 
Dr. Fleming.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment 
being offered by the gentleman from Ohio, which would restore a modest 
20 percent of over $1.1 billion in funding this bill cuts from the 
defense activities of the Department of Energy, which ensures the 
safety, security and reliability of our Nation's nuclear weapons.

                              {time}  1430

  The FY12 Energy and Water appropriations bill sharply reduces overall 
funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration from the 
President's budget request by more than 10 percent, or $1.1 billion, 
while increasing funding for Army Corps of Engineers water projects by 
4 percent above the budget request. This is in addition to the $1 
billion plus-up in emergency supplemental disaster relief added to the 
bill for the Mississippi River flooding.
  As a Member who represents Louisiana, I can appreciate how critical 
funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is, but we have to consider 
those

[[Page H4802]]

priorities in light of the vital need to maintain our national security 
which since the end of World War II has rested on the strength of our 
strategic nuclear deterrent.
  The reductions set forth in this measure would significantly impact 
NNSA's ability to implement the goals and policies established in the 
April 2010 Nuclear Posture Review and our Nation's nuclear 
modernization plans. Most concerning is a $498 million cut that this 
bill makes to the Weapons Activity account which provides the necessary 
technical support to ensure safety, security and effectiveness of the 
U.S. nuclear deterrent.
  This bill also places at risk the timely replacement of Cold War-era 
nuclear infrastructure, specifically the construction of the Nation's 
plutonium capability at Los Alamos--the Chemistry and Metallurgy 
Replacement Facility, which is cut by $100 million out of the $300 
million necessary for the FY12 activities.
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when major defense spending cuts are on the 
horizon, we can ill afford to undercut our Nation's last line of 
defense, which has always been our nuclear deterrent.
  I strongly urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chair, this House has three times previously 
confirmed our commitment to fully funding the NNSA activities. I would 
urge that as we go through the process of this bill that this funding 
be restored.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my colleague's amendment 
to restore funding to the defense activities of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration (NNSA). In May, the House overwhelmingly 
passed--by a vote of 322 to 96--the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA recognized the critical need to 
shore up our nuclear security enterprise and authorized full funding 
for NNSA.
  Unfortunately, the appropriations bill before us reduces the NNSA 
budget by $1.1 billion from the level authorized by the NDAA. The 
funding level authorized by the NDAA was a key component of a deal 
between the Administration and Congress. This deal would finally, after 
decades of neglect, reinvigorate and modernize our nuclear security 
enterprise to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of our 
nuclear weapons in exchange for the nuclear force reductions contained 
in the New START treaty. The 10% NNSA budget cut proposed by this bill 
greatly endangers this modernization, and reneges on this deal.
  I recognize that the offset in this amendment is difficult for many 
of my colleagues. Unfortunately, there are no easy offsets within the 
energy and water bill.
  Through my committee, Armed Services, the House authorizes all 
defense funding--both for the Department of Defense and the NNSA. We 
must recognize that NNSA is defense spending, and treat it as such. As 
Secretary Gates told my committee earlier this year, NNSA's work is 
``incredibly important'' and is, ``intimately tied to our national 
security and should be regarded as part of the security component.''
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to support national defense, and 
restore funding for NNSA.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $133,822,000)''.
       Page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $51,759,000)''.
       Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $133,822,000''.
       Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $92,790,500)''.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a revised amendment that deals 
with the objection raised by the chairman on the previous amendment 
that was proposed on this matter. It still gets to the fundamental 
issue here, that we need to restore the Army Corps of Engineer budgets 
here through the Construction and Operation and Maintenance accounts to 
the point of at least where it was in fiscal year 2011.
  We have serious issues confronting our economy. This is a way to make 
sure that the Corps has the resources it needs to deal with its 
numerous issues--our ports, dealing with our economy, moving the cargo, 
and essentially putting people to work, and also protecting the homes 
and the welfare of people that live along ways that need dredging or 
that need jetties repaired that haven't been repaired for decade after 
decade.
  While I understand that the chairman had a difficult role and 
opportunity was limited due to the amount of money that was allocated 
for him and this committee, and I respect what he tried to do, simply 
speaking, I think we have the choices to make here, and those choices 
are to protect the interests of people, to make sure that we get people 
back to work, to give the Army Corps the resources that it needs, at 
the same time reducing other accounts by a rather minimal amount so 
that we effect our purposes without causing too much destruction to 
programs that other people may favor.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of 
order.
  The CHAIR. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment basically for the same reasons I did for his earlier 
amendment. We worked hard to preserve a careful balance that our bill 
strikes, but I appreciate his effort. We recognize his commitment to 
this type of work; and when we have a better allocation in the future, 
maybe we will be able to be of more assistance.
  I continue to reserve my point of order.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman continues to reserve.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if a point or order will 
be insisted upon, I do not know if it will be prevailed upon, but I 
would want to make a comment relative to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  I agree with everything that Mr. Tierney has said--and more--during 
committee and during the general debate on this floor. I mentioned that 
in the 2009 report card on America's infrastructure, the American 
Society of Civil Engineers estimated an investment shortfall of $2.2 
trillion that is necessary to bring our Nation's infrastructure up to 
good condition.
  Additionally, the engineering society gave our Nation's dams, levees 
and inland waterways grades of D or D minus.
  I want to use my time because we have had a lot of discussion--and I 
have joined in that discussion--about the inadequate allocation that 
the subcommittee has been given.
  I would also point out that there is another failure, and that is the 
budget request itself. And the subcommittee has taken note of that on 
page 13 of their report by stating that the budget request by the 
President represents a level of investment, as with previous budget 
requests, that is not reflective of the Corps' importance to the 
national economy, jobs, or our international competitiveness. And 
further, the committee urges the administration to take into account 
while developing a special request the extraordinary economic benefits 
of the projects historically funded in the Corps accounts, which, 
again, jibes with exactly the points that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts has said.
  So I am in agreement with the gentleman. This is woefully inadequate. 
The administration bears a blame here as well. But I also must add my 
voice to the chairman's and respectfully oppose the amendment simply 
because we are in a very tight situation with this bill and we prefer 
that the amendment not be adopted, despite the relevance of it and the 
correctness of the gentleman's position from Massachusetts.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIR. The point of order is withdrawn.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

[[Page H4803]]

  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts will be 
postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rivera

  Mr. RIVERA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $32,724,000)''.
       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $32,724,000)''.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RIVERA. I wish to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member 
Visclosky, along with committee staff, for crafting this legislation.
  The Florida Everglades is one of our Nation's greatest treasures. The 
Everglades' combination of abundant moisture, rich soils and 
subtropical temperatures support a vast array of species. However, 
flood control and reclamation efforts in the 1940s and 1950s 
manipulated the Everglades' hydrology, redirecting fresh water destined 
for the Everglades out to sea. The ecosystem has changed because it now 
receives less water during the dry season and more during the rainy 
season. It is also harmed by degraded water quality, pollutants from 
urban areas, and agricultural runoff, including pesticides and excess 
nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen which have harmed the plant 
and animal populations.

                              {time}  1440

  The program under the Corps of Engineers' South Florida Ecosystem 
Restoration will capture freshwater destined for the sea, the lifeblood 
of the Everglades, and direct it back to the ecosystem to revitalize it 
and protect plant and wildlife.
  However, Everglades restoration is not only about the ecosystem 
restoration. It is also about boosting Florida's economy. According to 
a study by Atlanta-based Mather Economics, boosting strained water 
supplies associated with restoration efforts will save local water 
treatment facilities $13 billion in the long term. It will provide 
flood control for south Florida and improve local home values by an 
estimated $16 billion. Furthermore, a healthier water supply, which 
will contribute to better fishing grounds, will have a huge positive 
impact on tourism traffic, which is a key aspect of Florida's economy.
  Everglades restoration is a huge priority for the Florida 
congressional delegation, and I respectfully ask the committee and 
chairman for their continued support in protecting and restoring this 
great natural resource and economic engine.
  At this time, I would yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, the 
chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I appreciate the gentleman from Florida yielding.
  I appreciate Mr. Rivera's passion for the Everglades restoration, and 
that of the entire Florida delegation, which continues to move forward 
in this bill. The committee dedicated 8 percent of the entire Corps 
construction budget to the Everglades, making it one of the three 
largest allocations in title I.
  So I say to the gentleman that we will continue to work with the 
Florida delegation on this important issue, knowing how committed they 
are to it. And when we have additional resources, we hope to be able to 
consider them.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIVERA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington, the ranking 
member on the committee.
  Mr. DICKS. The restoration of the Florida Everglades has been one of 
our five national priorities. And I, too, want to compliment the 
gentleman for his support. We have moved forward with the Tamiami 
bridge and other important projects. This is a program of national 
significance, and I concur with the chairman.
  Mr. RIVERA. Reclaiming my time, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 
commitment. I look forward to working with you and the rest of my 
colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to achieve the goal of restoring 
water flow in these areas.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express deep 
disappointment and concern about the severe proposed cut in this bill 
to the Federal Everglades Ecosystem Restoration effort.
  The Energy and Water bill before us today slashes $32 million from 
the administration's request. These times of tight budgets certainly 
call for belt-tightening, but cutting 20 percent from the requested 
amount for Everglades restoration is draconian. It is wildly 
disproportionate to the more modest 3 percent cut in the bill to the 
overall fiscal year 12 Corps of Engineers construction fund from fiscal 
year 11 levels.
  I thank my colleague Congressman David Rivera for joining me and 
other members of the Florida delegation to urge that full funding be 
restored to this important national priority, as Mr. Dicks just 
mentioned. I hope we can work together with Chairman Frelinghuysen to 
make this happen during conference with the Senate.
  To be sure, Everglades restoration is a priority the Florida 
congressional delegation takes very seriously, and we have fought for 
adequate funding every year. Continued investment in Everglades 
restoration protects our water supply, benefits key job-creating 
industries, and enhances our quality of life.
  A recent study by Mather Economics, commissioned by the Everglades 
Foundation, showed that there is a 4:1 return on investment for 
Everglades restoration projects. The Everglades is the source of water 
for millions of residents and visitors in south Florida. It is a haven 
for fishing, hunting, and boating activities and is home to scores of 
endangered species. There is no other ecosystem in the world like our 
Everglades, a true national treasure and important resource.
  I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee to clarify certain 
language in the committee's report that we find deeply disturbing. I 
hope this language does not signal the committee's intent to 
deemphasize the importance of Everglades restoration in the future. In 
particular, the language refers to an inability to sustain funding 
levels and seems to say that the committee views Everglades funding to 
be inequitable, as if the Everglades has been receiving too much 
somehow.
  I hope I am interpreting the language incorrectly. I hope the 
committee is not announcing that the Everglades is somehow being deemed 
as not being a national priority and will not continue to be singled 
out for cuts in funding from now on. Because, make no mistake about it, 
the Everglades is a national treasure and has been a national priority, 
as Ranking Member Dicks pointed out, for the Federal Government since 
we created the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan in 2000.
  Eleven years ago, Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle 
and from every corner of this great Nation came together with the 
executive branch and partnered with the State of Florida to embark on 
the largest ecosystem restoration effort on Earth. We understood then 
that it would not be easy, or inexpensive, but it had to be done to 
restore this unique ecosystem. The plan spans three decades, has over 
60 component projects, and will take resolve and a sustained commitment 
to see this project through to its completion.
  The Everglades Restoration Plan was spearheaded by esteemed Senators 
from around the Nation and both political parties--Republican Bob Smith 
from New Hampshire, Republican Dave Hobson of Ohio, Democrat Max Baucus 
from Montana, and, of course, Florida's own Senators Connie Mack and 
Bob Graham.
  Congressman E. Clay Shaw said it perfectly right here on this floor 
during passage of the restoration plan a decade ago when he said:
  ``Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable to have this broad a cross section of 
Americans supporting legislation on any single issue. But protection of 
the

[[Page H4804]]

Everglades is a national priority because most Americans speak of this 
national treasure in the same breath as the redwood forests, the 
Mississippi River, Old Faithful, the Appalachian Trail, or the Grand 
Canyon.''
  I couldn't agree more; and Presidents Clinton, Bush, and now 
President Obama share this commitment.
  In 2001, George W. Bush said:
  ``This area needs our protection, and I am here to join with your 
Governor in the cause of preserving and protecting the Florida 
Everglades. For its part, the Federal Government carries important 
responsibilities and stewardship. It is not enough to regulate and 
dictate from afar. To preserve places like this, we must bring to our 
work a new spirit of respect and cooperation.''
  Again, I couldn't agree more.
  History is important. So are the words that we use or do not use. 
That is why I am deeply disappointed that the chairman has refused so 
far to state publicly that Everglades restoration is a national 
priority. I would note that the chairman, speaking on the Energy and 
Water bill for fiscal year 05, stood here on June 24, 2004, and 
referred to his own local port and harbor dredging and deepening 
project as a ``national priority.''
  Well, having several ports in south Florida, I would agree on the 
economic significance of navigation infrastructure. But surely the 
Everglades, a unique national treasure, rises to at least the same 
level. We need to look beyond our own State borders and districts when 
we shape our priorities, as our predecessors did. I hope the chairman 
will see fit to stand with us now and recommit to Everglades 
restoration as a national priority.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Graves of Missouri

  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,750,000).''
       Page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, basically what I'm trying to do 
here is to point out the absurdity and misalignment of priorities which 
have become clear in this appropriations bill.
  I live along the Missouri River in Missouri, and we've had families 
that have been inundated by the flooding that has taken place this year 
with no real end in sight, to be quite honest with you. This underlying 
bill provides $73 million for the Missouri River Recovery Program which 
is used to fund habitat creation projects. Unfortunately, the 
underlying bill only provides slightly more than $6 million for the 
maintenance of the levees all the way from Sioux City, Iowa, to the 
mouth of the Missouri, where it meets up with the Mississippi. So 
essentially we are spending nearly 12 times more to buy land for the 
betterment of fish and birds than we are to protect farmers, 
businesses, and homes that are being flooded right now.
  This year, many levees in Missouri have been breached and overtopped 
as a result of the amounts of water and the mismanagement of the river, 
and many people in my district have been evacuated and will remain 
evacuated for months, in some cases. The President has issued an 
emergency disaster declaration for parts of Missouri, and yet here we 
are spending, again, $73 million for fish and wildlife and a mere $6 
million for the maintenance of these levees.
  While I believe conservation is important, we should not overlook 
what it is we sometimes sacrifice to achieve conservation. In this 
case, we are sacrificing the livelihoods of businesses and farmers and 
are destroying homes.

                              {time}  1450

  Again, my amendment just simply transfers money from the construction 
account to the operations and maintenance account. The intent is just 
to reduce funding in one and increase that funding in the other. With 
that, I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am very sympathetic to those that have been 
devastated by floods in Missouri and in other States across the Nation. 
It's a very personal thing for many Members of Congress who look to 
their congressional districts and see the loss of life, and 
livelihoods, and jobs, and devastation to family farms and to small 
towns.
  One of the things we did in our bill of course, and I am sure the 
gentleman would recognize this, we came up with a billion dollars of 
emergency aid, which hopefully will be of assistance. I know he doesn't 
speak of that in this amendment. But certainly all Members of Congress, 
on both sides of the aisle, are committed to help those whose lives 
have been unalterably changed because of the devastation.
  My concern with his amendment is that the Corps has said this 
construction funding is necessary to avoid jeopardy under the 
Endangered Species Act. If the river system jeopardizes species, it 
could have great effect on the operations of the river. So speaking to 
my earlier point, we want to be helpful, but we also look to the Corps 
for some direction on this point. As a consequence, I oppose his 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would join in the chairman's remarks, 
and emphasize the word ``reluctantly,'' because I do understand the 
devastation that has been suffered. I would emphasize for the record 
that the chairman recognized the tragedies that have occurred, and had 
an amendment in committee to have a billion dollars set aside.
  Earlier in the process, we had essentially about a billion dollars 
also transferred from the Energy and Water appropriation bill to the 
Homeland Security bill for various similar purposes. There is no 
denying the emergency. But as I have said on more than one occasion 
during the debate of this issue, it is time we as an institution have 
the intestinal fortitude to understand we have natural disasters. We 
have people who have lost their lives. We have people who are suffering 
and have lost property. We need, in a deliberate, thoughtful fashion, 
to set those moneys aside as opposed to, if you would, moving moneys 
from accounts to take care of these emergencies.
  So I do understand also looking ahead that the ultimate cost of the 
tragedy the gentleman's constituents and others have suffered is 
probably going to exceed the moneys that have been set aside in this 
bill, and do hope, again, institutionally, that we address that 
problem. So I understand the motive, agree with the principle that is 
espoused, but again would have to reluctantly join in opposition to the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   mississippi river and tributaries

       For expenses necessary for flood damage reduction projects 
     and related efforts in the Mississippi River alluvial valley 
     below Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as authorized by law, 
     $210,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such sums as are necessary to cover the Federal share of 
     eligible operation and maintenance costs for inland harbors 
     shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund: 
     Provided, That except as provided in section 101, the amounts 
     made available under this paragraph shall be expended as 
     authorized by law for the programs, projects, and activities 
     specified in the text and table under this heading in the 
     report of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives to accompany this Act.

                       operation and maintenance

       For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and 
     care of existing river and harbor, flood and storm damage 
     reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related 
     projects authorized by law; providing security for 
     infrastructure owned or operated by

[[Page H4805]]

     the Corps of Engineers, including administrative buildings 
     and laboratories; maintaining harbor channels provided by a 
     State, municipality, or other public agency that serve 
     essential navigation needs of general commerce, when 
     authorized by law; surveying and charting northern and 
     northwestern lakes and connecting waters; clearing and 
     straightening channels; and removing obstructions to 
     navigation, $2,366,465,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which such sums as are necessary to cover the 
     Federal share of eligible operation and maintenance costs for 
     coastal harbors and channels and for inland harbors shall be 
     derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; of which such 
     sums as become available from the special account for the 
     Corps of Engineers established by the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)) shall be 
     derived from that account for resource protection, research, 
     interpretation, and maintenance activities related to 
     resource protection in the areas at which outdoor recreation 
     is available; and of which such sums as become available from 
     fees collected under section 217 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-303) shall be used to 
     cover the cost of operation and maintenance of the dredged 
     material disposal facilities for which such fees have been 
     collected: Provided, That 1 percent of the total amount of 
     funds provided for each of the programs, projects or 
     activities funded under this heading shall not be allocated 
     to a field operating activity prior to the beginning of the 
     fourth quarter of the fiscal year and shall be available for 
     use by the Chief of Engineers to fund such emergency 
     activities as the Chief of Engineers determines to be 
     necessary and appropriate, and that the Chief of Engineers 
     shall allocate during the fourth quarter any remaining funds 
     which have not been used for emergency activities 
     proportionally in accordance with the amounts provided for 
     the programs, projects or activities: Provided further, That 
     except as provided in section 101, the amounts made available 
     under this paragraph shall be expended as authorized by law 
     for the programs, projects, and activities specified in the 
     text and table under this heading in the report of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     to accompany this Act.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise

  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,360,000)''.
       Page 8, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $6,360,000)''.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment, worked on 
with Mr. Richmond and others, and it deals with dredging. You know, 
we've seen over the last few months a shift in the Corps of Engineers' 
policy. In years past, they've always reprogrammed millions of dollars, 
in many cases tens of millions of dollars, from other areas within 
their agency because they inadequately had initially funded dredging of 
our waterways. And of course, this is the lifeblood to moving commerce 
throughout not only much of our country, but as we export to other 
countries throughout the world.
  For whatever reason, the Corps made an internal decision earlier this 
year that they would no longer do that reprogramming, which jeopardizes 
much of the movements that we have along our waterways. This amendment 
is revenue-neutral. It doesn't add anything to the cost of the bill. 
But what it does is it takes money out of the general administration 
account, which actually saw an increase this year, moves it over into 
the general operations and maintenance section of the bill so that it 
allows us at least additional revenues to go and properly dredge our 
waterways.
  Why is this important? Number one, it's a critical jobs issue. 
Because as we just saw a few weeks ago, prior to some of the record 
levels of flooding, Mr. Chairman, we saw they had to roll back, just in 
my region of the New Orleans area, they had to roll back some of the 
depth that they were allowed to transport on the Mississippi River. 
This cost about $1 million per vessel, added costs to move commerce 
throughout our country. Not only does that cost jobs, but it also 
increases the cost of goods for Americans who buy those products. But 
it also increases the costs of exporting. And it makes our American 
companies less competitive in the world.
  And of course right now this Congress, the President, we're working 
together to try to reach trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and 
South Korea. And I support more trade, free trade, the ability for more 
American employers to be able to sell their goods throughout the world, 
to actually create more jobs in America. But if we're going to do that, 
we've got to have the proper dredging going on to allow for that 
commerce along our waterways.
  So if the Corps is allowed to go through with their policy of no more 
reprogramming, we know from what they've said, we know from what 
history's shown us that in years past they didn't have adequate amounts 
in their operations and maintenance for dredging, and so they have 
reprogrammed. Every year for years now that's been going on. And 
they've said this year they're no longer going to do it. So we would be 
sitting in a situation where we have to wait until some of our 
waterways are shut down or until you saw vessels grounded, like we just 
saw a few weeks ago just in the New Orleans area because of their lack 
of dredging. And then we would lose more jobs, we would lose our 
ability to export more.
  So what we are saying is, there is additional money in this fund, in 
the general administration fund. We know this is a looming problem if 
we don't address it. So let's move it somewhere where it will actually 
help us create jobs and remain competitive. And hopefully as those 
trade agreements move through Congress, where we now have more 
opportunities if those trade agreements move through to trade even more 
and to create more jobs in America, then our ability to move those 
goods through our waterways would still be there. Because they won't if 
we are not properly dredging our waterways. So this amendment addresses 
that problem. And it's a problem we know is coming because the Corps 
themselves have said this is looming. So let's address it head on. 
Let's not wait until it's a crisis before we do something about it. 
That's why I bring the amendment, again an amendment with bipartisan 
support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of 
order.
  The CHAIR. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Unfortunately and reluctantly, I must oppose the 
gentleman from Louisiana's amendment.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's concern for sufficiently 
maintaining our waterways as necessary to realizing the national 
economic benefits of efficient cargo transportation.
  Representing, as I do, part of New Jersey, which is highly dependent 
on the Port of New York and New Jersey, I am well aware that navigation 
and money for navigation and dredging is absolutely essential, and I am 
highly sympathetic to the gentleman from Louisiana for all of the 
historical things that have impacted Louisiana's economy and so many 
people down there.
  In fact, a major factor in developing the recommendation for the Army 
Corps of Engineers' budget this year was to focus proportionately more 
funds on the projects and activities that contribute most to the 
economy and job creation, including dredging and other navigation 
improvements.
  The underlying bill does not include, as we are aware, any 
congressional earmarks. Oftentimes these issues were dealt with through 
the earmark process. Rather, our bill provides the Army Corps of 
Engineers the flexibility to allocate programmatic funds to those 
navigation and flood control projects that it deems most critical, and 
we have the ability as individual Members of Congress to help the Corps 
focus on what we feel is most critical for their attention.
  The Corps is required to report to Congress in our bill, within 45 
days of enactment, on which projects were deemed most critical and why. 
Navigation needs are not the only important issues addressed in our 
bill, however. Increased funding for this programmatic line even 
further would

[[Page H4806]]

upset the careful balance of priorities that I have spoken of earlier, 
including national defense, which is a major component of why we even 
have a Department of Energy, and nuclear safety, energy innovation and, 
of course, the great work of the Army Corps, the water resources needs.
  So, therefore, reluctantly I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman withdraws his point of order.
  Mr. RICHMOND. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of my 
colleague from across the aisle, in fact, my colleague from across town 
and our great State of Louisiana.
  Not only is this amendment on time; it's on target, in terms of job 
creation and job retention in our great country.
  The current cargo activity at the Port of New Orleans alone generates 
$2.8 billion in Federal taxes. The future and livelihood of farmers and 
manufacturers in 30 States that depend on the Mississippi River to get 
their goods to market, that's 60 percent of all U.S. grain exports in 
this country flows through the Port of New Orleans.
  Our industrial heartland desperately needs the Mississippi River. The 
steel, rubber, copper, aluminum, and lumber that they need to use in 
manufacturing comes up the mouth of the Mississippi.
  So although it's two colleagues from the great State of Louisiana, we 
are not here specifically talking about one thing that's important to 
Louisiana. This is important to 30 States in this country. It's 
important to the entire country.
  According to customs, $85 billion to $104 billion a year is 
attributed to trade through the Mississippi River. So when you talk 
about how we keep this country going, how do we grow this country, it's 
through making wise investments.
  And right now, in these tough times, the American people want us to 
use every dollar that we have very wisely; and I will say that 
according to the Port of New Orleans, every dollar that this country 
spends on dredging the Mississippi River, we get a 35-1 return. So the 
$6.8 million that my colleague from New Orleans and the metropolitan 
area is talking about diverting creates $238 million in this country.
  I would say what's happening in this country is that we should look 
at return on investment. We should look at how we spend money wisely to 
create more income, create more jobs, and make this a better country. 
That's what this amendment does.
  And for all of my colleagues in those 30 States that depend upon the 
Mississippi River, I would just say think about your farmers, think 
about all of your industrial employees because they need these goods to 
come up the river so that they can continue to compete. I will just 
tell that you if you look at a Panamax vessel, the 5 feet of draft--of 
the difference it would make if we don't dredge the Mississippi River 
would cost us $3.2 million per voyage.
  That makes us noncompetitive in the world. So they can get their 
grain from the United States or they can go to Brazil to get their 
grain. And I would just suggest, Mr. Chairman, if they start going to 
Brazil to get their grain, then they will never come back to the great 
country that we live in. So we have to use our money wisely.
  I think this is a very prudent use of $6.8 million and that the 
American people, if they knew they could spend $6.8 million to generate 
$238 million, everybody would support it, and that would be the reason 
why I would ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana will be 
postponed.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount insert ``(increased 
     by $33,535,000)''.
       Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $33,535,000)''.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases the 
operations and maintenance account by $35 million in line with the O&M 
budget for FY2010. My amendment offsets this amendment in the Fossil 
Energy R&D account by the same amount consistent with the President's 
FY2012 budget request.
  Mr. Chairman, as our Nation continues to climb out of the hole left 
behind from the Great Recession, Congress must focus on funding 
programs that create jobs and encourage economic growth. As the ranking 
member on the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, it is clear to me just how 
important it is to ensure that our water infrastructure assets remain 
safe, reliable and efficient to address our goals of encouraging 
economic prosperity.
  Over the past few years, my subcommittee has held hearing after 
hearing on the declining condition of our Nation's water transportation 
corridors, our levees and flood walls, and our Nation's wastewater 
infrastructure.
  Countless witnesses have told us that our water-related 
infrastructure is on the brink of failure, and they have specifically 
warned how the effects of such a failure would devastate our health, 
safety, prosperity and quality of life.
  In just the past decade, the Corps has had multiple emergency 
closures of navigation locks on almost every major river system to 
address infrastructure deterioration. These unscheduled closures result 
in significant impacts to the movement of goods and services, as well 
as impact shippers and customers alike in terms of higher costs.
  Similarly, the lack of available maintenance dredging funding has 
resulted in reduced depths at many major port facilities and has all 
but passed over the dredging needs of smaller ports such as Lake 
Montauk Harbor and Shinnecock Inlet in my district of eastern Long 
Island.
  Our Nation's ports handle 2.5 billion tons of domestic and 
international cargo annually. They move imports and exports worth more 
than $5.5 billion per day. In 2007, ports employed over 13.3 million 
Americans, 9 percent of the total workforce, and those jobs paid $649 
billion in wages. One billion dollars in exports creates 15,000 new 
jobs. Our ports and the maritime industry keep America open for 
business.
  It would seem apparent, then, that underfunding the missions of the 
Corps of Engineers is shortsighted for many reasons. First, it has a 
substantial negative impact on local economies and the bottom lines of 
big industries and small businesses alike.
  Second, it puts our families and communities at an increased risk of 
flooding and damage from coastal storms.
  Third, it delays the potential public and environmental health 
benefits that come from environmental restoration projects.
  Finally, it places this Nation on an unsustainable path where it is 
forced to rely on an outdated and failing infrastructure to keep the 
Nation going.
  In light of this, or in spite of this, in the first 6 months of the 
112th Congress, the new House majority has put forward several 
legislative proposals to cut the funding for the core to levels not 
seen since 2004.
  The most aggressive proposal, included as part of H.R. 1, would have 
cut over $500 million, about 10 percent, from an already strained Corps 
budget; and it could only result in increased delay in carrying out 
vital Corps projects and increased reliance on using Band-Aids to 
remedy critical infrastructure maintenance issues.
  Similarly, this appropriations bill further reduces the level of 
funding for the Corps by 11.5 percent, including a remarkable cut of 
20.5 percent from the Corps' construction account and an additional 
38.2 percent reduction for Corps work along the Mississippi River.

[[Page H4807]]

  Collectively, for the hundreds of Corps projects around the country, 
these reductions in funding will result in a growing deficiency in 
maintenance that will continue to expand until it becomes an emergency 
or fails at a critical moment.
  Given the lack of viable offsets in this bill, my amendment focuses 
on the Corps' Operation and Maintenance account that provides funding 
to the Corps to dredge existing harbors to their congressionally 
authorized width and depth.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. Chairman, eliminating the funds for operation and maintenance is 
both penny-wise and pound-foolish. Businesses large and small depend 
greatly on their ability to move their goods to market by using our 
Nation's waterways.
  From California importers to Minnesota miners to Ohio steelworkers to 
Michigan manufacturers to New York fishermen to Louisiana exporters to 
Illinois farmers to Pennsylvania producers, they and a great many 
others depend on efficient waterborne transportation to receive goods, 
move products to market, create jobs, and grow economically.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of 
order.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman continues to reserve.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Again, our bill strikes a balance between funding for many competing 
national priorities in this bill that this amendment would undo.
  I do, and we do, support the important work of the Army Corps of 
Engineers but not at the expense of those national priorities--national 
defense, scientific research, good things in the Department of Energy. 
And may I say our mark is considerably more generous for these purposes 
than the President's mark; so do give us a little bit of credit.
  This amendment would cut into the fossil energy research program, an 
account nearly $200 million below the 2010 budget mark. Fossil energy, 
I think as we're all aware of, produces nearly 70 percent of our 
Nation's electricity, and we must continue to invest to ensure that we 
use our fossil resources efficiently and clearly.
  This bill, again, strikes a careful balance between these priorities, 
and I oppose the amendment and will insist on my point of order.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and would join 
in his remarks.
  I appreciate the position of the gentleman. As, again, I have pointed 
out in the past, if we look at the need that the gentleman so 
eloquently stated, it is overwhelming. Currently for the top 59 ports 
in the U.S., the Corps is only able to maintain authorized depths 
within the middle of the channel 33 percent of the time.
  I might also add, though, that the chairman noted that the actual 
moneys contained in this bill, inadequate as they are, are more than 
the President of the United States asked for. So I do want to remind my 
colleagues about that fact. It doesn't solve our problem, but there 
were also points that administrations, past and present, they have got 
to wake up and recognize we've got to make an investment.
  I also do believe at this point in time that there is a purpose for 
the moneys the committee has set aside as far as fossil research. We do 
need to learn how to use carbon fuels more cleanly. We have to learn 
how to use them more efficiently, as we also look for a broader mix of 
energy policy in this country.
  So, very reluctantly, I would have to oppose the gentleman's 
amendment, but I agree with every word he has said about the need in 
this country.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend 
portions of the bill not yet read.
  The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule 
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in 
the bill.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an 
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority 
or outlays in the bill.
  Because the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York proposes 
a net increase in the level of outlays in the bill, as argued by the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations, it may not avail itself 
of clause 2(f) to address portions of the bill not yet read.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Woodall

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $4,900,000)''.
       Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,900,000)''.

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a copy of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. WOODALL. I've got a copy right here. I would be happy to----
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I regret that the gentleman did not share it with us 
earlier.
  Mr. WOODALL. I turned in a copy at the desk, and I regret that the 
ranking member didn't get one earlier.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My amendment moves to strike from the operation and maintenance 
account all dollars for global warming project planning.
  I know the committee put a lot of effort into this particular section 
of the bill, plussing it up almost a million dollars over 2011 levels, 
up $52 million from the FY 2012 request.
  I come from a county--my primary county, Mr. Chairman, depends 
entirely on a Corps water project for all of our drinking water, not to 
mention recreation and economic development, and on and on and on. So 
I'm very interesting in seeing the Corps succeed.
  What I'm concerned about are those silos that are being created in 
government today, Mr. Chairman. This body in the early 1970s would have 
been talking about the calamity we are faced with, global cooling, and 
here we today with a special budget line item for global warming for 
the Corps of Engineers.
  We have a great deal of global warming money going into our 
Department of the Interior, going into the Environmental Protection 
Agency. The Corps at its core is a construction agency, and certainly 
this account provides for operations and maintenance for anything that 
might come up along those lines. But rather than creating this silo to 
focus specifically on global warming issues, in these tough economic 
times when we have so many Corps projects that are so lacking in 
funding, my amendment would strike this account in its entirety, $4.9 
million, and transfer that money to a deficit reduction account.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This attack on science, this attack on the need to learn more about 
the science of climate change, more about the impacts which this 
changing global environment is having upon our planet is just, once 
again, a direct attack upon the reality that the planet is warming, and 
in parts of the planet, the Arctic, sub-Saharan Africa, dangerously so.
  So the role that science plays is a little bit like the role that 
Paul Revere played. The scientists are saying climate change is coming. 
It's intensifying. It can do great harm to our planet and to the 
security interests of our planet.

[[Page H4808]]

  So this amendment basically strikes right at what it is that the rest 
of the world expects our country to be, which is the leader on science. 
And if we look at it in the totality of the energy part of this bill 
that we're considering today where they cut the funding for solar, for 
wind, for energy efficiency, for geothermal, for biomass, for plug-in 
hybrids, for all-electric vehicles, it's all part of a pattern where 
they slash the budgets for those programs that can help to deal with 
the impacts of global warming.

                              {time}  1520

  By the way, this same bill increases the budget for oil, coal, and 
gas, that which is creating this global warming, the man-made gases 
that we know are dangerously warming the planet. So the green 
generation, the young people in our country, they look on at this 
debate, and they say, How can the Republicans cut wind and solar in the 
same budget that they are then going to defund the studies that 
basically help us to forecast, to deal with and to analyze the impact 
of global warming and climate warming on our planet?
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and would join in 
his objection to the amendment that is offered. I happen to believe 
that we have climate change. Others will debate that, and I would set 
aside that debate for the moment and simply recognize the obvious, and 
that is we have had significant variations in weather patterns in the 
United States of America. We have had horrific flooding in the Midwest 
during this past year, and that flooding has huge impacts on the 
reservoirs that are managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. I think it 
is not correct public policy to not proceed with the study as to how 
climate and weather patterns affect those very important Corps projects 
and appreciate the chairman rising in objection.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Markey was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield the gentleman from Washington 1 additional 
minute.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I held hearings when I was chairman of the Interior and 
Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, brought in the Federal 
agencies, and every one of them testified that they could already see 
signs of the effects of climate change: one was a longer fire season; 
one was more drought; one was more variations in weather; and, most 
importantly, to the Corps of Engineers, that the seas are rising at a 
rate more rapidly than at any time in the last 3,000 years.
  Now, this is serious stuff that affects the planet. I'm glad the 
gentleman who chaired the committee on this took time to be here.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  We've had 11 three- and four-star generals and admirals testify that 
we need a national intelligence assessment of the defense implications 
of global warming around the planet, and we have done that for the 
Pentagon. We have done that for the National Security Agency at their 
request. They believe it's real. They believe it has real implications 
for the defense of our country where we might have to project force.
  The same thing is true domestically, however. The same thing is true 
in terms of how we have to protect our own people because of rising 
rivers, because of increased drought, because of the melting of the 
Arctic, because villages are falling into the ocean up in Alaska 
because of the melting tundra. These are things that affect us here in 
the United States today. And to say, no, we are going to defund all 
aspects of that is a mistake.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. There also is another aspect of this that some people 
don't recognize, and that is ocean acidification, which is upon us. A 
significant amount of carbon dioxide goes into the oceans. And that's 
why getting a handle on this and trying to control CO2 
emissions is so very important. And when it goes into the ocean, it has 
a negative effect on coral and it has a negative effect on oysters. It 
has a negative effect on anything in a shell. In fact, there is the 
phytoplankton which is one of the crucial elements for salmon, 60 
percent of the food for salmon. If the acidity rate gets as high, the 
pH rate drops and the acidity goes up, those fish will be adversely 
affected.
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I want to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, and 
then I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  So this is science. This is undeniable. This is what the green 
generation keeps screaming at our generation, Are you going to do 
anything about it? Are you going to put a plan in place to deal with 
it? And what their budget today says is, no, we are slashing the wind 
budget, the solar budget, the plug-in hybrid budget, the all-electric 
vehicle budget, and the energy efficiency and conservation budget. We 
are slashing, slashing, slashing, slashing. And then, to put the cherry 
on top of the sundae, they say, well, let's just eliminate the money 
that deals with the study of global warming climate science, because 
obviously it's not a problem. And in the same budget, they increase the 
funding for oil, gas, and coal.
  Now, that is a budget looking in a rearview mirror at the 
technologies that are causing problems, including national security 
problems for us because of some importation of that oil, while not in 
fact depending upon our technological genius. And that's what young 
people in our country want. They want us to use the technology to be 
able to tell the Saudis and others that we don't need their oil any 
more than we need their sand.
  But what we have here is not only a national security disaster but an 
environmental disaster which is looming in our country. And the 
Republicans continue to slash away at the science that helps us to 
protect them.
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman's statement.
  I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. I appreciate the work you've done on this bill.
  This appropriation, this $4.9 million isn't about doing the science. 
You won't see me down here attacking dollars for the science. But as 
the gentleman knows, this is about the maintenance and operation of 
Corps projects dedicated solely to global warming. If we were talking 
about the science, then let's talk about the engineers and the folks 
who are going to do that Corps research.
  This isn't that. This is just like the bricks-and-mortar operations 
and maintenance that goes on in every Corps project in my district, and 
every other Corps project across the country, but just put in the 
global warming silo. And I'm concerned that the visceral reaction that 
even a discussion of operations and maintenance brings up demonstrates 
where silos of this kind do more harm than good.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  This item is a response to climate change at Army Corps projects, 
response to climate change. Are we going to be in denial that projects 
here in the United States aren't affected by climate change, that we 
are somehow immune to what's happening in the Arctic and the sub-
Saharan deserts of Africa right now? No, we are not.
  And so this amendment is just a continuation of this same attack that 
the whole bill is, in fact, aimed at achieving.
  Mr. DICKS. What I worry about is how many of our people live on the 
coast of this country who could be directly impacted by rising sea 
levels. And the seas have gone up more rapidly in this last 50 years 
than it has in the last 3,000 years. Somebody's got to take this 
seriously. Obviously, there are some on the other side who are in 
denial. The gentleman said it quite correctly. They don't believe that 
this is real. It is real.

[[Page H4809]]

  Mr. MARKEY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. We just had a debate on the Everglades. The Everglades is 
a perfect example of where, over the next 20 to 50 years, climate 
change is going to have a profound impact on an entire State. And this 
amendment is just part of the denial, as is the evisceration, the 
annihilation of the wind, solar, and all-electric vehicle budget that 
is being cut out of this bill.
  Mr. DICKS. If they don't take into account Corps of Engineers 
projects on the possibilities that the seas are going to rise, I mean, 
this could be catastrophic. It could be another Katrina.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Courtney

  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 7, line 15, insert before the period at the end ``: 
     Provided further, That in addition, there is appropriated 
     $808,000,000, which shall be derived from the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund''.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It would 
increase the Army Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance budget 
by $808 million in 2012. This number is not a random number that was 
just picked out of the air. This number represents the difference 
between the tax revenue collected through the harbor maintenance tax 
and the amount of money that is actually being spent out of the harbor 
maintenance trust fund for the purpose of maintaining and dredging 
America's harbors.
  Again, for some listeners it might be helpful to understand that in 
1986, the Congress passed a harbor maintenance tax, which is a tax--it 
is really a user fee--on imported goods coming into America's harbors 
all across this country, East Coast, West Coast, all across the 
coastlines of the United States of America. The purpose of that tax was 
to create a fund to dredge harbors so we would have passable waterways. 
Again, we have heard over and over this afternoon, that is good for the 
U.S. economy.
  What has happened since 1986 is the revenue collected through the 
harbor maintenance tax has gone up at a steady rate. It has gone up 13 
percent just in the last year because there are a lot more imported 
goods coming into this country, but the funding for actual dredging has 
plateaued. It has been at a level pace so that today, we have a budget 
which calls for using only 53 percent of the harbor maintenance taxes 
collected for the purposes of dredging America's harbors. This would be 
like having only 53 percent of our gas taxes being spent on surface 
transportation in this country. If motorists saw only 53 percent of gas 
taxes being actually used to maintain roads in this country, there 
would be a revolution, because there is a promise in terms of Federal 
gas taxes that it will be used to maintain surface transportation.
  Well, that was the equivalent idea under the harbor maintenance tax 
passed in 1986, that it would be used to invest and reinvest in 
America's harbors.
  Because we are, in fact, diverting year in and year out hundreds of 
millions of dollars out of the harbor maintenance tax away from its 
intended purpose, we have what we have seen here this afternoon. We 
have heard from Members from Massachusetts, from New York, Louisiana, 
South Carolina, and New Jersey.
  I can chime in from Connecticut. We have about $113 million of 
dredging that is underfunded from Bridgeport all of the way to 
Stonington. And I know the gentleman from New Jersey is familiar with 
the fact that we are on the silty side of Long Island Sound. Again, we 
have a Navy base which requires dredging to keep our attack submarines 
going in and out of New London. But we also have a maritime economy 
that depends on having these Federal waterways dredged.
  The budget that we will be passing this year, whether it is the 
President's budget or whether it is the one that the subcommittee has 
reported out, is clearly inadequate in terms of making sure that our 
waterways are passable.
  As we have heard from other Members, because of the increase in terms 
of imports, whether we pass these new free trade agreements or not, the 
expansion of the Panama Canal is going to double the amount of imports 
brought in by sea into this country, and we have a system that is 
clearly inadequate in terms of dealing with that challenge.
  Now there is legislation pending before the Congress. I am a 
cosponsor with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany). It is 
called the RAMP Act. It is an acronym for Restore America's Maritime 
Promise Act, which is a grandiose title, but it is true. We need to 
make sure that these harbor maintenance taxes are being directed to 
their intended purpose when that tax was created in 1986. What the RAMP 
Act will do is basically cordon off this tax revenue so that it is used 
for the intended purpose that Congress meant when it was passed in 
1986.
  What that will do is it will take pressure off this subcommittee's 
budget year in and year out. Again, it will deal with this problem that 
has worsened, as the subcommittee chairman mentioned, because earmarks 
are now a thing of the past in terms of dealing with dredging projects. 
What it will do is create a stable flow of money into the Army Corps of 
Engineers harbor maintenance dredging fund so that all of these 
projects that we have heard about this afternoon--again, from one end 
of the country to the other--are actually going to be paid for. We have 
over 100 bipartisan cosponsors.
  The Transportation Committee had a hearing this past Friday, and it 
does appear from Mr. Mica that they are going to move forward in terms 
of adopting the RAMP Act as part of the transportation authorization 
bill.
  This amendment, again, puts a spotlight on the fact that only 53 
percent of the harbor maintenance tax revenue is being used for its 
intended purpose, and that is the reason why I have offered this 
amendment.
  I suspect it will be subject to a point of order. But again, I think 
it is important for people to realize there is a way out of this 
problem that we face: Pass the RAMP Act.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of 
order, and I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, while I strongly support the 
gentleman from Connecticut's overall intent, I must regretfully oppose 
his amendment.
  I share my colleague's concern for sufficiently maintaining our 
waterways. These waterways contribute significantly to our national 
economy by providing a means of cost-effective cargo transportation. In 
recognition of the economic benefits of navigation generally and 
maintenance dredging specifically, the bill before us provides funds 
above the President's budget request for navigation needs--$191 million 
in total and $99 million specifically for the operation and maintenance 
activities. This funding represents a 12 percent increase over the 
President's own budget for navigation.
  I also agree with the gentleman from Connecticut's idea that if the 
Federal Government levies a tax for a specific purpose, the revenue 
should be used for that purpose. Unfortunately, the only way to do that 
at this point would be to make substantial reductions in other 
priorities in our bill.
  The gentleman's amendment would avoid those difficult decisions by 
simply not offsetting the additional spending, but our debt crisis 
makes that,

[[Page H4810]]

too, an untenable option. For these reasons, even though I am very much 
in support of what he is trying to achieve, which is things for 
navigation, keeping America open for business, I must oppose his 
amendment, and I will insist on my point of order.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would be happy to yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and just want to 
make one observation.
  The gentleman is absolutely correct as far as the maintenance fund. 
After fiscal year 2012, there will be $6.928 billion in the fund. Today 
there is $5.474 billion in the fund. That discrepancy is $1.454 
billion. Apparently, it will make the deficit look a bit better, but at 
$1 trillion, who are we fooling? Certainly no one in the United States 
of America. The chairman of the committee rightfully pointed out that 
it is unfair to those who are paying the tax, it is unfair to those 
companies who want to make a fair profit, as well as to those who might 
be able to work, if we could resolve this problem.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.


                             POINT OF ORDER

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net 
increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order 
under Section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which 
states: ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a 
general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget 
authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment 
or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget 
authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.''
  The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill 
in violation of such section.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  The gentleman from New Jersey makes a point of order that the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut violates section 
3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5. Section 3(j)(3) establishes a point of 
order against an amendment proposing a net increase in budget authority 
in the pending bill.
  As persuasively asserted by the gentleman from New Jersey, the 
amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. 
Therefore, the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in 
order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                           regulatory program

       For expenses necessary for administration of laws 
     pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands, 
     $196,000,000, to remain available until expended.

            formerly utilized sites remedial action program

       For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites 
     in the United States resulting from work performed as part of 
     the Nation's early atomic energy program, $109,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                 flood control and coastal emergencies

       For expenses necessary to prepare for floods, hurricanes, 
     and other natural disasters and support emergency operations, 
     repairs, and other activities in response to such disasters 
     as authorized by law, $27,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                                expenses

       For expenses necessary for the supervision and general 
     administration of the civil works program in the headquarters 
     of the Corps of Engineers and the offices of the Division 
     Engineers; and for costs of management and operation of the 
     Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Institute for 
     Water Resources, the United States Army Engineer Research and 
     Development Center, and the United States Army Corps of 
     Engineers Finance Center allocable to the civil works 
     program, $185,000,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which not to exceed $5,000 may be used for official reception 
     and representation purposes and only during the current 
     fiscal year: Provided, That no part of any other 
     appropriation in this title shall be available to fund the 
     civil works activities of the Office of the Chief of 
     Engineers or the civil works executive direction and 
     management activities of the division offices: Provided 
     further, That any Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies 
     appropriation may be used to fund the supervision and general 
     administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other 
     activities in response to any flood, hurricane, or other 
     natural disaster.

     office of the assistant secretary of the army for civil works

       For the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
     Civil Works as authorized by section 3016(b)(3) of title 10, 
     United States Code, $5,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                        administrative provision

       The Revolving Fund, Corps of Engineers, shall be available 
     during the current fiscal year for purchase (not to exceed 
     100 for replacement only) and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles for the civil works program.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 101. (a) None of the funds provided in this title 
     shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or 
     activity;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project, 
     or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this 
     Act;
       (4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
     specific program, project, or activity by this Act;
       (5) increases funds for any program, project, or activity 
     by more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
       (6) reduces funds for any program, project, or activity by 
     more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less.
       (b) Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any project or 
     activity authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1948, section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946, 
     section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954, section 107 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1960, section 103 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1962, section 111 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1968, section 1135 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986, section 206 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1996, or section 204 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 1992.
       (c) This section shall not apply to additional flood and 
     coastal storm damage reduction and navigation program funds 
     provided under ``Remaining Items'' in the tables under the 
     headings ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--Construction'' and 
     ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--Operation and Maintenance'' or to 
     additional investigations funding under ``National Programs'' 
     under the heading ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--
     Investigations'' in the report of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives to accompany 
     this Act.
       (d) The Corps of Engineers shall submit reports on a 
     quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate detailing all the 
     funds reprogrammed between programs, projects, activities, or 
     categories of funding. The first quarterly report shall be 
     submitted not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       Sec. 102.  None of the funds in this Act, or previous Acts, 
     making funds available for Energy and Water Development, 
     shall be used to implement any pending or future competitive 
     sourcing actions under OMB Circular A-76 or High Performing 
     Organizations for the Army Corps of Engineers.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Sessions

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Strike section 102.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, over the last few weeks, the House has 
voted three times in favor of striking problematic and anticompetitive 
A-76 language from H.R. 2017, the Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations bill; and from H.R. 2112, the Agriculture appropriations 
bill; and last week from H.R. 2219, the Department of Defense 
appropriations bill.

                              {time}  1540

  The same change and reversal of bad policy should be adopted in this 
legislation by striking section 102 from the bill. My amendment would 
strike section 102 of this legislation, which, as drafted, prohibits 
the use of any funds in the underlying bill to convert any functions 
performed by Federal Government employees to private competition 
pursuant to a study conducted under OMB Circular A-76 or high-
performing organizations for the Army Corps of Engineers.
  Currently, some 850,000 of the 2 million executive branch, non-
postal, full-time, and permanent positions are jobs that are commercial 
in nature. The Heritage Foundation has reported that subjecting Federal 
employee positions which are commercial in nature to a public-private 
cost comparison generate on average a 30 percent cost savings 
regardless of which sector wins the competition.

[[Page H4811]]

  According to Americans for Tax Reform, the average cost of each new 
Federal employee for salary, benefits and pension totals $4.27 million. 
Without competition, government-run monopolies of commercial activities 
duplicate and price out the private sector, resulting in inefficient 
expenditures of taxpayer money. The requirements outlined in section 
102 are unnecessary. Rather than preventing market competition that 
would improve service and lower costs, we should be encouraging 
agencies to find the best way to deliver services to the citizens of 
this great Nation. The role of government should be to govern, not to 
operate businesses inside the government.
  The Nation's current unemployment rate is 9.2 percent. Congress must 
allow the private sector the ability to create jobs without an unfair 
disadvantage and, might I also add, without an unfair disadvantage to 
the taxpayer. Removing section 102 will allow the private sector just 
this opportunity. If competition is deemed fair, it really doesn't 
matter who wins. As long as both sides are allowed equal opportunity, 
the taxpayer should be and, I believe, would be the ultimate winner.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer-
first amendment and to ensure cost-saving competition is available.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The gentleman's amendment would strike section 102 of the bill, a 
provision that prohibits the use of the Circular A-76 privatization 
process and high-performing organization process for the Army Corps of 
Engineers. This is a debate that we have had before. This provision 
enjoys support from both sides of the aisle, and has been included in 
this bill every year since fiscal year 2008. This provision was 
originally included to stop an effort to privatize the operation, 
maintenance and repair of locks and dams.
  The importance of locks and dams to our Nation's economy cannot be 
understated, and any failure to ensure that the Nation's waterways 
remain safe and navigable would cripple the economy. These operators 
and mechanics make vital decisions affecting the lives, liberty and 
property of private persons, thus rendering the workload inappropriate 
for contractor performance. Further, no reasonable argument has been 
made that the locks and dams are overstaffed. Additionally, the Corps 
undertook a privatization study for their IT personnel in 2004. After 
an expensive 3-year study, the results came back as an in-house win.
  In general, the circular is profoundly flawed. Both the Government 
Accountability Office and the Department of Defense Inspector General 
have reported that agencies are constantly unable to demonstrate that 
A-76 studies result in savings and that agencies fail to consider the 
significant costs of conducting such studies. There is nothing wrong 
with attempts to look for efficiencies in the Federal workforce--that 
certainly is clear--but when describing A-76 processes, I think of a 
phrase often uttered by other colleagues: ``That dog won't hunt.''
  We need to stop wasting millions of dollars on these expensive 
competitions that time and again show government employees are a less 
expensive alternative, and I would urge all of my colleagues to vote 
``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman 
from Texas' amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The amendment of the gentleman from Texas will 
allow the Corps to use the A-76 process at its discretion. It will not 
require that anything in particular be contracted out.
  I agree with the gentleman that, particularly during this time of 
necessary budget-cutting, we should allow the agencies to evaluate all 
options and to choose the most cost-effective manner of delivering a 
product or service. The language to be struck is a carryover provision 
from several years ago when there was, perhaps, too much of an emphasis 
placed on the A-76 process. We are not in the same situation as several 
years ago, as we know, so the provision is unnecessarily restrictive. 
Therefore, I strongly support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Only 3 percent of the water on this planet is freshwater, 
but that's the water that we depend upon for drinking, for agriculture, 
and for much of our fishing and wildlife habitat.
  If my amendment to strike section 109 of this bill is not accepted, 
critical headwater and wetlands, which ensure the quality and the 
quantity of our freshwater supply, will be lost--lost to the dumping of 
sewage, to toxic mining materials, and to unregulated in-fill for 
residential, commercial and industrial development.
  Over the past decade, Mr. Chairman, two Supreme Court rulings have 
caused confusion about which waters and wetlands should receive 
protection under the Clean Water Act. As a result, important fish, 
wildlife, flood protection, and filtering waters now lack clear 
protection under the law, and businesses and regulators face 
uncertainty and delay as to which waters should fall under Federal 
protection.
  The Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency 
developed draft guidance this spring to clearly show which waters 
should be protected, and this guidance does provide clear and 
predictable guidelines in accordance with the Court's direction, but 
this bill prohibits that guidance from moving forward this year and 
every subsequent year. The Supreme Court did remove some waters from 
Federal protection, but it left a great deal of confusion over which 
waters and wetlands should be protected. The EPA and the Corps of 
Engineers are using an open, public process to develop the guidance. 
Published in May and open for comment through July, the public, 
businesses and States have over 3 months to let the Federal agency know 
their views. All comments will be considered and made publicly 
available.
  It is important to understand what the guidance does not do. This new 
guidance doesn't change any existing agricultural exemptions. All clean 
water exemptions for normal agricultural, forestry and ranching 
practices continue to apply. The guidance also clearly describes waters 
that are not regulated under the act, including isolated wetlands, 
artificially irrigated areas, stock watering ponds, construction-
related ponds, swimming pools, and washes and gullies.
  Failing to update the guidance, which is what this bill would do 
unless my amendment passes, is not only bad for the environment, but 
it's also bad for business.

                              {time}  1550

  American businesses need to know when the Federal Government has 
authority and when it doesn't. Without updated guidance, developers 
have little certainty regarding permits. This uncertainty could subject 
them to civil and criminal penalties, and surely will cost them extra 
money.
  Some also claim that Federal regulation is unnecessary because States 
will protect the same waters under their authority. But State authority 
to regulate waters of the United States derives directly from Federal 
law. When Federal law is unclear, State authority based on that law is 
also unclear. States are still required to implement the law, but they 
need clarity to be consistent and to avoid lawsuits. Some States may 
adequately protect clean waters on their own, but not all do. The Corps 
and the EPA must be able to protect water quality irrespective of 
whether individual States do.
  Sixteen different sportsmen's groups oppose the prohibition in this 
group, as

[[Page H4812]]

do over 100 conservation groups. When wetlands are destroyed and 
streams are polluted, sportsmen are often the first to be directly 
impacted. The economic benefits of hunting and fishing contribute more 
than $65 billion to the economy, breathing life into rural communities 
and supporting millions of jobs across the country.
  But these benefits are in jeopardy with this bill. Since 2001, 
safeguards for headwater streams and critical wetlands have steadily 
eroded. Wetlands and tributaries that provide clean water for iconic 
systems like the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes that recharge 
aquifers, help retain floodwaters, and provide important fish and 
wildlife habitat are now endangered. These economic and environmental 
benefits will be lost without updated guidance and rules.
  If this bill language stands, some critical waters will be subject to 
sewage dumping, to mining contaminants, and to industrial pollution. 
Some will be filled in for development. Bear in mind, much of the fresh 
water we depend upon is under the ground, but contiguous to rivers and 
streams that our fiscal health and the health of our economy is 
dependent upon.
  That's why I urge a vote for my amendment to strike section 109.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 103.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to award or modify any contract that commits 
     funds beyond the amounts appropriated for that program, 
     project, or activity that remain unobligated, except that 
     such amounts may include any funds that have been made 
     available through reprogramming pursuant to section 101.
       Sec. 104.  None of the funds in this Act, or previous Acts, 
     making funds available for Energy and Water Development, 
     shall be used to award any continuing contract that commits 
     additional funding from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund 
     unless or until such time that a long-term mechanism to 
     enhance revenues in this Fund sufficient to meet the cost-
     sharing authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1986 (Public Law 99-662) is enacted.
       Sec. 105.  Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     Chief of Engineers Report on a water resource matter, the 
     Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works shall submit 
     the report to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating 
     committees of the Congress.
       Sec. 106.  During the 1-year period beginning on the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army is 
     authorized to implement measures recommended in the efficacy 
     study authorized under section 3061 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1121) or in interim 
     reports, with such modifications or emergency measures as the 
     Secretary of the Army determines to be appropriate, to 
     prevent aquatic nuisance species from dispersing into the 
     Great Lakes by way of any hydrologic connection between the 
     Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Basin.
       Sec. 107.  The Secretary is authorized to transfer to 
     ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--Construction'' up to $100,000,000 
     of the funds provided for reinforcing or replacing flood 
     walls under the heading ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--Flood 
     Control and Coastal Emergencies'' in Public Law 109-234 and 
     Public Law 110-252 and up to $75,000,000 of the funds 
     provided for projects and measures for the West Bank and 
     Vicinity and Lake Ponchartrain and Vicinity projects under 
     the heading ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--Flood Control and 
     Coastal Emergencies'' in Public Law 110-28, to be used with 
     funds provided for the West Bank and Vicinity project under 
     the heading ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--Construction'' in 
     Public Law 110-252 and Public Law 110-329, consistent with 65 
     percent Federal and 35 percent non-Federal cost share and the 
     financing of, and payment terms for, the non-Federal cash 
     contribution associated with the West Bank and Vicinity 
     project.
       Sec. 108.  The Secretary of the Army may transfer to the 
     Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service 
     may accept and expend, up to $3,800,000 of funds provided in 
     this title under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance'' to 
     mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps of Engineers 
     projects.
       Sec. 109.  None of the funds made available by this Act or 
     any subsequent Act making appropriations for Energy and Water 
     Development may be used by the Corps of Engineers to develop, 
     adopt, implement, administer, or enforce a change or 
     supplement to the rule dated November 13, 1986, or guidance 
     documents dated January 15, 2003, and December 2, 2008, 
     pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
     seq.).


                     Amendment offered by Mr. Moran

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 14, strike lines 3 through 11 (and redesignate the 
     subsequent sections accordingly).

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I've explained what this amendment does. I 
believe that it is critically important to protect the headwaters and 
the wetlands of America.
  Two Supreme Court rulings cast considerable doubt on what is to be 
considered navigable water. Clearly, some waters that may have been 
protected in the past are not now protected, but there is a great deal 
of confusion as to which waters do need to be protected. That's why 
more than 100 environmental groups, and more than 16 major sportsmen's 
groups have urged adoption of this amendment, which strikes section 109 
because section 109 precludes the Corps of Engineers and EPA from 
issuing regulations that would clarify what waters do fall under 
Federal protection.
  The original idea was that you would define waters that are 
contiguous, that you can see on the surface, that you can navigate 
across from one State into another as falling under Federal protection. 
The problem is that there are a lot of waters that part of the year may 
run under the ground but are still contiguous and supply water to 
navigable streams and to rivers that are absolutely important to our 
economy and to our environment.
  So which of those waters should EPA and the Corps of Engineers 
regulate? During part of the year, the water flows under the surface, 
but it's still there; it's still important. If we don't enable our 
Federal agencies to clarify which waters are to be protected, many 
wetlands will be filled in, many habitats will be destroyed, many 
streams that run alongside mines will be filled with toxic material 
that will then subsequently run into rivers and water supplies that 
people need for their drinking water.
  Some bodies of water will be filled in with sewage. Some wetlands 
will be filled in for industrial, commercial and residential 
development. Some of that doesn't need to be protected, but much of it 
does. And all of it needs to be clarified. There's no way we can 
clarify what can be used and what needs to be protected unless the 
Corps of Engineers and EPA are allowed to go forward with regulations 
and guidance that they issued this spring.
  Now, there's still comments coming in. They're still listening to all 
the parties involved. But once they issue these regulations, private 
interests will know what can be developed and what can't; mining firms, 
farms will all know what water is under the jurisdiction of the Corps 
and what water isn't.
  I believe that was the intent of the Supreme Court. Two very 
important decisions, SWANCC and Rapanos, certainly said some waters are 
not under Federal jurisdiction, but they clearly left open a vast 
amount of room for the Federal Government to then clarify which waters 
are under Federal protection.
  So this legislation--and not only does it apply to this fiscal year, 
it applies to all subsequent years--this legislation is going to cast 
enormous doubt. It's going to generate millions of dollars of lawsuits 
all over the country. That's why I oppose it, Mr. Chairman. I don't 
think it's in our economic interest or in our environmental interest 
for us not to clarify by allowing the normal guidance process to go 
forward.
  I know that there is concern on the part of some farmers and miners 
and businesses, but the fact is the right thing to do is to move 
forward and strike section 109 of this bill.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Montana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REHBERG. Confusion--you've heard the word confusion. There is no 
one confused. That pesky Supreme Court has ruled against the 
environmental community of America saying you're trying to overextend 
your authority or belief in the authority of the regulatory agencies. 
There is no confusion here. It's a private property right.

                              {time}  1600

  When the Clean Water Act was written, as the courts have made their 
decision, whether it was the U.S. Supreme Court or the Fifth Circuit, 
they've

[[Page H4813]]

made a determination that ``navigable'' means navigable. Thank 
goodness. Finally, a court that gets it; a court that understands, that 
makes the right decision. There is no confusion here. The confusion is 
that there is an element within American society that wants to regulate 
all water to the detriment of private property rights.
  They want to make a determination that if there is a stock water pond 
and a duck lands on it, we get control. If there's an independent 
stream, meaning it goes underground, and then occasionally when it 
rains too much and there is going to be moisture, we want control. This 
is what we're talking about in America today, overregulation. When we 
talk about jobs--where are the jobs--a lot of it is because of 
overregulation.
  Might I remind my colleague from Virginia, when I first got to 
Congress, one of the biggest issues was sewage dumped in a river--what 
river? the Potomac--in the dead of night. When their sewer system was 
full, the D.C. Government took their sewage and dumped it into the 
Potomac. And you know what happened? We thought, finally, us western 
Congressmen and -women, that there was going to be parity, there was 
going to be equality, there was going to be a recognition that many of 
the rules and regulations were difficult, there needed to be an 
infrastructure bill that was going to come and clean up our waters.
  And what did the Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. Representatives do to 
Congress? They got an exemption from the decision to continue to allow 
some of the things that were occurring in the Potomac.
  You want to talk about the endangered species and the bridge south of 
here going across the Potomac? There was an Endangered Species Act. We 
westerners, said, Thank God. Finally there's going to be equality. 
There's going to be parity. You are going to recognize that some of the 
things that we're having to deal with in the West just don't 
necessarily work as easily as you think they're going to.
  What did the Representatives from D.C. and Virginia and Maryland do? 
They helped Congress and the bureaucracy turn their backs on those 
various regulations. This is clearly understood. This is clearly 
defined. We don't want the Federal agencies mucking around in an issue 
that they don't understand. This is clearly an East versus West or an 
urban versus rural debate.
  Finally, finally, the courts have said, enough is enough. You've gone 
too far. There is no confusion. The only confusion is they want to 
create confusion. They want to make an argument so they can ultimately 
start overregulating one more time to the cost of our jobs, to the cost 
of our economy, frankly, in some cases, like in the Potomac, to the 
cost to our environment. Shame on them.
  Work with the western colleagues to clearly understand how to manage 
natural resources for the betterment of the natural resources, for 
clean water. Let the people that have allowed us the opportunity to 
have the clean water have it in the future. That's private property. 
That's a clear understanding of State regulations.
  One of the reasons we're even going through the whole states' rights 
issue in the water issue and the adjudication process in places like 
Montana is so that we can clearly understand that it's a states' rights 
issue, that we'd better understand water--especially the headwaters. 
And, frankly, the downstream States are the beneficiaries of the clean 
water that we're sending them.
  Don't further hamstring us. Don't tie our hands. Don't allow 
additional regulatory oversight for the various agencies that are 
helping to create a problem. And we'll have better clean water. Society 
will have a better environment. We will have a better America. And as a 
result, we will have the jobs that we want.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment and to 
support the underlying bill.
  Water rights are a State issue. And this amendment would allow two 
Federal agencies to increase their own scope of jurisdiction pursuant 
to the Clean Water Act. Those agencies have acknowledged that this 
amendment would allow them to increase the scope of their jurisdiction 
under the Clean Water Act. It is not that nonnavigable waters go 
without regulation. Nonnavigable waters are regulated. They are 
regulated in the States by State systems. In the State of Wyoming, that 
system is a regulatory system administered by the executive branch. In 
Colorado, that system is an adjudicatory system regulated through the 
courts.
  But in every case, in the West, where water is precious and sparse, 
the people who control it--whether it is in my State, like the board of 
control and our four regions and our water commissioners, our 
superintendents, our ditch riders, our ranchers, our farmers, our 
Department of Environmental Quality--they know the names of the 
streams; they know the names of the people who interact with the 
streams, the livestock that interacts with the streams, the wildlife 
that interacts with the streams, the weeds, the crops, the grass. They 
understand these ecosystems.
  State government has been regulating water for over a century in a 
very comprehensive, clear, boots-on-the-ground, understand the systems 
way of managing. Now if you take that and allow the EPA and the Army 
Corps of Engineers to expand their jurisdiction in a way that includes 
nonnavigable waters, it will take that regulatory scheme that is 
working so well, and it will bring it to Washington, 2,000 miles away 
from where the regulators are currently doing their jobs well every 
day, and put it right here in Washington, D.C., where people don't 
understand the scarcity of water, where people don't understand our 
regulatory schemes, where they don't understand our case law, where 
they don't understand our ditch riders, where they don't understand our 
superintendents, where they don't understand our boards of control, 
they don't understand our State engineers.
  Under the Western Attorneys General Conference, there is a specific 
entity related to the State engineers. The State engineers in the West 
are the people who regulate water. They meet regularly to discuss 
interstate issues and water jurisdiction as well as intrastate issues. 
This is a well-regulated, well-understood, well-managed, well-
articulated system.
  To take it and decide the Federal Government, for no good reason, 
could do better at a time when the Federal Government is broke and we 
cannot expand its jurisdiction without costing the taxpayers needlessly 
more is a travesty, Mr. Chairman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I too rise to oppose this 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia, an amendment offered, 
in my mind, to protect this administration's overreach on regulating 
all bodies of water in this country.
  As my friend from Montana alluded to, this really is a job-killing 
amendment. Section 109 of the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations bill puts a check on this administration's proposed 
``guidance'' on Clean Water Act regulations. Mr. Chairman, at a time 
when unemployment exceeds 9 percent, this so-called guidance document, 
from my point of view, being from the West, will undermine economic 
growth, increase permitting requirements, and undoubtedly lead to more 
litigation.
  According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, this guidance 
document ``would take an overly broad view of waters of the United 
States and would serve as a road map to designate nearly all bodies of 
water, and even some dry land, as subject to Federal regulation that 
dictates land use decisions.''
  Mr. Chairman, water is a precious commodity, especially to those of 
us in the West. It is a necessary resource for many activities, 
including agriculture, energy, transportation, and recreation. Our 
economy and way of life cannot afford to have the Federal Government 
claim control of all waterways in this country. This administration's 
attempt to enact such Draconian regulations through regulatory fiat is 
a deliberate attempt to circumvent Congress.

[[Page H4814]]

                              {time}  1610

  As many of my colleagues know, the prior Congress could not pass an 
overly restrictive renewal of the Clean Water Act, so it's clear that 
this part of the regulatory agenda is aimed at picking up the pieces 
that the Congress could not enact last time. So it's for this reason 
that I joined 169 of my colleagues in April of 2010 to urge both the 
EPA and the Corps of Engineers to withdraw these proposed guidance 
regulations. That was in April of 2010. Unfortunately, this 
administration refuses to do so.
  So that is why section 109 is so important, to protect rural America 
from overzealous bureaucracies. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
gentleman's amendment. Without this amendment, the bill would result in 
increased implementation costs to both the Federal and State resource 
agencies, as well as to the regulated community, increase delays in the 
implementation of important public works projects and protracted 
litigation on the disparity between existing Federal regulations and 
the two court decisions.
  Clearly, the Army Corps of Engineers cannot exceed its congressional 
authority. But it's certainly necessary that the law and regulations be 
clarified, given the Supreme Court decision. There is a purpose to the 
Clean Water Act. It is to protect the Nation's waterways. And all of 
the environmental and economic benefits these aquatic ecosystems 
provide are at risk if some elements are protected and others are not.
  We certainly need to make sure that the definitions are predictable 
and manageable. The definition of waters protected by the Clean Water 
Act should be clear, understandable, well-supported, and transparent to 
the public. I am concerned if the language currently in the bill is not 
removed that that will not be the case. It is certainly needed to 
promote consistency between the Clean Water Act and agricultural 
wetland programs. We need the identification of waters covered by the 
Clean Water Act and the Food Security Act. And operational elements of 
implementing programs should reflect consistent, predictable, and 
straightforward decision guidelines. We ought to be precise on 
exemptions as well.
  My further concern is that the provision now contained in the bill 
does not apply simply to the coming fiscal year; it applies to any 
subsequent energy and water development act, ensuring uncertainty 
continues indefinitely.
  So I am in strong support of the gentleman's amendment and would be 
willing to yield time to him.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank my very good friend, the ranking member of Energy 
and Water Appropriations.
  Let me first address the points that were made by my very good friend 
from Montana.
  First of all, there was a suggestion that there was sewerage dumped 
into the Potomac River. I think that's pretty much a quote. That's not 
accurate, I would say to my very good friend. It was not sewerage. It 
was clean, filtered silt that came from a drinking water reservoir that 
was put into the Potomac without any threat to the quality of the water 
or the habitat. The Corps of Engineers understood that. They don't now 
put it there. But I don't think it's quite accurate to describe it in 
the way that it was.
  With regard to the Supreme Court ruling, even Justice Scalia made it 
clear that waters that are adjacent to navigable waters should be 
federally regulated and protected. So the statement that was offered in 
the debate is not entirely accurate.
  I would also mention that EPA does have an office in Montana. And, in 
fact, the people who were adversely affected by the oil pipeline of 
late that put a considerable amount of oil into the Yellowstone River, 
they are saying that EPA was wonderful, tremendously helpful to them. 
That's what EPA wants to be now, not only to individual communities 
adversely affected, but to the businesses, to the mining interests, to 
the farming interests that need clarification on what waters are 
appropriately under Federal jurisdiction.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. REHBERG. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for yielding.
  No, the point is there was more than just clean water dropped into 
the Potomac. It was done in the dead of the night. It would not have 
needed to be done in the dead of the night if it was being done legally 
or aboveboard. And if you want to talk about the oil spill in Montana, 
the Yellowstone River is in fact a navigable stream.
  Yes, in fact, the EPA did a good job. No, in fact, we haven't, to my 
knowledge, yet--and that is still yet to be open to interpretation 
because we are waiting--there has been no loss of life among the fish. 
We will wait and see. Certainly, some of the ramifications will be down 
the road as a result of the studies that occur. And we do appreciate 
the EPA coming in. But, again, it was a navigable stream.
  And this amendment strips what we are trying to do to protect 
nonnavigable from being expanded beyond the original intent.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. The gentleman talks about the Potomac. I have been here 
for many, many years. I was on the staff in the other body. And at the 
time--and this was probably in the mid-seventies when what the 
gentleman says was an issue.
  Mr. REHBERG. No.
  Mr. DICKS. What time are you talking about?
  Mr. REHBERG. If the gentleman will allow me to reclaim the 
gentleman's time, no, no, this was----
  Mr. DICKS. This was more recent?
  Mr. REHBERG. Yes. This was in the year 2000.
  Mr. DICKS. I was just going to say the reason we got the thing 
cleaned up was because of the Clean Water Act. That's how the Potomac 
got cleaned up.
  Mr. REHBERG. No, the issue was not as a result of the Clean Water Act 
being established to clean up the various rivers around the country. 
The issue had do with specifically the Potomac and the discharges that 
occurred within the Potomac. And those of us from the Western Caucus in 
2001, which is when I first got to Congress, were trying to make the 
issue of the hypocrisy between the eastern constituency, the urban 
constituency of Washington, D.C., Virginia, and Maryland, trying to 
apply a different standard to Montana.
  So the issue was specific to the discharge in the Potomac, and it was 
specific to the Wilson Bridge and an endangered species, and the 
hypocrisy of two separate interpretations. The Supreme Court has made 
an interpretation that the agencies are going too far. We agree with 
it. The language in the bill agrees with it.
  This amendment is a bad amendment, and I hope you vote ``no.''
  Mr. TERRY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from 
Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman from Washington.
  I am not going to belabor this, but I do think for the record we 
should clarify. Some of what the gentleman said is accurate except for 
the material. This was not sewerage. This was filtered silt that came 
from a drinking water reservoir at Dalecarlia that is operated by the 
Corps of Engineers. They did put it into the Potomac, after verifying 
that it would not jeopardize the health of the fish or any of the 
vegetation. And they did seek an exemption. They lost. And now that 
silt is put in a landfill.
  Mr. DICKS. I would like to ask the gentleman a question.
  Does the gentleman not believe, as I do, that the Potomac River is 
far better today in terms of water quality because of the Clean Water 
Act?
  I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

[[Page H4815]]

                              {time}  1620

  Mr. MORAN. There is no question that the Clean Water Act is 
responsible for the health, such as it is, of the Potomac River. There 
was a time when you could almost strike a match and light the Potomac 
River on fire, there was so much pollution in it.
  Mr. DICKS. There were rivers, particularly in Pennsylvania, where 
they, in fact, did that.
  Mr. MORAN. They did that.
  Mr. DICKS. And it was lit on fire. And then the Clean Water Act was 
passed by Congress, and guess who signed it? Richard Milhous Nixon. He 
signed that bill. He signed the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Policy 
Act. I mean, in those days there were Republicans who cared about the 
environment.
  Mr. MORAN. Bill Ruckelshaus.
  Mr. DICKS. Bill Ruckelshaus, Bill Agee.
  Mr. MORAN. Yes.
  Mr. DICKS. And to hear this discussion over there about the Clean 
Water Act is really amazing. And this amendment, your amendment would 
improve it, would protect the environment, clarify the Supreme Court 
decisions so that we can get on with it and to make the waters of our 
country swimmable, fishable and drinkable.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the distinguished chairman of the Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate my friend from Washington 
yielding.
  This amendment is about a bureaucratic guidance on an issue, on an 
issue that this Congress attempted to take up last time that simply, 
among other things, said that the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act 
would not be navigable waters.
  Now, that causes a whole lot of us in the West a lot of problems. And 
coming from an irrigation area, it bothers me because that means the 
Federal Government would now be in charge of everything not navigable, 
which could be irrigation streams.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I would just say to the gentleman, why 
don't you, as chairman, do you have jurisdiction over this or is this 
the Commerce Committee?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. This is Transportation.
  Mr. DICKS. Which one?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Transportation.
  Mr. DICKS. Well, you know, you Republicans are in the majority now. 
You are the chairman of a major committee. Why don't you have your 
committee system hold a hearing?
  We don't--you know, the fact is what you are trying to do in this 
appropriations bill is so egregious that we have to use an amendment to 
fix it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The issue for me is not the Clean Water 
Act. The issue was the attempt to amend the Clean Water Act to take out 
``navigable,'' and that is what is being done potentially by the 
guidance with this drafting.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, again, the regulatory process hasn't 
even been completed. People are still sending in comments, and so to 
use a blunt tool and put this prohibition in here doesn't allow the 
process to work to make sure we can clarify the Supreme Court decision.
  Mr. MORAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. MORAN. I would underscore what the distinguished ranking member 
of the full Appropriations Committee has said: This amendment prevents 
guidance and rulemaking. It's that comprehensive.
  What EPA and the Corps of Engineers have tried to do is to clarify 
where Federal jurisdiction extends and where it ends. There is clearly 
confusion on what constitutes navigable waters. The Supreme Court 
recognized that, even Justice Scalia said it's not just navigable 
waters; it's waters that are contiguous. And there are any number of 
water sources that are under the surface that you can't see.
  Most of the water in this country is under the surface. It can be 
under land; it's under water.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time just for a second, the gentleman may be 
better off in the long term by letting the process work. And if it does 
then clarify between navigable and nonnavigable, that would be 
important to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. The law is clear. It only says 
``navigable.'' Now, that is where the danger comes.
  Mr. DICKS. Let's work together to clarify it. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 110.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Corps of Engineers to relocate, or study the 
     relocation of, any regional division headquarters of the 
     Corps located at a military installation or any permanent 
     employees of such headquarters.
       Sec. 111. (a) Section 5 of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     authorizing the construction of certain public works on 
     rivers and harbors for flood control, and for other 
     purposes,'' approved June 22, 1936, (33 U.S.C. 701h), is 
     amended by--
       (1) inserting ``for work, which includes planning and 
     design,'' before ``to be expended'';
       (2) striking ``flood control or environmental restoration 
     work'' and inserting ``water resources development study or 
     project''; and
       (3) inserting ``: Provided further, That the term `States' 
     means the several States, the District of Columbia, the 
     commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United 
     States, and Federally recognized Indian tribes'' before the 
     period.
       (b) The Secretary shall notify the appropriate committees 
     of Congress prior to initiation of negotiations for accepting 
     contributed funds under 33 U.S.C. 701h.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Terry

  Mr. TERRY. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of title I, insert the following:
       Sec. --.  Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Army Corps of Engineers shall conduct and 
     publish the results of a study regarding the reasons and 
     contributing factors that led to the abnormal flooding of the 
     Missouri River during the spring and summer of 2011, with 
     specific focus on whether the water management activities of 
     the Corps, conducted for any purpose other than flood 
     prevention and control, contributed to the 2011 flooding and 
     in what ways.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey reserves a point of 
order.
  The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Chairman, I rise today with this amendment to the 
Energy and Water appropriations bill.
  This amendment would direct the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct 
and publish a study regarding the flooding of the Missouri River this 
year. We need to know why this flooding occurred, particularly if our 
flood control system was utilized for purposes other than flood 
prevention, so we can prevent this from happening in the future.
  Let me be clear. I would assume the Corps of Engineers in charge of 
flood control would be doing an annual study of whether or not they are 
succeeding in their legislative-mandated goals, the whole purpose of 
the dams along the river. So we are just simply asking them to do what 
they should be doing anyway, especially when this is such an 
interesting--well, strike the word ``interesting''--devastating year 
based on the miscalculations of the Corps of Engineers.
  As I am standing here now, the Missouri is flooding in five States, 
including Nebraska and Iowa. In my own district, I have constituents 
damaged, under water, wiped out. As we stand here, we are wondering if 
our levees are going to hold back the water preventing downtown Omaha 
from being

[[Page H4816]]

flooded. This is a 90-day sustained flood. It's entitled, ``The Great 
Missouri River Flood of 2011,'' not to recede until maybe October or 
November.
  Anyone who lives near a powerful body of water knows flooding is a 
reality and must be expected or planned for. That's the whole point of 
these dams and the Corps of Engineers' purpose is to reduce the 
flooding. It's been successful since the dams have been put in except 
for the last couple of years.
  It's imperative that we investigate the decisions, guidelines, and 
parameters in place to do the flooding to determine if there was any 
possibility that this disaster could have and, I would say, should have 
been prevented.
  We must implement the necessary additional reforms and controls to 
ensure our flood control system is utilized for just that, Madam 
Chairman, flood control.
  The issue, well documented in our local papers and some other 
publications, has shown that either the manual that the Corps of 
Engineers swears by leads them down the wrong path, which then led to 
this disaster that we are incurring at this moment, or that their 
modeling--and/or their modeling. There were other weather experts that 
predicted, one even said a flood of Biblical proportions, yet it wasn't 
on the Corps of Engineers' radar.
  Something went terribly wrong here. So all we are doing is asking 
that there be specific language that they do what is inherent to their 
job and determine if their manuals, their models need to be changed to 
prevent the devastating flood that we are incurring right now to 
prevent the next one in the future. That's all we are doing with this 
amendment here.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1630


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against 
this amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' 
The amendment imposes additional duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to speak to the 
gentleman's point of order?
  Mr. TERRY. I would like to speak.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. TERRY. I tried to make the case that this is basically 
reiterating already current duties and responsibilities of the Corps 
but stressing that they need to look specifically at what caused this 
devastating flood.
  I have to admit that you're probably going to rule that this is 
legislating, but I have got to tell you I'm extremely disappointed. If 
we had somebody in the Missouri Valley on the Appropriations Committee, 
they could have done something similar to this in committee, but yet 
when somebody from outside the committee comes here at the right 
opportunity, then somehow it's out of order.
  I just don't know how I go back to my constituents and tell them that 
the leadership in the House has raised an objection to this study. So 
I'm disappointed for my constituents. I'm disappointed, frankly, in the 
fact that something like this that's so necessary and obvious wasn't 
accepted.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to speak to the 
gentleman's point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties on the Army 
Corps of Engineers.
  The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. McIntyre

  Mr. McINTYRE. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 15, after line 11, insert the following:
       Section 112. Section 156 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5f) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The'' and inserting ``(a) The'';
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``or after the date of the last estimated periodic 
     nourishment as contemplated in the Chief's Report, whichever 
     is later''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Before the end of the fifty year period referred to 
     in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Army, acting through 
     the Chief of Engineers, shall, subject to the availability of 
     appropriations therefor, undertake a review of a project to 
     which subsection (a) applies to evaluate the feasibility of 
     continuing Federal participation in the project and shall 
     make a recommendation to the Congress.''.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Madam Chairman, under the Water Resources Development 
Act, which we know as WRDA, of 1986, Congress authorized most coastal 
and shoreline protection and beach restoration projects to be 
periodically nourished according to a cost-sharing agreement between 
the Federal Government and a local sponsor, usually a municipality, for 
a period of up to 50 years from the starting date of the initial 
construction of the project.
  Several of these projects are rapidly approaching the end of that 
first 50-year period of Federal participation. Currently, there is no 
language in place to provide a process for the reauthorization of these 
projects.
  In order for the Federal Government to remain a continuing partner to 
protect the people, the infrastructure, the economy, and the 
environment of our Nation's coastal communities, Congress must give the 
Army Corps of Engineers the authority to assess continued Federal 
participation in expiring beach and coastal projects prior to the end 
of their original authorizations in order to prevent interruptions to 
Federal renourishment efforts.
  This authority would ensure that communities' shorelines will remain 
safe and economically viable for years to come by letting the Army 
Corps and the local communities help determine whether or not to 
continue a shore protection project based on science, on local support, 
and the standards that the Corps uses for determining whether there 
should be continued Federal fiscal participation and whether it is 
warranted.
  These projects are of national and regional significance. Coastal 
storm damage reduction projects not only support regional economies 
and, indeed, the national economy, but they provide critical protection 
against hurricanes and, as we now are in hurricane season, realize the 
seriousness of this and other dangerous storms.
  Federal participation in these projects is determined based on a 
benefit-cost analysis, meaning that these projects go through a 
significant study in order to determine that they are merited and that 
it is in the Federal Government's financial interest to continue to 
participate in these projects.
  However, let's be clear that this amendment would not cut Congress 
out of the loop, because Congress would always have the final say on 
final approval of reauthorizing these projects. Any approval for a 
construction phase would still have to be approved by Congress. So it 
only makes sense to allow these projects to proceed without 
interruption.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I must oppose the amendment as 
authorizing on an appropriations bill.
  I share the gentleman's support for the Corps of Engineers' 
participation in beach replenishment projects that provide protection 
from coastal storms for individuals and businesses. Coming from a State 
with 137 miles of shoreline, I too understand the importance of these 
projects to local, regional, and our national economy.
  The amendment offered, however, would add authorizing language to the 
Energy and Water bill; therefore, it is subject to a point of order.
  So while I am sympathetic to the gentleman's intent, I must oppose 
the amendment and insist on my point of order.

[[Page H4817]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to speak to the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that the amendment proposes directly to change 
existing law.
  As such, it constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of 
rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Members and Madam Chairman, I am having help from the 
pager placing this chart up here. It shows how much petroleum America 
imports--the red line--and overall how much petroleum we use. Energy-
wise, America is a totally dependent Nation.
  I offer this amendment to help restore the energy security, economic 
security, and environmental security of our Nation. Nothing could be 
more vital.
  My amendment takes a small step by shifting a very small amount of 
funds, $10 million, from the administrative costs within the Department 
of Energy to help restore funds to solar energy research and 
development within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program.
  Sadly, the base bill jeopardizes America's new energy future. It cuts 
research in solar energy by more than one-third from last year, and 
over 60 percent from the President's request, providing $166 million 
for 2012, but that's $97 million below fiscal year 2011 and $291 
million below the President's request.
  The $10 million in reprogramming represents less than 5 percent of 
the $220 million administrative budget of the Department of Energy. If 
the Department of Energy made their buildings more energy efficient, we 
could shift the funds into research on new technologies.
  For months I have been hearing from constituents outraged about the 
high price of gas and energy in our country. And once again the recent 
job statistics from the Department of Labor tell us very clearly that 
every time you have an oil price hike, you have rising unemployment. 
You can go back 40 years. Every time it goes over $4 a gallon, we get a 
spike in unemployment. It's not rocket science.
  As it stands, this bill reinforces our dependence on foreign oil. By 
contrast, my amendment focuses on a new energy future for America by 
shifting a modest amount of funds for solar energy to provide American 
consumers with the new energy choices that they want.
  Our priorities in this bill must be aligned with the needs of our 
Nation for tomorrow, not yesterday. America shouldn't be held hostage 
by future energy price spikes. We must promote sustainable 
environmental stewardship while creating jobs right here in our 
country.

                              {time}  1640

  We need to address budgetary realities, and this bill does it. And 
there are accounts we have cut. But investments in new energy sources 
to displace imported oil are not the place to cut, not when America is 
this dependent. Research investments in solar technology have helped 
create numerous new companies, creating thousands of high quality jobs 
already with domestically produced energy. We are at the dawn of a new 
energy age, and we can't lose edge now. Solar companies already employ 
over 90,000 American workers and are expected to grow in both sales and 
jobs. But that depends on new research. And many of the fledgling 
companies can't afford to do that.
  Last week, Isofoton, a Spanish solar panel manufacturer, announced 
plans to open a new plant in Napoleon, Ohio, that will create more than 
300 jobs. Global firms know that particularly northern Ohio has made 
renewable energy a priority, and the investment is following. Congress 
simply must focus on a new energy future for our Nation and not let 
inertia and the habits of the past thwart progress.
  Overall, the U.S. economy is anticipated to increase jobs by 2 
percent next year. But guess what? In the solar industry, the number of 
new jobs is expected to increase 26 percent, according to Cornell 
University's 2010 solar job census. Those are the kind of jobs that 
America wants. And a recent Ernst and Young report predicts the cost of 
solar to decrease by as much as half, creating a strong solar option 
for American consumers and providing solar companies with the 
opportunity to expand.
  Investors know where to put their dollars, and our Nation knows--or 
we should know--that this is an emerging industry, and cutting edge 
research is fundamental to progress. The race to be the energy provider 
of the future is this generation's space race. And basic research is 
critical. It is fundamental. It is the fundamental ingredient to build 
that new future for our people. America has never shirked a major 
challenge. And we have a real finish line to go across as competitors 
are fierce, from China, from Germany, from Japan.
  New technology will provide a new power future for us, and we must 
position ourselves not to be second, not to be third, but to be the 
global leader and to create those good jobs here at home. So my 
amendment sets a course to keep the keel more steady as we advance 
energy security, economic security, and the environmental security of 
our Nation while promoting jobs here at home through new energy 
independence and innovation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Kaptur amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project

                central utah project completion account

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah 
     Project Completion Act, $27,154,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $2,000,000 shall be deposited into 
     the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for 
     use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 
     Commission. In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in 
     carrying out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the 
     Interior, $1,550,000. For fiscal year 2012, the Commission 
     may use an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for administrative 
     expenses.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

       The following appropriations shall be expended to execute 
     authorized functions of the Bureau of Reclamation:

                      water and related resources

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For management, development, and restoration of water and 
     related natural resources and for related activities, 
     including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of 
     reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling 
     related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and 
     related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with, 
     State and local governments, federally recognized Indian 
     tribes, and others, $822,300,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $10,698,000 shall be available for 
     transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 
     $6,136,000 shall be available for transfer to the Lower 
     Colorado River Basin Development Fund; of which such amounts 
     as may be necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam 
     Fund; of which not more than $500,000 is for high priority 
     projects which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation 
     Corps, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706: Provided, That such 
     transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall 
     appropriation under this heading: Provided further, That of 
     the total appropriated, the amount for program activities 
     that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund or the Bureau of 
     Reclamation special fee account established by 16 U.S.C. 
     460l-6a(i) shall be derived from that Fund or account: 
     Provided further, That funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 
     are available until expended for the purposes for which 
     contributed: Provided further, That funds advanced under 43 
     U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to this account and are 
     available until expended for the same purposes as the sums 
     appropriated under this heading: Provided further, That 
     except as provided in section 201, the amounts made available 
     under this paragraph shall be expended as authorized by law 
     for the programs, projects, and activities specified in the 
     text and table under this heading in the report of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     to accompany this Act.

                central valley project restoration fund

       For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, habitat 
     restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $53,068,000, to be 
     derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central 
     Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d), 
     3404(c)(3), and 3405(f) of Public Law 102-575, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau of 
     Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount 
     of the additional mitigation and restoration payments 
     authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available under this 
     heading may be used for

[[Page H4818]]

     the acquisition or leasing of water for in-stream purposes if 
     the water is already committed to in-stream purposes by a 
     court adopted decree or order.

                    california bay-delta restoration

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Water Supply, 
     Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act, consistent 
     with plans to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, 
     $35,928,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such amounts as may be necessary to carry out such activities 
     may be transferred to appropriate accounts of other 
     participating Federal agencies to carry out authorized 
     purposes: Provided, That funds appropriated herein may be 
     used for the Federal share of the costs of CALFED Program 
     management: Provided further, That the use of any funds 
     provided to the California Bay-Delta Authority for program-
     wide management and oversight activities shall be subject to 
     the approval of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided 
     further, That CALFED implementation shall be carried out in a 
     balanced manner with clear performance measures demonstrating 
     concurrent progress in achieving the goals and objectives of 
     the Program.

                       policy and administration

       For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and 
     related functions in the Office of the Commissioner, the 
     Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, to remain available until expended, 
     $60,000,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be 
     nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That 
     no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be 
     available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and 
     administration expenses.

                        administrative provision

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be 
     available for purchase of not to exceed five passenger motor 
     vehicles, which are for replacement only.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                    (including rescission of funds)

       Sec. 201. (a) None of the funds provided in this title 
     shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or 
     activity;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity 
     for which funds have been denied or restricted by this Act;
       (4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
     specific program, project, or activity by this Act;
       (5) transfers funds in excess of the following limits:
       (A) 15 percent for any program, project, or activity for 
     which $2,000,000 or more is available at the beginning of the 
     fiscal year; or
       (B) $300,000 for any program, project, or activity for 
     which less than $2,000,000 is available at the beginning of 
     the fiscal year;
       (6) transfers more than $500,000 from either the Facilities 
     Operation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation category or the 
     Resources Management and Development category to any program, 
     project, or activity in the other category; or
       (7) transfers, when necessary to discharge legal 
     obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation, more than 
     $5,000,000 to provide adequate funds for settled contractor 
     claims, increased contractor earnings due to accelerated 
     rates of operations, and real estate deficiency judgments.
       (b) Subsection (a)(5) shall not apply to any transfer of 
     funds within the Facilities Operation, Maintenance, and 
     Rehabilitation category.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``transfer'' 
     means any movement of funds into or out of a program, 
     project, or activity.
       (d) The Bureau of Reclamation shall submit reports on a 
     quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate detailing all the 
     funds reprogrammed between programs, projects, activities, or 
     categories of funding. The first quarterly report shall be 
     submitted not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       Sec. 202. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act may be used to determine the final 
     point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis 
     Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and 
     the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the 
     water quality standards of the State of California as 
     approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis 
     drainage waters.
       (b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program 
     and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 
     shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as 
     reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully 
     repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program-Alternative 
     Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP-Alternative Repayment Plan'' 
     described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report, 
     Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley 
     Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department 
     of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future 
     obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or 
     providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the 
     San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit 
     beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal 
     reclamation law.
       Sec. 203.  Of the funds deposited in the San Joaquin River 
     Restoration Fund in accordance with subparagraphs (A), (B) 
     and (C) of section 10009(c)(1) of Public Law 111-11, all 
     unobligated balances remaining from prior fiscal years are 
     hereby permanently rescinded.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

                 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for energy efficiency and 
     renewable energy activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,304,636,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That for the 
     purposes of allocating weatherization assistance funds 
     appropriated by this Act to States and tribes, the Secretary 
     of Energy may waive the allocation formula established 
     pursuant to section 414(a) of the Energy Conservation and 
     Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6864(a)).


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  Ms. KAPTUR. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 23, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The point of order is reserved.
  The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I made a statement a little bit earlier 
regarding this amendment which aims to help restore the energy 
security, economic security, and environmental security of our Nation 
by focusing on the future. It essentially shifts a very modest amount 
of funds, $10 million, from the administrative costs within the 
Department of Energy to help restore funds to solar energy research and 
development within the energy efficiency and renewable energy program.
  Sadly, the bill overall moves backward in terms of helping America 
invent its new energy future because it cuts research in solar 
development by more than one-third from last year and over 60 percent 
from the President's request. The base bill provides $166 million for 
solar research, which is a $97 million reduction below this year's 
level and a $291 million reduction below the President's request.
  What sense does that make when we're importing petroleum at this 
level, we continue to use more and more, and prices are going up? It is 
pretty clear America needs new answers. So my effort is to merely 
reprogram about 5 percent of the funds in the administrative budget of 
the Department of Energy and shift those to the energy efficiency and 
renewable energy program itself.
  I believe that the Department of Energy, which took years to even get 
their solar array up at the national headquarters here, could save the 
money that we need to put into research if they'd merely be more energy 
efficient about their own buildings. And that comes out of their 
administrative funds. So this merely is a 5 percent shift. It's $10 
million from the administrative budget, and put it into hard research 
that really helps to create jobs. We know that America has to invent 
her future. We can't depend on the energy sources of the past alone. 
Technology is critical to that.
  And in the solar field, the competition globally for patents and for 
the cutting edge research that is part of this sector is just growing 
so fast globally, America simply can't slip backward. We just have to 
keep up our edge. It's very difficult with China and with Germany 
having the kind of incentives they do in their own country. For 
example, China even offers companies 15-year tax holidays, and they 
have so many more engineers and scientists than we do working on this. 
So I think cutting solar research is not a good option for this 
country. This bill makes many other cuts. Surely, we know that

[[Page H4819]]

research investments in solar technology have helped create numerous 
companies already and thousands and thousands of new jobs.
  In fact, solar companies employ over 90,000 American workers now, and 
they expect both growth in sales and jobs, but that depends 
fundamentally on cutting-edge breakthroughs in technology. And that is 
a fight that is occuring every day, not just in this country, but in 
research platforms around the world.
  I mentioned earlier that Isofoton, a Spanish solar manufacturer in my 
region, had announced 300 new jobs this past week. So global firms are 
coming to places like northern Ohio where they know that the energy 
systems of the future are being built. But the number of jobs being 
created in this sector far exceed what is being created in just the 
general job creation sector in our country.

                              {time}  1650

  Cornell University's 2010 solar job census shows that in solar 
energy, the number of new jobs is increasing by 26 percent; and those 
are good jobs building a new future for our country and for our people. 
We know that many of these entrepreneurial companies are too small to 
do their own in-house research, they still need Federal research and 
basic research to help us use new materials and to help us develop the 
new transmission technologies to make them truly competitive, to 
compete against the Chinas and the Germanys of the world that are 
taking market share as I stand here even today.
  So the race is a serious one in the solar energy field. Basic 
research is the critical ingredient. My amendment essentially moves 5 
percent of the funds out of the administrative accounts into the Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy accounts at the Department. I would ask 
for my colleagues' support on that. Hopefully, we can help take a small 
step for humankind, for solar energy development in our country.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order. The 
amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not read. The 
amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI 
because the amendment does not merely propose to transfer 
appropriations among objects in the bill but also proposes language 
other than amounts.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to speak to the point of 
order?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I would thank the gentleman very much for 
his thoughtful point of order and would ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw this amendment. I have a revised amendment at the desk that I 
think will satisfy his concern.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I have a revised amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I would offer this amendment as a new 
amendment that would perform essentially the same function. That is, it 
satisfies any concerns the gentleman might have about where we are 
moving funds from in the Dept. of Energy Administrative Programs and 
moving them to in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program.
  I offer this revised amendment that I hope would satisfy the 
gentleman's concern on his point of order. This is a new amendment. It 
essentially moves dollars from the administrative accounts at the 
Department of Energy to the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
block grant.
  Does the gentleman have concerns, and I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would rise to oppose the amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Could I ask the gentleman the nature of the opposition, 
please?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to take my own time to respond in a 
more formal manner. I would be happy to yield to you perhaps at the end 
of my remarks.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the amendment. The amendment that 
has been rewritten somewhat would reduce funding for salaries and 
expenses in order to increase funding for energy efficiency and 
renewable energy activities at the Department of Energy. Within this 
year's extraordinarily tight budget constraints, the bill cannot fund 
programs that overlap improperly with the private sector, for one; or 
that do not have pressing needs for additional appropriations.
  In other words, Madam Chair, I can't support reducing funds for an 
account, especially for accounts and administrative purposes that 
oversee Department activities. We need more oversight in the Department 
of Energy. So I reluctantly oppose the amendment.
  As I promised, I said I would yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman very much. I know that the choices 
are difficult. I guess I would put my marbles on getting the Department 
to be more efficient in its administrative operations on its nuclear 
side and on its civil side, and put more of those dollars into research 
and development for the future of new energy systems, including solar.
  I regret the gentleman's objection, but I have the highest respect 
for him. Maybe we can work this out down the road.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I still oppose the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The amendment was rejected.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,304,636,000)''.
       Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $289,420,000)''.
       Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $476,993,000)''.
       Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $820,488,000)''.
       Page 28, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.
       Page 29, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $160,000,000)''.
       Page 31, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $500,000)''.
       Page 52, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $68,400,000)''.
       Page 53, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $11,700,000)''.
       Page 53, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,700,000)''.
       Page 54, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,350,000)''.
       Page 54, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $250,000)''.
       Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,250,437,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I offer this amendment on behalf of the 
Republican Study Committee to save roughly 10 percent from this 
appropriations bill, or $3.25 billion, simply by getting the Federal 
Government out of the energy subsidy business.
  For more than 30 years, the Department of Energy has squandered 
billions of dollars subsidizing research and development that no 
private investor would touch with the promise it would somehow make our 
Nation energy independent.

                              {time}  1700

  Every year, we have spent untold billions on these programs, and 
every year, we have become more dependent on foreign oil. We are now 
running a deficit that threatens to bankrupt our country, and this 
forces us to cast a critical eye on every expenditure that fails to 
meet its objectives. None has failed so spectacularly as the Department 
of Energy's subsidy of energy research, which has left us billions of 
dollars poorer and has left us stuck with

[[Page H4820]]

mediocre technologies that only survive on a lifeline of public 
subsidies.
  I am sure the opposition will try to depict this amendment as some 
sort of Luddite reaction to green technology, but it is exactly the 
opposite. By stopping the government from doling out dollars to 
politically favored industries, by stopping it from picking winners and 
losers among emerging technologies competing for capital, we restore 
the natural flow of that capital toward those that are the most 
economically viable and technologically feasible.
  For example, this amendment cuts funding to the Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy program, which functions as an R&D department for 
every solar, biomass, geothermal, and wind energy company in the 
country.
  We're not funding the most viable research in these technologies. 
Private capital beats a path to the door of viable technology. These 
expenditures are for research considered so dubious that no private 
investor in his right mind would risk his own capital. Yet this 
Congress has been more than willing to risk our constituents' capital 
in the form of their tax dollars, and it shouldn't surprise us that 
those investments have not paid off. This misallocation of resources 
not only destroys jobs in productive ventures in order to create jobs 
in subsidized ones; it ends up reducing our energy potential instead of 
expanding it, and it destroys our wealth instead of creating it.
  Politicians love to appear at ribbon cuttings and to issue self-
congratulatory press releases at government-supported ``alternative 
energy'' businesses, but they fall strangely silent when asked to 
actually account for the billions of our dollars that they've wasted. 
The best thing we did for shale oil and gas technology was to have 
gotten the government out of the business of funding it. Guess what 
happened?
  Once we got the government out, it took the productive sector just a 
few years to develop remarkable new drilling techniques that have 
unleashed a cornucopia of American energy into the market. Is there 
really any question at all as to which of these models actually works?
  Let me give you another example:
  This appropriations act proposes to spend $200 million for vehicle 
technology research. Isn't that what automobile manufacturers should do 
and used to do with their own capital? And if they're not willing to 
risk their own capital, what right has this Congress to risk our 
constituents' earnings?
  These amendments move the government out of all sectors of 
subsidizing research--biomass, nuclear, solar, wind, fossil fuels--all 
across the board. Does that mean that research and development will 
stop on all of these technologies? On the contrary. It means that all 
of the distortions that government intervention has made in the energy 
sector can be corrected and that private capital can, once again, flow 
freely to those technologies that offer the greatest return at the 
lowest cost.
  Thirty years of government energy subsidies promised to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil; yet our dependence has become ever greater. 
All we have done is to squander billions of dollars of our Nation's 
treasure and to distort and impede the natural flow of investment 
dollars that could have produced far greater returns in viable 
technology. We are left with a bankrupt, energy-deficient and dependent 
Nation while propping up a few politically well-connected interests 
that are producing ethanol and solar panels at a staggering expense--an 
expense that we have hidden from consumers with their own tax dollars.
  Our energy policy over the last 30 years simply proves that Thomas 
Jefferson was right when he observed: ``were we directed from 
Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.'' 
For 30 years, we have been directed from Washington on how to develop 
our energy. It should surprise no one that today we lack energy.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I do rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment. It would cut over 10 percent of the total funding in the 
bill. Specifically, it would eliminate or significantly reduce funding 
for 14 different accounts. I have several concerns.
  One, the gentleman said that it is time to get out of subsidizing 
energy research. Notice that he did zero out many accounts, and 
certainly would not argue that point. Yet, as a proponent myself of 
nuclear energy, I would point out that he did not throw out that 
account, and approximately $444 million would be left in the nuclear 
research account. So there was some selectivity that was engaged in 
here as far as the construction of the amendment.
  Then my concern here as far as the research, as far as the whole 
broad range of energy research in this country, is that we do need to 
make that investment to move ahead economically, to move ahead in 
reducing our dependency upon oil imports and the use of carbon in this 
society, so I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  This is a classic case of ancestor worship. They leave in the money 
for nuclear, but zero out the money for wind, zero out the money for 
solar, zero out the money for energy efficiency, zero out the money for 
conservation.
  So here we are. It's 2 months after Fukushima. The capital markets 
are saying we're not going to touch new nuclear power plants, but this 
amendment says we're leaving in $476 million for research done by the 
Federal Government for nuclear power. Yet, for wind and for solar and 
for all the new technologies coming down the line that don't melt down, 
no, that money is going to be zeroed out--zero, zero--zero for the 
future.
  This rearview mirror amendment, which is being made by the gentleman 
from California, just continues to reflect this attitude, this fear. 
Let's admit it. There's a fear that the oil and gas industry and that 
the nuclear industry have about wind and solar and biomass and 
geothermal in the ever-increasing efficiency of technologies all across 
the board.
  So the green generation, they look down here, these young people, and 
they say, Is that possible? Is it possible that the Congress could 
actually vote to zero out wind and solar and keep in money for nuclear 
2 months after Fukushima? Isn't it time for us to invest in these new 
technologies? You don't need an evacuation plan around a solar plant, 
around a wind plant or around an energy-efficiency facility.
  So, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. It's just 
basically another data point that indicates that the Republicans are 
really committed to zeroing out this renewable energy future for our 
country.
  Just be knowledgeable here. There has not been a new nuclear power 
plant completed, that has been ordered, for 36 consecutive years, but 
there were 10,000 new megawatts of wind that were installed in our 
country just last year. If that's what they want to begin to zero out, 
if that's what they want to take out of the budget, it's only a 
reflection of basically, again, this technological ancestor worship.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Just to be clear, the $400 million remaining in the 
nuclear account, as I understand it, is for regulatory activities, not 
for research and development, which we now place back in the hands of 
the productive sector.
  Mr. MARKEY. If the gentleman from Indiana will yield, the gentleman 
from California is just saying this is the budget for the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission?
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. For regulatory activities associated with this 
provision.
  Mr. MARKEY. That, in and of itself, is a subsidy. Let's be honest. 
It's Federal taxpayer money which is subsidizing an industry--the 
electric utility industry, the nuclear electric utility industry--that 
is probably the wealthiest industry in the United States with the 
exception of the oil and gas industry.
  So why should the taxpayer be subsidizing that and at the same time 
be

[[Page H4821]]

taking out the funding for the wind and solar industry?
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1710

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Our Energy and Water bill is already $1 billion 
below last year's fiscal amount and $2.8 billion below fiscal year 
2010. As a matter of fact, our entire mark is reaching the 2006 level. 
So the committee has done its homework. We've made deep cuts. I think 
the committee understands we're about to go off a fiscal cliff in our 
country, but the cuts that we've made were developed after a lot of 
hearings, a lot of discussion, a lot of thought.
  The bill recommended by our committee recognizes that the Federal 
Government has gotten too large--and in many ways philosophically I 
agree with a lot of what the gentleman from California says, that we're 
too involved with the private sector, sometimes picking winners and 
losers and different technologies where the market should be choosing. 
But the committee is also mindful that there are appropriate roles that 
the government should take because sometimes the private sector can't 
or will not take those risks.
  The cuts proposed in this amendment would eliminate, as the ranking 
member said, or cut many worthwhile programs, put at risk, I think in 
many instances, our country's competitive intellectual advantage, and 
put in doubt perhaps the ability of the private sector to make some 
substantial investments. And those investments lead to jobs, jobs that 
we badly need.
  So for that and many other reasons, I oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. And for what? Why would we zero out the wind and the 
solar budget? Why would we zero out the energy efficiency, the 
conservation budget? For what? Well, so that we can have larger tax 
breaks they tell us. Because in another room not too far from here 
there are a whole bunch of Republican negotiators saying that the $4 
billion a year, which are the tax breaks for the oil industry, they're 
off the table. You can't touch those tax breaks for the oil industry, 
can't touch them. And over the next 10 years, that's $40 billion for 
the oil industry.
  So we're out here kneecapping wind and solar, kneecapping the future, 
kneecapping our ability to have wind and solar become equal with 
natural gas and coal as a way to generate electricity in our country. 
And in another room no more than 100 feet from here they're also 
meeting and deciding what the big deal is going to be between President 
Obama and the Republicans here in the Congress. And in that room 
they're saying no touching any tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, 
which is $4 billion a year.
  So see the total story here, see the big picture, see really what 
this agenda is. Here, it's kind of like the monsignor that goes up into 
the pulpit on Sunday and he says, on Wednesday in the church hall, 
Father Geiney will lecture on the evils of gambling; on Thursday in the 
church hall, bingo. Well, here on the House floor, on Monday we're 
learning about the evils of giving any kind of subsidies to the wind 
and the solar industry, and in another room right around the corner 
they're saying $4 billion a year to the oil industry in tax breaks. 
That's the agenda. You have to see it in its totality. You have to 
capture it for all that it is as the story of the future of our 
country.

  So, ladies and gentlemen, I urge a very strong ``no'' vote on this 
amendment of the gentleman from California. This is a defining vote. 
This really goes to the heart of whether or not we are going to say to 
the young people in our country that we do have a renewable energy 
future for our country.
  The past is just a memory, but the future will be the hard reality 
for young people in our country if we do not put together an energy 
agenda dependent upon the indigenous renewable energy resources in our 
country. This amendment zeros out that future. It makes it impossible 
for us to compete and to send a signal overseas that we are going to 
have true energy independence in our country.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
       Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 24, line 18, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $50,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chairman, my amendment deals with the heart of 
what's wrong with this entire bill.
  In this bill, the Republicans cut the budget for solar, for wind, for 
geothermal, for biomass, for clean vehicles--that's plug-in hybrids and 
all electric vehicles. They cut the budget for science. They cut the 
budget for weatherization. They cut the budget for energy efficiency. 
But what do they do in the same bill? They increase the budget for 
coal, for oil, for gas, for nuclear. They increase it while they 
eviscerate, while they annihilate the clean energy budget, the future 
energy agenda for our country.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, this is a big moment here. Where is America 
heading? Are we going to compete against the Saudi Arabians, the 
Venezuelans, and others in the generation of energy or are we going to 
capitulate? Are we going to just become a country where we're importing 
oil or are we going to move to a solar future, a wind future, an all-
electric vehicle future over the next 20 and 30 and 40 years?
  You know, this budget that they have put together is really one that 
gets right to the heart of their argument that they say they care about 
all of the above. What this budget actually says is it is oil above 
all. It's still a fossil fuel agenda. It's not a technology-oriented 
agenda. It's not an agenda that can help us to turn the corner and to 
create new technologies that move us to a 21st century agenda.
  But see this in the larger picture. This is not compromise. The 
defense budget last week went up $17 billion. They're not going to cut 
defense. They're saying they're not going to actually take away the tax 
breaks for billionaires. They're saying they're not actually going to 
take away the tax breaks for the oil and gas industry. All of that is 
safe. ``Don't worry,'' they say to billionaires. Don't worry, they say 
to Big Oil. Don't worry, they say to the Defense Department, we're not 
touching you in this big budget deal that we want.
  And then where do they turn? They turn over here to solar and wind 
and to geothermal and biomass, to plug-in hybrids, to all the 
technologies that we should be investing in in the future. And they 
turn to Grandma and say, Your Medicare benefit is too big. They turn to 
Medicaid, they say, You, poor child, you're taking too much of 
America's wealth. And you, green energy sector, we can't afford to 
invest in you.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, this is not compromise. This is the 
capitulation that they are looking for from the Democrats. This is the 
capitulation to an agenda that helps billionaires, helps Big Oil, helps 
big gas, helps us export jobs overseas by keeping those tax breaks in 
place rather than fighting hard for what the green generation--the 
young people in our country--expect us to do, rather than allowing 
ourselves to be tipped upside down at the gasoline pump.

[[Page H4822]]

                              {time}  1720

  All I do is take $100 million, move it from the coal subsidies, the 
oil and the gas subsidies, and move it over, move it over to solar and 
wind, to plug-in hybrids, to all electric vehicles. And with that, by 
the way, ladies and gentlemen, they still haven't been cut this year in 
this budget. That's just taking away the increase that they get in this 
budget. And we still haven't made up for all of the cuts in the solar 
and wind and clean energy budget that they continue to slash.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, it's $100 million. Does oil and coal and 
gas deserve an increase this year? Let's at least keep them level and 
give that extra $100 million over to the clean energy technologies of 
the future. That is the least that the green generation, the young 
people in our country, expect us to do because it's not only imported 
oil, it's also our national security, it's also global warming, it's 
also creating economic jobs here in the United States. I urge an 
``aye'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The gentleman's amendment would increase funding for Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy accounts and reduce funding for Fossil 
Energy Research and Development and nuclear energy research. This would 
increase money for a program that already receives sufficient funds and 
hamper efforts to further technologies that produce most of our 
electricity.
  Madam Chair, the gentleman asserted that fossil and nuclear energy 
are yesterday's sources of energy and that we're shortchanging 
tomorrow's energy sources. Well, in fact, nuclear energy produces 20 
percent of our Nation's electricity, and even the State of 
Massachusetts depends on nuclear energy for about 10 percent of its 
energy. Fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, generate 70 percent 
of our Nation's electricity, and we will use these valuable energy 
sources for many generations. In fact, the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts gets 80 percent of its electricity from fossil fuels.
  I understand his desire to move us forward, but realistically, we'll 
be using fossil fuels for decades and nuclear energy perhaps for 
centuries. And we must ensure that we use those resources as 
efficiently and clearly as possible. Further, the amendment increases 
funding for that Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account, a 
program that has seen a record increase since 2007 and still has nearly 
$9 billion of unspent stimulus funds from 2009. Imagine that.
  There's a proper role for core Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
programs, and our bill preserves funding for those activities while 
cutting out activities that are redundant with the private sector or 
that interfere improperly in market innovation.
  But his amendment would add back unnecessary funding for 
administration proposals that are poorly planned and lack 
justification. For example, the administration proposes more than $200 
million to deploy electric vehicle infrastructure. But after repeated 
requests, the department provided less than one page of explanation for 
this program. At best, this funding would be poorly used, and at worst, 
it will interfere with entrepreneurial innovations in infrastructure 
underway in the private sector.
  The administration also proposes a new Race to the Green program, a 
State and city grant program. Again, after repeated requests for 
justification to the Department of Energy, this new $100 million 
proposal is accompanied by barely more than a paragraph of explanation.
  When every tax dollar must be spent well, we can't throw money at 
poorly planned programs while cutting fossil energy and nuclear 
programs. I, therefore, oppose the amendment and urge all Members to do 
likewise.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Woodall) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that 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.

                          ____________________