Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 83 (Tuesday, June 5, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 83 (Tuesday, June 5, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3451-H3478]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2013

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Berg). Pursuant to House Resolution 667
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. 5325.
Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) kindly resume the chair.

{time} 1936

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. 5325) making appropriations for energy and water
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2013, and for other purposes, with Mr. Poe of Texas (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,
an amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) had been
disposed of and the bill had been read through page 56, line 24.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment as the
designee of Congressman McIntyre of North Carolina.
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 used to plan for the termination of periodic
nourishment for any water resource development project
described in section 156 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1976 (Public Law 94 587), as amended by the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99 662).

Ms. KAPTUR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
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.

[[Page H3452]]

Ms. KAPTUR. I rise today on behalf of the esteemed gentleman from
North Carolina, Representative Mike McIntyre, who represents a district
inclusive of the southeastern coast of North Carolina. Congressman
McIntyre is, unfortunately, unable to come to the floor tonight, so I
rise on his behalf to offer the following amendment.
This amendment will prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from using
funds to terminate or plan to terminate any 50-year coastal storm
damage reduction project. The language in this amendment will give
Congress and the Corps needed time to determine proper evaluation
procedures.
Coastal storm damage reduction projects were created by Congress to
keep coastal communities safe and, over time, to save taxpayer dollars
from repeated damage costs. These projects involve Federal-State
partnerships where the communities assume the Federal Government will
meet the commitment we have established through the Army Corps of
Engineers.
Obviously, coastal regions across our country have varying needs. The
Seventh Congressional District of North Carolina is coastally different
than Ohio's Ninth Congressional District along Lake Erie, which I
represent. But the more than 100 miles of Ohio coastline that are in
the Ninth District have seen important improvements for flood
protection and shoreline improvement installations over the years that
have proven themselves to be cost effective. In particular, two of
these in Point Place and Maumee Bay have both performed better than
even the Army Corps of Engineers analysis originally predicted. As a
result of these completed projects, coastal communities in our region
have been protected from costly and previously unmanageable storm water
damage.
In today's energy and water legislation, I ask on behalf of Mr.
McIntyre and myself that Congress give communities affected by this
amendment the same chance. On behalf of Congressman McIntyre, I
appreciate the respected chairman and ranking member of the Energy and
Water Subcommittee, Mr. Frelinghuysen and Mr. Visclosky, for their
willingness to work collaboratively on these issues. These projects are
proven successes, and the demonstrated need warrants a continuation of
these cost-conscious investments that improve the safety of our coastal
communities.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1940

The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment on behalf of
the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
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 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 Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. This amendment has been adopted by the House
twice unanimously, and so I urge the passage of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I support the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I do rise today in opposition to the
amendment offered by my colleague from Alaska on behalf of the
gentleman from California.
In 2009, the 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 Bush 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.
If the amendment that has been offered were adopted, I believe we
would be undermining the San Joaquin River agreement, which, if it were
to stand, would land this case back in court. If the court is forced to
take over river restoration, the Friant water users would be at risk of
losing the 20 years of water supply certainty provided by the
settlement.
By blocking funding for efforts to restore salmon, the Denham
amendment offered by Mr. Young would potentially end the broadly
supported and bipartisan effort to restore the San Joaquin River while
also improving water supply management, flood protections, and water
quality. Therefore, I do insist on objecting to the gentleman's
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH. 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 under this Act
may be used to provide new loan guarantees under section 1703
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16513), and the
amount otherwise appropriated by this Act for ``Title 17
Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program'' is hereby
reduced by $33,000,000.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. KUCINICH. My amendment would put a moratorium for fiscal year
2013 on any new loan guarantees under what is now known as the section
1703 loan guarantee program. To offset the loss of administrative
revenue that would no longer come to the Department of Energy if the
amendment passes, the amendment cuts $33 million from administrative
costs that will not be necessary if the program is suspended. This
program, originated in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, offers a
guarantee for the loans that finance an energy project. With that kind
of guarantee, the risk for the loaning entity is considered lower,
which means they can charge a lower interest rate to the people
initiating the energy project. In other words, it saves the project
money. But it also puts the taxpayers on the hook if the project
defaults.
Section 1703 projects cover nuclear, coal, and even renewable energy.
The closer we look at the guarantees, the less they seem like a
worthwhile investment for the American taxpayer. Let me give you an
example.
Some of the biggest guarantees are for nuclear power. One of the
first and biggest loans the Department of Energy is considering is one
that is not necessary. That's not my assessment; it's the assessment of
Kevin Marsh, the president of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company,
which is attempting to build a new nuclear power plant. He said on a
call to analysts and investors:
We're confident in our ability to finance this project without a loan
guarantee.
This program stands to give him and his project, which could be in
the $8 billion to $11 billion range, a preemptive bailout that is not
even needed.
Here's another example. A loan guarantee that is most likely to be
awarded is for a new nuclear plant called Vogtle. That loan guarantee
is for $8.3 billion. For those of you who displayed a great deal of
concern about Solyndra's loan guarantee, this one is 15 times the size.
With a project that big, it makes sense to look closely at the odds of
this project going into default, leaving the taxpayers with the price
tag. Well, Vogtle already has $913 million in cost overruns, and their
SEC filings indicate more overruns can be expected. That, of course, is
not at all unusual for a nuclear power plant

[[Page H3453]]

project. Construction cost overruns are the rule, not the exception.
Maybe that's why the CBO had this to say about nuclear loan
guarantees:
CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very
high--well above 50 percent.
Or maybe they said that because there is another reason to expect
nuclear power plants will continue to struggle financially: that reason
is the low cost of natural gas that makes it far more attractive than
taking multiple risks by going with nuclear power. Dale Klein, a former
chairman of the NRC, cautioned that nuclear plants will not move off
the blackboard and into construction, not as long as natural gas
remains as cheap and plentiful as it is today.
Nuclear power is not the only recipient of government largess under
the section 1703 loan guarantee. Even if you are a nuclear power plant
supporter, there are plenty of other boondoggles that are covered by
this program that I don't have time to go into. That's why Members of
Congress on both sides of the aisle can get behind this amendment,
which is supported by a bipartisan coalition of groups, including
Taxpayers for Common Sense, Friends of the Earth, National Taxpayers
Union, and Physicians for Social Responsibility. It is for those who
are concerned about wasteful government spending. This program alone
will cost the taxpayers over $500 million--not including any defaults
the taxpayers may have to cover. This amendment is for those who have
concerns about deficit spending. It's for those with free market
concerns about an energy technology that is not financially viable even
after tens of billions of dollars in subsidies and decades of
opportunities to mature to the point where subsidies are not needed. It
is for those who are concerned about the effects of these energy
technologies on our drinking water, on clean air, on healthy soil, and
on climate change. It is for those who have concerns as ratepayers that
they'll get stuck holding the bill when an energy project fails and
their electricity rates go up. It is for those who found the Solyndra
default to be outrageous.
There's a little something for everyone with this amendment. I urge
my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
My amendment would put a moratorium for fiscal year 2013 on any new
loan guarantees under what is known as the Section 1703 loan guarantee
program. To offset the loss of administrative revenue that would no
longer come to the Department of Energy if the amendment passes, the
amendment cuts $33 million from administrative costs that will not be
necessary if the program is suspended. This program, originated in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, offers a guarantee for the loans that
finance an energy project. With that kind of guarantee, the risk for
the loaning entity is considered lower, which means they can charge a
lower interest rate to the people initiating the energy project. In
other words, it saves the project money. But it also puts taxpayers on
the hook if the project defaults.
Section 1703 projects cover nuclear, coal, and even renewable energy.
The closer we look at the guarantees, the less they seem like a
worthwhile investment for the American taxpayer. Let me give you an
example.
Some of the biggest guarantees are for nuclear power. One of the
first and biggest loans the Department of Energy is considering is one
that is not necessary. That is not my assessment. That is the
assessment of Kevin B. Marsh, the President of South Carolina Electric
& Gas Company, which is attempting to build a new nuclear power plant.
He said on a call to analysts and investors, ``[W]e are confident in
our ability to finance this project without loan guarantee . . .'' This
program stands to give him and his project, which could be in the 8 11
billion dollar range, a preemptive bailout that is not even needed.
Here's another example. A loan guarantee that is most likely to be
awarded is for a new nuclear power plant called Vogtle. That loan
guarantee is for 8.33 billion dollars. For those of you who displayed a
great deal of concern about Solyndra's loan guarantee, this one is 15
times as big. With a project that big, it makes sense to look closely
at the odds of this project going into default, leaving you and me with
the price tag. Well, Vogtle already has $913 million in cost overruns
and their SEC filings indicate more overruns can be expected. That, of
course, is not at all unusual for a nuclear power plant project.
Construction cost overruns are the rule, not the exception.
Maybe that is why the Congressional Budget Office had this to say
about nuclear loan guarantees; ``CBO considers the risk of default on
such a loan guarantee to be very high--well above 50 percent.'' Or
maybe they said that because there is another reason to expect nuclear
power plants will continue to struggle financially; that reason is the
low cost of natural gas that makes it far more attractive than taking
multiple risks by going with nuclear power. Dale Klein, a former
chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, cautioned that nuclear
plants will not ``move off the blackboard and into construction . . . .
Not as long as natural gas remains as cheap and plentiful as it is
today.''
Nuclear power is not the only recipient of government largesse under
the section 1703 loan guarantee program. Even if you are a nuclear
power supporter, there are plenty of other boondoggles covered by this
program that I don't have time to go into.
That is why Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle can get
behind this amendment, which is supported by a bipartisan coalition of
groups including Taxpayers for Common Sense, Friends of the Earth,
National Taxpayers Union, and Physicians for Social Responsibility. It
is for those who are concerned about wasteful government spending. This
program alone will cost the taxpayers over 500 million dollars--not
including any defaults the taxpayers may have to cover. This amendment
is for those who have concerns about deficit spending. It is for those
with free market concerns about an energy technology that is not
financially viable even after tens of billions of dollars of subsidies
and decades of opportunities to mature to the point where subsidies are
not needed. It is for those who are concerned about the effects of
these energy technologies on our drinking water, on clean air, on
healthy soil, and on climate change. It is for those who have concerns
as ratepayers that they will also get stuck holding the bill when an
energy project fails and their electricity rates go up. It is for those
who found the Solyndra default to be outrageous.
There is a little something for everyone here. I urge my colleagues
to support the Kucinich amendment.

Potential Questions

You are targeting nuclear loan guarantees. This is an anti-nuclear
amendment.
The Section 1703 loan guarantees will be awarded to a range of energy
projects, including some which I wholeheartedly support like renewable
energy. I firmly believe that renewables deserve to have aggressive
subsidies to help them compete with the fuels of yesterday that have
been so heavily subsidized for decades. But I am looking at the big
picture here. This program, on balance, is bad policy.
It is bad for our energy portfolio, bad for taxpayers, bad for clean
air and water, and bad fiscal policy. Many of my friends on the other
side of the aisle have voiced concerns over government picking winners
and losers. This qualifies. They have expressed concern about
government spending. This is a half billion program at a minimum,
probably many times that. They have expressed concern about deficit
spending. This is it. They have expressed concern that the free market
should reign. This program does the opposite.
This is an anti-renewable amendment,
This is a 32 billion dollar loan guarantee program, of which only
between 1.2 billion and 4 billion dollars is dedicated to renewables.
The rest goes to unsustainable energy. Still, I don't take the
renewable money lightly. I am a major supporter of the solar industry.
In fact, I think the rapid and full throated deployment of solar energy
should be one of our top priorities in Congress. But I am looking at
the big picture here. This program, on balance, is bad policy.
It is bad for our energy portfolio, bad for taxpayers, bad for clean
air and water, and bad fiscal policy. Many of my friends on the other
side of the aisle have voiced concerns over government picking winners
and losers. This qualifies. They have expressed concern about
government spending. This is a half billion program at a minimum,
probably many times that. They have expressed concern about deficit
spending. This is it. They have expressed concern that the free market
should reign. This program does the opposite.
This is a limitation amendment so you will not save a half billion
dollars.
We will not save the half billion all in one year. But if we hit the
pause button on this program to consider it a little more carefully, we
won't spend any of that money this year.
Nuclear is viable/a good investment/financially sustainable.
In reaction to Southern Company's investment in new nuclear reactors
in 2010, Moody's downgraded its rating of Southern Company's.
The Economist magazine declared in its March 10th issue that nuclear
power is ``the dream that failed'': the plants are too costly and
uncompetitive with alternatives.
How will this amendment work?
The CBO determined that budget authority would be increased by this
amendment because administrative revenue from the loan guarantee
recipients to the Department of Energy would be foregone. CBO estimated
that

[[Page H3454]]

amount to be $33 million. My amendment offsets that cost to the federal
government buy cutting administrative expenses dedicated to running the
program this amendment would suspend.
What kind of energy is covered in the loan guarantees?
$18.5 billion for nuclear power plants.
$4 billion for uranium enrichment plants.
$8 billion for non-nuclear technologies; probably coal.
$2 billion for unspecified projects.
$1.183--$3.0 billion for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Taxpayers for Commonsense, Action,

June 5, 2012.
Dear Representative: Together we urge you support the
amendment offered by Reps. Kucinich (D OH) and McClintock (R
CA) amendment to stop the Department of Energy (DOE) Loan
Guarantee Program from issuing any new loan guarantees in FY
2013. Created in Title 17 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, the
DOE Loan Guarantee Program has received increased scrutiny
with the recent default of a loan guarantee to the solar
start-up company, Solyndra. Taxpayers stand to lose $500
million on the failed solar project and billions more could
be lost if the program continues in its current form.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the DOE
Inspector General, and many others have been critical of the
existing loan guarantee effort. Recently the GAO found that
DOE could not even provide comprehensive information on the
current loan guarantee applicants and commitments, and a
recent review commissioned by the White House found the
program was not proactively protecting the taxpayer or
providing for a reasonable prospect of repayment.
A recent audit of the Loan Guarantee Program by the Office
of the Inspector General found that the program, ``could not
always readily demonstrate . . . how it resolved or mitigated
relevant risks prior to granting loan guarantees.'' This
creates serious concern for taxpayers that the financial
terms of the loans are not being judiciously decided.
Furthermore, loan guarantees provided under Title 17
guarantee 100% of a loan for up to 80% of the project cost--
leaving taxpayers to shoulder far too much of the project
risk. Adding insult to injury, the little protection
taxpayers did have in the event of project default was
undermined in 2009 when DOE weakened the original statute.
With hundreds of billions in bailouts already on the
shoulders of US taxpayers, the country cannot afford to
continue a program that could easily become a black hole for
tens of billions in new defaults. We urge you to support the
Kucinich-McClintock amendment to stop new loan guarantees
from the troubled DOE Loan Guarantee Program!
Sincerely,
Taxpayers for Common Sense Action,
National Taxpayers Union,
Americans for Prosperity,
Friends of the Earth,
Nonproliferation Policy Education Center,
Competitive Enterprise Institute,
Freedom Action,
Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition
to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.

{time} 1950

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. It
would put in jeopardy thousands of jobs in our energy sector. The types
of projects it would jeopardize are entirely different than Solyndra.
If the Member wants to reduce the risk of losing taxpayers' dollars, he
should look towards the 1705 program, which has already lost over half
a billion dollars to risky loans.
This may be a convenient attempt to paint some of these potential
loan guarantees with a Solyndra brush, but it just doesn't wash. The
companies requesting these loan guarantees are not startups with shaky
financial records, but neither are they large enough to have enough
capital to fully pay for such massive projects. The loan guarantees
help them leverage their capital in a reasonable manner to ensure that
the benefits of these technologies can be shared by millions of
Americans.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
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. Mr. Chairman, I would simply also state my objection
to the gentleman's amendment.
I appreciate the concerns he expressed, especially for those projects
that may not make economic sense. If in those cases the gentleman is
correct, there should be no loan guarantee offered. Having said that,
for those programs that are in the queue that are under consideration
that make sense and move our energy policy forward, we ought not to
prohibit them from doing so by passing this amendment this evening.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KUCINICH. 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 Ohio 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. __. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to provide new loan guarantees or loan guarantee
commitments under section 1705 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (42 U.S.C. 16515).

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, since 2009, the Department of Energy
has used title 17, and specifically 1705--section 1705--to create a
government-run venture capital firm using taxpayers' hard-earned funds.
Unfortunately, in this zero-sum game being played and led by this
administration, American taxpayers have continually ended up on the
short end of the stick as we have watched companies like Solyndra,
Beacon Power, and others lose hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.
Through section 1705, DOE has closed transactions that guarantee
approximately $16.15 billion of loans for renewable-energy projects
through a policy of acceleration implemented by Secretary Chu.
With 82 percent of all funding within section 1705 going to solar
projects, it appears that even in the field of renewable energy this
administration has a very aggressive policy of picking winners and
losers.
Throughout the program, there have been countless red flags raised by
career DOE staff about the financial viability of firms looking for
taxpayer funding, as was the case with Solyndra. Many of us have been
around solar power for years. We have watched it go through many stages
of development; And while many of these companies have great ideas,
they are just not ready for prime time.
The high level of frustration with the loan guarantee program is not
only being felt by taxpayers, but by companies who have also tried to
go through the loan guarantee process. This amendment should send a
clear signal to the Senate, to DOE, and to the administration that we
have truly grown ill and fatigued with the mismanagement of the loan
guarantee program and that we do not want any funding put into section
1705 in fiscal year 2013 through the appropriations or through any
other vehicle.
I ask my colleagues for their support as we close the door on the
Solyndra debacle.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are prepared to accept her amendment.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the chairman for the acceptance, and 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 amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

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

[[Page H3455]]

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. I want to thank the committee for its hard work in
identifying ways to cut spending in this appropriations. The fiscal
year 2013 proposed funding level is $32.1 billion. Now, that is $965
million below the President's budget request. But, Mr. Chairman, there
is a lot more that can be done; and thereby I again am making the
request that we make an additional 1 percent across-the-board spending
reduction which will save taxpayers an additional $321 million.
Now, I am fully aware that as I come with these amendments for each
of our appropriations bills, I hear about how these cuts are too deep,
they are going to have too far of a reach, they are damaging our
national security, they are going to cut things that are important to
our life and our property. And imagine that--we are asking the
bureaucracy to go in and shave one penny out of a dollar--one
additional penny out of a dollar--in order to help put our Nation back
on a track to fiscal sanity.
As I've said before, across-the-board spending cuts effectively
control the growth and the cost of the Federal Government. They not
only give agencies flexibility to determine which expenses are
necessary; but, more importantly, they do not pick winners and losers.
Not only do I support the use of across-the-board spending cuts, but so
does former Governor Mitt Romney, Governor Chris Christie, Governor
Rick Perry, Governor Mitch Daniels, Governor Brian Schweitzer, and
Governor Christine Gregoire, just to name a few of the Nation's chief
executives of their States.
In the chairman's own State of New Jersey, I would like to point out
Governor Christie's statement. Now, this was November 7, 2010 on ``Meet
the Press.'' Governor Christie said:

In New Jersey what we did was we cut spending in every
department, a 9 percent cut in real spending, not projected
spending, real spending year over year.

That is because these work. And Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels took
the State's 2-year budget. He enacted that budget in June, and he cut
most agency spending by 10 percent from the previous budget.

{time} 2000

And we hear about Indiana being on the road to fiscal health.
Then former Governor Mitt Romney has said, as President, Mitt Romney
will send Congress a bill on day one that cuts nonsecurity
discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board.
Governor Rick Perry, starting in January 2010, we asked them to
identify 5 percent savings in the 2010 11 biennium, and 10 percent for
the '12 and '13 biennium. The point, Mr. Chairman, it works. Across-
the-board cuts work. We know that. The Governors know it.
The American people have really grown so tired of this wasteful
Washington out-of-control spending. They want to see cuts made. Let's
do this for our children and grandchildren. Let's cut one penny out of
every dollar and have the bureaucracy do exactly what our small
businesses are doing every single day--sitting down, making cuts,
figuring out how they're going to handle very difficult economic times.
I ask for the support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to seek time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. Our bill already cuts $1 billion from the President's
request. We're below 2009 levels. While difficult trade-offs had to be
made, the bill, in its current form, balances our needs. We prioritize
funding for essential activities and cut out new spending on poorly
performing programs. Yet the gentlelady's amendment proposes an across-
the-board cut on every one of these programs.
With all due respect, and she's extremely knowledgeable, that's not
the way that Governor Christie does it in New Jersey. He takes a look
at each program, considers its merit, considers whether it's a proper
investment in infrastructure, whether it will promote jobs.
And yet unlike, perhaps, the State budget, we're responsible for
nuclear security, for our nuclear stockpile, national security needs.
This is not the way to approach budget cutting. I urge the committee
and the House to reject this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I want to add my voice to the chairman's in
opposition.
The gentlewoman talked about a 1 percent cut. I would point out that
several years ago this Nation spent more money on water projects in one
city than we did on every water project in the United States of
America. The city was New Orleans, because we didn't make the proper
investment up front.
I don't think we should risk losing one life. And I would acknowledge
that we have already reduced the Corps' budget from existing year level
by $216 million.
We have at least a third of the harbors in this Nation that are not
dredged to depth. Every time a ship comes in or leaves that is not
fully loaded, there is a job that is lost, one job or more. There is $1
of profit for that shipper, for that company, or more that is lost.
Those are the numbers I'm worried about.
I strongly oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
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 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 designate the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 56, after line 24, insert the following new section:
Sec. 510. 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. Mr. Chairman, I hope that my appreciation
to the ranking member and the chairman is evidenced by hoping to offer
an amendment that is a reflection of the time that I served on the
Science Committee for 12 years, and now almost a decade plus on
Homeland Security.
When we speak about jobs, we understand that jobs are equated to
education, and the education that is the key of today in the 21st
century is science, technology, engineering, and math.
I had the privilege of participating in one of the largest robotic
competitions among students from around the world, hosted in Houston,
Texas, sponsored by the Harmony School. It was amazing, Mr. Chairman,
to see the outstanding and talented young people, particularly from the
United States, but hosting individuals from around the world. The
camaraderie, the collegiality around not war but peace and how to use
science, technology, engineering, and math to improve the quality of
life of all who live in this world was amazing.
But more importantly, as we look to America and the creation of jobs,
we must create a new generation of inventors knowledgeable about
science,

[[Page H3456]]

technology, engineering, and math similar to what NASA did in inspiring
young people to go into physics, biology, chemistry, and a variety of
sciences, all desiring be to be astronauts, many of whom became medical
doctors.
Now, as we begin to look at regaining our manufacturing prowess,
science, technology, engineering, and math are key. The United States
economic base has shifted from the manufacturing of durable goods to
processing and analyzing information.
In this information-driven economy, the most valuable assets are
human resources in science, technology, engineering, and math. But, in
addition, manufacturing can be bolstered by science, technology,
engineering, and math. It is so important, then, to ensure that we
prepare the next generation.
This amendment is simply a restatement and an affirmation of the
importance of the fact of the Department of Energy energy programs,
science, and that we reinforce the value of these programs. I have seen
it firsthand. I am promoting, and many Members as well, science,
technology, engineering, and math in their particular communities.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress, the Nation's
education report card, shows that fewer than 40 percent of students at
every grade level tested are proficient in math and science. In 2006,
only 4.5 percent of college graduates in the United States received a
diploma in engineering.
So I ask my colleagues to just reinforce our commitment to job
creation; to science, technology, engineering, and math; to
inventiveness; to world peace; to the collaboration of young people in
this generation moving forward to make a better quality of life for all
who are in this world.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are prepared to accept your amendment.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much, and I
thank the committee for its work.
I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 5325, the
``Energy and Water Appropriations Development Act, FY 2013.'' 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 shifted from the manufacturing of durable goods
to processing and analyzing information. 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: WORK FORCE AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR TEACHERS AND
SCIENTISTS

The work force 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 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% of fourth graders and 20% 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 consequence 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. 5325 fails to meet, an
increased number of 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 a 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 U.S.
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

[[Page H3457]]

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 on the population,
they continue to be underrepresented in the science and engineering
disciplines. Together, these three groups account for over 25% of the
population, but only earn 16.2% of bachelor's degrees, 10.7% of
master's degrees, and 5.4% of doctorate degrees 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. Chair, 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 science 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. Chair, 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 on 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.

FAST FACTS ON STEM--LIMITATION AMENDMENT

The Importance of STEM fields to the U.S. economy:
The U.S. economic base has shifted from the manufacturing of durable
goods to processing and analyzing information. In this information-
driven economy, the most valuable assets are human resources in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.
In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences published a report entitled
``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which estimated that in the
United States innovations generated by the Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields account for nearly half of
the growth in gross domestic product.
More than 3 million job openings in STEM related fields will be
created by 2018 that will require a bachelor's degree or higher
(Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce).
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that science and engineering
occupations are projected to grow by 21.4% from 2004 to 2014, which is
significantly higher than the projected growth of 13% in all other
occupations during the same time period.
The Crisis in STEM education:
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)--the Nation's
education report card--shows that fewer than forty percent of students,
at every grade level tested, are proficient in math and science.
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.
At our current rate, the United States falls short of project
workforce needs in the STEM fields by more than a million workers
(National Science Foundation).
Underrepresentation of Minorities and Women in STEM fields:
Recent statistics provided by the Engineering Workforce Commission
indicate a large disparity in STEM education between men and women, and
between minorities and Caucasians.
African American and Hispanic students were among the least likely
groups to take advanced math and science courses in high school.
Together, these three groups account for over 25% of the total U.S.
population, but only earn 16.2% of bachelor's degrees, 10.7% of
master's degrees, and 5.4% of doctorate degrees in the science, math
and engineering fields.
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. 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.

{time} 2010

This figure should alarm all of my colleagues.
In fiscal year 2012, the President requested $70 million for this
program. These are staggering increases from the $50 million request
that was seen in fiscal year 2008, and the Corps has little to show for
its increased spending. Moreover, the fiscal year 2013 request dwarfs
the insufficient $7.8 million requested for the entire Bank
Stabilization and Navigation Program from Sioux City to the mouth of
the Missouri.
I do not take for granted the importance of river ecosystems. I grew
up along the Missouri River, as did so many of the people I represent.
Yet, we have reached a point in our Nation at which we value the
welfare of fish and birds more than the welfare of our fellow human
beings. Our priorities are backwards, Mr. Chairman.
This exact amendment passed by voice vote during the fiscal year 2012
appropriations consideration. It is supported by the American Waterways
Operators, the Coalition to Protect the Missouri River, the Missouri
and Illinois Farm Bureaus, and the Missouri and Iowa Corn Growers
Associations, which propose a prohibition of funding

[[Page H3458]]

for the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan, or MRERP.
By the way, the end of the study will in no way jeopardize the Corps'
ability to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. MRERP
is one of no fewer than 70 environmental and ecological studies focused
on the Missouri River. The people who have had to foot the bill for
these studies, many which take years to complete and are ultimately
inconclusive, are the very people who last year lost their farms, their
businesses, and their homes.
This amendment will eliminate a study that has become little more
than a tool of the administration's and environmentalists for the
promotion of the return of the river to its most natural state with
little regard for flood control, navigation, trade, power generation,
or the people who depend on the Missouri River for their livelihoods.
Our vote today will also show our constituents that this Congress is
aware of the gross disparity between the funding for environmental
efforts and the funding for the protection of our citizens. During the
debate on fiscal year 2012 appropriations, the House passed by voice
vote this exact language, which was ultimately signed into law by
President Obama.
It is time for Congress to take a serious look at water development
funding priorities, and it is time to send a message to the Federal
entities that manage our waterways. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment and to support our Nation's river communities.
I yield back 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, the WRDA bill 2007, which was passed
with much bipartisan support, so much so that it overcame a
Presidential veto, authorized the Corps to undertake the Missouri River
Ecosystem Restoration Plan and to develop the Missouri River Recovery
Implementation Committee to consult on the study. This authority
provided a venue for collaboration between the 70 stakeholder groups of
tribes, States, public interest groups, and Federal agencies to develop
a shared vision and comprehensive plan for the restoration of the
Missouri River ecosystem.
At this time, by prohibiting the Corps from expending any 2013 funds
on the study and the committee, we would continue to delay that start.
I believe this would be very shortsighted and would lead to a further
erosion of trust in the delicate partnership in the basin. While the
Corps will continue to comply with Endangered Species' requirements
through other activities, I believe there is a role for a long-term
plan for this basin. Again, I would urge 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 question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BERG. 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 Missouri
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:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. For an additional amount for ``Department of
Energy--Energy Programs--Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy'', as authorized by sections 131(c)(4), 131(d)(4),
135(j), 207(c), 229(d), 244(f), 246(d), 321(g)(2), 422(f),
439(e), 452(f)(1)(E), 495(d), 625(e), 641(p), 652(d), 655(k),
656(j), 703(b), 705(b)(4), 803(c), 805(e)(6), 807(c)(2), and
1303(c) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
sections 712(c) and 1008(f)(7)(A) of the Energy Policy Act of
2005, and section 399A(i) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, there is appropriated, and the amount
otherwise made available for ``Atomic Energy Defense
Activities--National Nuclear Security Administration--Weapons
Activities'' is hereby reduced by, $10,000,000.

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. For a number of years, Mr. Chairman--and to
my colleagues, again, I thank the chairman and ranking member--I
practiced energy law in the State of Texas.
For a number of years, I worked with advocacy groups that were crying
out for an energy policy in this Nation, one that would respect the
assets that we've been blessed with in this country. Texas is blessed
with a number of assets, particularly wind and solar, as it has fossil
fuel, shale--opportunities to ensure that America remains independent
in the quest for energy independence.
My amendment recognizes the holistic approach to energy. In
recognizing the various resources that our State has and many other
States, it is a very, very small contribution, but an important
contribution, for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program.
Whenever you speak to the multinationals, I will assure you that all
of them have within their companies an emphasis or a section on the
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program. This is an essential
office that invests in clean energy technologies, an office that is
created to strengthen our economy and protect our environment. It works
well simultaneously along with the other very important programs in the
U.S. Department of Energy.
Under H.R. 5325, this development program fosters research, providing
to innovators the funds and resources they need to develop energy-
efficient equipment that can be used at home, by the construction
industry, and in the transportation market. The main concept is that
this can create jobs, that partnerships can create jobs. This program
is designed to develop cost-efficient methods through the use of
renewable energy practices for the home. Financial incentives are
provided to builders that utilize methods that result in the reduction
of energy use during construction, as well as to manufacturers within
the transportation industry who research and design energy-efficient
vehicles.
I have had the privilege of going through energy-constructed homes.
What a unique difference. Builders across America are crying out for
the opportunity to experiment with these very special, unique tools. I
would ask my colleagues to consider the job creation aspect of
renewable energy and the role that it plays in a holistic energy
policy. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I simply would voice my support for her amendment.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much.
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. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would risk our
nuclear security activities in order to add unnecessary funding to
energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
Our bill preserves the funding for that account's highest priorities
and those accounts that help advance American manufacturing and that
help our companies compete globally and address soaring gas prices.
Additional funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is
unwarranted, especially when it comes at the expense of national
security. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the
gentlewoman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I respect and thank the gentleman from
Indiana very much, the ranking member, for his support of the
amendment, and I thank him for his leadership.
I appreciate the chairman's commentary, but that is why I attempted
to be very responsible and balanced.

[[Page H3459]]

{time} 2020

This is a mere--though I take that word seriously--$10 million. And
let me tell you why it is enormously important. The U.S. Department of
Energy report found that wind energy could supply 20 percent of the
Nation's electricity by 2030. We're fast approaching that, which could
entail 300,000 megawatts of new wind-generating capacity.
There are States throughout the United States that would have a great
opportunity for increased job creation and businesses around wind
capacity. Again, a holistic approach to energy. Nearly $20 billion will
be saved if the energy efficiency of commercial and industrial
buildings improved by 10 percent.
As a member of the Homeland Security Committee overseeing the
Homeland Security Department, I know we look at all aspects to secure
our Nation. Energy independence, in spite of the fact of our diversity
in resources, is extremely important. That's why I believe a holistic
approach is crucial. This helps the holistic approach. As we continue
in States that deal with fossil fuel, this is equally important. Thirty
percent of energy in buildings is used inefficiently or unnecessarily.
Ethanol is a clean renewable energy. It is helping to reduce our
Nation's dependence on oil and offers a variety of economic,
environment benefits.
Again, I'm not too unappreciative, if you will, of the diversity of
energy in this country not to look at all aspects of it. And I do hope
that we can have a holistic approach. I think this contributes to that
holistic approach, taking into account all aspects of energy in a
unified energy policy.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 5325, the
``Energy and Water Appropriations Development Act, FY 2013.'' My
amendment provides to increase funds by $10,000,000 for the Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program.
The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program is an essential
office that invests in clean energy technologies created to strengthen
our economy and protect our environment.
Under H.R. 5325, this development program fosters research providing
funds to innovators with the resource they need to develop energy
efficient equipment that can be used at home, by the construction
industry and in the transportation market.
This program is designed to develop cost efficient methods through
the use of renewable energy practices for the home. Financial
incentives are provided to builders who utilize methods that results in
the reduction of energy use during construction, as well as,
manufactures within the transportation industry who research and design
energy efficient vehicles.
Providing additional funding to this program today only advances
research that may one day result in a significant decrease in our
dependence on energy from foreign sources that are hostile to U.S.
interest. In addition, this program will positively impact rising fuel
prices affecting Americans across the country.
It is this research which will ultimately contribute to sustaining
our economy by looking for domestic solutions to energy concerns thus
reducing foreign dependency on highly consumed substances such as oil.
Likewise it provides incentives to businesses taking initiatives to
conserving energy by creating tools directly effecting solar, wind and
water energy. Programs like these are vital to the Americans, in order
to develop a highly skilled technical workforce to address current
energy issues that have generational effects on our families and our
land.

fast facts

The U.S. Department of Energy's Building Technologies Program reduced
energy costs for consumers and businesses by billions of dollars, as
well as associated energy use and emissions, through setting minimum
energy performance standards for appliances and commercial equipment.
To date, every Federal dollar spent has resulted in an average of
$650 in net savings, and has also helped spur product innovation. As of
2010, consumers and businesses have saved $15 billion per year, and
this annual amount is expected to nearly double by 2025.
Buildings use more energy than any other sector of the U.S. economy,
consuming more than 70 percent of electricity and over 50 percent of
natural gas.
A U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) report found that the wind energy
could supply 20 percent of the Nation's electricity by 2030, which
would entail 300,000 megawatts (MW) of new wind generating capacity.
Nearly $20 billion would be saved if the energy efficiency of
commercial and industrial buildings improved by 10 percent.
Thirty percent of energy in buildings is used inefficiently or
unnecessarily.
Ethanol is a clean, renewable fuel. It is helping to reduce our
Nation's dependence on oil and offers a variety of economic and
environmental benefits. Today, on a life cycle basis, ethanol produced
from corn results in about a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions
relative to gasoline. With improved efficiency and use of renewable
energy, this reduction could be as much as 52 percent.
One hundred ten (110) manufacturers joining the Better Buildings,
Better Plants Program to gain recognition and technical support from
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Demonstrated their commitment to
energy savings by signing a voluntary pledge to reduce energy intensity
by 25 percent over 10 years. These companies are implementing cost-
effective energy efficiency improvements that reduce their bottom lines
while enhancing U.S. competitiveness.
Household vehicle ownership has changed over the last six decades. In
1960, over 20 percent of households did not own a vehicle, but by 2010,
that number fell to less than 10 percent. The number of households with
three or more vehicles grew from 2 percent in 1960 to nearly 20 percent
in 2010. Before 1990, the most common number of vehicles per household
was one, but since 1990, the most common number of vehicles is two.
Starting in 1980, more than 50 percent of American households owned
two or more vehicles.
The typical U.S. family spends at least $2,000 a year on home utility
bills. This amount can be lowered by up to 25 percent by engaging in
more efficient methods to save energy within the home.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. 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 Texas will
be postponed.

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 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, last year, parts of the Missouri River
basin faced some of the worst flooding in history. This devastation,
combined with our dire financial climate and the aging waterways
infrastructure, means that now, more than ever, we must be
deliberative, focused, and responsible with taxpayer-funded projects
and studies.
My amendment would prohibit funding for the duplicative Missouri
River Authorized Purposes Study, also known as MRAPS. This amendment
was passed by the House during both fiscal year 2011 and 2012 debates.
MRAPS is a $25 million earmark study that comes on the heels of a
comprehensive $35 million 17-year study completed in 2004.
Some may say that we need MRAPS to examine the causes and impacts of
the 2011 flooding. That simply isn't the case. First and foremost,
every member of the Missouri River basin is on record as supporting
flood control as the most important authorized purpose. It's something
that we take very seriously. The last thing we need is another 17-year,
highly litigious study to tell us that flood control is important.
Thousands of Missouri River basin residents who lost their homes and
businesses deserve action, not distraction. What we need to do is take
legitimate steps that focus on protecting life and property and
improving the safety and soundness of our flood-control system. It is
also important to note that there are many commercial advantages

[[Page H3460]]

provided by our inland waterway system. The Missouri River plays an
integral part in both domestic and international trade. MRAPS puts the
uses of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers in jeopardy, which could
result in devastating consequences for navigation along both. That's
why the Missouri waterways operators, the Coalition to Protect the
Missouri River, the Missouri and Iowa Corn Growers Associations, and
the Missouri and Illinois Farm Bureaus support this amendment.
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. Again, I offered identical
language to the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. That amendment
passed by a vote of 245 to 176. In the fiscal year 2012 debate, this
exact amendment passed by a voice vote and was ultimately included in a
package signed by the President. I appreciate my colleagues who offered
their support and hope to have their support once again.
Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that water resources
receive too little funding. It is time for the Federal Government to
refocus and reprioritize to create safer, more efficient infrastructure
for our inland waterways and stop spending hard-earned taxpayer dollars
unnecessarily.
I ask for my colleagues' support of this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
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. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is there is no money in
the bill for this project, so I do not know why the gentleman is
offering it. But I have no objection to it, and 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 question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BERG. 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 Missouri
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 17 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 by this Act may
be used by the Department of Energy to require grant
recipients to replace any lighting that does not meet or
exceed the energy efficiency standard set forth in section
325 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C.
6295).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would
protect universities, nonprofits, and businesses who receive Federal
grants from having to implement the light bulb ban. Even though the
Department of Energy has been prohibited from carrying out the light
bulb ban by last year's Energy and Water appropriations bill, and will
in this bill as well in section 316 of FY12 omnibus appropriations
bill, it however included a requirement that recipients of all
Department of Energy grants in excess of $1 million certify that they
will replace all light bulbs in their facilities that do not meet the
energy-efficiency standards instituted by the 2007 energy bill.
This requirement was driven by the Senate. The House passed a DOE
spending bill that did not include a similar provision or debate and
vote on this significant requirement. This is a particularly burdensome
provision that in some ways goes well beyond the actual light bulb ban
that prohibits manufacture and sale of 100 watt bulbs, and beginning in
July 2013, 75 watt bulbs.
Rather than allowing the DOE grantees to replace bulbs as they burn
out, this requirement forces small businesses and universities across
the country to immediately replace existing light bulbs. This makes
absolutely no sense. This forces extra costs on grant recipients and
effectively means funds otherwise intended for actual research
activities must instead be dedicated to purchasing new light bulbs to
replace perfectly functional ones. This amendment allows the House to
explicitly go on record opposing this unnecessary and burdensome
requirement.
I encourage my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAVAACK. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

{time} 2030

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am pleased to support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. CRAVAACK. I reserve the balance of my time.
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. Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe that the issues that
inspire Congress to enact energy efficiency standards in the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act of 2007 have not changed and, if anything,
they 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.
However, if this bill is going to carry a provision prohibiting the
Department of Energy from implementing and enforcing the light bulb
efficiency standards, then it does not make much sense to hold DOE
grant recipients to the standard.
I surmise that most recipients of DOE grants who tend to be pretty
energy savvy have already made the transition to light bulbs and are
enjoying their energy savings as we in the House rehash and debate the
exaggerated doubt of the incandescent light bulb. However, I do not
oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota.
I yield back the balance of my time
Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Chaffetz). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cravaack

Mr. CRAVAACK. 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 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 of
1986 (26 U.S.C. 9505(c)).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, in the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee last year, Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Civil Works, testified that the administration was preparing to
expand the scope of projects eligible to receive Harbor Trust Fund
monies. She alluded to the administration's interest in using the
Harbor Trust Fund for port security, among other things.
While I support the funding of port security through appropriations,
I oppose repurposing the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund while our
Nation's maritime infrastructure is in a state of disrepair. Eight out
of 10 of the Nation's largest harbors are not dredged their authorized
depths and widths.
Mr. Chairman, make no mistake: This has 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 instance, every inch silted in the American Laker Fleet
collectively, per voyage, leaves 8,000 tons of Minnesota

[[Page H3461]]

iron ore on the docks in Duluth. That's enough to produce over 6,000
cars.
Moreover, light loading causes increased transportation costs for our
exports and decreases our national economic competitiveness. Every
billion dollars in exports, Mr. Chairman, translates into 15,000 jobs.
We must, Mr. Chairman, ensure that the monies intended for dredging
are not siphoned off for other programs. My amendment will prohibit
monies from being used by the administration to develop a plan or draft
legislation to expand the scope of projects eligible to receive Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund monies. American shippers are taxed specifically
to maintain the channels they and our Nation depend on. It is
imperative that we ensure that the Harbor Trust Fund monies be spent as
they were intended, thereby ensuring American competitiveness and
proliferation of American jobs.
I am thankful that the administration has dropped this misguided
proposal in their budget proposal this year, but the only way to ensure
that this doesn't return in a midnight rule is to prohibit the funding
in this bill. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
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. Mr. Chairman, while I agree with the gentleman from
Minnesota that the moneys from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund should
not be diverted from their intended purpose of dredging, I do think it
is an overreach for the legislative branch to prohibit the executive
branch from even discussing the topic. I do think we are in a position
where looking forward we ought to let other branches of government talk
about ideas and concepts so that they can be debated by this body.
Additionally, though, we all know that any proposal put together by
the executive branch to expand eligible activities under the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund without first addressing the surplus and
addressing backlog issues would not be considered in either House of
Congress.
Again, I do not believe particularly that the amendment is necessary.
That being said, I do not oppose its inclusion in the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, 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 No. 18 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:

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 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, this amendment would prohibit the use of
funds for many of the international projects in the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy--that's EERE--including the President's
plan to spend $600,000 on ``sustainable cities'' projects in China and
India. My amendment is identical to one I offered last year that was
successfully adopted by this Chamber.
I would also like to congratulate the chairman of the committee for
his own action regarding this issue. The chairman's bill reduces
funding for EERE by $428 million from last year's level. He makes the
hard choices required to address our country's deficit and spending
problems.
This amendment supports language in the report that accompanied the
FY 2012 appropriations bill. In that report, the chairman was able to
retain much of last year's amendment by directing the DOE to only fund
projects that directly benefit the United States, such as increasing
American energy self-sufficiency, furthering United States research
efforts or reducing domestic pollution.
Unfortunately, the Department of Energy is failing to follow these
clear instructions. Instead, they are choosing to spend money in China
and India on foreign sustainable cities projects, even as we borrow
money from China to pay our national debt.
Mr. Chairman, we must take great care how we spend our constituents'
paychecks. I don't believe these projects make the best use of hard-
earned taxpayer money. There are greater needs that remain unmet and a
massive Federal debt and annual deficit that continues to drag down our
entire economy, as was demonstrated in today's Congressional Budget
Office report. I urge adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by my colleague from Maryland. The amendment would essentially
create an energy renewable program for the U.S.-Israel program by
restricting the EERE international program from dealing with any other
country.
I certainly am a supporter of the country of Israel, and Israel has a
vibrant and cutting-edge clean energy industry, but I do not believe
that we ought to limit this program to one country out of many, and
think that it would be a mistake to put all of our international
program eggs into a single basket.
This program, which directly supports the mission of the Department
to advance the development and deployment of clean energy technologies,
needs to be able to establish relationships with multiple partner
countries in order to be effective.

{time} 2040

The program's technical assistance activities help to prime markets
for us for clean technologies in major emerging economies. The program
can bring home lessons learned from others' experiences to share with
national, State, and local authorities. The program can also promote
U.S. national security and potentially reduce price volatility of
fossil energy resources by decreasing the influence of oil-exporting
countries and mitigating world demand for oil.
Again, this is an excellent program. I do not believe it ought to be
simply limited to one country. I am opposed to the gentleman's
amendment, and 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 amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 10 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. The passage in this House back in 2007 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act was something that has caused a great
deal of difficulty across the country. I have heard from tens of
thousands of my constituents on how that language will affect their
lives and take away consumer choice for what kind of light bulbs they
will use in their home. Mr. Chairman, they are exactly right.

[[Page H3462]]

When the government passed energy efficiency standards in other
realms over the years, they never went as far as they did this time.
They lowered standards drastically. It's now to a point where the
technology is, honestly, years off in making light bulbs that are
compliant with the law and actually affordable by the consumer.
Light bulb companies have talked about their new bulbs that are
compliant with the existing law and that are available now, but at what
price? A four-pack of 100-watt incandescent bulbs in my district cost
$2.97 at a hardware store last December 31. Now a single bulb will cost
$20, $30, $40--even $50.
Opponents to my amendment say that the 2007 language does not ban the
incandescent bulb. Well, that's partly true, but it bans the sale of
the 100-watt incandescent bulb, and soon the 60-watt and 45-watt bulbs
will follow suit because they cannot meet the energy standards supplied
in the underlying legislation. The replacement bulbs are far from
economically efficient, if indeed they are energy efficient.
But here's the deal. We shouldn't be making these decisions for the
American people. Let them decide how much energy they want to consume
and how many dollars they want to spend on kilowatt hours every month,
not the Federal Government. A family living paycheck-to-paycheck can't
afford to replace every bulb in their house at $25 a pop, even if it
will last them 20 years.
This exact amendment was passed last year on this appropriations bill
by a voice vote. It was signed into law by President Obama. It allows
consumers to continue to have a choice and a say as to what they put in
their homes. It's common sense. Let's give some relief to American
families, at least until replacement light bulbs can be marketed at a
price that is reasonable.
I yield back 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. I would point out to my colleagues that this debate is
not about choice--or energy efficiency, for that matter. It is about,
from my perspective, endangering American jobs and, specifically,
American manufacturing jobs.
We have a significant trade imbalance in this country. Given that
American manufacturers have committed to following the law regardless
of whether or not it is enforced, the only benefit to this amendment is
to allow foreign manufacturers who may not feel a similar obligation to
export noncompliant light bulbs that will not only harm the investments
made by U.S. companies but place at risk U.S. manufacturing jobs
associated with making compliant bulbs.
Further, I believe they represent a tax increase. It represents an
equivalent of a $100 tax on every American family--$16 billion across
the Nation--through increased energy costs.
The performance standards for light bulbs were established in the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. At that time, the bill,
as I pointed out in an earlier portion of this debate, enjoyed such
strong bipartisan support that we were able to override a Presidential
veto of that act. As far as I'm aware, the issues that inspire this
standard have not changed, and I would argue have gotten worse.
It is a common misunderstanding that the Energy Independence and
Security Act bans the incandescent light bulb and requires people to
have the limited choice of only a compact florescent bulb. This is not
true. It simply requires that they be more efficient. And I do not see
what the harm is in that.
Further, while claiming that the incandescent bulb is dead makes for
a great sound bite, it does not reflect reality.
I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and 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 amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Tipton

Mr. TIPTON. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report 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 conduct a survey in which money is included or
provided for the benefit of the responder.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment aimed at
ending an egregious practice of wasting taxpayer dollars in this time
of mounting Federal debt. This amendment specifically aims to eliminate
the Federal Government's recent practice of sending out cash to
encourage survey responses favorable to agency goals. I wholeheartedly
agree with the general need for public input in our government, but the
practice of sending out American taxpayer dollars to encourage public
participation, or worse, to buy public support where it might otherwise
be lacking, is a symbol of the lack of accountability and how out of
touch our Federal Government has become.
For generations, the Bureau of Reclamation has served the Western
United States well. Its dams, reservoirs, canals, and hydro-powered
turbines have formed the backbone of our communities and provided
abundant water and emission-free energy. This was all based on
ratepayers paying for almost every cent of these projects at no expense
to the taxpayers. Yet that mission is changing, and this couldn't be a
better example of just how out of touch the agency has become under
this administration.
At issue here is the so-called survey aimed at soliciting local,
regional, and national input on the societal need to remove four
privately owned dams on the Klamath River. The survey was mailed to
1,000 households in California, Oregon, and selected households in the
rest of the Nation. Each of these households received a postcard
telling them that the survey was coming. Then a large packet with the
survey arrived. In each packet a cover letter, a postage paid return
envelope, a survey, and a $2 bill was included to entice the people to
respond. That's $22,000 of American taxpayers' money being spent.
To those who did not respond but kept the $2 bill anyway, a Federal
Express or priority mail package was sent out. This was sent to 1,245
people, out of which 286 responded.

{time} 2050

Each of these 286 respondents was then given $20, which means that
$5,720 of additional taxpayer dollars was spent, not including the cost
of the FedEx or Priority Mail. Only the Federal Government would
further reward people for not responding the first time.
Let's take a look at some of the responses that the Bureau of
Reclamation published in a report earlier this year:
``Another waste of taxpayer money,'' one said.
``No wonder the U.S. is having money problems if the government has
extra $2 bills to mail out randomly,'' said another.
``Wow, what a waste of time. I have neither the time or interest in
something I have not a clue about happening clear across the country.
Sorry. P.S. Thanks for the 2 bucks,'' yet another wrote.
In all fairness, there were some positive responses. But, I think
this comment says it best:
``Send me no more. Thank you.''
And that's what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman. It simply
prohibits the Bureau of Reclamation and other agencies covered under
the legislation from funding a survey in which money is included or
provided for the benefit of the responder. It doesn't say that the
Federal Government can't have public input or send out surveys, which
is necessary to the process. It simply says no more giving away
taxpayer dollars.
The above amounts may not seem a lot in this day of trillion-dollar
budgets, but it is symbolic of the waste and abuse going on here.
To make matters worse, the Bureau of Reclamation has yet to fully
answer

[[Page H3463]]

and comply with a request made months ago by Natural Resources Chairman
Doc Hastings and the Water and Power Subcommittee Chairman Tom
McClintock that is aimed at answering the rationale about the survey,
the overall cost of this survey, and why taxpayer dollars were
included. The American people deserve answers. They deserve
transparency that apparently this administration will not give. In the
interim, however, they deserve to know that their government will not
be sending out their hard-earned tax dollars on a dam removal survey by
an organization that was once dedicated to building dams.
I urge my colleagues to end this blatant waste of taxpayer fraud and
abuse by supporting this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I am happy to accept the gentleman's amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TIPTON. 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 Colorado
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:

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 ``Atomic
Energy Defense Activities--National Nuclear Security
Administration--Weapons Activities'', and increasing the
amount made available for ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--
Department of the Army--Operation and Maintenance'', by
$52,000,000.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
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. Mr. Chairman, I again ask my colleagues to
support this amendment because anyone who has lived near a port
understands what the Army Corps of Engineers is going through. We spend
our time working with the Corps on this issue of dredging. In every
port in the United States, millions of dollars are lost because of the
inability of access and the difficulty of making sure that our Nation's
ports are ready for the increase in business.
The Transportation Institute Center for Ports and Waterways
indicated, analyzing the direct economic effects of channel
restrictions and the loss of 1 foot of draft from the Houston ship
channel, as an example, and the data was collected from the years 2008
and 2009, the study determined that a direct economic impact of the
loss of 1 foot over 2 years amounts to $373 million. This, in fact, is
an account that has been authorized, as evidenced by the Army Corps,
which deals in particular with the Department of Army Operations and
Maintenance. This infusion is to assist in making sure that jobs are
saved and jobs are created.
The study does not consider other effects that are very real but are
extremely difficult to measure, but they can measure what the lack of
dredging can bring about. I would make the argument that in ports that
are competing with world ports, accessibility is crucial.
I ask my colleagues to be reminded that we are in the business of
creating jobs. It seems ridiculous that we cannot add to an existing
account to create jobs, to assist in one of the largest ports in the
Nation, ports along the west coast, ports along the gulf, and ports
along the east coast, all ports that are engaged in receiving large
vessels that are bringing in goods and large vessels going out with
manufactured and other goods from the United States of America.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of
order?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes, I do.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman reserves.
The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
As I've said many times, I, too, am concerned about sufficiently
maintaining our waterways. These waterways contribute significantly to
our national economy by providing a means of cost-efficient cargo
transportation. To this end, our bill funds the operations and
maintenance account at $2.5 billion, an increase of $109 million above
the President's budget request and $95 million above fiscal year 2012.
I would remind the gentlewoman that under the earmark ban, the final
bill cannot include funding to a specific project in an amount above
the President's budget request.
Instead of increasing funding for specific projects, our bill
includes additional funding for categories of ongoing projects--
including an additional $189 million for navigation dredging--with
final project-specification allocations to be made by the
administration. The project my colleague is interested in would be
eligible to compete for this additional funding.
As an offset, this amendment strikes funding for the modernization of
our nuclear weapons stockpile and its supporting infrastructure.
Ensuring adequate funding to maintain our nuclear weapons is my highest
priority for our bill. The increases provided in this bill for nuclear
security have received strong bipartisan support.
This amendment unacceptably strikes funding for both of these
priority investments, which are both urgent and overdue. I strongly
urge my colleagues to make defense a priority and vote ``no'' on this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman may state his point of order.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The amendment proposes to increase an
appropriation not authorized by law, and therefore is in violation of
clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
Although the original account funding for the Corps of Engineers--
Civil--Department of Army--Operations and Maintenance is unauthorized,
it was permitted to remain in the bill pursuant to the provisions of
the rule that provided for the consideration of this bill. When an
unauthorized appropriation is permitted to remain in a general
appropriations bill, an amendment merely changing that amount is in
order, but the rules of the House apply a ``merely perfecting
standard'' to the items permitted to remain and do not allow the
insertion of a new paragraph--not part of the original text permitted
to remain--to increase a figure permitted to remain.
I would further say the account contains funding for projects not
entirely authorized.
The amendment cannot be construed as merely perfecting, and
therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Chair rule the amendment out of
order.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized on the point of
order.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
his expression. What I would argue is: What are Members here to do?
I would vigorously disagree this is an earmark. I believe there is
authorization, in particular under operation and maintenance. But the
dilemma that the gentleman is making an argument on is whether or not
you can increase it versus reducing it. And so what my argument is is
that this is a general increase to operation and maintenance

[[Page H3464]]

with no specific tie to indicate that it is an earmark.

{time} 2100

There is no monetary benefit to me as a Member of Congress, publicly
stated on the floor of the House. Therefore, this is to increase
millions of jobs in America, in ports around America, for an issue that
is devastating to ports and that the Army Corps of Engineers is being
overwhelmed, that is, the requirement of dredging. Dredging equals
allowing the quality of vessel to increase by tonnage, to bring in and
take out goods that Americans have manufactured and goods that
Americans are seeking to import with our allies and trading partners.
It is to increase jobs. Therefore, I'd make the argument that we are
bound by rules that have nothing to do with earmarks if you are, in
essence, placing funding into existing accounts to help Americans--all
of America--and to build our ports--all of our ports--making them more
secure and making them more accessible so that the goods of Americans
can go to and fro, and that jobs can multiply.
If one port alone, by one foot of inaccessibility, lack of dredging,
loses $373 million, multiply that by the number of major ports in the
United States from the East to the southern coastline to the west
coast. I make the argument that this is an amendment that can stand on
its own and should not be subject to a point of order.
I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The proponent of an item of appropriation carries the burden of
persuasion on the question whether it is supported by an authorization
in law. Having reviewed the amendment and entertained argument on the
point of order, the Chair is unable to conclude that the item of
appropriation in question is authorized in law. For example, the
manager has stated that the account contains funding for unauthorized
projects and the Chair would note that some items appropriated in the
Operation and Maintenance account are not modified by the phrase ``as
authorized by law.''
Under the precedents of July 12, 1995, and July 16, 1997, an
amendment adding matter at the pending portion of the bill to effect an
indirect increase in an unauthorized amount permitted to remain in a
portion of the bill already passed in the reading is not ``merely
perfecting'' for purposes of clause 2(a) of rule XXI. The Chair is
therefore constrained to sustain the point of order under clause 2(a)
of rule XXI.

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:

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 used for the U.S. China Clean Energy Research Center.

The Acting CHAIR. 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, my amendment would prevent any funds
in this bill from being spent on the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research
Center.
Our Department of Energy is using our taxpayer dollars to help China
to develop their energy systems. This specific expenditure is $37.5
million over 5 years. China should be spending their own money for
developing their own energy systems.
With the miserable shape of our budget and our economy, the last
thing we should be doing is depleting our resources to help the Chinese
become more efficient and thus more competitive. We are borrowing money
from Communist China, paying interest on that money, and then turning
around and subsidizing the development of a high-tech manufacturing
sector in China that will take away more American jobs. This is as
nutty as it gets.
The Department of Energy is helping the Communist Chinese to build
electric vehicles. Over the next 20 years, the electric vehicle
industry may well be creating 130,000 up to maybe 350,000 American
jobs. As of 2010, 30,000 Americans are already working in the electric
vehicle and advanced battery industries. Tesla Motors in my State is
already doing it. Why are we spending our tax dollars to put these jobs
in jeopardy by improving the Chinese ability to build such cars? Why
does our government want to ship jobs to China and subsidize the
effort?
The Clean Energy Research Center also shares American know-how with
China in advanced coal technology. The global value of electricity
generated using clean coal technologies was $63 billion in 2010 and by
2020 will reach $85 billion. U.S. companies have the potential to
capture the global market and can sell American-designed and -built
technology to China, but if we give the Chinese access to our research
now, our lead in this area will be undercut. Why are we undercutting
ourselves?
Last month, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced anti-dumping
tariffs on Chinese companies for unfair trade practices regarding solar
panels. Sixty-six Chinese producers were named, which suggests this is
a concerted effort to undermine the United States market.
In 2011, the U.S. imported over $3 billion worth in Chinese panels,
and since 2001 our share of the global market in these panels has
shrunk from 27 percent to just 5 percent. Over 100,000 American jobs
depend directly or indirectly on the success of the U.S. solar
industry. Why are we subsidizing the Chinese development of this
technology?
China is not playing by the same rules that we're playing by. The
Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive released a report
last year which states:

Chinese actors are the world's most active and persistent
perpetrators of economic espionage.

Among the technologies which they have the greatest interest in is
stealing. And what they're interested in stealing is the cutting-edge
energy technologies that we are developing with our expertise.
Let's stop paying the Chinese to give them access to our best
scientists, research centers, and technology. They are already stealing
enough intellectual property to enhance their own economic and military
power. They are robbing us blind, but we are not blind. This is
happening right in front of our face. America's high-tech industry--
whether in energy, aerospace, or any other kind of manufacturing--
should be way out in front of the competition. Why are we helping China
close that gap?
This amendment would put a stop to over $7 million annually that is
being used to bolster the efforts of our Chinese adversary.
Transferring technology or funds to help develop that technology to a
strategic rival makes no sense whatsoever. I urge my colleagues to
support my amendment and put an end to it.
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. Mr. Chairman, I certainly share some of my
colleague's concerns. We should not be sending Department of Energy
funding overseas if it doesn't benefit our citizens or it undermines
our own competitiveness. But we cannot assume that all international
cooperation is objectionable. The research the gentleman's amendment
would eliminate is both a proper role for Federal funds and directly
benefits America.
Let me first point out these research centers are not a donation to
China. They are funded in equal parts by China and the United States.
They actually support three consortia centered at West Virginia
University, the University of Michigan, and Lawrence Berkeley National
Lab in his own home State. They fund research at seven American
national laboratories, five American universities, and 40 American
companies, institutes, and other organizations. There's nothing nutty
about that, Mr. Chairman.
I certainly share the concerns that we keep intellectual property and
manufacturing here at home. To address

[[Page H3465]]

these concerns, these research centers signed agreements to protect
American intellectual property while allowing us to take advantage of
new joint discoveries. Eliminating these centers altogether would harm
American researchers, American scientists, American innovation, and
American job creation.

I oppose his amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I'll make this very quick.
We're not talking about all cooperation. I'm not opposed to all
cooperation. I'm opposed to cooperation with the Adolf Hitlers of our
day--the people who are murdering Christians and other religious people
as we speak. No, we should not be cooperating with that government in
developing their technologies, whether it's energy or otherwise.

{time} 2110

All of these different groups that are cooperating with them, this is
part of a group that also has research going on throughout our
universities of the United States. That makes it even worse because you
have Chinese nationals there who are taking as much of the information
as they can and taking it back to China from our universities.
We should be opposed to this. Let's stand up for the American worker
and what's right.
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.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
request for a recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) be withdrawn, to the end that
the Chair put the question de novo.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
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:
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 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, on May 24, 2011, President Obama issued a
memorandum on Federal Fleet Performance that requires all new light
duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be alternate fuel vehicles, such
as hybrid, electric, natural gas or biofuel, by December 31, 2015.
My amendment echoes the Presidential Memorandum by prohibiting funds
in the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act from being used to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles except
in accord with the President's Memorandum.
I've introduced a similar amendment to five different appropriations
bills in the past, including last year's Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill, and each time my amendment was accepted and passed
by voice vote. My amendments have also been accepted to the Commerce,
Justice and Science appropriations bill for FY 2013, and the
Agriculture, Defense and Homeland Security appropriations bills for FY
2012.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We're prepared to accept your amendment again.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very, very much.
I just want to say, before I sit down, that this is truly a
bipartisan effort. And I want to pay tribute to my good friend, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) who has been working with me on
this open fuel standard. We've introduced a bill, H.R. 1687, which
requires 50 percent of new automobiles in 2014, 80 percent in 2016 and
95 percent in 2017, to be warranted to operate on nonpetroleum fuels in
addition to or instead of petroleum-based fuels.
I want to just say that compliance possibilities include the full
array of existing technologies, including flex fuel, natural gas,
hydrogen, biodiesel, plug-in electric drive and fuel cell, and a catch-
all for new technologies.
So I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for accepting this.
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. Stearns

Mr. STEARNS. 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 by this Act may
be used by the Department of Energy to subordinate any loan
obligation to other financing in violation of section 1702 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16512) or to
subordinate any Guaranteed Obligation to any loan or other
debt obligations in violation of section 609.10 of title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of myself, Mr.
Scalise of Louisiana, Mrs. Adams of Florida and Mr. Broun of Georgia.
My colleagues, this simple amendment will prohibit the Department of
Energy from using any funds included in this bill to subordinate any
loan obligation to other financing in violation of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005. That was the original intent of Congress.
As chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigation, I've led the investigation into the
administration's rushed decision to loan Solyndra, a California-based
solar panel manufacturing company, $535 million in taxpayers' money
that was ultimately lost.
During this investigation, it was uncovered that, shockingly, the
Department of Energy knew as early as August 2009 that Solyndra would
go bankrupt in September of 2011, but simply proceeded to risk more
taxpayers' funds throughout that time.
The investigation also discovered that following meetings with
outside investors, DOE made the unprecedented decision on December 10,
2010, to subordinate $75 million of taxpayer money so more private
capital could be injected into Solyndra.
Subordination gave private investors' money priority over taxpayers'
money, meaning that, in the event of bankruptcy, private investors
would be paid back before the taxpayers. But Secretary Chu wasn't
allowed to subordinate the taxpayers' money.
As I mentioned earlier, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 states that DOE
loan guarantees are not to be subordinated to other financing, and it
was clear what the intent of Congress was.
In fact, DOE went out of its way to violate the will of Congress and
sought the opinion of outside counsel on the legality of the
subordination. And based upon this opinion, they made a decision to
subordinate. And it all hinged on the word ``is,'' the meaning of the
word ``is.''
In a 17-page draft memo obtained by the Energy and Commerce
Committee,

[[Page H3466]]

DOE's private attorneys, they seem to acknowledge that the law
prohibits the subordination of Department-guaranteed funds. However,
this draft memo was never finalized. Instead, an email was sent by a
lawyer at the law firm stating that DOE's rationale for subordination
was, ``it makes the best possible case based on a reasonable
interpretation supported by restructuring policy arguments.''
Now, Secretary Chu also ignored important parts of the law. The law
required the Energy Secretary to notify the Attorney General in the
event of a default on a loan guarantee. In a December 13, 2010 letter
to Solyndra, Jonathan Silver, then-executive director of the DOE's loan
program, notified Solyndra it was in default. However, Secretary Chu
did not alert the Attorney General, as required by law.
In addition, Treasury and OMB officials' emails clearly indicate they
believed DOE's legal justification for placing taxpayers at the back of
the line was inconsistent with their interpretation of the law, and
advised DOE to seek a legal opinion from the Justice Department.

{time} 2120

In an August 17, 2011, email, Department of the Treasury Assistant
Secretary for Financial Markets Mary Miller sent an email to Jeffery
Zients, Deputy Director of OMB, in which she stated:

Our legal counsel believes that the statute and the DOE
regulations both require that the guaranteed loan should not
be subordinate to any loan or other debt obligation.

It is clear, Mr. Chairman, that every step of the way the Department
of Energy ignored the law and did whatever it wished in order to push
through the subordination.
Our investigation continues. I and my colleagues on Energy and
Commerce are working on a permanent legislation solution to ensure that
taxpayers are never, ever again stuck paying hundreds of millions of
dollars because of the Obama administration's risky bets and decisions
to put taxpayers at the back of the line. I encourage all of my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEARNS. How much time, Mr. Chairman, do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the
amendment. I commend the gentleman for his investigations and his
conclusion.
Mr. STEARNS. I yield the balance of my time to my colleague from
Florida (Mrs. Adams).
Mrs. ADAMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in support of the
Adams-Stearns-Scalise-Broun amendment, which ensures the protection of
taxpayer dollars at the Department of Energy. American taxpayers were
left out in the cold when President Obama's administration went through
with this loan when the now-defunct bankrupt Solyndra was restructured.
In the restructuring agreement, the Department of Energy ensured
investors and special interests would recover their money first, before
the American taxpayers. This is unacceptable.
Although the Department of Energy continues to argue that it has the
power under Federal law to put the needs of the American taxpayer at
the back of the line in a financial crisis, this amendment makes it
absolutely clear the Department shall not do it again.
This amendment will ensure that if the taxpayers take a risk, they
will be protected when the loan goes bad. I thank Chairman Stearns, and
Representatives Scalise and Broun for their leadership on this issue
and I urge support of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. 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 Florida 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:

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 ``Atomic
Energy Defense Activities--National Nuclear Security
Administration--Weapons Activities'', and increasing the
amount made available for ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--
Department of the Army--Construction'', by $10,000,000.

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. Mr. Chairman, this is my ``can we all get
along'' amendment. I thank, again, the chairman and ranking member for
their work on this bill.
My amendment would be helpful to the Army Corps of Engineers and
their work on our east coast, on our gulf, and on our west coast
because it deals specifically with restoration. It sends a strong
message to the importance of restoration and its issue of national
importance. It talks about the economic well-being of the regions along
the Nation's coastlines, and it provides an opportunity for
restoration.
There is no doubt that over the years our coastlines have
deteriorated and that wetlands have not been protected. We've
experienced a devastating spill on the gulf coastline, and so many
along that coastline, from Florida to Alabama to Louisiana to Texas and
in between, have experienced a negative impact on their wetlands and
their coastline. This takes a mere $10 million--again, I say it with
respect--to assist the Nation in providing aid and improvement to the
Nation's coastlines, which, again, produce opportunities of economic
development, tourism, and various protections for a coastline that has
suffered under neglect.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers estimates that 60 percent
of the coastline along the gulf is eroding. The coast loses up to 10
feet of shoreline a year, with 225 acres of topsoil washing into the
gulf coast. Funds are needed to preserve the gulf coast as well as
other coasts. This will, in turn, protect the economic stability of
that region.
Just a few months ago, I introduced H.R. 3710, which would provide
for the added opportunity of protecting the coastline as well as for
deficit reduction through an energy security fund. The legislation
would provide funds for programs to help with the restoration as it
establishes grants for States along our coastal areas--a coastal and
disaster grant program and a national grant program--to address coastal
and ocean disasters and the restoration, protection, and maintenance of
the coastal areas and oceans, including research and programs in
coordination with State and local agencies.
I look forward to the hearing and passage of that legislation, but
today I rise to support the Nation's coastal region and to provide
these resources. With that, I ask my colleagues to support this
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. I share the gentlewoman's support for smart
investments in our Nation's water resources infrastructure. I well
understand the economic benefits of spending money on these needs.
I would remind the gentlewoman, under the earmark ban, the final bill
cannot include funding to a specific project in an amount above the
President's budget request. Instead, the bill includes additional funds
for categories of projects with final project-specific allocations to
be made by the administration. As an offset, this amendment strikes the
funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile and its
supporting infrastructure.
For that reason alone, I oppose the bill, and I urge my colleagues to
do so as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would make the point that
this is included in this bill on page 3,

[[Page H3467]]

under ``Construction.'' I don't view this in particular as an earmark
as much as I do as putting in resources necessary for the protection of
our coastline. Again, it is not excessive. It does not undermine the
atomic program. What it does is to help millions of Americans along the
coastline and particularly those who have experienced deterioration
going from the east coast to the west coast.
Certainly, I believe this is one on which we can join together and
support. It is constructive; it is productive; it creates jobs; it
creates an economic engine; and it protects one of our most valued
resources, and that is the Nation's coastline, wetlands included. It is
compatible with those who are fishing, with those who are exploring,
and with those who are enjoying.
I think it is crucial that this amendment be passed by this House in
a constructive way in order to create jobs, to move this Nation
forward, and to preserve the bounty of the environment that we've been
given to protect. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee
amendment, which deals with the restoration of our coastline.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 5325, the
``Energy and Water Appropriations Development Act, FY 2013.'' My
amendment would increase the Army Corps of Engineers Construction
Account by $10 million for Texas Coastal Restoration and reduce the
Atomic Energy Defense Account by the same amount.
My amendment sends a strong message that gulf restoration is of
national importance. In addition to all the Gulf Coast States, Texas
plays a crucial role in the Gulf Coast's economic well-being and
deserves funds for its restoration as well.

The Importance of the Texas Gulf Coast

Texas boasts a 370 mile long coastline that plays a major role in the
state and the nation's economy.
The state hosts three of the country's top ten ports and is ranked
number one in the nation in the total value of waterborne commerce,
most of which is dependent on the Gulf ports.
The Texas Gulf Coast also plays a major role in the tourism industry.
Texas gets over $445 million a year from cruise ships and earns a
quarter of the coast's travel dollars. The state also accounts for 37
percent of the Gulf of Mexico's tourism and recreational employment.
In 2008, the Gulfs oil and gas development generated about $26
billion in wages.
Erosion is steadily threatening to destroy the Texas coast's success.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers estimates that 60 percent of
the Texas coastline is eroding.
The coast loses up to 10 feet of shoreline a year with 225 acres of
topsoil washing into the Gulf Coast.
Funds are needed to help preserve the Texas Gulf Coast which will in
turn protect the economic stability of the gulf coast region.
This Congress I introduced a bill which is also designed to help
restore our Gulf Coast. H.R. 3710, ``The Deficit Reduction, Job
Creation and Energy Security Act.''
My bill directs the Secretary of Interior to increase the 5-Year oil
and gas leasing program of lease sales designed to best meet the
Nation's energy needs by 10 percent of the total acreage contained in
the OCS Lands Act.
This 10 percent added acreage shall be known as the Deficit Reduction
Energy Security Fund. For 15 years after issuance of the first lease or
receipt of the first payment coming from the Deficit Reduction Energy
Security Fund, all proceeds shall be deposited into an interest bearing
account for a period of 2 years.
Upon expiration of the 2 year period, these proceeds shall be
distributed as follows: The interest gained during 2 year period shall
be placed in the Coastal and Ocean Sustainability and Health Fund; and
the principle from the Deficit Reduction Energy Security Fund shall be
applied directly toward deficit reduction.
My bill, H.R. 3710, not only increases access to oil and gas leases
it also funds programs to help with Gulf Restoration as it establishes
grants for states (Coastal and Disaster Grant Program and a National
Grant Program) for addressing coastal and ocean disasters, restoration,
protection, and maintenance of coastal areas and oceans, including
research and programs in coordination with state and local agencies.
I firmly believe that we must continue to support Gulf Restoration
which is why I offered the bill H.R. 3710 and why I propose the
amendment today. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment which is
intended to restore our nation's Gulf Coast.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. 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 Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

Mr. MULVANEY. 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. __. (a) 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 24 percent.
(b) The reduction in subsection (a) shall not apply to the
following accounts:
(1) ``Corps of Engineers--Civil--Department of the Army''.
(2) ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Nuclear
Energy''.
(3) ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup''.
(4) ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Nuclear Waste
Disposal''.
(5) ``Department of Energy--Atomic Energy Defense
Activities--National Nuclear Security Administration--Weapons
Activities''.
(6) ``Department of Energy--Atomic Energy Defense
Activities--National Nuclear Security Administration--Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation''.
(7) ``Department of Energy--Atomic Energy Defense
Activities--National Nuclear Security Administration--Naval
Reactors''.
(8) ``Department of Energy--Atomic Energy Defense
Activities--National Nuclear Security Administration--Office
of the Administrator''.
(9) ``Department of Energy--Environmental and Other Defense
Activities--Defense Environmental Cleanup''.
(10) ``Department of Energy--Environmental and Other
Defense Activities--Other Defense Activities''.
(11) ``Independent Agencies--Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board''.
(12) ``Independent Agencies--Nuclear Regulatory
Commission--Salaries and Expenses''.
(13) ``Independent Agencies--Nuclear Regulatory
Commission--Office of the Inspector General''.
(14) ``Independent Agencies--Nuclear Waste Technical Review
Board''.

Mr. MULVANEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from South Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. MULVANEY. When I was campaigning for this job 2 years ago, one of
the things that I told folks back home I would do if I ever got here
was to try and roll back discretionary spending to 2008 levels. One of
the things I've done since I've been here is work on the Republican
Study Committee budgets--we've done two of them now--which try and make
an effort to really get our spending addiction under control and lower
our deficits and balance our budget in a reasonable amount of time.

{time} 2130

As encouraging as this bill is and as much work as the Committee has
done on this particular bill, it doesn't accomplish those things.
That's why I'm here. I also draw attention to the fact that this bill,
as much as an improvement as it has made over previous bills, still
spends more money than we did last year.
The amendment, Mr. Chairman, is fairly simple. I seek to cut $3.1
billion from this expenditure. That represents 9\1/2\, roughly 10
percent of the overall bill. However, it only represents about one-half
of 1 percent of all the discretionary spending. We're spending over a
trillion dollars in the discretionary budget this year. More
importantly--and what I think the folks back home would like to know--
is that it's only one-sixth of 1 percent of the overall Federal
expenditures. It's only one penny out of every $6 that we spend. It is
our effort to try and bring some sanity to the spending side of the
equation. It is not an across-the-board cut.
We have tried, Mr. Chairman, to be smart and sensible where we've cut
these funds, and for that reason we do not cut the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer accounts. We do not cut the NNSA accounts. We do not cut the
environmental and other defense activities,

[[Page H3468]]

non-defense, environmental, nuclear waste disposal, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. What we've cut, Mr. Chairman, are things that need to be
cut.
We've cut Federal research on energy efficiency and renewable energy.
We propose to cut fossil energy research and development. Yes, a
Republican is actually here, Mr. Chairman, arguing that we should get
rid of what my colleagues across the aisle would call subsidies for Big
Oil. We're trying to get rid of all the subsidies. Imagine that, a
world where the Federal Government doesn't actually subsidize energy
production in any fashion, but the market takes care of the supply, the
demand, and the prices for those products.
We also cut spending on the Appalachian Regional Commission, the
Delta Regional Authority Commission, the Denali Commission, the
Northern Border Regional Commission, and the Southeast Crescent
Regional Commission. Yes, sir, some of those probably are in my
district, but goodness gracious, we probably have enough commissions in
this government already.
Mr. Chairman, this is a reasoned and a sensible approach to try and
cut as much spending as we possibly can, especially in light of today's
CBO report that says the debt situation, the debt difficulties that we
face are even worse than we've been talking about for the last 18
months in this Congress. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I ask for
support for this amendment, and I ask that my colleagues vote ``yea.''
With that, 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. Mr. Chairman, our bill already cuts nearly $1
billion from the President's request. We're below 2009 levels. We're
actually pretty close to 2008 levels. And the last time I checked,
we're in the year 2012.
Spending levels for non-security-related accounts are brought down by
more than $800 million from last year's level. And while difficult
trade-offs had to be made to get to that level, our bill did the hard
work to balance our highest priorities and serve the Nation's most
pressing needs. Unfortunately, the amendment proposes an across-the-
board cut on many programs, not all programs as the gentleman from
South Carolina states, but on many programs that actually serve
pressing needs.
Our bill cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy by 24 percent
but preserves programs that can address gas prices and help keep
manufacturing jobs here at home. That's the focus of the bill: lower
gas prices of the future; keep jobs here at home. This amendment would
jeopardize those objectives.
Our bill funds fossil energy research that ensures a secure domestic
supply of electric and lower gas prices in the future. The amendment
indiscriminately cuts many of the activities, many programs.
Our bill funds science research, which is a key component of keeping
America competitive. The amendment would do harm to that program. The
amendment even cuts funds to the operation of our Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, severely curtailing our government's ability to respond to
real emergencies.
These are not acceptable cuts, and I strongly oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition and rise in
strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The gentleman, during his debate, mentioned a penny of savings out of
a significant sum of monies. I would point out in conjunction with the
chairman's remark that the non-security programs in this bill for
fiscal year 2013 are $188 million below current year level spending
because the subcommittee and the full committee made discreet decisions
account by account.
Dependent upon nomenclature--and I don't want to get into a semantic
argument--there may be some of these cuts that the gentleman proposes
that touch what nominally would be considered defense accounts, but he
also makes a point that he is going after non-defense discretionary
spending. I assume because he has left defense harmless that he has
never read an inspector general's report relative to any defense
program in the United States. And he mentioned a penny in his remarks,
and I find it curious that he could not find 1 cent of savings out of 1
dollar spent in a defense account.
For that reason among many, I am strongly opposed to the gentleman's
amendment. If we are going to, in fact, make an investment in this
country and if we are, in fact, going to address our budgetary
problems, everybody has got to be on the table with no exceptions.
The gentleman's amendment, from my perspective, is a mistake, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MULVANEY. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
from Indiana's words. I would point out to him, Mr. Chairman, that
there are those of us on this side of the aisle that have encouraged us
to look at defense spending as ways to cut not just a penny, but to
find significant savings.
I'd be curious to know, Mr. Chairman, how the gentleman from Indiana
voted last year on my amendment to do exactly that, to freeze military
spending at 2011 levels, but that is a discussion for another day.
So with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MULVANEY. 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 South
Carolina will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Mr. KING of Iowa. 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. 519. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce the requirements
in subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States
Code (commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon Act).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this is the Davis-Bacon Act
amendment. And for everyone's information, Mr. Chairman, it's this:
The Davis-Bacon Act was an act that was signed into law on or about
1932. It was generated in New York to lock the African Americans out of
the construction trades in New York. It is the last remaining vestige
of Jim Crow laws in America. It's a union protection law. What it says
is that any Federal construction project with 2,000 or more dollars
involved in it must meet these Federal prevailing wage standards.
We know--and I've spent 28-plus years as a founder and owner of a
construction company and a number of years prior to that. I'm over 30
years in the construction business, Mr. Chairman. We know this amounts
to a union-imposed wage scale and federally controlled wage prices.
What it does is it increases the cost of our construction projects.
Our records over the years show that someplace between 8 percent and
35 percent is the increase with the Davis-Bacon wage scale as opposed
to competition setting those wages. Some of the charts here that I'm
looking at show between 9 percent and 37 percent. I just use the number
20 percent more. Our project costs us 20 percent more because of this
federally imposed wage scale that's unnecessary, and it cuts out
competition.
You can make the decision, then, on whether we want to build 4 miles
of road or 5, whether we want to build, Mr. Chairman, four bridges or
five, or whether we're going to create and have these construction
jobs. Are there

[[Page H3469]]

going to be four jobs or are there going to be five?

{time} 2140

In many cases if we repeal the Davis-Bacon wage scale, you would have
minorities, in fact, you would have a majority of those that would fill
those jobs would be minorities.
It takes the Department of Labor 2.3 years just to issue a ruling on
whatever the wages might be. I have seen them vary 40, 50 or 60 percent
just across the road. That's how far off it is.
What this bill does is it prohibits any funds from being used to
enforce or implement the Davis-Bacon wage scale, and it gets us a lot
more bang for our buck. It gets us the quality that we have always had,
and it puts America back into competition. That's what's built this
country.
I urge its adoption, and 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 note at the beginning of my
remarks that Davis-Bacon is a very simple concept and is a very fair
one.
The law requires that workers on federally funded construction
projects be paid no less than the wages in the community in which the
work is being performed for similar work.
Large Federal projects can disrupt local markets if cheap imported
labor is used. Davis-Bacon requirements ensure that local workers,
citizens, Americans, have a fair chance at bidding for Federal
contracts in their own individual communities.
Additionally, prevailing wage protections are not the reason we have
deficits. Doing away with them will not result in savings to the
Federal Government. Davis-Bacon does not add to a project's total cost.
A 2011 study of highway construction projects in the State of Colorado
proved this point as it found no statistical significance between the
cost of highway projects in the States which were subject to Davis-
Bacon and the cost of State highway projects which were not subject to
Davis-Bacon.
Davis-Bacon has not led to extravagant wages for affected workers. I
would point out at this date, 2012, from 2000 and 2008, the real hourly
wage rate for construction workers, carpenters, electricians, iron
workers, plumbers, steelworkers, declined--declined--despite a small
increase in the hourly wage rate.
I would point out when my mentor, Congressman Adam Benjamin, Jr.,
walked into this room in 1977, the real hourly wage for 1 hour's worth
of a human being's work in the United States of America--it could have
been laying brick, it could be pushing papers in Congress, it could be
waiting on tables at a diner in the middle of the night--was more for 1
hour's worth of a human being's labor in the United States of America
than it was in 2010, and we're here trying to slam down that wage.
You want to save money on contracts, why don't we look at the
executive compensation for these construction firms? Why don't we look
there for some as opposed to going to the lowest common denominators.
Opponents claim that Davis-Bacon requirements are a union giveaway.
However, more than 75 percent, three-quarters of Davis-Bacon wage
determinations, are not based solely on union wages. There are issues
about the quality of work. Get it done efficiently, get it done right,
do not do it a second time. That is crucial to these communities
depending upon them.
When local workers are hired, they are duly accountable to their
employers and to the communities in which they reside. If the work is
shoddy and therefore is delayed or needs to be redone, their families,
their friends, their communities, have to live with the consequences.
This is a throwback, and I am strongly opposed to the gentleman's
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I
have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Iowa has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's work in
putting the statement together, but as someone who has lived this 30
years, I don't accept this statement on its face, and I can tell you
that my hands-on experience tells me something entirely different. The
statement that was made that says that three-quarters of these
decisions are not based solely on union scale. It might be based on
union scale in a union contract or sitting down in a room to make an
agreement with the Department of Labor.
I don't know how these deals are made. It is union scale, and they
sit there and decide we can drive up the costs of these public
projects, and we can make sure that we can pay more in wages and
benefits to anybody else and cut out the competition so that the
entrepreneurs, the people that are founding businesses that are trying
to get into this market, are locked out of the market. Davis-Bacon
locks people out of the market. It locks minorities out of the market.
If you look around and you hear that expression, ``people doing work
that Americans won't do''--well, if you look around, the unions have
been locking minorities out ever since 1932. That was the purpose of
this bill.
By the way it was a couple of misguided Republicans that passed the
Davis-Bacon Act and got that started. I'm embarrassed about that. One
day we will have to fix this because Davis-Bacon is the last vestige of
the Jim Crow laws in the United States of America.
It does drive up the costs an average of 20 percent, somewhere
between 9 and 37 percent for these costs. It cannot be said either that
there's a reduction in quality when we put competition in. Competition
increases the quality, it increases the efficiency. It brings about the
skills in the workforce, and it allows contractors to bring people in
at a scale where they can be trained. So we have more competition for
the labor. We get better bang for our dollar. We build four bridges
instead of five, 4 miles of road instead of 5 under Davis-Bacon. We can
do it the other way around and reverse it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would simply mention that if the gentleman from Iowa
is suggesting that labor organizations in this country today are
discriminating on a racial basis, he has not attended many union
meetings lately.
I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much.
If my good friend from Iowa was joining and trying to make sure that
Federally funded construction jobs went to companies that were based
here in the United States, I would be celebrating with him to avoid the
incident that happened with the bridge in California, where it was
built by a Chinese company with Chinese nationals who had come over to
the United States.
But in this instance, I would like to ask the gentleman where he
finds this present-day discrimination.
In fact, as he well knows, opportunities for minority contractors
have come about because of Members of this Congress who have fought for
what we call--not set asides--but MWBE opportunities. We have seen the
increase in construction companies. We need more. More importantly,
unions have engaged in apprenticeship programs.
Prevailing wages are nothing but giving a hard day's work and a
decent-paying wage. It is to construction what we were trying to do
with paycheck fairness. I disagree with the gentleman that in this day
and time we're not making extensive efforts to make sure that there are
diverse populations working and being trained under the union label and
umbrella, and that there are young men and women who are benefiting
from these training programs. More importantly, MWBEs, and if the
gentleman would want to work with me on ensuring that these small
contractors can work on Federal projects, he would have me aligned with
him today. But not to deny us the Davis-Bacon and prevailing wages.
I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment in the name of fairness
and in the name of the betterment of the working person.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, in response to that I would say again
I have worked in this trade for a lifetime, I have been in the room. I
know how this works. This is union scale imposed through the Department
of Labor. It is not prevailing wage.

[[Page H3470]]

There is a study I have in front of me that shows that if we repeal
Davis-Bacon there would be approximately 25,000 more minorities working
in the construction business. In some trades there are many, some
trades there are few. It's not something that's balanced across the
countryside.
But what you don't have is competition coming into the marketplace.
You do not have efficiency in your work. You don't get the bang for the
buck because you have got a federally mandated wage scale, and it cuts
down on the efficiency because you have people on the projects that are
looking for the highest-paid scale that's there. And so they will climb
on the finish motor grader and drive up and down the road rather than
the rough bulldozer to get the production work done. They won't pick up
the shovel because it pays less than it does holding the grade stake.

{time} 2150

You cannot get willful efficiency out of people when you have the
Federal Government deciding what they're going to pay. Additionally, we
have some studies also that show when they audited the reports, 100
percent of those wage reports were wrong, Mr. Chairman.
So I would urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. At this time I yield to my colleague from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. I would like to refute the gentleman's last point,
especially. I worked for 18 years as an ironworker. I've worked not
only in the Massachusetts area, but New York, New Mexico, Louisiana. I
worked in Indiana. I worked at a lot of the steel mills. I worked a lot
of jobs where Davis-Bacon has been in effect.
What Davis-Bacon does--and the gentleman's amendment would provide--
that none of the funds made available to this bill will be available to
administer the wage rate requirements of chapter 31 of title 40, which
is the Davis-Bacon Act. What Davis-Bacon was meant to do is to prevent
the wages in any area of the country and every area of the country from
being depressed by bringing in low-wage workers. This was the practice
back before the prevailing wage, before Davis-Bacon was in effect. You
would have large construction projects, but you'd have unscrupulous
contractors who would pay very low wages to their employees, and they
would move into an area where the cost of living required those workers
to get a decent wage.
And what will happen now if we repeal Davis-Bacon, which is a very,
very bad idea, not only for the gentleman's district but every State in
the Union, is we will get one group of very low-paid workers, and they
will be like locusts. They will go into areas, whether it be Houston,
whether it be down in Texas or Louisiana or in the Northeast, we will
have low-wage workers go in there and undercut the wages of the workers
in those areas. This prevented that practice of undermining the wages
of local workers.
The Davis-Bacon wage is established by a study in the gentleman's
area. Specifically, they look at the wages for the construction trades.
I was an ironworker. They look it at for plumbers, electricians--what
is the area wage for that individual worker.
Now I'm sure we can find some workers over in Mexico that will come
in and work for less money. That's supported by a lot of people in this
body, unbelievably so. Davis-Bacon prevents that from happening. The
contractor has to pay the wage for Houston, the wage for Tucson, the
wage for New York, the wage for Boston. Those wages are different for
each area because of the standard of living and the cost of living in
those areas.
This protects workers, whether they're union workers or nonunion
workers. And I've worked on Davis-Bacon jobs where there have been
nonunion working across from me. I worked at the Shell Oil refinery
down in Norco, Louisiana. Half the job was union, half the job was
nonunion, because that was the deal. That's how they got enough workers
to cover that job.
And I've worked 18 years. I strapped on the work boots every single
day for 18 years. I've been a foreman. I've been a general foreman.
I've worked on Davis-Bacon jobs. I've worked on many, many jobs. I've
seen how this works, and I know the history here and why this law was
put into place. This is a good law. It prevents piracy. It prevents
undermining the workers in every State in this Union. If you strap on a
pair of work boots, I don't care if you're union or nonunion, this is a
good bill for you. This protects you.
They tried to repeal it after Katrina in the areas where Katrina
affected Mississippi and Louisiana, and the President suspended it for
a short while. You know what he had to do? He had to reinstate it
because they couldn't get enough workers to come in because the wages
were so low they could not get workers in there. So President George
Bush repealed his own executive order suspending Davis-Bacon. And when
they lifted that, the workers came in and worked. Workers from
Louisiana, workers from Mississippi took those jobs.
This is another attack on the working people. This is just blue-
collar jobs. If we don't support apprenticeship programs and decent
wages and a set of skills in our workers, shame on us, shame on us,
shame on us.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the King amendment.
The King amendment seeks to ensure that none of the funds made
available through this bill may be made available to administer the
wage-rate requirements of subchapter IV of Chapter 31 of title 40,
United States Code, more commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon Act.
The Davis-Bacon Act, enacted in 1931, requires Federal contractors to
pay workers the local ``prevailing wage'' on construction projects. Its
goal was to outlaw wage exploitation, since public contracts go to the
lowest bidder.
We've come a long way since 1931 in terms of workers' rights and
workplace safety. But, I believe, if general contractors on Federal
jobs have an opportunity to pay a lower wage to their workers and
increase their own profit margin, they're going to do it. It doesn't
make them bad people, they're businessmen concerned primarily about the
bottom line.
In these difficult economic times, when so many workers are
unemployed or barely hanging on, it sets a dangerous precedent to waive
these important worker protections.
Through the underlying bill the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will
build dams, shore up vulnerable coastlines and maintain our navigable
waterways. And this range of efforts will create good jobs. It's hard
work, but good work for a lot of men and women across the country.
But because more than 20 percent of our construction tradespeople are
out of work, there will be opportunity for some of the less scrupulous
contractors to exploit this workforce, so desperate to get back on the
job.
And waiving Davis-Bacon removes critical worker protections,
compromising the work quality on these projects.
American workers deserve the kind of fair wage rates that Davis-Bacon
provides, a wage that will lift up their circumstances, provide hope,
and get them and our economy back on track. To deprive our workforce of
these protections, of these opportunities, is an egregious abrogation
of our responsibility as elected leaders.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would simply say this is not a Davis-Bacon attempt
to increase wages. It is protecting those who labor in this country
from having their wages undercut.
I am adamantly opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. 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 Iowa will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Jordan

Mr. JORDAN. 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 by this Act for
the Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program may
be

[[Page H3471]]

used by the Department of Energy to issue or administer new
loan guarantees for renewable energy systems, electric power
transmission systems, or leading edge biofuel projects as
defined by section 1705 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, let me just say this complements the
amendment that was done earlier by Mrs. Blackburn from Tennessee. This
is the no-more-Solyndras amendment. We're all familiar with that
situation. As the Clerk read, this amendment would prohibit any new
loan guarantees for renewable energy, electricity systems, and biofuels
as defined in section 1705 of title 17 and, as I said before,
complements what the House agreed to and passed earlier.
Let me just quickly tell you about this program. This is a $15
billion program. Twenty-six projects got your tax dollars. Of those 26
projects that got American tax money, 22 of those 26--three-fourths of
those--were rated double B-minus junk status. In other words, no
private capital would go there, but it was okay to put your tax dollars
into these projects.
And what have we got for this? Everyone knows the story of Solyndra.
They received $535 million, fired a thousands workers, and went
bankrupt. But we also have Beacon Power, which received $43 million of
your tax dollars and went bankrupt as well. First Solar got $3 billion
in loan guarantees. It's now fired half of its workers. Its stock has
plummeted. And Abound Solar--just to name four--$400 million loan
guarantee and has fired 180 workers.
So here's what's going on with this program. The 1705 program was
funded by the stimulus program. That is now expired. But in this
continuing resolution that was passed last year, in that bill there was
language to allow the 1703 program to continue to do what was
previously done in 1705.
And so my amendment says, Enough of that. We've had enough taxpayer
dollars wasted. We don't need any more. Our committee that I get the
privilege of sitting on, the Oversight Committee, has had several
hearings on this. We don't need the Department of Energy handing out
more of your money to companies with double B-minus ratings and junk
ratings and lower. We don't need that anymore. This says: enough is
enough. We're in debt. This is at least one place we can start to save
some taxpayer dollars.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The title 17 loan program has had its share of publicized problems,
but I do believe that the Department of Energy has implemented changes
to the program that will strengthen the management of it going forward.
And while it is impossible to ensure the success of a loan guarantee,
these reforms, I believe, will significantly reduce the risk borne by
the Department.
This amendment is specifically targeted at renewable energy projects
pending approval under the 1705 Innovative Loan Guarantee program. Some
of these projects are eligible to have their credit subsidy costs
covered by the Department. Generally, given the current capital markets
and project structure, it is difficult for renewable projects to raise
sufficient revenue to use loan authority. Because we have several
promising projects that remain in the pipeline and the companies behind
these applications have invested a significant amount of time and
financial resources to advance them, I do not believe that this
amendment is fruitful.

{time} 2200

The amendment would make these efforts multiyear for naught and
further exacerbate the uncertain business environment facing innovative
energy companies at this time. Therefore, I would be opposed to the
gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I would just respond that the gentleman
talked about--a ``couple of problems'' I think was the language he used
referring to this program. It's hard to see when you have companies
going bankrupt with taxpayer money, and 22 out of 26 of the projects
that were funded were rated below investment grade credit quality--in
other words junk status--it's hard to see how you can say ``a couple of
problems'' when that's the history of this program. At some point,
we're going to have to cut some spending.
One of my favorite movies, and some of you may have seen the movie
``1776.'' It's a musical. It's when they draft the Declaration of
Independence, and there's a great scene, a great line--there are many
great scenes, but one of the ones that I remember, where they're going
through the declaration that Jefferson has just written. They're
marking it up, they're editing it. And as they go through it, there are
Members of that Congress who say, Well, we don't want to say this
because that might really offend King George. And if we say this,
Parliament may not like that. And what about deep sea fishing rights?
They go through this whole thing. Finally, John Adams stands up and
says: It's a revolution, dammit; we're going to have to offend
somebody.
And at some point we've got to say we're so in debt we're going to
have to cut something. Why not focus on a program that completely
doesn't work? A program we all know has failed.
So if the other party can't even cut a program where 22 of the 26
projects are junk status, no one will give them money, they gave your
taxpayer dollars to them and they went bankrupt--if we can't even stop
that program, how in the heck are we ever going to deal with a $16
trillion debt larger than our entire economy?
So this is as simple as it gets. This is the low hanging fruit here,
guys. And this party over here won't even go there. Unbelievable. The
program speaks for itself. It's a failure. We should end it. We should
save taxpayer dollars and take that initial first step in bringing some
sanity back to our fiscal situation.
I yield back the balance of my time and urge a yes vote on the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Graves of Missouri

Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. 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. ___. Of the funds appropriated in title I of this
Act, not more than $50,000,000 may be used for the Missouri
River Recovery Program.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my
amendment, which modestly reduces funding for the Missouri River
recovery program.
Since 2006, the Federal Government has spent more than $468 million
on the Missouri River recovery program. This program is primarily
intended to improve the ecosystem for the piping plover, the least
tern, and the pallid sturgeon within the Missouri River basin.
Projects funded through this program include shallow water habitat
creation, land acquisition, and emergent sandbar habitat. It also
supports unknown numbers of positions and departments within the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service, generates
thousands of pages of documents, and pays for numerous conferences and
conference calls.
Many of my constituents along the Missouri River have been flooded
for the last several years due to mismanagement and misplaced
priorities in the Federal Government. Congress practically writes a
blank check for the Missouri River recovery program while providing far
less than sufficient funds for levee maintenance and repair. This is
unacceptable.

[[Page H3472]]

It is also important to note that many projects funded by the
Missouri River recovery program increase the chance of flooding by
weakening flood protection systems. Further, a recent independent
review of major initiatives of the Missouri River recovery program
concludes that the current mitigation strategy does not mitigate losses
of the pallid sturgeon, the least tern, and the piping plover, or the
degradation of their habitats. So Congress is essentially spending
millions of dollars on projects that are unproven. And at the very
least, these funds are diverted away from critically important and
proven flood mitigation projects.
My amendment won't prevent future floods, but it will show those
located in the Missouri River basin that Congress is serious about
getting its priorities straight. My amendment does not gut the Missouri
River recovery program--it's only a small reduction from the amount
provided in the underlying bill. The underlying bill provides $71
million and my amendment reduces that to $50 million, which is
consistent with the level of funding provided in 2008.
I believe conservation is important, but we should not overlook what
it is we sometimes sacrifice to achieve conservation. In this case, it
is the livelihood of businesses, farms, and families. I urge my
colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
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. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri. I would certainly
agree with him that we are not making sufficient investments in our
infrastructure, but this amendment would do nothing to resolve that
problem. But it would introduce a host of other detrimental impacts to
the basin and will lead to a failure to comply with the requirements of
the Endangered Species Act.
The $90 million which was in the President's budget is the Corps'
best assessment of the minimum required to maintain long term
biological opinion compliance. There is in the bill a $18.6 million cut
already which reduces the Corps' ability to maintain required progress
on emergent sandbar habitat construction, shallow water habitat,
Yellowstone intake, and real estate acquisition.
While the gentleman indicates he does not want to gut the program,
the fact is he would add another $21.4 million worth of cuts,
essentially representing a 44 percent cut of the President's budget. If
that's not gutting, it is certainly a significant hindrance.
Given the extent of existing cuts, the Corps would need to consult
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the potential for reduced
progress on biological opinion compliance and on potential operational
adjustments, opening the possibility of a jeopardy determination.
Further, reducing the amount would have a significant and negative
impact with regards to maintaining biological opinion compliance for
the Missouri River, and the Corps may not be in a position to serve all
eight congressionally authorized purposes.
Additionally, operational changes may have to be made to avoid
impacts to listed species that could result in a split navigation
season, impacts on hydropower production, and impacts on water supply
and recreation. A split navigation season will further erode the
ability of farmers and manufacturers to get their products to market or
to the consumer.
And given that the power produced by the Missouri River projects
provides base power loads for the region, reduced production would
further jeopardize peak power needs in the area.
The impacts to water supply also potentially could be great. Many
communities are already having difficulty with the intake
infrastructure to local water supplies. Without the regulation river
flow provided by the projects, these communities will have a monumental
task to extend the intakes for the low flow periods, increasing the
burden on already cash-strapped local governments.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, as I stated before, we are not
gutting this program, we are just reducing the funding for it. For that
matter, I might add that even if we zeroed this program out, it would
have absolutely no effect on power intake systems, on power generation
systems, on navigation whatsoever. But the fact of the matter is, and
I've seen it, this money is spent to dump sand in the river so it can
create more sandbars, to try to create more sandbars. It's used to buy
more land, which takes land out of production. The fact of the matter
is when we have trillions of dollars worth of deficits each year and
trillions and trillions of dollars worth of debt, the last thing we
need to be doing as the Federal Government is buying more land and
dumping dirt in the Missouri River to create habitat. That's the bottom
line: it's unacceptable, and this program needs to be reduced.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 2210

Amendment Offered by Mr. Landry

Mr. LANDRY. 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 within the borders of the State of Louisiana by the
Mississippi Valley Division or the Southwestern Division of
the Army Corps of Engineers or any district of the Corps
within such divisions to implement or enforce the mitigation
methodology, referred to as the ``Modified Charleston
Method''.

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, I have consistently championed the need for
Louisiana to protect its fragile coast and wetlands. I have offered
amendments and supported bills that all positively affect the creation
of new wetlands and starts to turn the tide on the coastal land loss in
Louisiana. But the New Orleans District Corps of Engineers office is
going to cripple our ability for Louisiana to protect itself from
dangerous hurricanes by introducing a standardized method of wetlands
mitigation. This standardized method is called the Modified Charleston
Method.
This method is driving up the State and local mitigation cost of
hurricane protection in Louisiana by 300 percent. I said only the State
and local cost because the Corps has exempted itself from its own
method on Federal projects. This is why the American people are
frustrated at the Federal Government; it creates a rule, enforces it on
everybody else, but exempts itself.
The Corps' new wetland rules are actually halting the creation of
wetlands. As such, my amendment prevents the enforcement of the
Modified Charleston Method within the State of Louisiana for 1 year,
forcing the Corps to take a breath and develop a mitigation system that
provides for our wetlands without stifling needed hurricane protection
measures and economic development.
My amendment impacts only Louisiana. If your Corps districts use the
MCM and it works for your constituents, great, your Corps districts can
continue to do so. But the MCM does not work for Louisiana. In fact,
the State of Louisiana, the Police Jury Association of Louisiana--our
association of counties--the Association of Levee Boards of Louisiana,
Vermillion Parish and countless local communities all have severe
concerns about the MCM.
Moreover, the MCM does not acknowledge that some construction
projects actually preserve wetlands. For example, a flood protection
levee that protects homes also protects wetlands from saltwater
intrusion and erosion. However, these benefits are not calculated.
The Corps itself does not follow the MCM. And until it does, local
parishes, communities, and builders should not be forced to follow it
as well.
I urge passage of this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H3473]]

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. I do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
While I have some sympathy for the issue that the gentleman has raised,
I believe that more consistency should be brought to the way we
evaluate wetland impacts, not less, as this amendment would ensure.
The Charleston Method has been utilized for two decades in various
Corps districts. The Charleston Method is a quick, inexpensive, and
consistent methodology--I think that's very important to note, a
consistent methodology--for use by the regulated public and the Corps.
The gentleman suggests that it doesn't work. If it doesn't work, I do
not know why in 2006 and 2007 the New Orleans District worked with its
Federal and State partners to modify the Charleston Method so that it
better reflected the unique conditions found in southern Louisiana
resulting in the Modified Charleston Method.
The use of the Modified Charleston Method is longstanding in many
Corps districts. Many regulatory customers use the tool to assess their
potential mitigation requirements for their impact site as well as
credits required at mitigation banks. This transparency in Corps
mitigation requirements has helped the applicant prepare a complete
application package and determine mitigation costs up front.
Suspension of the use of the Modified Charleston Method in Corps
districts would require that any pending permit applications--section
404 of the Clean Water Act--and pending mitigation banks would need to
be reevaluated using a different assessment tool/methodology or, in the
absence of such, use best professional judgment to determine
appropriate mitigation requirements for impacts and for available
credits in mitigation banks, obviously encompassing a great deal of
delay.
All approved mitigation banks with available credits that were
determined by the Charleston Method would be temporarily closed until a
new methodology could be developed and the bank credits converted to
the credit system of a new methodology. These banks were established
utilizing the credit system of the Modified Charleston Method, and
until a similar credit system can be determined for these projects, it
would not be possible to correlate the new requirements with the old
system. We would not have transparency; we would not have consistency.
We would have delay.
For these reasons, I do oppose the gentleman's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Chairman, the only thing consistent about the method
is that it doesn't work in Louisiana. In fact, the only thing that it
increases is the amount of land that the mitigation banks can sell.
We have parishes in Louisiana who understand that the Federal
Government doesn't have any more money. The residents and citizens of
those parishes have taxed themselves to protect themselves from storms,
and yet the formula that the Corps is using is driving the cost of
these projects to a point where they can't build them anymore. But yet
some in this body will argue that after hurricanes come in, after
hurricanes affect Louisiana's coast, they don't want to pour the money
in to rebuild those communities.
Those communities are trying to protect themselves at a time when the
Federal Government has told them ``no'' as a source of funding, and yet
now the Federal Government is going to change the rules. It just
doesn't work in Louisiana. And for that, I urge my colleagues to help
me pass this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Parish of Jefferson,

Office of the President,

Jefferson, LA, June 5, 2012.
Hon. Jeff Landry,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Landry: I strongly oppose use of the
Modified Charleston Method (MCM) to assess wetland habitats
and compute compensatory credits for wetland impacts from
public safety and economic development projects. The MCM must
be revised to provide adequate and defensible compensation
calculations for required mitigation.
Jefferson Parish has serious concern that the MCM, in its
current form and with its current factor value(s), may cause
unnecessarily high and impractical compensatory mitigation
values. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires that
compensatory mitigation be practicable. The MCM offers the
very real possibility of quantifying compensatory mitigation
calculations that are unworkable and in direct violation of
both the letter and the spirit of the Clean Water Act.
The Parish is also concerned that the MCM may have a
negative influence on important public works projects that
are tied directly to public safety. It is the Parish's belief
that the MCM will have a direct negative impact on important
public safety projects by requiring an inordinate amount of
compensatory mitigation for wetland impacts associated with
these projects. The communities of southeastern Louisiana
have little choice, in most cases, than the construction of
the necessary flood protection structures in areas which
trigger wetland mitigation requirements, if they are to
provide adequate safety for these communities. Ultimately,
the utilization of the MCM for assessing the wetland impacts
for these important projects may lead to loss of property,
livelihood, life, and result in local, state and federal
legal liabilities.
In addition, the Parish is concerned that the MCM may also
have a negative influence on critical infrastructure projects
such as roadways/hurricane evacuation routes, ports,
hurricane protection features, etc. Most of this
infrastructure also provides crucial access that is required
for the maintenance and growth of the petroleum and chemical
industry, which supports this state, the region and the rest
of the nation.
Accordingly. I vehemently oppose use of the Modified
Charleston Method and would like to offer my support of your
proposed amendment to H.R. 5325,
Sincerely,
John F. Young, Jr.,
Jefferson Parish President.
____

St. Mary Parish Government,

Franklin, LA, June 4, 2012.
Hon. Jeff Landry,
House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Landry: The St. Mary Parish government
is supportive of your efforts to craft legislation in the
form of an amendment to the FY 2013 House Energy and Water
Appropriations bill. St. Mary Parish supports the Landry
Amendment that would prohibit any funds be used within the
borders of the State of Louisiana by the Mississippi Valley
Division or the Southwestern Division of the Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to implement or enforce the Modified
Charleston Method (MCM).
We feel that this is an appropriate step that shows the
Corps that a variation is needed from the current MCM. Our
community cannot afford the every growing expense that this
methodology has put on the backs of our locals.
St. Mary Parish has repeatedly asked the Corps to revisit
the MCM as in current form it is unreasonably burdensome on
our local economy. Our community is already experience
negative impacts of the MCM. While we agree that wetland
mitigation is necessary, our figures indicate that under the
MCM projects cost three times more than they were before this
methodology was implemented.
Your leadership on this issue is appreciated. I look
forward to working with you on these and other issues
important to St. Mary Parish.
Sincerely,
Paul P. Naquin, Jr.,
Parish President.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Landry

Mr. LANDRY. 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 under this Act
may be used to carry out section 801 of Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17281).

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, in 2007, Congress passed the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007. Section 801 of this act
authorizes the Department of Energy to create a national media campaign
to promote alternative green technologies and wean Americans off of
fossil fuels. My amendment defunds this media campaign.

[[Page H3474]]

Our government must get out of the business of picking winners and
losers. The American public knows far better than any government
bureaucrat what energy sources work best for them, their families, and
their businesses. Instead, private green energy firms should use their
own advertising campaign funds on behalf of the energy sources they
sell. Why are government dollars needed?
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to defund this
taxpayer media campaign.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 2220

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Brooks

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Broun), 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
for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy may be used
for unallowable costs related to advertising or promoting the
sale of products or services in contravention of the
requirements of section 31.205 1, or for unallowable
expenditures related to raising capital in contravention of
the requirements of 31.205 27, of title 48 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to address a
shortcoming in the manner in which ARPA-E, the Department of Energy's
Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, spends taxpayer dollars.
In August 2011, the Department of Energy Inspector General released
an audit report that disputed costs incurred by ARPA-E award
recipients. For clarity, an ARPA-E award recipient is a private company
or entity that seeks operational cost reimbursement from Federal
taxpayers.
The Inspector General disputes that private company expenses for
``meetings with bankers to raise capital'' and ``a fee to appear on a
local television program'' are reimbursable costs that Federal
taxpayers should pay for. The Inspector General report found that such
spending violates Federal acquisition regulation subpart 31.2.
ARPA-E disputed the Inspector General's finding and argued that such
costs are allowable under ARPA-E's statutory authority to fund
technology transfer and outreach activities.
In February 2011, ARPA-E finalized Technology Transfer and Outreach
guidance for awardees that explicitly encourages ARPA-E private company
awardees to engage in and seek taxpayer reimbursement for these
questionable expenditures.
More specifically, the policy states that acceptable taxpayer
reimbursement activities by private companies include:

Marketing and other expenditures related to promoting an
ARPA-E funded technology;
Consulting and other expenditures related to developing
ARPA-E-funded technologies, building business and identifying
potential users, markets and customers, e.g., business plan
development, market research, and
Presentation and other expenditures relating to seeking
additional funding from the private sector and government
agencies.

ARPA-E guidance suggests the inappropriate spending identified by the
Inspector General may be significantly widespread. At a January 2012
hearing, the Science, Space and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on
Investigations and Oversight examined ARPA-E guidance in spending.
One day prior to the hearing, ARPA-E delivered to the committee an
updated policy that omits mention of these questionable spending
activities. Hence, ARPA-E's revision adds confusion, not clarity, to
the pending question. In the absence of more explicit guidance
consistent with the Inspector General's spending concerns, there is a
significant risk to American taxpayers that ARPA-E private company
awardees will incur costs that violate Federal regulations, yet which
ARPA-E reimburses out of taxpayer funds.
On February 10, Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight Chairman
Paul Broun asked ARPA-E Director Majumdar to clarify in writing whether
ARPA-E considers the activities mentioned in the original ARPA-E policy
as allowable spending. Responses to these questions were due on
February 24, 2012, but the Department of Energy refused to provide a
response, a response which is now well over 3 months past the deadline.
This amendment does what ARPA-E should have already done, make it
explicitly clear that the spending concerns identified by the Inspector
General using taxpayer funds to raise private capital and using tax
dollars to market, advertise, and promote private company-funded
technologies are not allowable.
ARPA-E tax dollars should not go to private company advertising,
marketing and ``meetings with bankers to raise capital.''
Stated differently, in this era of deficits and accumulated debt that
threaten America with insolvency and bankruptcy, American tax dollars
should not be used to pay for the operational costs of private sector
companies, particularly when the Inspector General has already
determined they are improper.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman from Alabama yield?
Mr. BROOKS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I think we're prepared to accept your amendment.
Mr. BROOKS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Schweikert

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. 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 by this Act may
be used to enforce part 429 or 430 of title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations, with respect to showerheads (as that
term is defined in section 430.2 of such title).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those sort of occasions
I'm going to refer to this almost as the law of unintended
consequences.
About 6 months ago, I was visiting one of my favorite places in life,
a Starbucks in Scottsdale, and a gentleman walks up to me, just
bouncing off the walls, and apparently it wasn't from a bunch of
espressos. He had just been given a $447,000 fine for his tiny little
business that made custom shower heads, made specialty shower heads,
because apparently the water restrictor ring inside was too easy to pry
out.
Now, I need to disclose something here, in all honesty. I've actually
changed the shower heads in my house. And guess what the first thing
I've always done is. I take a screwdriver and stick it in there and
pull that little water-restricting ring out of there because I have
this bad habit; I actually like to get wet when I shower. I know it's a
novel concept, but it's something I like to do.
But think of this: the Department of Energy is out there enforcing,
and here's the standards they live by. If it takes more or less than 8
pounds of pressure to remove the water restrictor after they take apart
the shower head, they come and fine you.
But the creepy part of this story is they demanded a list of everyone
who had purchased one of these shower heads. So now the Department of
Energy is putting together the database of the people that bought
shower heads that the water-restricting O ring inside is too easy to
remove.
Have we lost our minds?
I'm not thrilled coming to the floor and doing a limitation amendment
on something like this, but this is the type of thing the American
people are absolutely livid about. And this actually affects our daily
lives.
With that, Madam Chairwoman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.

[[Page H3475]]

The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The gentleman from Indiana is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition and do rise to oppose the
gentleman's amendment.
The standards the gentleman is very exercised about were contained in
the EPA Act of 1992 and have been in effect for more than a decade. And
they, in fact, do save energy and they do save water. A number of
States are starting to adopt tighter standards on these products,
including the State of Georgia, because they do save energy.
There is no part of the country, including mine that borders the
Great Lakes, the largest body of fresh water on the planet, that does
not have water supply concerns. In California, there has been a
tremendous public investment to encourage and incentivize homeowners to
replace their utilities with models that require less water.

{time} 2230

I really do not know why we are discussing this issue again. We
talked about it in the nineties. We talked about it in the last decade,
and here we are this evening talking about it again. Manufacturers have
been complying with this provision for, again, a decade. The question
is: Why are we talking about it today? I am aware of an enforcement
action recently, but against plumbing manufacturers who have put
multiple compliant showerheads onto one fixture, obviously trying to
sidestep the law when you have three efficient showerheads attached to
one.
With water shortages across the country, with an energy crisis in
most of the Mountain and Western States, I would ask my colleagues to
oppose the gentleman's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Chairwoman, may I inquire as to my time?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. This is actually an interesting debate from an
economic standpoint.
Being from the desert, where we actually really, really care about
our water supply, we've learned something. I'm one of those people who
lives in a house with rock landscaping and low water this and low water
landscaping, but I do like to get wet in my shower, as we've already
stated. If you want to deal with water usage, basic economics says you
do it through the pricing mechanism, not through trying to manage my
life with a bunch of laws.
Madam Chairwoman, I stand in front of you and hope this amendment
passes because, in many ways, I think this is a great example of what
drives the American voters, the American people mad in that we try to
micromanage every aspect of their lives, and we turn huge numbers of
them functionally into criminals. I would love to do an honest survey
through this body of how many people have done any remodeling or who
have put up a new showerhead and who have not monkeyed with that flow
restrictor that's inside that showerhead.
Ultimately, I appreciate that in 1992 this somehow passed through
this body. Maybe it was meant to help, and maybe it was meant to have
all sorts of good purposes, but this is not the rational methodology
with which to promote that type of water conservation. Then when you
turn the Department of Energy into a police force that actually now
sets standards of--if I can exceed 8 pounds of force, then all of a
sudden it's perfectly legal, but if it's under 8 pounds of force in
removing the water restrictor, then I get a $447,000 fine, as my
constituent received here.
With that, Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairman, I do not live in a desert. I mentioned
in my earlier remarks that my congressional district, in fact, borders
the largest body of freshwater on the planet Earth. I find water very
precious myself, and I try to explain to my constituents every day we
should not take it for granted.
I find the debates that we have engaged in here very interesting
tonight. A bit earlier today, we had an amendment to suppress the wage
rates in this country. We have about 13 million people who don't work
today, but the gentleman suggests the way that we solve our water
crisis in this country is pricing. His solution is: Let's increase the
price of water. Let's increase the price of water for those 13 million
people who aren't working. Let's increase the price of water. Let's use
pricing for water to conserve it for those people who may not be making
a living wage because people want to destroy Davis-Bacon in this
country.
Maybe we ought to think about the people who are just getting by,
just grubbing to get the money to pay their water bills. Pricing means
something to them. In this case, if regulation that had been in place
for more than a decade will help those people of least means pay their
water bills, I say that's a good thing and a very sound reason to
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. Schweikert).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Lummis

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

At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to plan or undertake sales or any other transfers
of natural or low enriched uranium from the Department of
Energy that combined exceed 1,917 metric tons of uranium as
uranium hexafluoride equivalent in fiscal year 2013.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I first want to thank my colleague, Representative
Hinojosa from Texas, for joining me in this amendment.
Now here is an undisputed fact: Today, the United States imports more
than 90 percent of our uranium from foreign countries. Some of them
don't like us very much. We have an ample supply of uranium in the West
and across this country. A lack of supply is not the problem.
We import that much uranium for two reasons: First, accidents that
happened decades ago cooled interest in nuclear energy in our country,
so companies slowed down their production. But here is the second
reason: Just as our domestic energy began to recover from these
disasters, our own government started dumping into the market excess
uranium it has stockpiled.
DOE uses the stockpile to raise funds for itself for various
purposes--a fact that this Appropriations subcommittee has been
concerned about for quite some time. Every time the Federal Government
dumps its excess stockpile into the market, it depresses the price of
uranium. Depressed uranium prices halt private investment in domestic
mining and conversion and hurt American jobs in the West and in the
Midwest.
Being reasonable folks, the uranium miners have agreed to accept that
the Department of Energy can dump into the market up to 10 percent of
domestic demand for uranium. That has been the consensus approach since
2008. However, last month, the DOE departed from the consensus and
announced that it would dump into the market a volume of uranium that
is overwhelming in its scope--9,000 tons--an amount that is orders of
magnitude greater than 10 percent of domestic demand.
That is what my amendment today seeks to end--the price-distorting
dumping of uranium in the open market above what has been the consensus
in the uranium industry for years and above a level that can be
weathered by U.S. companies offering U.S. jobs in uranium mining.
Now here is where my amendment gets politically sticky. High-profile
Members of Congress from the Midwest are trying to protect 1,200 jobs
for 1 year at the United States Enrichment Corporation facility in
Kentucky. Let me be clear. I don't want jobs lost in Paducah, Kentucky,
but I also don't want jobs lost in Wyoming and in the West.
I want my colleagues to understand this. While the actions of the
Department of Energy may help save 1,200 jobs for 1 year in Kentucky,
it will also end 1,200 jobs in the West and Midwest for much longer
than that. So the Department of Energy's dump onto the

[[Page H3476]]

open market of $815 million worth of uranium to further bail out a
failing private company, USEC, will result in no net savings of jobs.
Over $800 million to save no net jobs is a stunningly bad investment.
The good news is that we can protect jobs in Kentucky and in the West
at the same time. We do not have to choose. Here is how. Vote for this
bipartisan amendment. If my amendment passes, the DOE will still
transfer 62 percent of the 9,000 tons of depleted uranium before my
amendment even takes effect.

{time} 2240

After that, DOE can still continue its transfers, just under a
reasonable cap that doesn't destroy domestic uranium mining and
conversion in the process.
Here are the facts: My amendment does not halt work at any of USEC's
failing sites; it does not prevent transfers for national security
purposes; it does not halt the cleanup of sites in Ohio. In fact, my
amendment provides a way for all of these projects to move forward
efficiently and fairly.
The bottom line is this: We do not need to sacrifice jobs in Wyoming
or Illinois to support jobs in Kentucky. That is a false choice. We can
do both, and that is exactly what my amendment does.
I implore my colleagues to give DOE's actions careful thought here.
DOE's plan is a market distorting government intrusion into the private
market. We cannot stop it in full, but we can rein it in next year in a
way that is fair to every single stakeholder in this debate.
I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the
gentlelady's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I share the gentlelady's concern on
the Department's continued off-budget use of its uranium transfer
authority to circumvent the appropriations process and avoid
congressional oversight. Congressional oversight is essential in order
to make sure there are adequate protections in place to protect our
domestic uranium mining and conversion industry. However, this
amendment is too broad an approach for what is, by most estimates, a
very complex issue.
There are several uses for the many uranium transfer authorities
given to the Secretary of Energy that support ongoing national security
activities, and there is still a great deal of ambiguity of whether
this language in this amendment would prohibit funding for a depleted
uranium tails transfer that will keep the Paducah plant in Kentucky
operating for another year. That deal would sustain, and there may be a
question in terms of how many jobs are here, but our estimates say it
will sustain 2,000 jobs in fiscal year 2013 and provide the needed
uranium fuel to produce tritium to supply our nuclear weapons
stockpile.
I hope we can work together--the gentlelady and I, and members of the
authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee on Energy and
Water--to find a solution that addresses all of these and other
concerns.
I urge my colleagues reluctantly to vote ``no'' on this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Wyoming
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Fortenberry

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam 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. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule
entitled ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation
Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies''
(77 Fed. Reg. 18478 (March 27, 2012)) with respect to product
class 7 (as described in such proposed rule).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to offer
this commonsense amendment to protect American jobs and reduce
regulatory burdens. Quite simply, this amendment would block the
Department of Energy from implementing unnecessary energy conservation
standards for golf cart battery chargers.
Madam Chairman, I recognize that reasonable regulations are necessary
to protect human health and the environment; however, we must guard
against costly rules that provide no meaningful benefit to the United
States but instead encourage this shift of American jobs overseas to
lower-wage countries where environmental standards are minimal. The
proposed golf cart battery charger rule is clearly such a regulation.
The proposed standards would achieve minimal energy savings, and the
Department of Energy itself acknowledges that they would result in U.S.
manufacturing jobs being sent overseas.
While I support the overall goal of promoting energy efficiency, I am
very concerned about this proposed regulation that directly affects
more than 100 jobs right where I live.
Madam Chair, last week's unemployment figures highlight the economic
challenges we face in our country. Job growth is slowing and
unemployment is ticking up. In this kind of economic climate, why would
we want to intentionally force American jobs overseas through increased
and unnecessary regulation?
I would also like to emphasize that golf cart battery chargers should
not even be included in this proposed rule, which is intended to cover
consumer products. It is my understanding that about 90 percent of new
golf carts are sold to businesses for fleets, while less than 10
percent of new golf carts are for personal use by individuals. This
does not meet the significant standard necessary to be considered a
consumer product.
It is clear that the proposed rule would make American manufacturers
of battery chargers less competitive and it would cost American jobs,
so we must ask what would we achieve by implementing this rule.
According to the Department of Energy's calculations, making this
change would result in energy savings of only about $6 per charger per
year. That's because these chargers are already very highly efficient.
With that, Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment which will help protect American jobs, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I will not oppose the gentleman's
amendment, but I do have some concerns.
First, I would like to say that I hope that we will not begin to
legislate every rule coming out of the Department of Energy on this
particular bill, though I understand the frustration that the
Department of Energy is capable of causing from time to time. However,
in this instance, I do understand that the Department is responding to
the concerns expressed by the gentleman from Nebraska, and it is
anticipated that a resolution is expected soon.
On that basis, I do not oppose the amendment as a gentle reminder for
the Department to address this issue expeditiously.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flores

Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.

[[Page H3477]]

The Clerk read 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 the 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. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment which addresses
another misguided and restrictive Federal regulation.
Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prevents
Federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of a
fuel unless its life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than or
equal to emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from
conventional petroleum sources.
In summary, my amendment would stop the government from enforcing
this ban on all Federal agencies funded by the Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill.

{time} 2250

The initial purpose of section 526 was to stop the Defense
Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquids jet
fuel. This restriction was based on the opinion of some
environmentalists that coal-based jet fuel might produce more
greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum. We must ensure
that our military has adequate fuel resources and that it can rely on
domestic and more stable sources of fuel. Unfortunately, section 526's
ban on fuel choice now affects all Federal agencies, not just the
Defense Department.
This is why I'm offering this amendment again today to the Energy and
Water appropriations bill. Federal agencies should not be burdened with
wasting their time studying fuel restrictions when there is a simple
fix, and that fix is to not restrict our fuel choices based on extreme
environmental views, policies, and misguided regulations like those in
section 526.
With increasing competition for energy and fuel resources and with
the continued volatility and instability in the Middle East, it is now
more important than ever for our country to become more energy
independent and to further develop and produce all of our domestic
energy resources.
Placing limits on Federal agencies' fuel choices is an unacceptable
precedent to set in regard to America's policy independence and our
national security. Madam Chair, section 526 makes our Nation more
dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Stopping the impact of section 526
will help us to promote American energy, improve the American economy,
and create American jobs.
In some circles, there is a misconception that my amendment somehow
prevents the Federal Government and our military from being able to
produce and use alternative fuels. Madam Chair, this viewpoint is
categorically false. All my amendment does is to allow the Federal
purchasers of these fuels to acquire the fuels that best and most
efficiently meet their needs. I offered a similar amendment to the CJS
appropriations bill, and it passed with strong bipartisan support.
My similar amendment to the MilCon-VA appropriations bill also passed
by a voice vote. My friend, Mr. Conaway, also had language added to the
Defense authorization bill to exempt the Defense Department from this
burdensome regulation.
Let's remember the following facts about section 526: it increases
our reliance on Middle Eastern oil; it hurts our military readiness,
our national security and our energy security. It also prevents a
potential increased use of some sources of safe, clean, and efficient
American oil and gas.
It also increases the cost of American food and energy. It hurts
American jobs and the American economy. Last, but certainly not least,
it costs our taxpayers more of their hard-earned dollars. I urge my
colleagues to support the passage of this commonsense amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment by
the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman's amendment enhances our
national security by giving the Federal Government alternatives to
imported petroleum fuels. Gas prices this year are at record highs, and
the Nation imports nearly half of its oil. Our bill takes a
comprehensive approach to once and for all reduce gas prices and our
reliance on imported oil.
Unfortunately, by declaring some fuel options to be off-limits, off-
limits to Federal fleets, section 526 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 limits our ability to reduce our Nation's
dependence on oil imports.
By undoing that law, the amendment puts all the alternatives back on
the table so the Nation can begin developing and using fuels that are
made with resources right here in the United States. Energy self-
sufficiency is a national security issue, and this amendment takes a
step in the right direction by adding to the comprehensive approach in
our bill. I support the gentleman's amendment, and I am prepared to
accept it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Section 526 is, I believe, a commonsense provision
that stops Federal agencies from wasting taxpayer dollars on new
alternative fuels that are dirtier and more polluting than fuels we use
today.
Section 526 simply bars agencies from entering into contracts to
purchase alternative and unconventional fuels that emit more carbon
pollution than conventional fuels on a life-cycle basis. Section 526
doesn't prevent the sale of dirty fuels, nor does it prevent the
Federal agencies from buying these fuels if they need to.
Instead, it simply prevents the Federal Government from propping up
the makers of dirty fuels with long-term contracts. Government policy,
given the problems we face as far as our energy policy, should help
drive the development of alternative fuels that cut pollution in carbon
emission, not increase it.
The effect of this provision has been that it has spurred development
of advanced biofuels. These fuels are being successfully tested and
proven today on U.S. Navy planes at supersonic speeds. It is a
testament to this country's ingenuity.
Opponents of this section claim that it creates problems for Federal
agencies, and that is simply not the case. For example, the Department
of Defense supports section 526, recognizing that tomorrow's soldiers,
sailors, air personnel, and marines are going to need a greater range
of energy sources.
Last July, the Department of Defense stated very clearly, and I
quote:

The provision has not hindered the Department from
purchasing the fuel we need today, worldwide, to support
military missions. But it also sets an important baseline in
developing the fuels we need for the future.

DOD has also said that repealing section 526 could ``complicate the
Department's efforts to provide better energy options to our
warfighters and take advantage of the promising developments in home-
grown biofuels.''
If DOD, the government's largest fuel purchaser, believes that
section 526 is workable and helpful, that should be true for other
agencies as well. In fact, the agencies we're addressing today have not
expressed any concerns that I am aware of about section 526 nor have
they asked for this provision.
I believe this amendment could also damage the developing biofuels
sector at the worst possible time for our economy. It can send a very
negative signal to America's advanced biofuel industry and could result
in adverse impacts to U.S. job creation, world development efforts, and
the export of world-leading technology.
Developing and bringing advanced low-carbon biofuels to scale is a
critical step in reducing the Nation's dependence on oil. In this
section, section 526, is a key part of this process. For these reasons,
I would certainly be opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H3478]]

Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. FLORES. I want to make sure that we clear up any misconceptions
about this bill. This bill does not tell the military that they cannot
pursue alternative sources of fuel. What it does is it removes all
restrictions that have been placed on the military and on the Federal
Government to procure any type of fuel, whether it's based on coal
technology, whether it's based on the oil sands from a friendly country
next door in Canada. It contains no restrictions. It takes away the
restrictions that have manipulated the market and have forced up the
cost of energy for the Defense Department.
For instance, the Navy was buying vegetable oil to burn in its ships
and aircraft in 2010 at a cost of $424 per gallon. Last year, this cost
was reduced to $27 a gallon, yet it's still six times higher than what
the cost of normal Navy fuel would be.
What this hurts is our personnel readiness; it hurts the ability to
buy more tanks, to buy more airplanes, to buy more protective gear for
our men and women in the military.

{time} 2300

It also hurts our taxpayers. As I said earlier, it keeps the military
from being able to even buy fuel from Canadian oil sands next door,
which, hopefully, some day, will be transported through the Keystone XL
pipeline down to United States refineries.
I want to also talk about what the Defense Department has said.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I would like to move to strike the
last word and yield some additional time to the gentleman, another 5
minutes, if he is so inclined.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has already used the
time available to him by striking the last word.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I would be happy to yield the gentleman
some time, if he needs it, to close.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I in turn
yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. FLORES. Thank you. I should be able to do this in a minute.
A letter from the General Counsel of the Department of Defense to
Senator Inhofe says:

The Department of Defense supports Senate 2827, a bill to
repeal the requirement with respect to the procurement and
acquisition of alternative fuels. The bill would repeal
section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007. Section 526 has the potential to generate significant
problems for the DOD and its procurement of fuels for the
national defense. It creates uncertainty about what fuels the
DOD can procure and discourage the development of new
sources, particularly reliable domestic sources of energy
supplies for the Armed Forces.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would simply reiterate my objection to the
gentleman's amendment so that is clear for the record, and 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.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Womack) having assumed the chair, Ms. Foxx, 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. 5325)
making appropriations for energy and water development and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________