Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 105 (Thursday, July 14, 2011)

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 105 (Thursday, July 14, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5050-H5080]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2012

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during
further consideration of H.R. 2354 in the Committee of the Whole
pursuant to House Resolution 337, no further amendment to the bill may
be offered except: pro forma amendments offered at any point in the
reading by the chair or ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees for the purpose of debate;
amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 21, 26, 27,
53, 63, 66, 67, 70, 75, 76, 80, and 81; an amendment by Mrs. Adams
regarding limiting funds for a Department of Energy Web site that
disseminates information regarding energy efficiency and educational
programs to children or adolescents; two amendments by Mrs. Blackburn
regarding across-the-board cuts; an amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia
regarding limiting funds for certain programs, projects or activities
in Energy Programs-Science; two amendments by Mrs. Capps regarding
limiting funds for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant; an amendment
by Mr. Cohen regarding funding levels for the Solar Energy Program; an
amendment by Mr. Denham regarding limiting funds to implement section
10011(b) of Public Law 111-11; an amendment by Mr. Engel regarding
limiting funds for lease or purchase of new light-duty vehicles; an
amendment by Ms. Eshoo regarding limiting funds for contracts with
business entities that do not disclose political expenditures; an
amendment by Mr. Flake regarding limiting funds for Advanced

[[Page H5051]]

Research Projects Agency-Energy; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding
limiting funds for Fossil Energy Research and Development; amendments
by Mr. Frelinghuysen regarding funding levels; an amendment by Mr.
Gosar regarding the Davis-Bacon Act; an amendment by Mr. Graves
regarding limiting funds to be used in contravention of the 2006
Missouri River Master Manual; an amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida
regarding limiting funds to be used in contravention of Executive Order
No. 12898; an amendment by Mr. Hastings of Washington regarding
limiting funds for the McNary Shoreline Management Plan; an amendment
by Mr. Hastings of Washington regarding limiting funds for the Office
of Nuclear Security; an amendment by Mr. Hastings of Washington
regarding limiting funds for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
project No. 2342; an amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas regarding
limiting funds to be used in contravention of the Department of Energy
Organization Act; an amendment by Ms. Kaptur regarding funding for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; an amendment by Mr. Luetkemeyer
regarding the study pursuant to section 5018(a)(1) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007; an amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher
regarding limiting funds for loan guarantees for carbon capture and
sequestration; an amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher regarding 10 percent of
loan guarantee funds for non-water advanced nuclear reactors; an
amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher regarding loan guarantees for carbon
capture and sequestration projects not exceeding funds for non-water
advanced nuclear reactor loan guarantees; an amendment by Mr. Richmond
or Mr. Scalise regarding funding for Corps of Engineers construction;
and an amendment by Mr. Sherman regarding limiting funds for
international activities at the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy; and, further, that each such amendment may be offered
only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or by the
Member who caused it to be printed in the Congressional Record or a
designee, shall not be subject to amendment, except that the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations (or a
respective designee) each may offer one pro forma amendment for the
purpose of debate, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole; and,
further, that each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and, further,
that an amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in
this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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} 1520

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. Dold (Acting Chair) in the
chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
the bill had been read through page 62, line 2.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment may
be offered except those specified in the previous order, which is at
the desk.

Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Cole

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __ None of the funds made available by this Act may be
used to implement any rule, regulation, or executive order
regarding the disclosure of political contributions that
takes effect on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, in April a draft Executive order was
circulated that would force companies, as a condition of applying for a
Federal contract, to disclose all Federal campaign contributions. In my
opinion, if implemented, this Executive order would lead to a
significant politicization of the Federal procurement process. Instead
of judging companies on the basis of their past work performance, their
demonstrated ability to do the job or their price, we would actually
introduce potentially the element of their political participation and
contributions and activities into the consideration process.
This Executive order would not, in fact, lead to more objectivity in
the evaluation process. It would, instead, chill the constitutionally
protected right of people to donate politically to whatever candidate
or cause or political party they choose to. Those very same people
would fear repercussion to their bottom line as, frankly, I'm sure this
Executive order intends to do.
The draft order claims that these burdensome and intrusive disclosure
requirements are necessary to ensure that contracting decisions, quote,
deliver the best value to the taxpayer and are free from the undue
influence of extraneous factors such as political activity or political
favoritism. If one accepts this rationale--and I certainly don't--then
delivering the, quote, best value to the taxpayer would require such
disclosure by anyone receiving Federal dollars.
This Executive order would not apply to Federal employee unions that
negotiate with the government to provide billions of dollars in
benefits for their members, nor would it apply to many nonprofits that
receive Federal grants, many of whom have strong political agendas of
their own.
My amendment would prevent any funds from this act going towards the
implementation of any rule, regulation, or Executive order regarding
political contributions that takes effect on or after the date of the
enactment of the act. It is important to recognize, Mr. Chairman, my
bill does not change Federal campaign law in any way. It does not
change the current disclosure requirements.
My amendment has already been agreed to on three previous pieces of
legislation: the Defense Authorization bill for FY 2012, the Homeland
Security appropriations bill, and also the Defense appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, ``pay-to-play'' has no place in the Federal contracting
process. Requiring the disclosure of campaign contributions for
government contracts in my opinion does just that.
Congress considered the proposed Executive order, something like it,
during the 111th Congress as part of the DISCLOSE Act and rejected it.
This Executive order is a backdoor attempt to implement the DISCLOSE
Act by executive fiat.
For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the
amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLE. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment.
The Department of Energy relies heavily on a dedicated contractor
workforce to manage and operate our national laboratories. Therefore,
such an Executive order would impact nearly every program at the
Department of Energy.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the gentleman from Oklahoma's amendment, a
member of our committee.
Mr. COLE. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ESHOO. I thank the chairman.
I rise once again in strong opposition to Representative Cole's
amendment to block transparency and disclosure for taxpayers. That's
what this issue is about.

[[Page H5052]]

It is with continuing curiosity that when I listened to the
gentleman, Mr. Cole, present his view, if in fact you believe in
disclosure, bring a bill to the floor. The reason that the House has
passed what you keep offering is the House is not presented with an
opposing view because my amendment is continually blocked and not
accepted to be debated on the floor.
What this is about is the following: there are businesses large and
small that receive billions of taxpayer dollars for services and
products in doing business with the Federal Government. In return for
this public money, they should have the obligation, which is not
burdensome, to simply disclose how they use it. That's all this is.
When they spend it in our elections, they know it, the recipients know
it, but the taxpayers don't know it. That's one hell of a deal. For
those who want to keep it in a dark corner, it's a great deal for them.
The American people have spoken clearly. Last year, a CBS/New York
Times poll found that 92 percent of the American people support
requiring campaigns, independent groups, businesses to disclose how
much money they've raised, where it came from, and how it was used.
I am going to offer my own amendment again, for the fourth time, to
require the disclosure which Representative Cole's amendment forbids. I
expect, once again, that the majority is going to block it. It's an
unfortunate turnaround, I think, from just a few years ago when
Republicans led the fight for disclosure. They were for it before they
decided to be against it. Does that tag line ring some bells for you?
You were thinking that it would be better than restricting
contributions. That was the thinking at the time. But now that the
Supreme Court allows unlimited corporate spending, they're against any
restrictions whatsoever.
We should oppose any amendments that are designed to keep the public
less informed rather than more informed about what happens with their
tax dollars. That's what this is about. The majority has made a big
deal and talked incessantly about spending. What about this spending?
Does this not mean something in terms of the Federal Government and the
taxpayers? I think with public dollars comes public responsibility.
This does not present any constitutional issues, no freedom of speech
issues. It is not burdensome. It is simply disclosure. If you want to
stand with the uber-lobbyists who are representing lobbyists in support
of the gentleman from Oklahoma's amendment, be my guest. I didn't come
to Congress to do that.
I think that the President's Executive order is sensible, I think it
should be put into place, and I think that any legislation brought to
this floor to prevent that from happening is really on the wrong side
of history.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just remind my friend from California that when Republicans
brought disclosure, they didn't link it to the contracting process,
which this potential Executive order does. I think that's out of
bounds.
I would also remind my friend the Democrats opposed that and when
Democrats were in the majority, and overwhelmingly in the majority,
they failed to enact legislation similar to what she suggests in the
DISCLOSE Act.
I think this is something that this legislative body has looked at.
If my friend from California wants to introduce a bill to do this,
that's perfectly appropriate to it, but doing it in the context of the
contracting process is simply wrong. People that are submitting bids
will somehow think inevitably that they will be helped or hurt by their
political activity. That has no basis in judging the quality of a bid
for a Federal contract.
In addition, frankly, my friends have never wanted to apply that same
standard to labor unions or to affiliated groups applying for Federal
dollars. I would actually agree with them on that. I don't think it has
any place in a disclosure in those areas either. There's a place to do
this, and there's a place not to do it. Doing it on a contract is
inevitably meant to try and use the Federal dollars to impact, one way
or another, what groups do politically. That's wrong, we shouldn't
allow it, and we should never, never risk politicizing the procurement
process.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1530

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 1 minute.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
I would say to my friend from Oklahoma, through the Chair, that he
makes a very compelling case. I agree with him. I think that the secret
groups that are funding massive--usually negative--ad campaigns against
people running for office should be held to exactly the same standard
labor unions are held under present law. If a labor union uses dues
money or PAC money or any money to advocate for or against a candidate
or a cause, they must disclose it to the public and to their members.
That is precisely the principle that Ms. Eshoo is standing for, and I
am proud to stand with her.
If you really believe in something that you say, then you shouldn't
be ashamed to let everyone know that you said it. If you really believe
that what you're advocating is right for the country, then you will let
everyone know that you said it. It's a simple principle of disclosure.
It is something that I think is long overdue. Let's not have anybody
hide in the shadows of the American political process.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I would just urge the body to support the
amendment.
I would disagree with my friend. Sham groups are quite often formed
in labor unions or underneath, but that's another debate for another
day. Let's just keep outside money out of the procurement process.
I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of my
amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's
amendment and join with my colleagues from California and New Jersey in
their opposition.
The amendment is a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft
Executive order which would provide for increased disclosure of the
political contributions of government contractors, especially
contributions given to third-party entities.
The argument is made that companies should not disclose more
information because people in power would misuse that information to
retaliate against them. Using that logic, all campaign disclosures are
bad. Government contractors already disclose contributions and
expenditures by their PACs and those who contribute to them. By
extension, we ought to take that law and ensure that the voters of this
country are protected so that they also know what those corporations
are doing with their money as far as involvement in the electoral
process.
The provisions, as drafted, are, I think, very good. The information
is required to be provided, and the Executive order that the amendment
would circumvent enhances the quality of information that people and
citizens ought to have before they go to the polls. Disclosure is good.
And for that reason I rise, again, in strong opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, 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 Oklahoma
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Eshoo

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H5053]]

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with a corporation or other
business entity that does not disclose its political
expenditures.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the fourth time this year to call
for transparency in our political system. I maintain the view shared by
the overwhelming majority of the American people that transparency in
the use of our tax dollars is absolutely critical.
There are thousands of companies that do business with the Federal
Government, receiving billions of public dollars for their services and
their products. Our constituents deserve to know whether they spend any
of these dollars to influence our elections. My amendment will
accomplish this, and I once again urge my colleagues to support it.
Now, some say, as we just heard a few moments ago, that this
disclosure requirement will politicize the procurement process. It's
difficult to maintain that view with a straight face. As I've said
before, when a business contracts with the Federal Government and
spends money in elections, the process is already politicized. Even in
the Citizens United decision legalizing corporate expenditures, eight
out of nine justices specifically endorsed prompt disclosure of
expenditures. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, ``Disclosure permits
citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities
in a proper way.'' This is not an onerous burden. As Justice Louis
Brandeis famously said, ``Sunlight is the best disinfectant.''
I want to share an example from my home State of California that
illustrates the importance of disclosure. Last year, in 2010,
Proposition 23 was on the ballot. It was an effort to kill the State's
tough new global warming rules. The airwaves were flooded with ads, but
because California requires disclosure, voters were informed. The oil
companies financing the ads had to stand by them each and every time
the ad aired, stating that they had paid for them. So voters were
informed. They made up their minds. Prop 23 lost by 23 percent in
November because voters knew who had paid for the ads and what and whom
were behind them. It wasn't just someone skipping through a field, it
was going to have an effect on them. It was disclosure.
As he has a half-dozen times this year, my colleague, Tom Cole, has
offered an amendment to prevent the very disclosure I'm asking us to
endorse. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject it.
Preventing transparency puts us all on the wrong side of history every
time.
Republicans supported disclosure before they were against it, and the
record is very clear on that. So I urge those from both the other side
of the aisle and my colleagues on this side--I don't believe this is a
partisan issue--I believe that disclosure is good for America, it's
good for our system. It is not burdensome, it is not anti-
constitutional, and it's simple. The voters should know, taxpayers
should know.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
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 requires a new determination.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
For the reasons stated by the Chair on February 17, June 2, and July
7, 2011, the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2
of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

{time} 1540

Amendment No. 66 Offered by Mr. Gosar

Mr. GOSAR. I have an amendment at the desk, the Gosar-Altmire-Gibbs
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __ None of the funds made available by this Act may be
used to implement or enforce section 327.13(a) of title 36,
Code of Federal Regulations.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of our amendment that would
defund a Federal regulation, a regulation that has the force of law
across the United States that is, in my view, unconstitutional and
simply wrong.
Currently, as a result of law passed in the 111th Congress, a person
licensed by a State to carry a personal sidearm for personal defense
can carry that weapon in a national park or refuge. Prior to 2009, our
own Federal Government trampled the Second Amendment and prohibited
citizens from protecting themselves in some of the most dangerous
remote lands we have. The ability to carry a firearm in case of
emergency is imperative. Later we learned that when Congress changed
the law, the bill language omitted the Army Corps of Engineers,
creating confusion and uncertainty.
The Corps owns or manages over 11.7 million acres, including 400
lakes and river projects, 90,000 camp sites, and 4,000 miles of trail.
Soon after the law's passage, the Army Corps proudly declared that it
would continue to ban self-defense on its lands. There is a bill
pending, H.R. 1865, that seeks a long-term fix, but this amendment is a
short-term fix. It defunds a Federal regulation by which the Army Corps
of Engineers enforces, creates, and authorizes its ban on self-defense
firearms.
This bipartisan amendment to the Energy and Water appropriations bill
will clarify this confusing policy. We are simply asking that the
Secretary of the Army not use any fiscal year 2012 funding to enforce a
regulation that prohibits firearm possession that complies with State
law on Corps projects and lands. The amendment would not, however,
allow firearms in Federal facilities, such as Army Corps headquarters,
Corps research facilities, or lock and dam buildings. This is a
commonsense amendment that upholds our Constitution and gives people
who use our public lands the right to defend themselves, if needed.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would take a different tact on the issue of common
sense and security. I would like to talk about the security of our
Nation and about our economic infrastructure and about these Corps
regions.
I understand that the intent of the gentleman's amendment is to
prohibit the Corps from preventing individuals from having handguns on
projects administered by the Corps. I understand it's aimed at those
who obviously support the Second Amendment. I do, myself. The fact is,
I believe the gentleman's amendment is injurious to our national
security. I do not think it is a good idea to allow individuals to walk
around with guns over dams and water treatment plants that are
administered by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Now, I assume that some of my colleagues disagree with me. However,
this amendment also prohibits the Corps from implementing or enforcing
rules on explosives and fireworks and other weapons. I don't believe
there are

[[Page H5054]]

other Members in this body who believe the Corps should not be able to
stringently enforce rules on explosives at dams and water projects and
treatment facilities that they have jurisdiction over. Further, what if
there's danger of fire on the Corps land? Unless there is some other
law that supersedes the regulations that your amendment is aimed at,
Corps employees would not be able to prevent people from launching
fireworks, despite the dangers of wildfires.
I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and would hope that he
would consider withdrawing his overly broad and misguided amendments.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Gibbs).
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gosar-Gibbs-Altmire
amendment, to prohibit funding the Secretary of the Army to enforce a
regulation that prohibits firearm possession in compliance with State
law on Corps projects and lands.
Earlier this year, Representative Altmire from Pennsylvania,
Representative Gosar from Arizona, and myself introduced H.R. 1865, a
stand-alone bill that would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from
enforcing any regulation that keeps an individual from possessing
firearms on Army Corps of Engineer water or resource development
projects.
Gun owners need to be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights
when they are legally camping, hunting, and fishing on Army Corps
property. Last Congress, this House passed national parks language that
became law to allow for guns on national parks land; and the Army Corps
of Engineers immediately issued the following release: ``Public Law
111-024 does not apply to Corps projects or facilities. The passage of
this new law does not affect application of title 36 regulations.''
This policy preempts State regulatory framework from transporting and
carrying firearms, thus invalidating concealed weapon permits and other
State laws that allow law-abiding citizens to transport and carry
firearms.
This amendment is a bipartisan effort that would put a temporary fix
to end the patchwork of regulations that govern different lands managed
by different Federal agencies.
I urge all Members to support the Gosar-Gibbs-Altmire amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Altmire).
Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman from Indiana.
I rise in support of the Gosar-Gibbs-Altmire amendment to protect the
Second Amendment rights of our Nation's sportsmen.
The Army Corps of Engineers owns or manages more than 11 million
acres of Federal lands, where Americans are not allowed to carry
firearms for self-defense, including 90,000 camp sites and thousands of
miles of trails where law enforcement is scattered.
Our amendment will simplify regulations for law-abiding citizens by
defunding a Federal regulation that bans firearms for self-defense on
Army Corps lands. This will not change rules against bringing firearms
into Federal buildings, such as Army Corps headquarters, or locks and
dams. It will simply guarantee that sportsmen are able to defend
themselves while they legally hunt and fish on property that the Army
Corps owns and operates.
To correct this problem in the long term, Mr. Gibbs and I have also
introduced the Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act. But this amendment
is a necessary first step and is supported by the National Rifle
Association and Gun Owners of America.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, the Second Amendment is a key component of
national security. And in that aspect, it allows citizens to carry.
This is about possession of sidearms only. It does not apply to
explosives in or around structures.
I will finish up by saying that I wish everybody would support this
amendment, and I look forward to its passage.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I will reiterate my strong
opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
We are talking about allowing people with weapons in areas where we
have dams and water treatment plants, and the Army Corps of Engineers
ought to be able to exercise control over those for the protection of
those major economic infrastructures. I would respectfully disagree
with the gentleman, that he would also reduce their ability as far as
the regulation of people with explosives. And I think that, again, is
very detrimental relative to our national security. For these reasons,
I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1550

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

Mr. COHEN. Mr. 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 the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __ For ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy'' for the Solar Energy
Program, as authorized by sections 602(b), 604(e), 605(d),
606(d), and 607(i)(5) of the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007, there is hereby appropriated, and the amount
otherwise provided by this Act for ``Department of Energy--
Energy Programs--Fossil Energy Research and Development'' is
hereby reduced by, $16,000,000 and $32,000,000, respectively.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, our Nation is at an energy crossroads.
Either we can further increase our addiction to fossil fuels and use
advanced technologies to suck out every last drop of oil, coal, and
natural gas that exists underneath the Earth's surface, no matter what
the economic or environmental cost, or we can decide to break our
addiction to fossil fuels by investing in clean, renewable energy
sources that have the capacity to power our Nation forever.
The majority's decision to cut funding for renewable energy programs
and increase spending on fossil fuels makes it clear that they haven't
quite gotten off their addiction to dirty energy, but this amendment
offers them an opportunity do so. Their decision is shortsighted, will
endanger American prosperity, and threaten our economic viability.
To help rectify this situation, this amendment's offered to cut $32
million from the Fossil Energy Research and Development account and
increase the Solar Energy program by $16 million, to give my friends on
the other side an opportunity to let the Sun shine in and join with
God's wonderful source of energy. My amendment has a net impact of zero
on the budget authority and does not increase 2012 outlays.
Despite overwhelming evidence that the U.S. needs to invest more in
solar and spend less on fossil fuels, the majority has decided to
reduce funding for solar research and development by 37 percent. This
severe cut is unacceptable and especially egregious since the majority
has allocated an additional $32 million to the Fossil Fuels account, a
7 percent increase.
This amendment that I have offered seeks to create some parity to
2011 funding by cutting the Fossil Fuels account back to its 2011 level
and increasing the Solar account by 10 percent. Solar is the future and
fossil fuels aren't.
If the majority wants to fulfill their commitment to create jobs and
increase American energy security, then they need to start seriously
investing in solar. Recent studies have demonstrated investments in
solar can create three times as many jobs as funding for traditional
fossil fuels. And if the government decided to invest $1 million in
solar development, that investment would create at least 17 jobs. But
that same million dollars in fossil fuels would create but five jobs.
And jobs is what the American public is interested in.
The 17 jobs created would be high-paying jobs in the manufacturing
and construction sectors, the kind of jobs that once were the backbone
of our Nation and the jobs that the American

[[Page H5055]]

people are clamoring for, giving the middle class an opportunity to
have jobs and participate in the American economy.
I have witnessed the power of solar in my own community to create
jobs, spur economic development, and transform the lives of everyday
Americans. As a result of previous Federal solar investments, Sharp
Solar, which is located in my district, is a burgeoning solar industry
and operates a manufacturing facility that employs nearly 500
Memphians. Additional Federal investments in solar will create
thousands of new jobs in my district and millions of new jobs across
the country, some of which will be in New Jersey.
Not only is solar a superior job creator, but it's also a far better
long-term investment. Fossil fuel proponents may not publicly admit it,
but renewable energy will power the future. So establishing dominance
in this sector is critical to our national energy security and economic
security. Supplies of fossil fuels are diminishing rapidly, and their
nonrenewable nature makes them a short-term solution to a long-term
problem.
Recognizing the critical role renewable energy technologies like
solar will have, nations across the world are making massive
investments in clean technology so they can establish themselves as
leaders and exporters of the future's energy. I recently visited
Germany, and solar is everywhere. The Germans are investing and
supplying many of their buildings with solar, and they are a leader,
just as China is. But America's being left behind.
As is demonstrated by this appropriations bill, the U.S. is not
making the requisite investments in solar to compete in the emerging
global marketplace. Unless the majority decides to change course and
support the efforts that we've made here to make unprecedented
investments in renewables, the United States will transition from
importing oil from the Middle East to importing clean energy
technologies from China and Europe, not what we should be aiming for.
My $16 million amendment alone will not determine the course of
America's energy future, because we need to be investing billions in
solar energy to keep up with the Chinese, the Germans, and other
countries, but this zero cost amendment will create jobs and push
America a little further down the road to a clean energy economy. The
amendment offers a clear signal to the American people and the world
the United States is serious about ending its addiction to fossil fuels
and becoming a world leader in the renewable energy sector.
We shouldn't just orbit around the Sun; we should harness its energy
and use it to supply energy for this planet. The Sun is there for a
purpose other than just an anchor.
I urge support for this important amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. His amendment would increase funding for the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Solar Energy program
at the expense of fossil energy research. Our bill applied solar energy
research to $97 million below fiscal year 2011 because, especially
within today's budgetary constraints, we cannot afford to spend
taxpayers' dollars on activities like demonstrations of proven
technologies that should be funded by the private sector. But our bill
preserves funding for the cutting-edge research that will advance
American industry and help us lead globally. By the numbers, I can't
support an amendment that adds funding back into this program.
Fossil energy generates 70 percent of our Nation's electricity and,
may I add, generates, I believe, close to 55 percent of your State's
energy. And it will continue to provide the lion's share of your and
our Nation's energy's needs well into the 21st century.
The Fossil Energy Research program receives $477 million in our bill
for research that's let us squeeze more energy out of our domestic
fossil energy resources. This research aims to increase the efficiency
of our fossil energy plants across the Nation. If we were to increase
the efficiency of our fossil energy plants by just 1 percent, we would
increase the output of our power plants by 12 times the total output of
solar power in the United States. That's without using 1 pound or 1
liter of extra fuel from the ground.
I appreciate, truly, the gentleman's desire to move towards solar
technologies, coming from a State that is a leader in that regard, and
that's why we have included $166 million in our bill for that purpose.
The Energy Efficiency and Renewable account has nearly $9 billion in
unspent stimulus money. We've heard that before in earlier debates. And
the importance of using fossil energy sources well is too great; so I
can't support cutting into further fossil energy research and
development. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues
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 Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, 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 Tennessee
will be postponed.

{time} 1600

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

Mr. GOSAR. 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 the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. _. None of the funds made available under this Act may
be expended to administer or enforce the requirements of
subchapter IV of chapter 31 or title 40, United States Code
(commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon Act), except with
respect to a contract that exceeds $20,000,000.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R.
2354 that seeks to defund title 40, U.S.C. section 31, up to $20
million instead of the current $2,000 threshold.
Right now we are in serious and prolonged economic recession. The
construction industry has been hit the hardest throughout the United
States. My amendment defunds the Davis-Bacon Act up to a certain amount
in order to allow small business and small contractors the ability to
compete on the smaller government contracts.
This amendment will assist the small businesses that do not have the
resources to compete for the larger contracts that compel compliance
with all the requirements of Davis-Bacon. That is why this amendment
defunds contract applications for smaller contracts under the $20
million threshold, but the larger projects are still subject to the
Davis-Bacon Act. This is a temporary measure for the duration of the
fiscal year in direct response to the recession.
Now, on average, research establishes that Federal public projects
that are forced to operate under this law spend 22 percent more than
projects not bound by this law. By eliminating the onerous cost for
small projects, there will actually be more work, up to 22 percent more
work, for the same dollar and the smaller contractors will be able to
compete for jobs that otherwise are out of their reach.
Yet this agreement preserves the application of the act to the larger
projects, so that those big projects across the U.S., where larger
contracts typically get the contracts in any event, these companies can
more readily comply with the provisions of the act and have deeper
pockets to handle the administrative and other requirements mandated by
the act.
We also know that one study concluded that the Davis-Bacon Act will
waste $10.9 billion in 2011. We also know that the Government
Accountability Office states that this act is extremely difficult to
administer, and the GAO has advocated for its repeal as

[[Page H5056]]

far back as 1979. To a certain degree, this amendment seeks to reduce
that waste, but the most important aspect of this amendment is
encouraging small business participation in these government building
contracts.
I have stated before that we, as Members of Congress, we are stewards
of the public Treasury. We have an obligation to spend taxpayer money
wisely. The government does not earn money. The government does not
generate wealth. We have an obligation to spend this money wisely, and
we have an obligation to help the businesses of the country, and those
that build our infrastructure need our help. This amendment addresses
that need.
The Heritage Foundation suggests that for every billion dollars,
Federal construction spending supports 14,000 workers. Then the savings
from the suspension of the Davis-Bacon law for 1 year would support
163,000 new construction jobs.
My amendment addresses this very issue and seeks to boost employment
and work for small businesses and small contractors who can compete for
smaller government contracts temporarily if the Davis-Bacon
requirements are defunded for 1 year.
I ask that you support this amendment, support small businesses, more
efficient spending of our taxpayer money, spreading our limited
resources and keeping more American construction workers in a job, a
livelihood, and a mission to rebuild this America together.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, Davis-Bacon is a fairly simple concept,
and it is a very fair one.
What it does is to protect the government and the taxpayers, as well
as the workers, in carrying out the policy of paying a decent wage on
government contracts.
The Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers on federally funded
construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the
community for similar work. The fact is that opponents claim Davis-
Bacon requires union wage jobs. However, more than 75 percent of Davis-
Bacon wage determinations are not based solely on union wages.
The quality of work on energy and water projects, for example, is
crucial to the communities depending on them, and we do need
individuals who are trained, who are more efficient, and who are going
to do the job right the first time. One of the things that tends not to
be noted when we have a discussion and debate about Davis-Bacon is the
money it saves to the taxpayers that are hidden costs by those who do
not use union labor and do not pay union scale wages.
By including fringe benefits in wage calculations, the Davis-Bacon
act delivers health care and pensions for workers on Federal projects,
ensuring that they aren't part of the many uninsured Americans who rely
on Medicaid and cost the American taxpayers. The Department of Labor
survey methods also incorporate hourly investments in training and
apprenticeship, where appropriate, to ensure the skilled, productive,
future workforce.
I would also point out that in the past the House has taken two votes
on this issue, the first vote taken included a limitation on Davis-
Bacon and was considered in H.R. 1, and it failed by a vote of 189-233.
The second vote was a limitation taken during consideration of the FAA
bill, and it failed 183-238.
But, most importantly, and the gentleman indicated that he is spurred
on to action here because of the recession, is because of the money
involved relative to those who work in the United States of America.
Since 1977, we have fortunately had great growth in this general
economy.
But I would point out to all of the Members that according to the
Department of Labor in 1977, the real hourly wage that a human being in
the United States of America earned for 1 hour's worth of labor was
$19.57. In 2010 the Department of Labor reported that a human being in
the United States of America for their human labor for 1 hour now earns
$19.04.
People today, for an hour's worth of work, make less than they did in
1977, despite the growth of our economy. The last thing we need to do
here today is to put more downward pressure on the ability of an
American citizen to work at a good-paying job that guarantees them a
decent living, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, 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 support of the gentleman's amendment.
The recommendation I brought to the full committee prohibited Davis-
Bacon provisions on any sort of construction, roads, bridges, dams, and
buildings, because the taxpayers, as a result, pay more.
Unfortunately, this provision was stricken, impacting right to work
States and, quite honestly, shortchanging them.
You do the math. There have been plenty of studies. Davis-Bacon
provisions inflate costs for construction projects as much as, in some
cases, 22 percent. These added expenses come at a time when we are
really close to being broke as a nation. How many more jobs, union or
nonunion jobs, could we provide to put America back to work by
supporting this amendment? Plenty more, and thus I am pleased to
support the amendment.
I urge my colleagues to do likewise.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1610

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, at a national unemployment rate of 9.3
percent, this is a jobs amendment. Davis-Bacon does not protect the
Federal Government nor the taxpayer. It only increases the cost to the
taxpayer and the Federal Government by 22 percent. There are no studies
that show that there is any difference in outcomes. As a contractor and
working in contracts, we're held to the same standards. This is a
temporary measure meant to help all our small companies and business
contractors. It's also an investment into increasing the number of
build-outs of our vital infrastructure projects.
I urge my companions on the other side of the aisle to join in this
and look at this fairly and increase the access to this funding,
properly and fairly, to make sure that we get more people to work and
get this vital infrastructure back and get America back to work.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition. I would
close by indicating that there has been discussion about the burden
that this act imposes upon small businesses. And I would, again, wish
to contradict that.
I also believe that the administrative requirements of the act are
critical to prevent a fraud against government agencies. First, to
comply with the IRS and overtime regulations, all law-abiding
contractors must retain records on hours worked, wages, and benefits.
Second, electronic transmission of data has streamlined reporting.
Third, the integrity of the whole program relies on this reporting to
avoid kickbacks, misclassification of workers, and cheating under the
Davis-Bacon Act. It is important to remember that Federal overtime law,
including the Fair Labor Standards Act, requires all employers--not
just those that must comply with Davis-Bacon--to keep records.
So, again, I would ask that my colleagues oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Westmoreland). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, 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 Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 62, after line 2, insert the following new section:

[[Page H5057]]

Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act for
``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Science'' may be
used in contravention of the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I want to thank the chairman of the
subcommittee and ranking member for the courtesies extended to me.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment will protect funds provided for science
under title 3 of the Department of Energy's energy programs. This
amendment addresses the need to increase programs that educate
minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, known
as STEM, as well as the need to train teachers and scientists in
advanced scientific and technical practices.
Let me, first of all, say I consider this a jobs bill. I'm excited
when we talk about jobs here on the floor of the House and recognize
that America has changed. As a former member of the Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology and a member of the Aviation
subcommittee and Space subcommittee dealing with NASA's commitment and
mission in human exploration, I believe that America's future is not
only today but in front of her and focused on science and technology.
The importance of developing a highly skilled technical workforce is
crucial.
Over the last 50 years there have been major changes in the United
States in terms of both the economy and the population. Now let me be
very clear. I'm a member of the Manufacturing Caucus, and I believe
that we should restore manufacturing in this country. We are so well
placed to be multitasked, boosting our manufacturing and then, as well,
moving forward to processing and analyzing information. In this
information-driven economy, it is important that we recognize that our
valuable assets are human resources. Therefore, in order to compete
successfully in the global economy, the U.S. needs citizens who are
literate in terms of science and mathematics, and a STEM workforce that
is well educated and well trained.
I believe my amendment focuses on that very program and focus. By
investing in the scientific advancement of our workforce and our youth,
we are investing in our future, we're investing in job creation, and
we're investing in greater job opportunities for Americans. It is
important to note that under this legislation, workforce development
for teachers in science has taken a hit. But I believe what we should
do is make sure that we emphasize that those resources be kept in and
at some point add to those resources. And the reason I say that is,
workforce development programs for teachers and scientists provide
funding to graduate fellowship programs that help train the Nation's
top scientists, a crucial, crucial effort.
The United States faces a critical shortage of highly qualified
mathematics and science teachers. We will need an additional 283,000
teachers in secondary schools setting up by 2015 to meet the needs of
our Nation's students. This qualified teacher shortage is particularly
pronounced in low-income districts. So in order to move forward, let us
protect the scientific aspect of the work of this government.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, about 30
percent of fourth-graders and 20 percent of eighth-graders cannot
perform basic mathematical computation. So I have long recognized the
need to improve the participation performance of America's students in
science, technology, engineering, and math. I worked with one of our
corporate leaders to ensure that private funding was given to one of
our inner city school districts to establish a program without
comparison in its excellence focusing on science, technology,
engineering, and math.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We would be happy to accept your amendment as it
restates current law, and we appreciate your advocacy in this regard.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much. And as I
conclude with that generous offer, let me mention in 2006 only 4.5
percent of college graduates in the United States received a diploma in
engineering compared to 25 percent in South Korea and 33 percent in
China.
So let me close, Mr. Chairman, by saying that we have had programs
that have been very effective, such as the Harmony Science Academy in
Houston, that devotes an impressive amount of time and resources
educating the city's youth, minority youth in math and science and even
doing research in cancer.
Finally, I want to thank Dr. Reagan Flowers, who has implemented a
dynamic program on STEM technology in the Houston area and a national
program. I would like to congratulate Mae Jemison, one of our
astronauts, the first African American woman to go into space, who
likewise has an outstanding program, and the Ron McNair Program, one of
our astronauts who lost his life sacrificing for the American people,
challenging us and challenging our capacity. His program run by his
family is another excellent program.
In conclusion, from Ben Franklin to NASA to Silicon Valley, the
success of the competitiveness of America has always depended on the
knowledge and skills in the STEM field. This amendment will help us
focus on expanding that for all Americans.
I thank the gentleman for his generosity.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2354, the
Energy and Water Appropriations Development Bill. My amendment will
protect funds provided for science under Title III of the Department of
Energy's Energy Programs. This amendment addresses the need to increase
programs that educate minorities in science, technology, engineering
and mathematics, STEM, as well as the need to train teachers and
scientists in advanced scientific and technical practices.
As a former Member of the Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology, I recognize the importance of developing a highly skilled
technical workforce. Over the last 50 years, there have been major
changes in the United States in terms of both the economy and the
population. The economic base has built upon the base of manufacturing
of durable goods and added the processing and analyzing of information.
In the 21st century we can manufacture goods and expand information
technology--both create jobs. In this information-driven economy, the
most valuable assets are human resources. Therefore, in order to
compete successfully in the global economy, the U.S. needs citizens who
are literate in terms of science and mathematics, and a STEM workforce
that is well educated and well trained (Friedman 2005, National Academy
of Sciences 2005, Pearson 2005). Consequently, we cannot--literally or
figuratively--afford to squander its human resources; it is imperative
that we develop and nurture the talent of all its citizens.
The jobs of tomorrow will require workers who possess strong advanced
science, engineering and math backgrounds. Other countries are training
and educating their citizens in these areas and we must do the same. By
investing in the scientific advancement of our workforce and our youth,
we are investing in our future . . . we are investing in job creation .
. . we are investing in greater job opportunities for Americans. This
investment is the only way to address the increasing knowledge gap
between our Nation's workforce and those of our international
counterparts. We must invest in our citizens. My amendment will ensure
the funds that have been made available will be utilized for that
purpose.

PROGRAM 1: WORKFORCE AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR TEACHERS AND
SCIENTISTS

The workforce and development program for teachers and scientists is
vital to ensure that we have an adequate amount of properly educated
and trained teachers and scientists. Under H.R. 2354, workforce
development for teachers and scientists is funded at $17,849,000, which
is $4,751,000 below the fiscal year 2011 level, which is a devastating
$17,751,000 below the President's requested amount. This is a draconian
cut which will have drastic effects on an already struggling workforce.
My amendment would ensure that the amount provided to this program
would remain intact.

The workforce development program for teachers and scientists
provides funding to graduate fellowship programs which train and
develop our Nation's top scientists, engineers, and teachers. These
individuals go on to become researchers and innovators--contributing to
American business and, moreover, the U.S. economy. Fellowship programs
like these are exactly what our country needs in order to develop a
highly skilled technical workforce.
As we have heard time and time again in many different contexts, our
country suffers

[[Page H5058]]

from a shortage of scientists and engineers. Moreover, our country is
dealing with a lack of qualified instructors, at all levels--
elementary, secondary, and post-secondary--to teach STEM subjects--
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
The United States faces a critical shortage of highly qualified
mathematics and science teachers, we will need an additional 283,000
teachers in secondary school settings by 2015 to meet the needs of our
Nation's students. This qualified teacher shortage is particularly
pronounced in low-income, urban school districts. As BHEF reported in A
Commitment to America's Future: Responding to the Crisis in Mathematics
and Science Education, high teacher turnover in conjunction with
increasing student enrollment and lower student-to-teacher ratios will
cause annual increases in the mathematics and science teacher shortage
culminating in a 283,000-person shortage by 2015.
Fewer American students than ever are graduating from college with
math and science degrees. In 2006 only 4.5 percent of college graduates
in the United States received a diploma in engineering compared with
25.4 percent in South Korea, 33.3 percent in China, and 39.1 percent in
Singapore.
The problem is systemic. According to the National Center for
Education Statistics, about 30 percent of fourth-graders and 20 percent
of eighth graders cannot perform basic mathematical computations.
Today, American students rank 21st out of 30 in science literacy among
students from developed countries and 25th out of 30 in math literacy.
If this trend continues, there will be dire consequences for our
children and our economy.
To be sure, in order to train and develop the amount of scientists,
educators, and teachers of STEM subjects that our country needs, we
would really need more of these graduate fellowship programs. As
reflected in the budgetary request, which H.R. 2354 fails to meet, an
increased number o graduate fellowships would be ideal to invest in our
future.

At the very least, we would want to keep the same amount of graduate
fellowships available. Unfortunately, the proposed amount appropriated
to these programs under H.R. 2354 ignores the current shortage of
scientists and teachers, and irresponsibly ignores our future by
providing for lesser amount of graduate fellowships.

PROGRAM 2: SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS (STEM)

I have long recognized the need to improve the participation and
performance of America's students in Science, Technology, and
Engineering and Math, STEM, fields.
Traditionally, our Nation recruited its STEM workforce from a
relatively homogenous talent pool consisting largely of non-Hispanic
White males. However, this pool has decreased significantly due not
only to comprising an increasingly smaller proportion of the total US
Population but also to declining interest among this group in pursuing
careers in STEM. It is important to note that the need to improve the
participation of underrepresented groups--especially underrepresented
racial/ethnic groups--in STEM is not solely driven by demographics and
supply-side considerations; an even more important driver is that STEM
workers from a variety of backgrounds improve and enhance the quality
of science insofar as they are likely to bring a variety of new
perspectives to bear on the STEM enterprise in terms of both research
and application (Best 2004; Jackson 2003; Leggon and Malcom 1994).
The current state of STEM education is deplorable. In 2006 only 4.5
percent of college graduates in the United States received a diploma in
engineering, compared with 25.4 percent in South Korea, 33.3 percent in
China, and 39.1 percent in Singapore. Today, American students rank
21st out of 30 in science literacy among students from developed
countries and 25th out of 30 in math literacy. If this trend continues,
there will be dire consequence for our children and our economy.
These numbers are discouraging, but the statistics on minority
students in the STEM fields are even more alarming. In 2004, African
American and Hispanic students were among the least likely groups to
take advanced math and science courses in high school. Even as African
Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans comprise an increasingly
large portion of the population, they continue to be underrepresented
in the science and engineering disciplines. Together, these three
groups account for over 25 percent of the population, but only earn
16.2 percent of bachelor's degrees, 10.7 percent of master's degrees,
and 5.4 percent of doctorate degtees in the science, math and
engineering fields. This fact directly contributes to the unacceptable
underrepresentation of African American and Hispanics in the STEM
workforce. If we choose to continue to ignore this problem, we are not
only shortchanging our students' success, we will be giving up on our
Nation's future.

Many school districts across the nation have begun to recognize this
problem and work towards a strategic solution. In my home district for
example, several public schools and charter schools have started to
allocate funds towards programs aimed at increasing STEM performance.
For example the Harmony Science Academy in Houston devotes an
impressive amount of time and resources towards educating the city's
youth in the sciences. Small class sizes, high expectations for
students, and well-qualified teachers helped this school make it to
Newsweek magazine's list of best high schools in America. Harmony
Science Academy is a success story we can all be proud of.
Unfortunately, schools like this are the exception and not the rule.
In many school districts there simply are not enough resources
available to make our children science and math literate. There is a
shortage of qualified teachers, many classes are woefully overcrowded
and some schools just cannot afford the materials and books that
students need in order to master basic math and science concepts. I
cannot stand idly by while we fail to give our children the educational
tools they need to succeed in life and gain employment.
This amendment recognizes the importance of equipping young minds
with the technological and scientific knowledge necessary to compete in
a globalized economy. Further, within the context of globalization, I
strongly believe that this country's ability to achieve and maintain a
high standard of living is dependent on the extent to which it can
harness science and technology. Thus, in order to enhance the
international competitiveness of the country, it is critical for us to
promote and support students pursuing careers in STEM fields.
Mr. Chairman, it is essential that we invest in a workforce ready for
global competition by creating a new generation of innovators and make
a sustained commitment to Federal research and development. We need to
spur and expand affordable access to broadband, achieve
energy independence, and provide small business with tools to encourage
entrepreneurial innovation.

The establishment and maintenance of a capable scientific and
technological workforce remains an important facet of U.S. efforts to
maintain economic competitiveness. Pre-college instruction in
mathematics and scientific fields is crucial to the development of U.S.
scientific and technological personnel, as well as our overall
scientific literacy as a nation. The value of education in scientific
and mathematics is not limited to those students pursuing a degree in
one of these fields, and even students pursuing nonscientific and
nonmathematical fields are likely to require basic knowledge in these
subjects.
Mr. Chairman, the United States has a great history of scientific
innovation. From Ben Franklin to NASA to Silicon Valley, the success
and competitiveness of America has always depended the knowledge and
skills in the STEM fields. Funding my amendment today will help ensure
that the American legacies of intelligence, innovation, and invention
continue. Today I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and
invest in America's future.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement or enforce the recommendations or
guidance proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the final
draft of the McNary Shoreline Management Plan, Lake Wallula,
Washington.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
For years, the Walla Walla District of the Army Corps of Engineers
has managed several miles of the public shoreline along the Columbia
and Snake Rivers in the Tri-Cities area of my congressional district.
Five years ago, in 2006, the Corps sought to update its McNary
Shoreline Management Plan, which had last been revised in the early
1980s. The existing management plan includes a permit program for
private property owners that seek to build or use docks along the river
shoreline.

[[Page H5059]]

The 2006 revision was so controversial that the Corps was forced back
to the drawing board. It proposed a variety of restrictive measures,
including a moratorium on the building of docks by private property
owners along the shoreline and requiring existing dock owners to tear
out their docks at great personal expense in order to keep their
permits.

{time} 1620

The Corps got an earful at a public meeting on the proposal and this
year came back with a similarly controversial proposal, which included
new questionable mandates from the National Marine Fisheries Service--
including specific requirements for the length, width, color, and
transparency of each dock, all of which NMFS claims would help save
salmon.
Mr. Chairman, with all existing local docks as is right now, salmon
runs are at near record levels along the Columbia River, and the Corps
itself acknowledges that juvenile salmon in the McNary area average 20
to 30 million. Mr. Chairman, docks aren't killing salmon.
Regrettably, the Corps did little to justify their plan's sketchy
science at another recent public meeting at which over 200 people
attended to voice their opposition.
This amendment will ensure that the Army Corps will not charge ahead
with a shoreline management plan until it answers questions about the
questionable NMFS mandate and addresses concerns raised by a
substantial number of citizens. Without this amendment, the Corps'
unwise shoreline plan would be implemented and force questionable
regulations on local residents and recreational activities.
Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that the Corps should not be
allowed to implement a revised shoreline plan, but it should not do so
based on shaky science and without ensuring that the local public's
concerns are adequately addressed.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We have no objection to your amendment. We are
pleased to support it. Certainly anyone who lives near the Columbia and
Snake Rivers knows this is a beautiful part of the country. We are
aware of this issue and commend you for addressing it forthrightly.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the chairman's concurrence
on this. If that is the same on both sides, I will be more than happy
to yield back.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. 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 the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for
``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Departmental
Administration'', and by increasing the amount made available
for ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy'' (except for Program
Direction), by $10,000,000.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to help promote a
dynamic energy market in America through continued development of our
budding solar industry. My amendment conservatively would transfer $10
million from administrative costs within the Department of Energy and
shift those to solar energy research and development within the Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy account.
Certainly I understand the difficulty in drafting this bill, given
the large allocation cuts for the Energy and Water Subcommittee, and I
appreciate the chairman's work and the ranking member's work in helping
America meet the energy and water challenges of our Nation, which are
huge. Yet this bill 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--$97 million below fiscal year 2011 and $291
million below the request.
The $10 million transfer I propose from administration to
implementation represents less than 5 percent of the funds in the
administrative budget of the Department of Energy. I want to make clear
that this amendment does not target other programs that are critical to
our Nation's energy needs. Rather than cut fossil fuels and nuclear
power, this amendment asks the Department of Energy to tighten its
administrative belt a little bit more to prioritize the
administration's core mission, the promotion of a viable energy future
for America, and to do it in a sector that is growing jobs in our
country despite what we face in terms of international global
competition.
While this amendment proposes a modest 5 percent cut from the
Department's administrative accounts, these dollars will go far in
supporting additional energy options for American consumers and
companies.
Solar energy production has nearly tripled in the last 5 years. In
2006, we generated 508,000 megawatt hours. Today, we produce 1.4
million megawatt hours annually. And I can't wait until it is 100
million.
Ernst & Young predicts the cost of solar will decrease by as much as
half next year. And while the U.S. economy is anticipated to increase
jobs by just 2 percent over the next year, in the solar industry that
number is 26 percent, according to Cornell University. As costs go down
and production capacity grows, solar energy becomes a viable
alternative to imported energy sources. And this is exactly what our
country needs right now: a vibrant energy market that gives Americans
choices and encourages economic growth here at home.
Now, some would argue that with numbers like these, solar energy
doesn't need anything, any additional funding, but I disagree. It is
precisely because of our investment in this fledgling, cutting-edge
industry that is high tech that such successes are possible. We cannot
allow America to be complacent. Right now we are in competition to be
the energy leader of the future in this sector. For years, we were the
leader in developing new technology, but we have been falling behind.
And guess who has been right at our heels the whole time: China. China
knows that our technology will power the future, and they are setting
themselves up to be the new global leaders in solar. I can verify that.
As we sat back and patted ourselves here, China exponentially
increased their funding for solar and other clean energy technology. In
addition, they are providing 15-year tax holidays for firms that locate
production there. So as we develop this very fledgling industry here,
they are more than willing to outsource it there. So we must redouble
our efforts and continue our investment in research and bring this
market to scale in America.
Right now, we are powering homes and some bases with solar. We should
be powering neighborhoods and entire communities. That's what it means
to have the real thriving, new energy market that Americans are
demanding, and the jobs that go with them.
This amendment will create increased efficiency within the Department
of Energy and promote American industry and energy independence. I ask
my colleagues to think about it and help me by supporting this
amendment which merely takes less than 5 percent of the administrative
budget of the Department of Energy, $10 million--we are not talking
about billions here--and shifts it to the Solar Energy account. I ask
my colleagues to join me in supporting the Kaptur amendment for solar.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The gentlewoman's amendment would reduce funding
in the departmental accounts. Because of quite a few amendments we

[[Page H5060]]

have already passed on the floor, your reduction would not be a 5
percent reduction; it probably would be a 10 percent reduction.
I know generally there is not a lot of sympathy for administrative
responsibilities in the Department of Energy, but this would leave
Secretary Steve Chu with not perhaps enough people in his operation to
oversee a lot of issues that he has before him, including solar energy.
May I say for the record, the Solar Energy account in the Department
of Energy budget is $166 million. It is less than perhaps what it
should be, but if you take it from the Department administrative
account, we will have, I think, cause for more managerial problems to
deal with. We also, may I say, have in the Energy Efficiency and
Renewable program, as I have mentioned on a number of occasions, $9
billion of unspent stimulus funds. So there is plenty of money in here,
and I don't think that the Department salaries and wages ought to
suffer and be reduced at a time when they need the additional
leadership over there. I somewhat reluctantly oppose your amendment and
urge my colleagues to do so as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1630

Ms. KAPTUR. May I inquire as to my remaining time?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 30 seconds remaining.
Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee very
much, Mr. Frelinghuysen, as well as the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky,
for allowing me this time.
I am going to ask for a vote on this amendment, but I am hoping that
as this moves towards the Senate and final consideration that, as to
some of those who just happened to get to the microphone earlier, we
might find a way to move some of those dollars around to support an
industry that truly is a cutting-edge industry for our country, which
deserves the kind of support that this Congress should give to new
technology to try to create good jobs in this country and help us wean
ourselves off our chief strategic vulnerability--imported energy.
I ask my colleagues to support the Kaptur amendment on solar.
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 question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

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

Page 62, after line 2, insert the following:
Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Energy to move the Office of
Environmental Management under the authority of the Under
Secretary for Nuclear Security of the Department of Energy.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, last Friday, the Department
of Energy made a surprise announcement that not only was the Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Management--or EM--leaving but that they
were restructuring the entire $6 billion program under the Under
Secretary of Nuclear Security, who also serves as the head of the NNSA.
EM is responsible for cleaning up the nuclear waste created during
our Nation's defense program that helped end World War II and the Cold
War. The Federal Government has signed legal agreements with the States
to clean up this waste. The major restructuring was simply declared by
DOE with absolutely zero consultation with Congress, the States, the
communities or the stakeholders.
I haven't been given sufficient answer to the simple question: How
does EM benefit from this change?
We have no idea how this decision was reached or why restructuring
was considered. Given what little has been made public, I believe there
are some real risks, including the potential for cleanup to become less
of a priority under as structure that has always been focused--and
rightfully so--on nuclear security.
In the late 1980s, DOE moved the cleanup program out of the weapons
program in order to provide more definition, transparency and to focus
on cleanup. Now DOE wants to put them back together.
I ask again: What is the benefit to EM?
In DOE's own words from this past Friday: ``The Office of
Environmental Management has made unparalleled progress in cleaning up
our Nation's Cold War nuclear legacy at sites across the country.''
Yet, out of nowhere, they decide to throw the program into a state of
flux.
Without sufficient answers, I can't stand idly by while the
department makes a seemingly snap decision that will impact something
as important and as complex as nuclear waste cleanup. So my amendment
would prohibit the use of funds to move the Office of Environmental
Management under the Under Secretary of Nuclear Security.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the distinguished chairman,
the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would be happy to support your amendment. Of
course, I will reserve judgment as to what Secretary Chu's plans are as
they're somewhat on the drawing board; but we would agree with you that
he needs to come to the Appropriations Committee and explain fully how
he is going to have a better program for environmental management. It's
too important to the Nation, not only to your State, but to other
cleanup operations and sites around the Nation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for his support.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would be happy to yield to the
gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would make the point that this past Friday, the
Department of Energy said that the Office of Environmental Management
has made unparalleled progress in cleaning up our Nation's Cold War
nuclear legacy at sites across the country, and then they announced
restructuring. This subcommittee held a hearing on the issue of cleanup
in April of 2006. We find ourselves here in 2011 still talking about
it, let alone the cost.
I appreciate the gentleman's concern. My point would be I have some
ambivalence, as I'd mentioned to the gentleman earlier, simply because
I had a conversation with the Secretary relative to the change. My
observation to the Secretary is I appreciate he knows he has a problem,
and I also appreciate he has done something about the problem.
I certainly appreciate the attentiveness of the gentleman, of your
involvement and your good work on this, and I certainly do not object
to what you're trying to accomplish here, because I do think, the
stronger the message, the more diligent the department will be on this
matter. I thank the gentleman for raising the issue.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. In reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I
will simply say that this may be a good idea; but for goodness sakes,
what is the benefit to a $6 billion program that only 6 days ago was
announced is moving under another structure? There may be a good
reason, but tell us what that reason is. So this amendment, hopefully,
will elicit that answer, and we can move forward.
With support on both sides, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. 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 the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

[[Page H5061]]

Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Energy or any other Federal
agency to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles, for any
executive fleet, or for an agency's fleet inventory, except
in accordance with Presidential Memorandum-Federal Fleet
Performance, dated May 24, 2011.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, on May 24, President Obama issued a
memorandum on Federal fleet performance, which requires all new light-
duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be alternate few vehicles, such
as hybrid, electric, natural gas or biofuel, by December 31, 2015.
My amendment simply echos the Presidential memorandum by prohibiting
funds in the Energy and Water appropriations bill from being used to
lease or purchase new light-duty vehicles except in accord with the
President's memorandum. I have introduced similar amendments to the
Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and the Agriculture
appropriations bills. All three were accepted by the majority and
passed by voice vote.
Our transportation sector is by far the biggest reason we send $600
billion per year to hostile nations to pay for oil at ever-increasing
costs, but America doesn't need to be dependent on foreign sources of
oil for transportation fuel. Alternative technologies exist today that
when implemented broadly will allow any alternative fuel to be used in
America's automotive fleet.
The Federal Government operates the largest fleet of light-duty
vehicles in America. According to GSA, there are over 660,000 vehicles
in the Federal fleet, with just over 15,000 being used by the
Department of Energy. By supporting a diverse array of vehicle
technologies in our Federal fleet, we will encourage the development of
domestic energy resources, including biomass, natural gas, coal,
agricultural waste, hydrogen, and renewable electricity. Expanding the
role these energy sources play in or transportation economy will help
break the leverage over Americans held by foreign government-controlled
oil companies; it will increase our Nation's domestic security, and
protect consumers from price spikes and shortages in the world's oil
markets.
I just want to say very briefly on a similar note, I have worked with
my colleagues John Shimkus, Roscoe Bartlett and Steve Israel to
introduce the bipartisan Open Fuel Standard Act, which is H.R. 1687.
Our bill would require 50 percent of all new automobiles in 2014, 80
percent in 2016, and 95 percent in 2017 to be warranted to operate on
non-petroleum fuels in addition to, or instead of, petroleum-based
fuels. Compliance possibilities include the full array of existing
technologies, including flex fuel, natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel,
plug-in electric drive, and fuel cell, as well as a catchall of new
technologies.
So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

{time} 1640

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are prepared to accept your amendment and
commend you for it.
Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, for the last time, 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 the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available to the Corps of
Engineers by this Act may be used for the removal or
associated mitigation of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Project number 2342.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, in these tight budget times, it is more important than
ever that the Federal Government focus its funding on the most
essential and core functions. The Federal Government, however, should
not subsidize private companies' business decisions, particularly when
that business decision involves tearing out a 14 megawatt hydropower
dam that has served two rural counties in my district.
The Condit Dam, a privately owned and operated hydropower-producing
dam located in my district, was constructed in 1913 on the White Salmon
River, which is a tributary of the Columbia River. Since 1947, the
Condit Dam has been owned and operated by PacifiCorp and has held a
license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Over the past 20 years, rather than agree to the rigorous and costly
measures associated with the FERC relicensing process, PacifiCorp opted
to pursue actions to surrender its license to operate the dam and now
wants to remove that dam at its own cost. This amendment will ensure
that no Federal tax dollars will be used by the Corps of Engineers to
remove or mitigate for the removal of the Condit Dam.
Recently, PacifiCorp representatives communicated to my office that
they acknowledge that PacifiCorp itself, and not the Corps, is
responsible for all impacts that removing this dam might cause to the
Federal Columbia River navigation channel. My amendment simply ensures
that the Federal taxpayers do not get left holding the bag for a
private company's actions that could cost this private company, by
their own admission, up to $32 million.
Having said that, I do want to say this, Mr. Chairman. While I give
tacit approval to a dam being removed in the Northwest--it's a private
decision by a private company--I want to reiterate and continue my
opposition to any attempt to remove any of the Federal dams along the
Columbia or Snake River. This is a private company making their
decision, and they should pay for it; and that's what this amendment
attempts to address.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the distinguished chairman.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am pleased to support your amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman very much.
With that concurrence on the other side, I yield back the balance of
my time and urge adoption of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Capps

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

Page 62, after line 2, insert the following:
Sec. 609. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
expended by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the
purposes of the license renewal process for the Diablo Canyon
Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, until advanced, peer-
reviewed seismic studies are completed and lessons learned
from the earthquake and resulting tsunami that severely
damaged Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on
March 11, 2011 are taken into account.

[[Page H5062]]

Over the last several months, I've called for a short pause in the
relicensing effort currently under way at this nuclear power plant
until a myriad of seismic questions at the facility are answered.
Further studies are needed to demonstrate if the plant's design and
operations can withstand an earthquake and other potential threats,
including a previously undetected fault line, the Shoreline Fault,
which runs within a few hundred yards of the plant. Even PG&E, the
plant's operator, has acknowledged the validity of these concerns.
Earlier this year, the utility acceded to my request and asked the
NRC to delay the finance issuance of the plant's license renewal while
it completes recommended advanced seismic studies of the area. The NRC
agreed to review those findings before making a final decision. PG&E
also asked the California Public Utilities Commission to suspend
proceedings associated with license renewal for Diablo Canyon until the
studies are submitted to the NRC.
But, Mr. Chairman, PG&E and the NRC are only talking about delaying
the final decision. The relicensing process is still going forward,
despite the fact that virtually all of the decisions that would be made
about the relicensing of the plant would be affected by what the
seismic studies tell us. The cart is clearly being put before the horse
here, and we need to rectify this.
My constituents deserve answers to questions regarding the ability of
the plant to withstand an earthquake and nuclear accident at the same
time and how long the plant would be self-sustaining in the event of
such damage. It is particularly pertinent given that in March the NRC
confirmed that Diablo Canyon is one of two nuclear power plants in the
highest risk seismic areas in the country.
I am, to put it lightly, concerned that the NRC has not taken this
seismic risk seriously enough. For example, it has failed to support
the recommendations from a 2008 California Energy Commission report
clearly delineating that more information is needed to determine the
true seismic risk at Diablo Canyon. And just yesterday, an NRC task
force review of the Japanese reactor meltdowns determined that our
reactors are not sufficiently prepared to respond to catastrophic
events or even simple power outages, like the one that triggered the
Fukushima meltdown.
The NRC should quickly move to adopt the recommendations of this
report as well as the full complement of lessons that can be learned
from this disaster, and it should do it before moving forward on
issuing new operating licenses to PG&E to run Diablo Canyon long into
the future.
Finally, it is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that there is no
hurry to relicense Diablo Canyon. The current operating licenses run to
2024 and 2025. Surely that's more than enough time to adequately
investigate seismic concerns in a thoughtful and transparent manner.
To be clear, I'm not calling for Diablo Canyon to be shut down or for
the plant to be denied new operating licenses. What I am doing with
this amendment is asking that the relicensing process be paused,
briefly, until comprehensive, independent analyses of the seismic
issues are completed and that they be considered as part of the
relicensing process.
Diablo Canyon provides over 3 million people in California with
affordable electricity. It provides many jobs in my district. It's an
important element of the tax base of San Luis Obispo County; but this
is an issue about safety, and we all agree that safety must be
everyone's number one concern here.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that would ensure that
this is the case.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I insist on my point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 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 Member wish to speak on the point of
order?
The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties on the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. 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.

{time} 1650

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

Page 62, after line 2, insert the following new section:
Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy.

Mr. FLAKE (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I know there are a lot of people that are
offering amendments, so I will try to move very quickly here.
This amendment would simply prohibit funds from going to the Advanced
Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E. There is ARPA-Defense,
there is ARPA other stuff, there is ARPA-E. This is what we are trying
to do is prohibit funding from going to ARPA-E, or energy.
ARPA-E is currently set to receive about $100 million in this
appropriation bill. The most compelling argument given to defund ARPA-E
is found on its own Web site, which states that it was established ``to
focus on creative, out-of-the-box transformational energy research that
industry by itself cannot or will not support due to its high risk, but
where success would provide dramatic benefits.'' It is this kind of, I
guess, out-of-the-box thinking that has gotten us into this deficit
that we're running, about $1.6 trillion.
We are broke. We are borrowing 41 cents on every dollar that we
spend, yet still we find within our budget reason to find $100 million
to fund energy research in private companies that others won't fund
because it's too risky.
Now, we're not talking about products for defense for which there is
no commercial application; we're talking about private sector research
that could reap a windfall for some private company, and has in a
number of other areas. But yet we believe that it's prudent to borrow--
because we're borrowing everything here--borrow money from the taxpayer
to pick and choose favored companies to receive this research money.
It's not right. We ought to defund it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. My colleague's amendment would eliminate funding
for ARPA-E. The committee's top responsibility, of course, is to reduce
government spending, and I appreciate my colleague's amendment and
perhaps some of his other amendments for that reason. To that end, our
bill reduces spending for energy and water development to near the 2006
level, $100 billion below fiscal year 2011, and a full $5.9 billion
below the request.
I certainly share many of my colleague's concerns about this program.
The committee has taken a very close look at it. Right now, ARPA-E must
not intervene where private capital markets are already acting, and it
must not be redundant with other programs of the Department of Energy.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment.
I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman yielding and would join him
in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
We just had a vote earlier in the Chamber adding $79 million to this
program. But setting that particular vote

[[Page H5063]]

aside, as I have mentioned several times, while I have great
trepidation about people at the Department of Energy talking to each
other and the Department not having the same vigor, if you would, that
they have for ARPA-E, instilling that in other research centers, it
does appear that this is a successful program in its infancy. We
certainly ought to make sure that it has a chance to show that it can
be successful over a limited number of years--they are talking about 3.
My emphasis with them is to distill that same effort across the
Department of Energy.
So I would join my chairman in opposing the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from
Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to this amendment, too. The bill
would provide $100 million for ARPA-E, which is already $80 million
less than FY 2011 funding--and of course we have to take into account
the amendment that was just passed--and $450 million below the
President's budget request.
ARPA-E is a promising new program that can drive innovation to
support our scientific competitiveness. As I stated previously in my
opening statement, ARPA-E has shown potential as a new organizational
model. And I am disappointed that the same vigor that led to its
creation has been largely absent when it comes to addressing the
systemic and organizational problems in other existing applied
programs, which was an element of the justification used for ARPA-E.
ARPA-E is modeled on DARPA. And as the ranking member of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee, DARPA has been one of the great leaders of
innovation in the national security area.
So again, I'm sorry to say it, but I think we have to defeat the
Flake amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I'm just hoping that this amendment doesn't
rise to the level of being the most ridiculous amendment that the
gentleman from Washington has ever seen.
Mr. DICKS. Close.
Mr. FLAKE. They usually do.
But I would just say again here, we're not talking about things in
national security or in defense for which there is no commercial
application, for which companies that invest in this kind of research
would not reap a windfall, the reason for which the profit motive
incentivizes companies to invest in these things. Why in the world does
government have to be the investor of last resort in what are, quote,
transformational energy research for which the industry by itself
cannot or will not support due to its high risk? I mean, if it's that
high risk, believe me, we shouldn't be taking it.
If venture capital out there won't do it, we shouldn't be doing it
either with money that we're borrowing from venture capitalists and
others who have a little better idea than we do. When we go out and
support corn ethanol for 30 years, for crying out loud, or some of
these other things and we keep doing it and saying, Yeah, it's going to
come around one of these days and this is just a promising new area of
research, come on. We're $14 trillion in debt. We have negotiations
going on right now over at the White House or somewhere else trying to
figure a way to raise the debt ceiling to spend more.
Isn't it time that we review programs like this, where we are trying
to replace what is not happening in the private sector or trying to
outguess the private sector?
And I just tell you, if we can't cut here, I don't know where we're
going to cut, I really don't. The gentleman made the point that we are
down to 2006 levels. Great. We ought to go further than that. I mean,
2006, we act as if that was a Great Depression year, ``Grapes of
Wrath'' music playing or something. It wasn't exactly that. We have
seen ramping up year after year after year in some of these programs.
We are spending more than we ever have.
So I would urge adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, 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 Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Capps

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

Page 62, after line 2, insert the following new section:
Sec. 609. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
expended by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue a
draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is my hope that we can simply all agree to this amendment. It
would simply bar the NRC from issuing a draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the license renewal of the Diablo
Canyon nuclear power plant.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the NRC does not move
forward with the relicensing effort currently underway at Diablo Canyon
until advanced, peer-reviewed seismic studies of the area are completed
and the findings are shared with the NRC. These advanced seismic
studies are needed because the USGS--U.S. Geological Survey--announced
in 2008 the discovery of a previously undetected fault line, the
Shoreline Fault, which runs within a few hundred yards of Diablo
Canyon.

{time} 1700

The NRC also recently confirmed that Diablo Canyon is one of two
nuclear power plants in the highest risk seismic areas in the country.
Without these studies, we cannot say for certain whether an earthquake
along the Shoreline Fault or others nearby would result in a severe
nuclear accident.
It's important to note, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment only affects
the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. It will not shut down the power
plant, nor will it stop the relicensing effort or even prevent PG&E,
the plant's operator, from gaining new operating licensings to run
Diablo Canyon in the future. Instead, it would simply ensure the NRC
gets answers to the unstudied and unresolved seismic questions before
it issues the draft environmental report.
My amendment is also consistent with PG&E's own request that the NRC
delay the final issuance of the plant's license renewal until its
seismic research in the area is completed. The NRC has also made it
clear it will review those findings before making a decision on whether
to grant renewed operating licenses for the plant to PG&E.
Moreover, last month, PG&E asked the California Public Utilities
Commission to suspend proceedings associated with license renewal
funding for Diablo Canyon until its advanced seismic studies are
finished and the findings have been submitted to the NRC.
Unfortunately, however, work on the relicensing effort continues, even
though the seismic studies have not been completed and won't be for
several years and even though the outcome of these studies could very
well affect every operation at the plant.
Mr. Chairman, we need answers about the seismic risks at Diablo
Canyon and what steps are needed to address them and prepare for any
disaster, and we need them before the relicensing process moves
forward. So I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this
straightforward amendment, to ensure an evaluation of the risks that
the offshore faults pose to Diablo Canyon.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.

[[Page H5064]]

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We respect the gentlewoman's efforts to protect
the interests of her State and district; however, her amendment
intervenes in a specific local project by prohibiting funds for a
required step in the licensing process. I do not believe this is an
appropriate Federal role in a process that should be driven by the
State and local communities while being carefully evaluated by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I, therefore, must oppose the amendment
and urge other Members to oppose it as well.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would be happy to yield to the ranking member
from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I reluctantly join him in his opposition. Again, I understand what
the gentlewoman from California is attempting to do. I appreciate her
endeavors here and certainly would commit to working with her to ensure
that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is moving forward in a
considered and responsible manner on this license application.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 62, after line 2, insert the following new section:
Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the Fossil Energy Research and Development
program of the Department of Energy.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. This amendment would prohibit funds from going to the
Fossil Energy Research and Development program.
The Fossil Energy Research and Development program is set to receive
nearly $500 million through this appropriation bill. The committee
report recommends that no less than $25 million be used to continue
research in certain areas. But we shouldn't have any money going to
subsidize Big Oil.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The gentleman's amendment would eliminate funding
for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program, causing
hundreds, if not thousands, of job losses and threatening our Nation's
ability to compete in the rapidly growing portion of the energy sector.
I may also note for the record, Mr. Chairman, that Arizona itself is
dependent, I believe, with close to 60 percent of its energy coming
from fossil energy. So fossil energy is a part of the Nation's
equation, and we had better be careful before we eliminate research and
development.
Let me say, I appreciate and recognize the gentleman's passion for
cutting spending and spending that is duplicative, but this type of
research is important.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I want to join the chairman in his opposition.
Recognizing that 70 percent of our energy consumption comes from
carbon fuels, it's very important for this government and for this
Nation to learn how to, as efficiently and as effectively, use them.
And again I think, for that reason alone, we should oppose the
gentleman's amendment.
I appreciate the chairman yielding.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. You know, with an energy resource as old as fossil energy,
we're talking fossil fuels, we're talking Big Oil. We always hear from
the other side of the aisle, Quit subsidizing Big Oil. And here we are
directly saying we're going to give them research.
You know, some of the companies that directly receive grants under
the plan I think are companies like Chevron or others to develop energy
in the gulf or whatever else. Why in the world are we subsidizing that?
We are hearing that they have profits, billions and billions of dollars
just in the quarter, not just the year, and yet here we are subsidizing
them again to more efficiently use fossil energy?
Now, fossil energy has been around a long time. It's not exactly a
notion that no research goes into it. And it's going to be around for a
lot longer still. Why in the world is the Federal Government saying we
need to subsidize these companies who are conducting research on use
and efficiency for fossil energy?
If we can't cut here, again, where can we cut? If we're going to
stand up for Big Oil when it comes to spending money here, then where
can we cut? I'm just flabbergasted when I come down to the floor and
look at what we're funding and subsidizing here. But yet I hear the
rhetoric about how we need to make sure that they're paying taxes and
whatever else. I think they should. I think we ought to get rid of the
corporate subsidies, all of these kinds of corporate subsidies. But why
in the world are we developing programs to spend billions of dollars
overall, millions in this case, to help these for-profit companies that
we blast in one breath and then subsidize with the next? Where does it
end, Mr. Chairman? If we can't cut here, where can we cut?
Again, this is fossil energy. It's been around a long time. It will
be around a long time. We don't need to subsidize it.
And remember, every dollar we spend here is a dollar that we have
borrowed from people across the country, from taxpayers, from
investors, from venture capitalists, from others who would invest it
far more wisely than we would here. The best allocation of capital
resources is through the free market, not by government fiat or
subsidy. We've learned that over time, but yet we persist in doing this
time after time after time.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, 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 Arizona will
be postponed.

{time} 1710

Amendment Offered by Mr. Denham

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, 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 the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. 6__. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement section 10011(b) of Public Law 111-11.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. DENHAM. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, the underlying bill has already removed the funding for a
program that is failing to show any positive results and has done more
harm than good. The San Joaquin River Restoration Program continues to
push forward on an ill-advised path of wasting water out to the ocean
under the guise of saving salmon. What this amendment does is to
prohibit the premature reintroduction of an endangered species into an
uninhabitable

[[Page H5065]]

river, a river biologists say is not ready for salmon, a program that
is supposed to occur after the construction of fish screens and the
completion of an environmental study, neither of which is complete.
All Central Valley salmon runs are struggling to regain healthy
numbers. This amendment ensures that bureaucrats don't purposely reduce
the numbers of available salmon in other streams to plant them into the
San Joaquin system and further threaten or endanger current runs. The
Bureau of Reclamation needs to be provided with more time to complete
the environmental studies and build the infrastructure required by the
San Joaquin River Restoration Program before this river can sustain a
salmon run.
Finally, even the National Marine Fisheries Services has doubts about
the success of reintroduction. Contained within the final draft of
their Reintroduction Strategies, NMFS expressed concerns that the San
Joaquin River Restoration Program will not complete necessary channel
improvements for a successful reintroduction.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by my colleague from California. In 2009, Congress
ratified the San Joaquin Settlement Act, which ended 18 years of
litigation in the Central Valley of California over water. The
agreement was supported by the previous administration and California's
then-Republican Governor Schwarzenegger.
The Federal authorizing legislation was initially cosponsored by
Congressman Pombo in the House and Senator Feinstein in the Senate. The
underlying bill zeroes the $9 million request for the San Joaquin River
Restoration Fund and rescinds $66 million in mandatory funds for these
activities.
As we stand on the House floor today, we are undermining this
agreement, which, if it were to stand, that is the amendment, will land
this case simply back into court. If the court is forced to take over
river restoration, the Friant water users would be at risk of losing
over 20 years of water supply certainty provided by the settlement. The
amendment, I believe, is an attempt to end the broadly supported and
bipartisan effort to restore the river, while also improving water
supply management, flood protection, and water quality.
The amendment is piling on, if you would, given that the vast
majority of funding for the settlement has been cut. There is no need
to eliminate all funding just to ensure water attorneys can make a few
more boat payments.
As I said at the outset, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, it's apparent that the gentleman from Indiana
has not seen the river in my area, or simply just doesn't understand
its flow. But to take an endangered species from Northern California,
truck it down to the Central Valley, put it into a river that does not
have fish screens, that does not have fish ladders, that does not have
the environmental study just to watch these fish die is not only
irresponsible, but it's a waste of money.
So I would invite the gentleman from Indiana to come visit us
anytime. But certainly don't make the mistake of killing an endangered
species. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. In closing, I would again point out that in 2009,
Congress ratified this settlement to end 18 years of litigation. I do
not think we should adopt the amendment and potentially begin another
18 years of litigation and would ask my colleagues to oppose the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. 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 the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___ For ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--Construction''
there is hereby appropriated, and the amount otherwise
provided by this Act for ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--
Expenses'' is hereby reduced by, $1,000,000.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I offer this bipartisan amendment with my
fellow Louisiana colleague, Democratic Congressman Cedric Richmond. And
what our amendment does is it transfers $1 million out of the Corps of
Engineers' expense account and into the Corps' construction account for
critical coastal restoration efforts.
If you look at what we're dealing with here, what we're trying to
address, not only can we maintain fiscal responsibility, but we need to
also maintain and restore America's wetlands.
And just what is happening to America's wetlands? What are we trying
to address with this amendment? Louisiana alone has lost 25 square
miles of coastal wetlands every year.
And I want to hold up this football to represent that every single
hour, Mr. Chairman, every single hour the State of Louisiana alone
loses an entire football field of land, an entire football field of
land that's eroded away. And what exactly does that wetland, America's
wetland, protect that's eroding away?
I want to show a chart here of the oil and gas infrastructure, the
pipelines that move America's energy throughout the country. In the
gulf coast alone, just in Louisiana, we produce about one-third of
America's energy. And we talk all the time about our interest in
reducing our country's dependence on foreign oil, and I strongly,
strongly support that effort. In fact, Louisiana is at the forefront of
doing that.
But that energy that we produce, and we ought to be producing more of
it, we have the opportunity to produce more, but the energy we do
produce is distributed throughout the entire country through pipelines
that are in jeopardy right now because of that erosion of our coast,
this wetland in America.
And not only is it the oil and gas infrastructure that's at risk, but
also seafood production. The gulf coast of Louisiana, we produce a
third of the country's seafood. And just looking at this chart makes me
hungry when you look at the oysters, and the crabs, and the fish, this
great product that we produce off our coast. But all of that comes from
America's wetland, from that wetland that's evaporating, eroding away.
And we're trying, we're bringing a bipartisan amendment to stop that
from happening.
Louisiana's put its own skin in the game to the tune of over a
billion dollars, over a billion dollars of money that Louisiana's put
in. But there was a project that was authorized by this Congress,
because this is a national issue. And, in fact, Congress has recognized
this is an issue that shouldn't just be left up to Louisiana, because
we're talking about something that protects and serves the entire
country. And that's why in 2007, the LCA project was authorized by
Congress. And all we're trying to do is keep that project alive, moving
a million dollars from the expense account over into the Corps'
construction account.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in reluctant opposition. First of all, I
want to commend the gentleman for his advocacy for coastal restoration,
and should we say literally carrying the ball for coastal restoration
and for his remarkable props. We know on this committee what a high
priority it is for his district and his State. May I thank him also for
coming to the floor earlier to make a case, obviously, for controlling
spending, but also doing some things that are very important to his
constituents and others affected by the devastating floods. I want to
commend him for his strong advocacy.

[[Page H5066]]

{time} 1720

The bill before us includes more than $16 million, or more than 15
percent of the entire investigations account, to continue work on
coastal restoration through studies, engineering, and design on various
components of the program.
The committee had to make some tough choices in the bill, though, and
although the Corps of Engineers construction account has increased $86
million above the President's request, let me say, above the
President's request, it is still a reduction from fiscal year 2011.
The Corps had numerous projects under construction that were not
included in the President's budget request and so were likely to be
funded in construction year 2012.
While construction funding is trending downward, I believe it is most
prudent to prioritize funding for these ongoing projects so they can be
completed and the Federal Government can realize some benefits from
previous spending, rather than starting new projects, as important as
they are.
And even given that this project is currently authorized at
approaching $2 billion and may continue to grow, it would not be
prudent to begin another major new project while we have so many new
commitments.
For these reasons I must oppose the amendment, but I sympathize with
the gentleman on the purposes for which he is here.
I yield to the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the chairman for yielding.
I also would use the word ``reluctantly'' because I understand the
need that the gentleman has in his region in this country. I appreciate
his efforts in this regard.
But, again, I do support the Chair's policies as far as no new
starts, given the fact that over the last several years we have
terminated hundreds of ongoing projects. This is going to be a
significant cost.
Until we can have the intestinal fortitude with the administration to
provide the necessary funds for ongoing funds alone, it is difficult to
begin a new endeavor. The gentleman indicated his efforts to increase a
request made by the President, despite his best efforts to add money to
the bill. We are now $677 million below what we are spending on water
projects in this country in fiscal year 2010.
So, again, with all reluctance I am constrained to join with my
chairman in opposition.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the interest by both
gentlemen in dealing with the backlog that the Corps currently has,
and, in fact, that's one of the reasons why, when I worked closely with
my colleague from New Orleans, Cedric Richmond, on this amendment, we
first of all made sure not to take anything away from existing
projects, so those existing projects in the pipeline are not affected
at all by this amendment.
And, in fact, the Corps's overall budget is not increased by our
amendment, and we worked very hard to get to that point that we weren't
taking away from other vital projects but pointing out that this is not
a Louisiana-specific issue, this is a national issue. And as we talked
about that pipeline, that series of pipelines that goes throughout the
entire country to supply the energy needs of our Nation, and we talk
about the vital seafood production and the things that make our gulf
seafood so appetizing to people all around the country and around the
world, but I also want to go back to this football and talk about the
football field of land that erodes every hour. Just the last hour we
have been sitting here, an entire football field of America's wetlands
has eroded away, and we can reverse that trend without taking away from
any other projects.
I understand the importance of that and, like I said, that's why we
worked so hard to put the amendment together in the way that we did. I
would urge adoption from all of my colleagues.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, 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 Louisiana
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 81 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amount otherwise made available by this Act
for ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy'' is hereby reduced to $0.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment eliminates funding
to the Department of Energy's Office of Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
We should be developing the vast quantities of proven energy
resources readily available in this country, but instead the government
continues to subsidize green technologies that are not yet ready to be
used wide scale. They are neither efficient nor affordable, and Federal
agencies should not be in the business of picking winners and losers.
If these technologies were viable, the Federal Government would not
need to give them handouts and, instead, they would be able to succeed
on their own.
Further, this legislation provides millions of dollars of foreign
assistance to countries like China and India to implement renewable
energy programs. At a time when our Nation is broke, and we are broke,
why are we sending taxpayer money to our foreign competition?
I urge support of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would point out to my colleagues that
the amendment, as stated by the gentleman, would eliminate all funding
for the Office of Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
The bill already includes a reduction of $491 million from the
current year level, which is a 25 percent cut.
The debate, relative to energy policy in this House--and not
necessarily restricted to this amendment--talks about subsidies. But
there are two parts to a Federal budget: There are spending-side issues
and there are revenue- and tax-side issues.
I would hazard a guess as we stand here that there is not an energy
source in the United States of America, be it coal, be it nuclear, be
it gas, be it solar, be it wind, that does not somehow receive some
benefit either by loss revenue or direct spending of the Federal
Government in its endeavors.
What we do have to do is necessary research to make sure that we do
expand the mix of energy utilization in this country, and certainly
that is the purpose of the Renewable Energy Program Research at the
national level. With 70 percent of our energy now generated through
coal or natural gas, this cannot continue.
As I have said in earlier debates during the week, my senior Senator
from Indiana, Senator Lugar, has always described our energy problem as
a national security issue given where petroleum products tend to be
bought in the United States of America. Without this type of very
serious research, we are not going to solve that national security
problem, and we are not going to assiduously create job opportunities
and economic opportunities.
I would respectfully object and oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate my colleague for yielding.
Very briefly, while I am very respectful of my colleague's attempt
here to

[[Page H5067]]

do what he can to cut clear back on spending, this is a very important
area of our committee's responsibility.
The amendment would totally eliminate funding for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy. It is a bit, a step too far, and I associate
myself with the remarks of my colleague and reluctantly oppose the
amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman from Indiana's
comments, and I submit that the best way to make sure that we have that
national security that my colleague from Indiana was talking about is
for us to open up all of our God-given resources of energy here in this
country, and we are not doing that.
Mr. Chairman, we need to start doing everything we can to develop
every energy source that we have, and I believe in an all-of-the-above
energy policy.

{time} 1730

The best way to determine what energy policy is going to be viable
and is best for America is by letting the marketplace work. I believe
in the brilliance of the marketplace. The marketplace, unencumbered by
taxes and regulation as well as free from government meddling in the
marketplace by picking winners or losers, is the best way to develop
those drastically needed energy resources. And I believe in renewable
energy. But is it viable economically? And is this country going to be
viable economically if we continue spending like we have been spending?
And, in fact, many Members of Congress seem to have the idea that
this country is going to totally dry up and blow away if the Federal
Government doesn't supply everything to every entity's needs. I hear
over and over again from colleagues that they want to continue this
spending and that spending. In fact, in the committees--I serve on
three committees--I hear my colleagues, particularly other side, talk
about we have a tremendous debt that we need to deal with.
But it reminds me--as I hear them also talking about not cutting
programs--it reminds me of an old saying back from our founding era
when our Founding Fathers were talking about the discussion in taxes.
Today's mantra is ``don't cut me, don't cut thee, cut the fellow behind
the tree.'' Well there's nobody behind the tree.
I believe we are in an economic emergency as a Nation, and Congress
needs to face the fact. We're headed towards an economic collapse as a
Nation. We've got to stop picking winners and losers and let the
marketplace do that. Let people vote with their dollars instead of our
funding this and not funding that, subsidizing this and not subsidizing
that. The best way to do these things, the best way to figure out who
should be the winner or loser is let the marketplace do what it does
best and let people vote with their dollars. Let people invest in
things that make sense and not invest in those things that don't make
sense.
And we've got a lot of renewables such as this corn-based ethanol
that doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense economically, and it
doesn't make sense even from an energy perspective. In fact, I'm a good
Southern boy. I love my grits and cornbread. It makes absolutely no
sense for me to be burning up my grits and cornbread driving down the
road putting it in the gas tank of my GMC Yukon.
So we need to let the marketplace do its thing. We need to reel in
the spending that Republicans and Democrats alike over the last several
decades have been using to grow the size and scope of government. So I
encourage my colleagues on both sides to support this amendment. It
makes sense economically.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, 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 Georgia will
be postponed.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I would just point out that there are no amendments left
on our side that I know of, and I hope that your side can be more
expeditious. Thank you. Some of us have important ball games to go to.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 63 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, 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 62, after line 2, insert the following new section:
Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to carry out the activities specified in section 505
of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13255).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be expeditious and
comply with my friend from Washington's request to not delay this.
This amendment simply prohibits the Department of Energy from
spending money to implement the Vehicle Technologies Deployment
Subprogram within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's ``Clean
Cities'' program.
Earlier, I offered an amendment to cut funding from this program and
transfer it into the spending reduction account. As I mentioned before
when I presented my previous amendment, it is not appropriate for the
Federal Government to be spending dollars on programs that the private
sector should be doing or that local and State government can do. This
program, this Vehicle Technologies Deployment Subprogram, is corporate
welfare. I remind my friends, this is corporate welfare. And, in fact,
I have heard over and over from my friends on the Democrat side that we
need to stop doing corporate welfare. And I hope that they will support
this amendment because that's what this simply is.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The amendment of the gentleman from Georgia would
prohibit funds for the Vehicle Technologies activities at the
Department of Energy that work with cities across the country to reduce
our dependence on foreign oil. The gentleman should know that the
committee closely evaluated the alternative fuels program and slashed
it to $202 million below the budget request, leaving only $26 million
that we found to be well justified.
So we are making some progress and we are making some tough
decisions. And even though the gentleman's heart is in the right place,
we do need the $26 million to continue the program, and thus I oppose
the gentleman's amendment, albeit reluctantly.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the committee's
cutting this program down to the $26 million. But, again, this is
corporate welfare to Fortune 100 companies, many that get these funds.
We do need to reduce this country's dependence upon foreign oil, but
this is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to open up
exploration of our own energy resources here in America.
This is a commonsense amendment to strike out about $26.5 million out
of funding that we just simply don't have. It's money that we're
borrowing from our foreign competitors as well as here in this country,
and it's creating more and more debt. So I urge passage of my
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

[[Page H5068]]

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, 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 Georgia will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Flores

Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. __ None of the funds made available by this Act may be
used to enforce section 526 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment, which would
address another restrictive and misguided Federal regulation. Section
526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prevents Federal
agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of an
alternative fuel unless its ``lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions'' are
less than or equal to emissions from conventional fuel produced from
conventional petroleum resources. Simply put, my amendment would stop
the government from enforcing this ban on Federal agencies funded by
the Energy and Water appropriations bill.

{time} 1740

The initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle the Defense
Department's plan to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquids jet
fuels, based on the opinion of environmentalists that coal-based jet
fuel produces more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum.
I recently offered similar amendments to the MilCon-VA, Ag, and DOD
appropriations bills, and each time those amendments passed this House
by voice votes. My friend Mr. Conaway also had language added to the
Defense authorization bill to exempt the Defense Department from this
burdensome regulation. But section 526's ban on fuel choice applies to
all Federal agencies, not just the Defense Department. That is why I am
offering it again today.
Federal agencies should not be burdened with wasting their time
studying fuel emissions when there is a simple fix, and that is not
restricting their fuel choices based on extreme environmental views,
policies, and regulations like section 526. With increasing competition
from other countries for energy and fuel resources, and the continued
volatility and instability in the Middle East, it is more important
than ever for our country to become more energy independent and to
further develop and produce our domestic energy resources. Placing
restrictions on Federal agencies' fuel choices is an unacceptable
precedent to set with regard to America's energy independence and its
energy policy.
Section 526 makes our Nation more dependent on Middle East oil.
Stopping the impact of section 526 will help American energy, improve
the American economy, and create American jobs. I urge my colleagues to
support passage of this commonsense amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, section 526, I believe, is a commonsense
provision that stops Federal agencies from wasting taxpayer dollars on
new, alternative fuels that are dirtier and more polluting than the
fuels we use today. The section simply bars agencies from entering into
contracts to purchase alternative and unconventional fuels that emit
more carbon pollution than conventional fuels on a lifecycle basis. I
think that is just a rational, commonsense requirement.
The effect of this provision that has been in place is to spur
development of advanced biofuels. These fuels are being successfully
tested and proven today on U.S. Navy planes at supersonic speeds. And I
believe it is a testament to American ingenuity.
I think the path that the gentleman wants to pursue is the wrong one.
It is unsustainable in the longer term, and it will not lead us to
energy security. Therefore, I am opposed to his amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am prepared to accept the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Texas. His amendment strengthens national security
by allowing the Federal Government more alternatives to imported
petroleum fuels.
More than half of the oil the Nation consumes each year is imported,
as we know, and today the price of gasoline is hovering around the $4-
a-gallon mark. By declaring some new fuel options to be off limits,
section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 limits
our Nation's ability to reduce its dependence on oil imports.
His amendment puts all alternatives back on the table, which I think
is needed, so the Nation can begin to develop and use fuels that are
made with resources from here in the United States. Energy self-
sufficiency is a national security issue, and this amendment takes us
in the right direction. I am pleased to support the gentleman's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLORES. I want to respond to what my amendment really does, and
let me read a letter from the Department of Defense general counsel to
Senator Inhofe from July of 2008. I quote: ``It creates uncertainty
about what fuels DOD can procure, and will discourage the development
of new sources, particularly reliable domestic sources of energy
supplies for the Armed Forces.''
Let me go on. Let me give you a practical, real world example as to
what section 526 does.
Our closest neighbor with stable energy supplies is Canada. We import
650,000-plus barrels a day of oil that is produced from oil sands in
Canada. That oil makes its way throughout the refinery system
throughout the United States and gets blended into jet fuels, gasoline,
and diesel fuel. A literal interpretation of section 526 would say that
the U.S. military, the United States Government, more broadly, cannot
utilize any of those fuels. There is no technical or commercial way
that the military of the United States Government can make sure it is
not using any fuel source that came from that crude oil.
Let me go on and wrap up like this. You are going to hear a lot of
remarks from the other side of the aisle regarding the claims about
section 526 or about my amendment. My amendment does nothing, nothing
to remove the ability of the Federal Government to use alternative fuel
sources. It can use whatever fuel source it wants to under my
amendment.
Section 526 increases our reliance on Middle East oil. It hurts our
military readiness, and its national security and energy security. It
prevents the increased use of safe, clean, and efficient North American
oil and gas. It increases the cost of American food and energy, and it
hurts American jobs and the American economy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. If I could ask the author of the amendment just one
question.
On the letter, was that a letter from Senator Inhofe to the
Department of Energy or from the Department of Energy to the Senator?
I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. FLORES. It is from the Department of Defense to Senator Inhofe.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the clarification.
I remain opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 75 Offered by Mr. Young of Indiana

Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H5069]]

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 62, after line 2, insert the following new section:
Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to pay the salaries of Department of Energy employees
to carry out section 407 of division A of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Our Nation's unemployment rate currently sits at 9.2 percent, a full
1.6 percent higher than when President Obama took office. I am hearing
from my southern Indiana constituents, and I've heard this for months
now, that the President's failed experiment of spending our way to
prosperity and creating great uncertainty about future tax rates and
interest rates must end.
A step in the right direction would be supporting this modest
amendment which my esteemed colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Burton), and I have worked on together. The amendment would merely
restore eligibility criteria for the Weatherization Assistance Program
to pre-stimulus levels.
By way of background, prior to 2008, the Weatherization Assistance
Program enabled families at or below the 150 percent poverty level to
reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient.
Since the stimulus bill increased this eligibility threshold, the
Weatherization fund has exploded and currently has accumulated an
estimated $1.5 billion in unspent funds.
Moreover, the program has been a model of government waste and
inefficiency. Late last year, for example, New Jersey's State auditor
audited just $614,000 worth of Weatherization funds disbursed in his
State. He found that $33,000 of this $614,000 that were spent actually
went to no services at all. So over 5 percent of the funds spent in
that State were spent on nothing.
This sort of waste and inefficiency, no doubt, is being seen all
across the country. We have seen recent audits of Weatherization
programs in Illinois, Delaware, Tennessee, and Texas yield similar
results.
Personally, I agree with those who say that most Americans already
have sufficient incentives and means to reduce their energy bills by
weatherizing their own homes and that government lacks sufficient
incentives to spend our tax dollars responsibly. That is why we should
adopt this modest amendment that would merely limit this program to our
neediest citizens by restoring eligibility criteria back to pre-
stimulus levels.
So I would say let's improve our climate for private sector job
creation however we can. Let's eliminate wasteful and nonessential
spending wherever we can find it. That is what this amendment does.

{time} 1750

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. We accept the amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We accept the amendment as well.
Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 76 Offered by Mr. Landry

Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __ None of the funds made available by this Act may be
used to pay the salary of individuals appointed to their
current position through, or otherwise carry out, paragraphs
(1), (2), and (3) of section 5503(a) of title 5, United
States Code.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It prevents the
misuse of recess appointments while preserving the Founders' intent by
allowing the President to quickly make emergency recess appointments if
the need arises.
I know this may surprise many Members, but current law actually
prohibits the salaries of recess appointees, which was a law passed in
1863 that stayed on the books until 1940. It prohibited those who
received recess appointments from being paid. Then some exceptions were
made, and those exceptions basically took the intent of the law out. So
these exceptions, these loopholes, are so broad that they make the
prohibition against recess appointments useless, but the administration
can always find a way to make these recess appointments.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The gentleman from
Indiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. These are legal appointments made by the President of
the United States--by this President, the last President, the President
before that, the President back to George Washington. It is the
administration's priority to make these appointments.
While each of us, or collectively, disagree with some of the
individuals put into particular positions, until we change the law, the
House should not pick and choose the staff for the executive branch any
more than it should be picking ours.
If the gentleman wants a say in the President's hires and
appointments, I suggest he work to change the Constitution. Article II,
section 2 gives the Senate say over Presidential appointments and gives
the President power to make recess appointments.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANDRY. I don't argue the legality of the President's recess
appointments.
I am doing what many Congresses have done prior, all the way since
1860, when they realized that this was a problem when Presidents and
administrations tried to bypass the will of the people. I am using the
power of this House, which is the power of the purse, to make sure
that, when the President makes recess appointments--look, this isn't
the 1800s anymore. Congress is not out for months and months at a time.
If the President needs to make an appointment in an emergency, he
certainly has the time, and he will be able to take that recess
appointment and put it before the Senate. I am simply saying, until
that recess appointee is confirmed by the Senate, he or she shall not
receive any pay.
My friends across the aisle have spent most of the past month talking
about closing loopholes, so I hope they will join me in protecting the
taxpayers by closing the loophole in the law that currently exists.
Let's bring the law back to the intent of it, which is to prohibit
recess appointees from receiving salaries until the appointees are
confirmed. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, this is a constitutional issue, and we
have no business in it. I would urge my colleagues to vote against the
gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, 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 Louisiana
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H5070]]

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __ Each amount made available by this Act (other than
an amount required to be made available by a provision of
law) is hereby reduced by 5 percent.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, the Energy and Water Development
appropriations bill before us today includes $30.6 billion in funding.
That falls $1 billion below last year's level and $5.9 billion beneath
the President's budget request.
While I applaud our appropriators for the great work they've done in
reducing this spending, I am one of those Members of the House who
believes there is still room for improvement. We are in an
extraordinary time when it comes to our budget and when it comes to the
budget of this Nation in the spending, and this extraordinary time does
require some extraordinary measures.
That's why I am introducing a 5 percent across-the-board spending
reduction amendment. This amendment has the backing of 10 national
conservative groups. This amendment would reduce the funding
appropriated by this bill by an additional $1.5 billion and would take
Federal spending back to just above the fiscal year 2007 level.
Across-the-board spending cuts effectively control the growth and the
cost of the Federal Government. They give agencies the flexibility to
determine which expenses are necessary and which are not. In fact, in
my State of Tennessee, as I have mentioned many times as we have
debated these across-the-board amendments--and Mr. Chairman, I know
many of my colleagues are probably a little bit tired of hearing of
these across-the-board spending cuts--we bring them forward because the
States have used them, and they've used them successfully.
A Governor in my State, who is of my colleague's party across the
aisle, made a 9 percent across-the-board spending reduction to bring
that budget back into balance, to put our State on a firm fiscal
footing. Our States that have balanced budget amendments take these
actions, and they take them carefully, cautiously, and with an eye
towards securing fiscal stability.
It is time for us in Congress to begin to enact these very same
measures. Removing a nickel from every dollar is a way we can help our
departments find new efficiencies and to reform wasteful business
practices. It would save taxpayers millions of dollars in the process.
Indeed, if we had been doing this for years, we probably wouldn't find
ourselves in the situation that we are in right now. It's a step in the
right direction, so I encourage the support of my colleagues on the
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
gentlewoman from Tennessee's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. First of all, I do appreciate the fact that she
recognizes the committee made some tough choices. In fact, our overall
bill is really down close to the 2006 level. Obviously, in some
quarters, that doesn't satisfy every Member of Congress, but I'm
respectful of her desire to go further.
Cuts of this magnitude, quite honestly, go far too deep. The types of
things we do in our bill--our responsibility for the reliability of the
nuclear stockpile--that's utmost, as is our responsibility for cleaning
up nuclear waste. In fact, there are consent decrees where things have
to be cleaned up because of things left over from World War II. There
is research and development, which is important, and water issues. We
heard for 2\1/2\ hours earlier today of the types of things that can
happen to our Nation when water infrastructure is not kept up and
modernized. There is the loss of human life, the loss of livelihoods,
the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

{time} 1800

I am respectful of the gentlewoman's perspective, but in reality this
would be very damaging to our national security and to things that are
important to life and property.
I am happy to yield to the ranking member.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman for yielding and join with
him in opposition. I think he has stated the case very well.
I would also add the expenditures in this legislation on
nonproliferation. I think one of the greatest threats our country faces
is the issue of nuclear terrorism. Again, we have to be very
thoughtful. The chairman has had to make some very serious and profound
choices. I think he has done an excellent job doing so, and we ought to
stop where we are.
I am opposed to the woman's amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. In closing, I do appreciate the comments that have
been made, and I appreciate the work of the Appropriations Committee. I
do agree that the issues that are dealt with are important issues. So
is the fiscal stability of this Nation, I think. That's a very crucial
and very important issue that is laid before us at this time. So is
sending a message to our constituents and to the taxpayers of this
Nation, that, yes, indeed we are going to require the bureaucracy to
tighten its belt.
One of the questions I am most often asked by my constituents is, in
our homes, in our businesses, in our churches, we're all tightening the
belt. Why is the bureaucracy not tightening its belt? Why does
Washington seem to be recession-proof?
They want to see this bureaucracy engaged in this. They want to see
the bureaucracy join us in the fight to put this Nation on a firm
fiscal footing.
When it comes to our Nation's security, I would just remind my
colleagues that on July 6, 2010, Admiral Mullen made the comment that
the greatest threat to our national security is our Nation's debt.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. 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 the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Each amount made available by this Act (other than
an amount required to be made available by a provision of
law) is hereby reduced by 1 percent.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the chairman of
the Appropriations Committee for the time to speak on this and to bring
this amendment forward.
Again, this is a cut amendment. Every year, I say let's look at 1
percent, 2 percent, 5 percent. Let's look at where to make these
reductions. I do it because I know that we all realize and probably
many of us in this Chamber agree with the sentiment that Ronald Reagan
regularly expressed, and that is that the closest thing to eternal life
on Earth is a Federal Government program. We are reminded of that fact
today as we are here debating this funding bill.
This amendment calls for a clean 1 percent across-the-board reduction
in each account of this act. One penny on a dollar. We are doing this,
yes, for today; yes, to send a message to constituents that we are
working to reduce the spending; yes, to send a message to those that
are watching the

[[Page H5071]]

growing debt in this country; yes, a message that we are getting the
fiscal house in order. We are also doing it for our children and our
grandchildren, to make certain that they have an America that is
strong, that is safe, that has its fiscal house in order.
We are in a time where every child that is born in this Nation is now
seeing $46,000 worth of debt heaped on their head, Federal debt, that
is theirs. It is so important that we make this cut. It's an extra $306
million that would come out of this budget.
As I said in my previous remarks, the appropriators have worked hard.
They have worked diligently to make certain that they were reducing and
coming in below last year's level, and they are to be commended for
that. But these are extraordinary times and it requires that we put the
focus on going a step further, that we engage those that are running
the bureaucracies, and that we have them go save a penny out of a
dollar and that they do it for future generations.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. First of all, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
Tennessee again for her steadfastness in trying to reduce spending.
Our committee had the lowest--our spending level went back to 2006.
One of the benefits of serving on the committee and one of the reasons
I traditionally oppose across-the-board cuts, 1 percent, 5 percent, 3
percent, is when you serve on the committee and you've already made
substantial reductions, you do it in a careful and thoughtful manner.
And when you're dealing with issues that relate to the nuclear
stockpile, the reliability of that stockpile, the responsibility for
taking care of nuclear waste and meeting consent decrees and court
orders and you're dealing with lives and property that relate to issues
of flooding and things that affect lives and property literally,
billions of dollars of commerce that we heard about earlier this
afternoon from those who represent Missouri and the Mississippi, really
the bedrock of, I think, 44 percent of our Nation's economy, making
these types of cuts, while it may feel good, without having the benefit
of what we have the benefit of, which is debate and input from some of
the Nation's greatest experts as well as obviously people from the
administration, there is no way that I would support this reduction.
I would be pleased to yield to the ranking member.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
I think you have stated the case well and do want to join with you in
my strong opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Graves).
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady.
I want to thank you for your amendment, because you bring forth such
an incredible issue that we can't just stop with what was passed out of
the Appropriations Committee. There are Members all across this body
that had the opportunity to scour the legislation--and I'm on the
committee--and to improve upon the legislation. That's exactly what
she's doing here by offering additional cuts.
Mr. Chairman, I want to bring out the fact that in the House over the
last five appropriations bills, there have been 250 amendments offered.
Only 11 cutting amendments have been passed, and eight of these were by
voice vote. So here on the floor of the House, and I guess I'm speaking
to my colleagues in the Republican Party, we are not cutting any more
than what comes out of the committee. So far, out of these five
appropriations bills, there's been $691 billion spent, and yet we've
only cut $304 million in addition to that.
Mr. Chairman, as I think about where we are, I brought the analogy
and trying to put this in context of where we are as a Nation, that's 2
cents, just two pennies out of a gallon of gas. Just two pennies.
I leave you that--my 2 cents' worth on this appropriations bill.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I rise in support of this amendment. This is the last opportunity we
have, really, to rein in spending that's literally bankrupting our
country in this bill.
It's interesting. All the talk of the billions of dollars of
subsidies that we continue to dole out to dubious enterprises are all
unfulfilled promises of energy independence. You would think after 30
years those promises are starting to ring hollow. After 30 years of
such promises, we're more dependent on foreign energy than when we
began and even deeper in debt.
I rise also to draw to the attention of the House a provision of this
measure relating to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

{time} 1810

Under current law as that reserve is drawn down either for
maintenance or for market manipulation, the proceeds from the oil must
go back into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That guarantees that it's
maintained in a constant state of readiness to provide for our national
security. Whenever a dollar comes out of that reserve, a dollar has to
be put back into it--until this bill. There is a half-billion dollars
going out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, not to replenish the
reserve, but to fund additional spending in this budget. That is a
scandal.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would just remind my colleagues, all
the issues we address are important issues, but as Admiral Mullen has
said, ``the greatest threat to our national security is our growing
national debt.''
We are calling for another $306 million to be reduced from this bill.
Ten conservative groups support this. Let's tighten our belts. Let's
engage the bureaucracy. Let's put our country back on the path to
fiscal health.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Harris

Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, 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 62, after line 2, insert the following new section:
Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to fund any portion of the International program
activities at the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy of the Department of Energy with the exception of the
activities authorized in section 917 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17337).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief because this
amendment follows up on an amendment that was adopted by a voice vote
by the Committee of the Whole just 2 days ago.
This amendment is the second part of the amendment I offered on
Monday of this week. That amendment reduced funding by $6 million from
the EERE, and that would be enough to cut the funding that this
amendment limits that would reduce funding for the international
programs of EERE. It was an amendment endorsed by Citizens Against
Government Waste.
The international programs are a subset of the EERE budget and do not
have their own line item in an appropriations bill, so because of that,
this limitation amendment would be required to properly implement the

[[Page H5072]]

spending reduction amendment, again, passed by the committee on Monday.
This amendment clearly states that no funds may be spent on the
international program activities of the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, with the exception of the activities authorized in
section 917 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. So we
removed $6 million in funding on Monday, $8 million was recommended by
the committee, therefore leaving $2 million in the program. The United
States Government has $1.5 trillion in debt, borrowing 40 cents out of
every dollar, and now is not the time to take our hard-borrowed dollars
and spend them overseas.
This program literally--and I will read the programs funded under the
international program--assists manufacturing facilities in China and
India to reduce their energy use. Mr. Chairman, we should be keeping
that money to help our factories reduce their energy use, not our
international competitors. Improving energy efficiency in the Chinese
building sector. Mr. Chairman, we should be improving our energy
efficiency, not the Chinese building sector. Partnering with the
Kazakhstan Government to provide training on industrial efficiency. Mr.
Chairman, when we're borrowing this amount of money, we should be using
it to promote our industrial efficiency, not the Kazakhstan Government.
Furthermore, it does things like help build windmills in Mexico. Now
Mr. Chairman, we don't have the money to build windmills here, we have
to borrow the money to do that. We shouldn't be borrowing money to
build windmills in Mexico.
Again, this amendment implements the spending reduction already
adopted on Monday.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The amendment eliminates, as we know,
international cooperative programs at the Department of Energy that
focus on developing innovative energy technologies.
I appreciate and share the gentleman's concerns that activities that
simply fund energy projects--like installing windmills--in other
nations are not an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. There is
nothing in this program that funds windmills, with all due respect.
This is especially true when we must rein in spending and eliminate
waste all around. But this is a good example of when a scalpel is
needed to save the worthwhile programs instead of a blunt instrument
that eliminates the entire program.
The gentleman is correct that this program includes several small
activities that the United States should not bankroll. However, many of
the large activities in this program not only engender good will in
countries like China, India, and Brazil--and Kazakhstan, which has been
a tremendous ally in the war on terror--but they also increase economic
activities abroad.
The energy sectors in China and India are increasing by leaps and
bounds. In just the last 10 years, China's energy consumption has more
than doubled. China and India and other nations' energy sectors
represent an enormous economic opportunity for whoever will develop and
supply energy technologies used in these rapidly growing countries.
Cooperative programs eliminated by this amendment help the U.S.
industry and researchers gain access to these booming markets. These
programs don't cost much, but they leverage much more in international
contacts and economic opportunities. For this reason and many others, I
oppose the amendment.
I yield to the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and would join him
in his opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Again, I think the chairman has stated the proposition very well, but
I would point out that the program's technical assistance activities
really do help prime markets for clean technologies in major emerging
economies to support and encourage U.S. exports.
So again, I am opposed to the amendment and appreciate the gentleman
yielding.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, just so we dispel any misconceptions that
the committee might hold about what these programs are, let me read
from the EERE Web site, because we were saying these are developing
countries. Well, China is not a developing country, Mr. Chairman. This
is what it says: ``The U.S. Department of Energy today announced $1
million in available funding to train energy assessors who will assist
manufacturing facilities in China and India to reduce their energy
use.'' Mr. Chairman, those aren't my words; they're the words of the
Department that is asking for funding, for us to borrow money from
China so that we can go to China to ``reduce their energy use.''
It goes on to say, ``The EERE engages in multiple technology and
policy efforts to improve energy efficiency in the Chinese building
sector.'' These aren't my words, Mr. Chairman; these are the words of
the DOE that wants us to borrow money from China to spend money in
China to improve energy efficiency in the Chinese building sector.
Let's go further on. It says, ``EERE partnered with the Kazakh
Government to provide training on Save Energy Now industrial
efficiency.'' In Kazakhstan. I would offer that if we want to do
foreign aid, that we do it in the Department of State budget.
With regards to these cooperative programs, they're not zeroed out.
The chairman should know that these programs are partially funded
through the Department of State, and we don't affect the Department of
State budget in this appropriation. What we do say is the Department
has egregiously spent American taxpayer dollars. They are wasting
taxpayer dollars. And with regards to wind power and windmills, I don't
know what they're building in Mexico, but let me read from their Web
site--not my words, their Web site: ``EERE is involved in several
projects currently underway, including wind energy in Mexico.'' Now Mr.
Chairman, unless there is something else beside windmills that uses
wind energy, the Department says they are involved in projects
involving windmills in Mexico.
This country can't afford to make Chinese factories energy efficient
and to build windmills in Mexico when we are borrowing 40 cents out of
every dollar.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, 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 Maryland
will be postponed.

{time} 1820

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of asking the
gentleman from New Jersey, the subcommittee chairman, to engage in a
colloquy on the importance of solid oxide fuel cell technology and the
need to maintain sufficient funding levels for research and development
of this critical asset.
Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend you on the fine bill. This
bill, which I know was full of difficult choices and competing
priorities, comes in more than 16 percent less than the
administration's request, marking a clear commitment to fiscal
discipline and restraint. I understand that within the Fossil Energy
Research and Development account the committee has appropriated $25
million for the research, development, and demonstration of solid oxide
fuel cells.

[[Page H5073]]

Is my understanding correct, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The gentleman from Ohio is correct. As the
committee states in the report accompanying H.R. 2354, we believe solid
oxide fuel cell systems have the potential to substantially increase
the efficiency of clean coal power generation systems, to create new
opportunities for the efficient use of natural gas, and to contribute
significantly to the development of alternative fuel vehicles.
Mr. RENACCI. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I appreciate
his kind words about this particular innovative technology.
I believe that properly funding solid oxide fuel cell systems is an
important step towards an all-of-the-above energy policy. The
technology will help increase American energy capacity, reduce
emissions, reduce our dependence on imported oil, and encourage the
sustainable use of domestic hydrocarbons, including coal, oil, and
natural gas, particularly newly discovered shale gas in the Marcellus
and Utica formations located within my home State of Ohio.
It is my understanding that the Department of Energy's Solid State
Energy Conversion Alliance, or SECA, is a model example of a public-
private partnership that creates jobs, promotes private investment, and
enhances our energy security. It is also my understanding that
preserving the current funding level is paramount in protecting over
700 existing SECA-related private sector jobs. Moreover, ensuring
timely commercialization of this technology will provide the basis for
broader domestic economic growth, potentially paving the way for
creating thousands more high-tech, high-skilled American manufacturing
jobs.
Does the chairman agree with this understanding?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I want to assure the gentleman from Ohio of my
agreement with the economic, environmental, and energy security
benefits of this technology and that I will work to maintain this
already reduced funding level as the Energy and Water Development
appropriations bill moves forward.
Mr. RENACCI. I appreciate the gentleman's commitment to this
technology and to working to ensure that this funding level,
approximately 50 percent less than in fiscal year 2011, is not
needlessly reduced any further for the coming fiscal year.
I again thank the gentleman from New Jersey and the ranking member
from Indiana for their hard work on this bill.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the study of the Missouri River Projects
authorized in section 108 of the Energy and Water Development
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009 (division C of
Public Law 111-8).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, the Missouri River basin is currently
facing some of the worst flooding in its history. This devastation,
combined with the ongoing economic crisis and our aging inland
waterways infrastructure, means that now, more than ever, we must be
focused and responsible with taxpayer-funded river projects.
My amendment would prohibit funding for the Missouri River Authorized
Purposes Study, also known as MRAPS. This $25 million earmarked study
comes on the heels of a comprehensive $35 million, 17-year study
completed in 2004 that showed that the current authorized purposes are
important and should be maintained.
For river communities, few issues are as important as flood control,
water supply, power, and navigation. People in these communities rely
on the river for their livelihoods and will do so today, tomorrow, and
long after the floodwaters have receded.
This Congress and this administration need to focus on protecting
human life and property and maintaining the safety and soundness of our
levees. We also must support the important commercial advantages
provided to us by our inland waterways system.
The Missouri River moves goods to market and is an important tool in
both domestic and international trade. That's why the National Corn
Growers Association, the American Waterways Operators, the Coalition to
Protect the Missouri River, and the Missouri Farm Bureau support this
amendment.
This study puts in jeopardy the lower Missouri and the Mississippi
rivers, which could result in devastating consequences for navigation
and transportation, resulting in barriers for waterways operators,
agriculture, and every product that depends on the Missouri and
Mississippi rivers to get to market.
The current authorized uses of the Missouri River provide necessary
resources and translate to continued economic stability not only for
Missourians but also for many Americans living throughout the Missouri
and Lower Mississippi River basins.
We've said we want to focus on creating and maintaining jobs. This
Congress is on the brink of passing three major trade agreements, and
the ability of our inland waterways to transport manufactured and
agricultural goods, goods purchased and grown by Americans, is as
important as it ever has been.
This study is duplicative and wasteful of taxpayer dollars. On this
exact issue we've already spent 17 years and $35 million on hundreds of
public meetings and extensive litigation. I offered identical language
during our first debate on the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution.
That amendment passed by a vote of 245-176. I appreciate my colleagues
who offered their support and hope to have their support again.
While there is no funding in the underlying bill for MRAPS, I will
remind my colleagues that in committee an amendment was adopted to
allow the Corps of Engineers to use and receive non-Federal funds to
continue and complete ongoing Federal studies. The need for my
amendment is as urgent as ever.
With that, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Missouri (Mrs.
Hartzler).
Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of amendment No. 21,
sponsored by my friend and colleague from Missouri.
This amendment is a commonsense idea to save tax dollars and ensure
that the Missouri River focuses on protecting human life and property.
It ensures $25 million of taxpayer dollars won't be wasted on a second
study of the purposes of the Missouri River. A 17-year, $35 million
study was just completed in 2004 to look at the purposes of this river.
We don't need a second study, and we don't need to squander the
taxpayers' money in this way.
Think about how much money is proposed for this study: $25 million.
That's a lot of money. As a commonsense person from Missouri, I have to
ask: How does government spend that much money on a study? $500,000 is
a lot of money where I come from. How about $1 million or $2 million?
Think of what the average family could do with $1 million or $2
million. But this study thinks that's not enough. It wants $25 million
to study a river that's already been studied.
Now is the time for common sense. Now is the time for fiscal sanity.
Now is the time to stop spending money we don't have on things we don't
need.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Akin).
Mr. AKIN. The lady before me said it so eloquently and so simply: Why
do we want to spend a whole lot of money? We're already in a crisis
now. Huge debates about how are we going to control Federal spending.
And here we find this proposal to drop another $25 million to do a
study that we have already done before.
First of all, we could save a lot of money in this, and that's a good
idea. Of course, why is it that somebody would make the proposal after
we've done a study that's supposed to work for 17 years and want to do
it all over again? Well, it's because they didn't like the results of
the first study, quite obviously.
What did the study prioritize? Well, it prioritized, first of all,
protecting

[[Page H5074]]

human lives. That's not exactly a bad prioritization. And that's in the
context of flood control. But it also talked about their livelihoods,
not just their lives but their livelihoods. And that was the
transportation part. That should also be a part of what the Missouri
River is about. And of course the water supply and the safety. Now the
proposal is to make the priorities on something else.
Look, the Missouri River is a great resource. We need to use it that
way and prioritize our people, their property, and their prosperity.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Who seeks time in opposition?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1830

Amendment Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. 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 the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to continue the study conducted by the Army Corps of
Engineers pursuant to section 5018(a)(1) of the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, in recent months the Midwestern United
States has been pummeled by severe weather that has destroyed land,
homes, and even lives, particularly along the Missouri and Mississippi
Rivers. Citizens living in communities along the Missouri River have
endured what is beginning to be referred to as the worst flooding in
history.
Just in this year alone, millions of taxpayer dollars have gone
towards environmental restoration and recovery programs, while
operations and maintenance of our infrastructure has been terribly
neglected. Because of this neglect, this year's record rainfall,
snowfall, and subsequent snowmelt have created extremely dangerous
conditions that are growing more serious with each passing day.
President Obama in his fiscal year 2012 budget requested more than
$72 million for the Missouri River Recovery Program, which would
primarily go towards the funding of environmental restoration studies
and projects. This funding dwarfs the insufficient $6.1 million that
was requested for an entire operations and maintenance fund that
supports the area covering the entire region from Sioux City to the
mouth of the Missouri in St. Louis. It is preposterous to think that
environmental projects are more important than the protection of human
life.
The Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan, or MR-ERP, is slated
to receive $4 million of the more than $72 million in Federal funding
that will go towards the Missouri River Recovery Program. This program
is only one of the many Missouri River ecosystem recovery programs
funded by American taxpayers, and MR-ERP is one of no fewer than 70
environmental and ecological studies focused on the Missouri River. The
people who have to foot the bill for these studies and projects, many
of which take years to complete and are ultimately inconclusive, are
the very people who are at risk of losing their farms, their
businesses, their homes, and even their lives today.
I do not take for granted the importance of river ecosystems. I grew
up near the Missouri River, as did many of the people I represent in
Congress. But we have now reached a point in our Nation where we value
the welfare of fish more than the welfare of human beings. Our
priorities are backwards.
My amendment, supported by the Coalition to Protect the Missouri
River and the Missouri Farm Bureau, proposes a prohibition of funding
for the MR-ERP program. The end of the study will in no way jeopardize
the Corps' ability to meet requirements under the Endangered Species
Act. What this amendment will do is eliminate one of the many ecosystem
studies along the river, a study that has become little more than a
tool of the administration for the promotion of the return of the river
to its most natural state, with little regard for navigation, trade,
power generation, or the many people who depend on the Missouri River
and adjacent lands for their livelihoods. This study has the potential
to result in river management that is environmentally driven rather
than focused on balancing the needs of the environment with those along
the river and our wonderful communities.
We've seen this same scenario played out on a nationwide basis. The
result is increased unemployment, reduced trade, economic depression,
and sometimes questionable environmental results.
Mr. Chairman, should the funding for MR-ERP go forward, we must stop
and think about what we are doing. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment, to support our Nation's river communities.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Representative Luetkemeyer.
I rise today in support of this amendment. Like he said, this
amendment is about priorities. What is important? Or better yet, who is
important? I would contend that people are important, people along the
Missouri River, people who are seeing their homes flooded and their
livelihoods destroyed due to flooding. Crops, businesses, and homes are
underwater as levees have been breached and overtopped in parts of
Missouri.
Now is the time to refocus our attention on what matters as we manage
the Missouri River. We need to protect people and property. The
President's 2012 budget, as Representative Luetkemeyer said, requested
$72 million to ``recover'' the river for two birds and one fish, but
only $6.1 million for operations and maintenance on the levees from
Sioux City to St. Louis. Now, that's an example of wrong priorities.
This amendment ensures that the Corps of Engineers continues to focus
on people and keep flood control and navigation as the focus. It's time
to get our priorities back and to save tax dollars while we're doing
it. That's a good combination.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Missouri. The WRDA 2007 Act, which was
passed with such bipartisan support that it overcame a Presidential
veto, authorized the Corps to undertake the Missouri River Ecosystem
Restoration Plan and develop the Missouri River Recovery Implementation
Committee to consult on the study. This authority provided a venue for
collaboration between the 70-member stakeholder group of tribes,
States, affected groups, and Federal agencies to develop a shared
vision and comprehensive plan for the restoration of the Missouri River
ecosystem.
By prohibiting the Corps from expending any fiscal year 2012 funding
on the study, this amendment will result in a scheduled delay of the
study, potentially additional start-up expenses and schedule impacts,
and potential erosion of trust of the delicate partnership in this
basin. There also could be legal implications associated with the
National Environmental Policy Act if funding were prohibited for this
study in the longer term. A 1-year prohibition would not allow work
described above to be done and could push the entire schedule of the
report out.
I also do believe that it places the Army Corps in jeopardy of not
being in compliance with the act, which could also adversely affect
their operation of the dams on the waterways. In the long term, the
study represents the required programmatic NEPA coverage for the
Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery Project; and 13 Federal
agencies, eight States, and 15 tribes have formally agreed to cooperate
with the agency under the act. The fact that this was authorized in
2007 in an overwhelming fashion, that you have had this collaboration,
and there are risks

[[Page H5075]]

involved in adopting the gentleman's amendment, I would urge my
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
The Acting Chair. The gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, very quickly, I think I understood the
gentleman to say that this would affect some of the Corps' operations.
This will in no way affect the Corps' operations whatsoever. This is a
study that does nothing more than dictate how some things should be
done after the study is over with. And in Missouri, our experience with
these kinds of studies is such that we always come out on the short
end.
We have farmers, and businesses, and communities along the river
right now who have been dramatically impacted by previous studies which
have protected fish and birds over the welfare of our citizens, our
communities, and our businesses.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that my colleague's
relief stands with the authorizing committees. We have a law in place
since 2007. Perhaps he might want it amended through the authorization
process. At this point in time, I think it is unwise policy to slow
this study down and would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1840

Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Burgess

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used--
(1) to implement or enforce section 430.32(x) of title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations; or
(2) to implement or enforce the standards established by
the tables contained in section 325(i)(1)(B) of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)) with
respect to BPAR incandescent reflector lamps, BR incandescent
reflector lamps, and ER incandescent reflector lamps.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Earlier this week, 233 Members of this body, our
colleagues, voted in repealing the 100-watt light bulb ban. This ban
comes as a result of the 2007 energy legislation that included a
provision that regulates what type of light bulb the American people
may buy and may use in their homes. The Federal Government has no right
to tell me or any other citizen what type of light bulb to use at home.
It is our right to choose.
Clearly a majority of this body, 233 Members, agree with the American
people. Stay out of the decisionmaking and give the choice back to the
consumer. Consumers want the 100-watt light bulb, and some consumers
need the 100-watt light bulb.
Now after our debate earlier on the floor this week I got this
message from a constituent named Dave. Dave wrote: I need my 100-watt
light bulb to do the type of work that I do. It is very detailed work.
I need to see my work with a 100-watt light bulb, and sometimes I use a
200-watt light bulb. It is necessary. I cannot do my work with less
wattage because I have to strain my eyes to do my work and that causes
me headaches, and then I am unable to work. Those types of light bulbs,
100-watt light bulbs, are like having sunshine at your home and at your
work bench. LEDs do not suffice. Neons don't work, nor any other type
of new-tech bulbs that are so-called energy savers, and I don't want to
purchase those lights that have mercury in them. Nobody should have the
right to dictate what types of lights we buy and use in our homes. I
cannot read the very fine, small print of some of the product labels
using those weak light bulbs. Stop that ban on those light bulbs that
will serve us well with proper light for working on very detailed
projects and reading product labels that have very small print.
That is what Dave said. Dave should have the right to choose what
sort of light bulb he uses when doing his work at home.
Now, look, I work in a Federal building. I understand the Federal
Government gets to tell me what type of light under which I must work
in that Federal building. But when I go home at night to read my Denton
Record Chronicle, I should be able to choose what type of light I use
for that illumination.
In 2010, the last major GE factory that manufactured the incandescent
light bulb closed its doors as a result of the reckless 2007
legislation, and as a direct result 200 people lost their jobs. This
wasn't the only plant to close as a result of that 2007 legislation.
These policies kill jobs. It's the clearest example of how real
consequences affect real people with this reckless legislation. These
jobs are being sent overseas. General Electric has said that the new
lights cost about 50 percent more to make in the U.S. than in China.
The overregulating government policies have to stop. It would not
only be better for the environment and our pocketbooks, but it would
bring those jobs back to America.
My amendment at the desk would give Dave his choice of light and
would allow every other American to choose, yes, choose what light bulb
they want to use when they are in the comfort of their own home.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the
gentleman from Texas. I am pleased to do so.
Mr. BURGESS. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. As the gentleman pointed out, we had this debate
earlier this week on the House floor. I would point out that the
performance standards for light bulbs were established in an act in
2007. It's the law of the land.
At that time the bill enjoyed strong bipartisan support, with 95
House Republicans voting for final passage and the bill being signed
into law by President George Bush.
As far as I am aware, the issues that inspired this standard have not
changed and, if anything, have gotten worse. Families continue to
struggle every day to meet rising energy bills and there are real
savings to be had by moving to more efficient illumination.
It is estimated that efficient lighting will save the average
American family around $100 every year. Further, while claiming that
the incandescent bulb is dead makes for a good sound bite, it doesn't
affect reality. As a result of the 2007 law, manufacturers are already
making a variety right of new energy-saving bulbs for homes, including
more efficient incandescent bulbs.
These bulbs look, light and turn on like those we have used for
decades, but are 28 to 33 percent more efficient. What we are talking
about here is a standard, not the definition of a discrete bulb.
This progress has been made because of the standard and goals that
were set in that bill. I do not think it is time to turn the clock
back. I do think we ought to enjoy these energy savings, and I am
opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. The fact is, the United States Congress, the Federal
Government, should not pick winners and losers. Yes, there is new
technology. It didn't happen as fast as the proponents of this
legislation articulated in December of 2007, and the technology that
was promised for 5 years later, which is now, in fact, has been slow to
develop, but it will develop and then let them meet in the marketplace.
Let the consumer decide. Let the consumer pick the winners and losers
in this argument, not the United States Congress, not the Federal
Government.
We had no business restricting the sale of the 100-watt light bulb.
We had no business restricting what light people should use in their
homes. This is

[[Page H5076]]

one time we should back off and let the American people make the
choices that are right for them.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say again we are talking
about a standard that was adopted under law in 2007. We ought to try to
achieve that standard to save energy in this country.
I remain opposed to the gentleman's amendment. I would ask my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, 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 Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 80 Offered by Mr. Cravaack

Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to develop or submit a proposal to expand the
authorized uses of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
described in section 9505(c) of the Internal Revenue Code (26
U.S.C. 9505(c)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Minnesota and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, in March of this year, Jo-Ellen Darcy,
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, testified before the
House Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment that the
administration is preparing to plan draft legislation to expand the
scope of projects eligible to receive Harbor Trust Fund moneys.
In the hearing, Assistant Secretary Darcy alluded to the
Administration's interest in using Harbor Trust Fund moneys for port
security, among other things.
While I fully support funding port security through the general
appropriations process, I oppose the efforts to divert Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund moneys until the Federal Government demonstrates
it has fully used these trust funds to their intended purpose, and that
is dredging.
As many of you know, the Harbor Maintenance Tax is an ad valorem tax
assessed on the maritime shippers that use America's ports. By law,
revenues of this user tax are to be dedicated to the United States Army
Corps of Engineers' operations and maintenance budgets to ensure
American navigation channels remain dredged to their authorized depths
and widths.
Despite the significant revenues and the roughly $6 billion supposed
balance in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, our Nation's maritime
infrastructure has largely fallen into disrepair.
Only one-third of our Nation's navigation channels are at their
authorized depths and widths. Portions of the important Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway have been closed to commercial navigation due to
lack of maintenance dredging. Eight out of the ten of our Nation's
largest harbors are not dredged at their authorized depths and widths.
Mr. Chairman, make no mistake, this has a direct impact on American
job creation and prosperity. When American ships have to ``light load''
to clear the shallowest channel, American economic productivity is
lost.
For example, for each inch silted in, the American Laker fleet
collectively, per voyage, leaves 8,000 tons of Minnesota ore on the
docks in Duluth. That's enough to produce over 6,000 cars. I know I
don't have to tell the ranking member and fellow Steel Caucus member
what this means.
Moreover light loading causes increased transportation costs for our
exports, decreases our national economic competitiveness. Every billion
dollars in exports, Mr. Chairman, translates to 15,000 American jobs.
Given the economic straits we are in it is imperative we don't hold
back American business with increased transportation costs caused by
unmaintained channels.

{time} 1850

We must, Mr. Chairman, ensure that the moneys intended for dredging
are not siphoned off for other programs. My amendment will prohibit
moneys from being used by the administration to develop a plan or draft
legislation to expand the scope of the projects eligible to receive
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund moneys.
American shippers are taxed specifically to maintain the channels
they, and our Nation, depend on. It is imperative that we ensure that
harbor trust fund moneys be spent as they are intended, thereby
ensuring American competitiveness and the proliferation of American
jobs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me thank the gentleman for his amendment and
tell him that I'm pleased to accept it. I know that you included the
fact that you wouldn't have to tell the ranking of the important
purpose of your amendment. I also share those same sentiments. We don't
want to degrade the purposes for the harbor maintenance fund from the
express purposes now. There are too many priorities that are out there.
We don't need to expand them.
I'm very pleased to lend my support.
I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I associate
myself with your support of the amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAVAACK. I thank the gentlemen for their kind comments, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 62, after line 2, insert the following new section:
Sec. 609. Of the funds made available by this Act for
carrying out section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(42 U.S.C. 16513), the amount of funds made available by the
Secretary to carry out projects described in subsection
(b)(5) of that section shall not exceed the amount of funds
made available by the Secretary to carry out projects
described in subsection (b)(4) that use coolants different
from those commercial technologies that are in service at the
time the guarantee is issued.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from The New Jersey reserves a point
of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment
which would require that the amount provided for in title 17 of the
Energy and Water development appropriations bill for loan guarantees
for advanced nuclear energy facilities be equal to or exceed that for
loan guarantees targeted for carbon capture and sequestration projects.
In laymen's terms, my amendment would specify that we cannot use more
funds in this act for loan guarantees for carbon capture and
sequestration projects than we make available for projects using
nuclear technologies such as small modular gas-cooled reactors.
The purpose for this is simple. These new technologies hold
significant promise of meeting our ever-increasing energy needs with
safe, clean, reliable, cost-effective, proliferation-resistant
noncarbon-producing American-built nuclear reactors.
As a member of the Science Committee, I, along with my colleagues,
have studied this technology over the past 7 years. And let me note,
the bureaucracy has studied this technology almost to death. Well, the
time has

[[Page H5077]]

come for that study to be left behind. It's time for the study to be
over, and it's time for us to act. There are commercial companies out
there right now trying to bring these technologies to market, and this
amendment will help make this a reality.
I would like to also note that the GAO and the committee have stated
that there is a lack of transparency in this loan guarantee program. We
cannot expect to perform proper oversight without knowing where and how
these funds are being used, and it is critical that we become more
specific in stating how we intend the funds to be used. And that's what
this amendment would do.
It would also be important that we require the administration to
report back to Congress with a full explanation of how these funds are
being used. Thus I ask for support for this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from New Jersey continue to
insist on his point of order?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I do.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman reserves his point of order.
Who seeks time in opposition?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
But may I say I have always found him to be very thoughtful and
considerate, and I know that he is extremely knowledgeable about this
and is committed to the whole issue of taking a look at these types of
loan guarantees.
When we put together our bill, we had several guiding principles, and
chief among them was to get the Federal Government out of the private
sector's way. You should understand that.
The loan guarantee program is at the heart of that debate, and our
bill begins to ramp down this temporary program while including funding
to help new technologies so that the private sector could take them
over. The gentleman's amendment, however, appears to dictate which
technology should receive funding through this program and which should
not.
Mr. Chairman, responsible private sector entities have sunk literally
hundreds of millions of dollars into their applications; and this
amendment would, I think, potentially cut off those applicants, despite
their investments in good faith efforts. And even more importantly,
however, the amendment would determine which technologies win and which
would lose. I don't think in our committee or in this Congress we
should be determining the winners and losers. We should let the market
decide.
So I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will kindly state his point of order.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
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 requires a new determination.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I believe that it is Congress' job to make
decisions. We are the ones who should be actually designating exactly
where money is going. I'm a senior member of the Science and Technology
Committee. We have studied this issue directly, and this is my
recommendation. And I think that what we're supposed to do here is make
sure that rather than having money, saying we can just spend all we
want in sequestration and accepting that alternative, that we must
designate what we think is the best use and most efficient use of the
taxpayer money. That sounds within the rules to me.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of
order.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new
determination of whether a certain type of coolant is used on a
project. 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. Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I have another amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 62, after line 2, insert the following:
Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to carry out projects described in section 1703(b)(5)
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16513(b)(5)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in support of my amendment which would
require that none of the funds provided for in title 17 of the Energy
and Water development appropriations bill be used for the purposes of
providing loan guarantees for ``carbon capture and sequestration
projects.'' If you think that carbon capture and sequestration is an
important goal--and I'm sure there are some people who believe it is.
Let me just note that I do not believe that, and I think that having
heard the debates that have been going on about this particular issue
over the years, that there are large numbers of my colleagues who do
not believe that as well.
Well, if you do not believe in carbon sequestration and capture as an
important goal, then I would suggest that the best sequestration--if
you really believe that we must sequester carbon and that that is an
important goal, then let me suggest this, and that's what my amendment
is all about: it's better to leave the oil and coal in the ground if
that's what you really want to do is capture this carbon and sequester
the carbon and capture it.

{time} 1900

And I would suggest that the best way to do that is by promoting new
nuclear technologies such as the new, inherently safe, small, modular
nuclear reactors, especially those that do not use water as a coolant.
We can provide all the clean, safe electricity that we need. And I
would hope that any funds that the Secretary might have, in terms of
his opinion, determined to use in carbon capture and sequestration,
instead that the Secretary will use that limited amount of money that
he has available to him on a positive program that will permit us an
alternative to oil and gas. I personally, however, do not believe that
oil and gas necessarily and the capture of carbon sequestration is an
important goal; but if you do, you should be supporting--instead of
basically using that as an expensive tool that will hurt the economy,
we should be using the funds that are available instead to promote this
positive alternative of nuclear energy, especially the high-
temperature, gas-cooled reactor.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. As I said earlier, respectfully, I still think
this amendment, as with the previous one, is an issue where we are
determining winners and losers, and I believe the market should decide.
Let me say, the committee is strongly supportive of the whole issue
of development of small, modular nuclear reactors, and it is amazing
how much interest there is out there. There is incredible ingenuity
that is going into it.
We do have support for nuclear loan guarantees. I think there is $11
billion in unused funds and $6 billion for fossil fuels. We have money
available for the development of these types of technologies which
hopefully you will find to be reassuring.
But for reasons I said earlier, without repeating myself again, I
oppose your amendment at this time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

[[Page H5078]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me just suggest that, again, we
should be taking responsibility, especially when we see something as
important to the American people as the issue of energy, especially
clean energy, and how we are going to make sure that it is supplied to
the people of the United States.
Specifically designating that these funds won't be used for
sequestration and carbon capture, I mean, that seems to me that is what
we should do. We should determine whether or not we believe this is an
appropriate use of government funds. I suggest that it is not,
especially when we have alternatives that are available to us, like
these new technologies in the nuclear field, that can give us what we
need in terms of not producing carbon and making sure that you don't
even need sequestration then. If you have those alternatives, then we
shouldn't be spending the money on this other approach, on the carbon
capture and sequestration approach. That makes sense to me.
We need, as Members of Congress, to set these type of parameters on
the spending of our limited dollars in a way that will have the most
positive impact, and the carbon capture and sequestration concept is
not the best way to spend our money when we have these other
alternatives.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, 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. Rohrabacher

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

Page 62, after line 2, insert the following:
Sec. 609. Not less than 10 percent of the funds made
available by this Act for carrying out section 1703 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16513) shall be
available for carrying out projects described in subsection
(b)(4) of such section that use coolants different from those
commercial technologies that are in service at the time the
guarantee is issued.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment,
which would support advanced nuclear reactors, particularly those
reactors that do not use a light water coolant, which happens to be
technology used for decades and seems to be what certain members of the
business world are trying to foist off on the American people. No, it
is time to upgrade, to update, and innovate.
Since I understand that a point of order has been raised against this
amendment, I intend to withdraw it. But before I do so, I would like to
make some remarks as to why it is important for these new reactors to
come forward.
As I stated earlier, these new technologies, such as the high-
temperature, gas-cooled reactors hold significant promise of meeting
our ever-increasing energy needs with safe, clean, reliable, cost-
effective, noncarbon-producing, proliferation-resistant, American-built
nuclear power plants. A number of our commercial companies out there
right now are ready to bring forth this cutting-edge nuclear technology
and put it on the market and create new, high-tech private sector jobs
for the American people. Their success should be our goal.
There is some mention of these technologies in the committee report.
I am very grateful for that, but I would like to draw attention to why
these are so vitally important for our country.
First of all, the small modular nuclear reactors, especially those
that do not rely on decades-old light water coolant systems, exemplify
the next wave of nuclear power, and we should pursue it far more
aggressively than we are today. Specifically, we should be more
aggressively pursuing the next generation nuclear plant and make the
best use of the technologies that have been developed which include
inherently safe reactors that don't require extraneous engineered
safety devices to protect the public. We have a new level of safety
that is almost unimaginable in these new reactors. We should understand
that we need the high fuel burn-up rates that will greatly reduce the
proliferation concerns. So we have reactors now that will be available
that will not leave the residue and the leftover material that can be
turned into nuclear weapons.
We also have reactors that are modular, scalable, and can be
delivered on the back of a truck. This would make them far more
economical and far more feasible for various communities throughout the
world. Read that, we can manufacture these somewhere in America and
transport them around the country or around the planet.
The Department of Energy should encourage and partner with industry
to build working reactor prototypes using these technologies to provide
the data required for commercial licensing.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should encourage applications from
private companies for the purpose of building working commercial
reactors incorporating these new technologies. The NRC should also
consider these applications immediately upon receiving them and
expedite the processing.

{time} 1910

Ideally, the NRC should be able to complete the process within 2
years of the receipt of the initial application. That should be more
than a goal. That should be a commitment.
I hope I've made it clear how vital these technologies are to our
energy future. We are either going to lead the world in the nuclear
arena or we are going to be left behind as a country.
Now, I understand that there is a technical problem with this
amendment, but I would like to make sure that my colleagues understand
the significance of this new technology.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Adams

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

Page 62, after line 2, insert the following:
Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Energy for maintaining,
developing, or creating any Web site which disseminates
information regarding energy efficiency and educational
programs on energy efficiency specifically to children under
18 years of age, including the current Web site operated by
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy titled
Kids Saving Energy and the current Web site operated by the
Energy Information Administration titled Energy Kids.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Adams) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. ADAMS. I rise today in support of my amendment to H.R. 2354,
which would eliminate wasteful spending at the Department of Energy.
Why did the foolish gardener plant a light bulb? He wanted to grow a
power plant.
How did Benjamin Franklin feel when he discovered electricity? He was
shocked.
Mr. Chairman, what's shocking about this is how our hard-earned
taxpayer dollars are being used. While some may find these jokes
humorous, there are those of us who don't believe it's funny. There is
nothing funny about the source of wasteful funding for these jokes.
These riddles, along with numerous others just like it, are displayed
on the U.S. Energy Information Administration's ``Energy Kids'' Web
site, as seen here. This Web page also has Sudoku and crossword puzzles
about greenhouse gases and coal power. These riddles and games are
being paid for by

[[Page H5079]]

you, the taxpayer, at a time when our country is facing enormous debt.
In November, the American people sent a resounding message to
Congress, calling on them to stop wasteful spending and to prioritize
Federal dollars towards job creation. With our Nation facing a $14.3
trillion debt, this is the kind of wasteful spending we must stop.
Rather than using taxpayer dollars to reduce energy prices for all
Americans, the Department of Energy has instead decided to spend your
hard-earned taxpayer dollars towards creating and maintaining this Web
site.
This Web site is not the only Web site of its kind. There are others
just like it. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
maintains a ``Kids Saving Energy'' Web site. This Web site has videos
with Tinker Bell telling children to use energy-saving light bulbs and
quizzes asking children how many kilowatt hours an average U.S. home
uses each month. While I have no problem with Tinker Bell--I am a huge
supporter of Disney World, which is just outside my district--I do have
a problem with wasteful government spending, and that's where the
problem lies.
In this tight economy, Congress must prioritize funding, and these
Web sites are a blatant misuse of taxpayer money. Now, Mr. Chairman, I
recently asked Secretary Chu how much money the Department of Energy
spends to maintain and operate these Web sites, but the Secretary
refused to provide the amount. In today's economy, Congress and the
Department of Energy should be squarely focused on reducing our
national deficit, encouraging job creation in the private sector and
making energy more affordable for American families.
My amendment would ensure that no Federal funds in the underlying
legislation may be used to maintain, develop or create these and other
similar Web sites, and I would encourage you to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, there is a Web page that has been
described by the proponent of the amendment at the Energy Information
Agency. Over the past 12 months, the Web site has had over 26 million
visitors. There are 224 million pages of information. It is not an
underutilized site. The fact is that young people access the kids' page
more than any other one on this Web site, visiting 16 million pages.
``Energy Kids'' gets nearly 10 times as many hits, if you will, as the
adult version.
The gentlelady talks about puzzles and other very elementary
approaches as far as education. I think education, not being an
educator myself, ought to be age appropriate. I would also point out
that there have not been significant changes as far as the update for
this site in that they're trying to hold down the cost. To the extent
that work has taken place, $10,000 has been spent in fiscal year 2011,
not necessarily in the coming year. There is no anticipated incremental
cost for the ``Energy Kids'' Web site in the fiscal year 2012
President's budget.
But the reason I really rise in opposition is not necessarily over
the details but with respect to the idea that we should not look for
ways to educate young people in this country. We are having a tax on
science; we are having a tax on scientific knowledge; we are having a
tax on education. What is wrong at this late date with educating young
people and having the Federal Government reach out and provide
information on conserving energy, on using it wisely, recycling, so
that we can reduce our dependency on energy?
We have programs--and have had them for years--on drugs. Maybe for
those under 18 we shouldn't have any Federal expenditures to educate
young people about drugs because, well, we've got to save money. We're
at a spot where we just can't spend any more Federal funds on
education. We have an obesity problem in this country. Youth obesity is
at a crisis level, but maybe what we should do is say, If you're under
18, we don't want to spend any money educating you because we can talk
to you when you're 19. We have a problem as far as people not getting
enough exercise. Too many people use elevators. They park their cars
close to the door. So maybe we shouldn't spend any Federal resources
educating young people about, you know, you should walk once in a
while. You shouldn't sit on that couch all day. You shouldn't watch
that TV all day.
So let's stop educating. Let's stop using any Federal money because
we've got a debt crisis here--and I acknowledge that. So let's just
stop educating young people. Let's just stop, and we'll wait until
they're all 18 and they have type 2 diabetes. Then we'll stop because
they've got a drug problem, and maybe we can convince them to get off
of drugs when they're 18. Maybe we'll convince them they ought to get
on a treadmill when they're 18. In this case, when are we going to
start?
As a parent myself and not an educator, my sense is the damage is
done for young people. That's why we have a Head Start program by the
time they start school. Children have that impression. They gain that
knowledge. They have values that are transferred to them by their
parents. I certainly think there is an absolute role by the Federal
Government to help young people know what are the values and what are
things to do that will improve our society for them and their
generation. So I am strongly opposed to this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. ADAMS. I appreciate that. I too want to encourage our young
people to get outside and exercise instead of staying on their
computers and playing Sudoku games and other games through this Web
site.
We need to look at the funding that's being spent. While you've
quoted numbers, the Secretary couldn't give me any numbers in
committee. We've asked for those numbers, and he still has yet to
provide them.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. The gentlewoman talked about getting people away from
their computers, and I would agree that we need a balance in life.
That's why we should educate people--children--that there is a value of
sitting in front of that computer, in gaining knowledge through that
computer and in using it for their homework--but then getting out and
exercising, making sure they know they shouldn't do drugs, making sure
they should eat appropriately.
Not being a terribly compliant person as far as technology, I
understand that you could take a walk and still access that site. So
why don't we do both. I would ask the gentlewoman to consider
withdrawing her amendment, but I will state my opposition to it.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1920

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Adams).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida
will be postponed.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Throughout this debate on the Energy and Water appropriations bill,
we have discussed the importance of research and development of new
energy technologies. However, I would like to highlight the importance
of demonstration projects that are carried out within the Department of
Energy's Building Technologies Program.
The Department of Energy spends millions of dollars each year on
research and development for new technologies. However, that R&D often
reaches a point known as the Valley of Death. The Valley of Death is
where promising new technologies fade into obscurity because they can't
attract the capital investments to move from concept to
commercialization.
In essence, on one side of the Valley of Death is research and
development;

[[Page H5080]]

good ideas. On the other side is the actual deployment and
commercialization. A demonstration project takes the research and
development just a little bit further and bridges this divide so that
private entities will be interested in deployment, private entities
will be interested in commercialization.
This good use of federally funded demonstration projects is critical
to reducing the risk to private sector investors and allows
technologies to cross the Valley of Death and establish commercial
viability for investors and, indeed, attract their interest.
I strongly believe that in the course of our discussion about funding
for the coming fiscal year, it is important to highlight the importance
of the Building Technologies Program's demonstration projects. I very
much appreciate our previous discussions that I have shared with the
chairman and ranking member, and I would be interested in the
chairman's insight into this matter.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I agree with the gentleman about the importance of
projects that develop new, extraordinarily beneficial technologies that
would never be developed without Federal investment. It is critical
that we maintain a national investment in activities at the Department
of Energy that protect our country's security and competitiveness.
The Building Technologies Program at the Department of Energy has
played a significant role in developing technologies that are too risky
for the private sector to invest in alone and that will substantially
reduce energy costs for American homes and businesses. The government's
role in energy should not extend to commercializing new technologies.
It is the role of the private sector to deploy them.
However, without many of the projects that develop these new
technologies, it would be too risky for private companies to invest. I
want to thank the gentleman for his deep commitment to advancing
American technology and innovation, and I look forward to continuing to
work with him on this important issue.
Mr. WU. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
engagement in this issue, and I look forward to working with them.
The chairman knows that fully 40 percent of total energy use in
America is in buildings and fully 70 percent of electricity use is in
buildings. So when we make buildings more efficient, this is indeed the
low-hanging fruit toward future energy efficiency, and in fact the
ability to bring new, innovative American-made technologies to market
is key to rejuvenating our economy. Successful projects in the Building
Technologies Program will result in the manufacture and sale of new
products here in the United States and result in rejuvenating our
economy and building good American jobs here.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the ranking member.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bass of New Hampshire) having assumed the chair, Mr. Reed, 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.

____________________