[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 85 (Thursday, June 7, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1018]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2013

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. LAURA RICHARDSON

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 31, 2012

  The House in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
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:

  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in reluctant opposition to 
H.R. 5325, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act. This bill provides $32.1 billion, an $88 million 
increase from Fiscal Year 2012 levels but $965 million below the 
President's Fiscal Year 2013 request.
  The purpose of the annual energy and water spending bill is to 
provide the funding necessary to ensure that the nation's energy and 
water resources are sufficient to address the nation's needs. This 
year's spending bill, H.R. 5325, provides funding for critical national 
priorities such as Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Energy, 
Department of the Interior, and independent agencies that provide 
research and development of future energy industries, job training, and 
health care.
  Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Peter J. 
Visclosky for shepherding this bill to the floor. I appreciate the way 
they worked together and with my office to accommodate several of my 
legislative priorities regarding energy and water development programs.
  Although this bill provides adequate funding for some programs that I 
support, it also includes numerous other provisions that are 
unacceptable. On balance, these unpalatable provisions outweigh the 
positive aspects of the bill.
  This bill substantially underfunds key priorities like science and 
innovation which are critical to the recovery of our economy and 
rebuilding our waterways and ports. The bill only provides $1.45 
billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy research programs, 
which is $374 million below Fiscal Year 2012 and $886 million below the 
President's request.
  The bill only provides $200 million for the Advanced Research 
Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA E), which is $75 million below Fiscal 
Year 2012 levels and $150 million below the President's request. ARPA E 
supports breakthrough of domestic clean energy innovations.
  Mr. Chair, the bill before us dramatically cuts funding for energy 
efficiency and renewable energy research programs by 39 percent and 
reduces funding for several other energy innovation programs:
  Solar energy research funding is cut by nearly 50 percent from Fiscal 
Year 2012;
  Wind energy development research is underfunded at only $70 million, 
$24 million below the Fiscal Year 2012 and $25 million below the 
President's request;
  Building technologies research funding is cut by more than 50 percent 
from fiscal year 2012 and $185 million below the President's request. 
These funds are used to research energy-efficient technologies in 
buildings, which account for roughly 40 percent of all U.S. energy use.
  This bill does not stop there. It also contains provisions that 
weaken energy reduction targets in new and renovated federal buildings. 
Buildings account for almost 40 percent of U.S. energy consumption, and 
as the largest consumer of energy in the U.S., the federal government 
should lead the way in designing and building facilities that use less 
energy to spur the development of new materials and technologies and to 
show that these reductions are practical, achievable, and cost-
effective.
  Section 110 of the bill would stop an Administration effort to 
provide clarity on which water bodies are covered by Clean Water Act 
(CWA). The existing regulations were the subject of two Supreme Court 
cases in 2001 and 2006, in which the Court indicated the need for 
greater regulatory clarity on the scope of CA jurisdiction.
  Mr. Chair, for many of these same reasons the President has put the 
Congress on notice that he will ``veto'' H.R. 5325 if it is presented 
to him for signature in its present form. It make no sense to pass a 
bad bill that has no chance of becoming law. We should instead be 
working together across the aisle to craft a bill that can win and be 
worthy of bipartisan and bicameral support. The bill before us does not 
meet this standard.
  For these reasons, I will vote no on H.R. 5325 on final passage. I 
urge my colleagues to join me.

                          ____________________