[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17846-17891]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2010

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 645 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 3183.

                              {time}  1248


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3183) making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Tierney in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) and the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is, indeed, a privilege to submit to the House for 
its consideration H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. The Appropriations Committee 
approved this bill unanimously by a voice vote on July 8. This is a 
good bill that merits the support of the entire House.
  I thank all of the members of the Energy and Water Development 
Subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the floor today. 
This has been a challenging year with our extremely compressed 
schedule, and I appreciate our Members' attention and participation in 
this accelerated process.
  I particularly want to thank the ranking member--my dear friend, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen)--for his extraordinary 
cooperation, insight and friendship.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill that represents the fair and 
balanced treatment of competing priorities. This is the way our 
constituents expect their Representatives to work together, and I am 
proud of this bipartisan process.
  I also would like to thank the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, Mr. Obey, and the ranking member, Mr. Lewis, for their 
support.
  I was given this assignment 3 weeks ago, and without the great work 
of the subcommittee staff, we would not be here today. So, today, this 
afternoon, I want to thank the staff of the subcommittee: the Clerk, 
Taunja

[[Page 17847]]

Berquam; Robert Sherman; Joseph Levin; James Windle; Casey Pearce; Rob 
Blair; and Kevin Jones. They worked many hours and through the weekends 
to get this bill today on the floor.
  I would also like to thank Richard Patrick, from my office, and Ms. 
Nancy Fox and Ms. Katie Hazlett of Mr. Frelinghuysen's office.
  I want to acknowledge our agency detailee, Lauren Minto from the 
Corps of Engineers, for her assistance, talent and knowledge in putting 
this bill and report together.
  These people have formed a great team, and without their work, we 
would not be here today. I have to thank them again because their 
support has been invaluable.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill provides funding to address critical issues 
that affect our Nation's security and prosperity--from Addressing high 
gas prices, our energy crisis and climate change to advancing science 
and innovation, to preventing nuclear proliferation, to encouraging 
effective project management, and to investing in our Nation's flood 
control and water infrastructure projects.
  The total funding for energy and water development in fiscal year 
2010 is $33.3 billion. This funding amount is a decrease of $1.1 
billion from the budget request, and it is roughly equal to the current 
fiscal year. While the bill is below the budget request, the primary 
reason for this difference is a Congressional Budget Office score of 
$1.5 billion for the Department of Energy's budget request for the 
Innovative Loan Guarantee Program. The bill provides $406 million above 
the budget request in program scope.
  This bill made a concerted effort to cut lower priority programs and 
to apply the cuts to higher priority efforts. These spending cuts 
include 18 activities, totaling $2.5 billion below the President's 
request.
  Given the wide-ranging scope of issues in this legislation that are 
critical to our Nation's well-being, I set forth the following 
priorities to ensure that our tax dollars will be spent wisely and 
effectively. These priorities include:
  addressing high gas prices, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, 
and confronting the energy crisis through increased investment in 
alternative, domestic transportation fuels and new vehicle 
technologies;
  addressing climate change with sound investments in carbon 
sequestration, low-emission energy technologies, and science research;
  modernizing the energy sector through the research and development of 
renewable energy sources, efficient energy technologies, and novel 
electric grid technologies;
  confronting the terrorist nuclear threat by increasing the protection 
of nuclear materials and accelerating the deployment of systems to 
detect such materials at border crossing points and ports;
  improving the security of our weapons by upgrading the protection of 
our facilities as well as improving the training and equipment of the 
Protective Force;
  insisting that the President submit to Congress a nuclear weapons 
strategy and a nuclear complex transformation plan before Congress will 
consider funding a new nuclear warhead;
  investing in dam safety, flood protection, hydropower modernization 
and infrastructure that is essential to waterborne commerce on our 
coasts, rivers and inland lakes, which is essential to the safety of 
our citizens and our economy; and
  saving taxpayer dollars by improving management of agency programs, 
especially at the Department of Energy.
  This bill provides adequate funds to meet the priority needs of the 
House. It funds the most worthwhile projects and programs near 
requested levels, and it reduces some programs that are less valuable 
or less urgent. I urge my colleagues of the House to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. This is a good bill because 
it is a significant improvement over the administration's budget 
request, and it was put together in a very bipartisan manner.
  Before I turn to the contents of the legislation before us, like Mr. 
Pastor, I would like to thank the fantastic staff--Taunja Berquam, the 
Clerk; Bob Sherman; Joe Levin; Jim Windle; Casey Pearce; and Lauren 
Minto. On the minority side, I would like to thank Rob Blair and Kevin 
Jones. In my personal office, I would like to thank Katie Hazlett and 
Nancy Fox. In Mr. Pastor's personal office, I would like to thank Rick 
Patrick. All of these individuals have worked tirelessly to put 
together the product before us.
  No one has worked harder than Mr. Pastor, and I want to thank Mr. 
Pastor for his friendship and for his leadership and guidance on this 
bill. The gentleman from Arizona is a pleasure to work with. I thank 
him for his leadership and for his assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee's recommendation totals $33.82 
billion, which is $1.1 billion below the President's request and $200 
million over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. While the dollar 
amounts are significant, the issues contained in this bill are at the 
core of our Nation's economic prosperity and national security, 
especially the energy portfolio, and our historic responsibility for 
the reliability and the protection of our nuclear stockpile. Thus, it 
is worthy of debate and amendment on the House floor.

                              {time}  1300

  The bill was preceded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 
which gave more than $44 billion to the agencies under our 
jurisdiction. In fact, nearly $39 billion alone went to the Department 
of Energy. The Department has nearly one-and-a-half times more money to 
manage even before we consider this annual appropriations bill, so our 
bill cannot be viewed simply through the traditional lens of annual 
appropriations. With the passage of the stimulus bill, Secretary Chu 
and his new team assumed new roles as major grant managers and 
accountants for billions of dollars for new Federal and State programs 
and hundreds of new employees.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we were able to improve upon the 
administration's request in several ways. For example, the legislation 
before us increases the budget request by over $400 million for the 
Army Corps of Engineers, enabling us to address more water needs across 
our country. The Army Corps projects touch virtually every 
congressional district; and I know Mr. Pastor and I highly respect the 
interests of all Members who, knowing their district needs, have sought 
some assistance; and we've done our best to accommodate them. Our 
recommendation increases research and development for both renewable 
energy and nuclear power while supporting clean coal initiatives and 
other technologies, such as geothermal, solar, fusion and wind power. I 
am exceptionally pleased that our bill keeps the Department on track 
for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant program.
  There are some areas that I would have done a bit differently, of 
course. Not surprisingly, I would have preferred to have done more to 
reverse the administration's decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain 
repository in Nevada, where we have spent over $11 billion of taxpayer 
and rate payer moneys--in fact, $7 billion of rate payer moneys--with 
little apparent return. We still have tons of waste to dispose of and 
to protect. The bill before us does contain the administration's 
significant cut to the program, and I am deeply concerned that this 
basically political decision will be followed by others trumping future 
scientific recommendations and judgments. However, our bill directs $70 
million to ensure that the questions raised during the Yucca license 
application process can be answered; and it requires that funding for 
the President's suggested Blue Ribbon Panel is only available for a 
review, which includes all alternatives, including Yucca Mountain. I 
think this is the only way future review could be credible.

[[Page 17848]]

  I would also have preferred much more support for nuclear power here 
in the United States and the greater availability of nuclear loan 
guarantees. Given what China and other nations are doing to build new 
nuclear power plants, we could produce much more electricity ourselves 
while adding American jobs, which we need if the administration as well 
as House and Senate majority leadership were more supportive. American 
companies are working abroad building nuclear power plants while we 
dither here. The President and congressional leadership appear to have 
a strong bias against nuclear power as well as oil and gas production, 
which will leave our Nation severely disadvantaged. Energy-intensive 
industries, like what is left of our American manufacturing base, will 
no longer be able to compete with nations who are making nuclear and 
other types of capital investments a priority, and they're not 
subjecting themselves to self-imposed cap-and-trade emissions 
reductions. Our lack of investing in nuclear power, so well illustrated 
in the recent passage of the so-called American Clean Energy and 
Security Act, is a gift that keeps on giving to our economic 
competitors China and India, whose economies are already sucking away 
U.S. jobs at an alarming rate.
  We also improved that portion of the committee's jurisdiction that 
involves nuclear weapons activities, not to promote more nuclear 
weapons, but to provide more funds to reduce the weapons stockpile. The 
President's recent trip to Russia and his call for major changes in 
what is called our nuclear ``posture'' must be matched by the 
administration's funding requests that will pay for our country's 
nuclear dismantlements and for the science to certify the reliability 
of what's left. And we must provide adequate funding to retain our 
highly specialized nuclear scientists and technicians and to maintain 
the facilities and laboratories where they do their work. The only way 
to support our national security is by increasing this account, not by 
holding it flat. Talk about a delicate balance between nuclear and 
renewables is only talk, for investments in renewables received $60 
billion in the $800 billion stimulus--all of that borrowed money, I 
should add--and nuclear received nothing. I do hope that we can address 
this disproportionality in conference.
  One of my biggest disappointments, however, is not with the bill but 
the way it was brought to the floor. With all the debate about climate 
change, global warming, conservation, carbon footprints and green jobs, 
Members of Congress in both parties should have the right to propose 
amendments to address their concerns and support sources of power that 
they specifically favor and know about, whether that be nuclear, 
hydroelectric, solar, wind, oil- or gas-based, fuel cell or fusion. 
That traditional right to amend our appropriations has been severely 
curtailed by the House leadership. Our appropriations bill affects 
virtually every part of our economy, the household budgets of every 
American family and job prospects for thousands, and the thought that 
renewables alone are going to give us energy independence is, of 
course, on its face, absurd.
  Before I close though, I'd like, on a positive note, to thank the 
Army Corps of Engineers, both military and civilian who, as we gather 
here today, continue to do their remarkable work in dangerous territory 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. We thank them for their courage, their work 
and their professionalism. Mr. Chairman, again I'd like to thank Vice 
Chairman Pastor for his leadership. Despite my unhappiness about the 
energy policy issues I have discussed, I intend to support the bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate both Mr. Pastor and 
Mr. Frelinghuysen for an excellent bill. They are both first-rate 
legislators, and I think this bill is a very effective and reasonable 
response to the problems with which it deals. I think it's, most 
clearly, a bipartisan product as well, and I appreciate that.
  I also appreciate the fact that this bill will continue providing 
significant assistance to Lake Superior communities who need help with 
sewer and water in order to be able to provide decent opportunities for 
economic growth in the future. Communities cannot grow without adequate 
infrastructure.
  I also want to suggest that the nonproliferation efforts contained in 
this bill are important, indeed.
  I would also note that when combined with the actions taken in the 
Recovery Act, this bill will begin the long process of trying to make 
up for the fact that for almost 30 years, this country has had no 
effective energy policy. That has to change, and this is part of the 
effort to change that.
  I also appreciate the fact that, as is the case with previous bills 
approved by the committee, when this bill is finished on the floor, we 
will have accepted 24 Republican amendments to appropriation bills in 
the full committee. We will have accepted another 24 on the floor 
itself. I think that is testimony to the bipartisan approach taken by 
the subcommittees on bill after bill. I appreciate the cooperation of 
all of the Members and the hard work of the staff.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a 
colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. 
Pastor.
  Mr. Chairman, Hanford is the world's largest nuclear cleanup site. 
The wastes at Hanford are a result of our Nation's nuclear weapons 
production program that secured our victories in World War II and the 
Cold War. Hanford cleanup cannot sustain continued reductions without 
jeopardizing progress, breaking existing legally binding commitments to 
the State and increasing long-term costs to taxpayers. Achieving 
cleanup progress requires steady, stable, adequate funding each year 
for all projects at Hanford, including the tank farms, the waste 
treatment plant, groundwater protection, and the River Corridor 
project, which is responsible for stopping contaminants from reaching 
the Columbia River, shrinking the site by 95 percent, and represents 
the highest priority work for Hanford's Richland Operations office. I 
appreciate Mr. Pastor's attention to this issue and assistance in 
making adjustments as this bill went through the committee process. 
These adjustments are a step in the right direction and will have a 
meaningful impact at Hanford, with full funding provided for the Office 
of River Protection.
  I would like to ask Mr. Pastor for a commitment to continue to work 
with me as the final Energy and Water bill is developed.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. As we talked earlier this morning, we said 
that we understand the importance of Hanford as well as all the other 
sites, and I told you of the possibility that some of us would need to 
go see the site and look at it firsthand. So you well know that I 
recognize the importance of cleaning up Hanford and also all of the EM 
sites. I will work with you on this issue and review the needs of 
Hanford's Richland Operations office, including the River Corridor 
Closure project, as we make our way through conference and write a 
final bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you for your commitment on this and 
for your commitment to nuclear waste cleanup at all the sites. I look 
forward to continuing to work with you. Obviously the invitation is 
open for you. Mr. Frelinghuysen has been at Hanford, but I certainly 
invite you. It is something to see firsthand. I thank you for your 
commitment.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. I will join my colleague from the State of Washington's 
invitation to talk about Hanford issues at some point. I appreciate the 
Chair's interest in that.
  I want to thank, specifically, the committee for including $1.78 
billion

[[Page 17849]]

for energy efficiency and renewable energy research, development and 
deployment. But I do rise with some concern that the report proposes to 
decrease water power R&D from $40 million in 2009 to just $30 million. 
While I understand that the ocean and tidal-based marine renewable 
energy industry is certainly nascent at this time, estimates suggest 
that ocean resources in the U.S. could supply more than 6 percent of 
our electricity generation if ocean renewable energy enjoyed the same 
Federal investment as other forms of renewable energy. Many countries 
already operate projects that generate power from both the waves and 
tidal and currents; and we should lead in this regard, not follow.
  In Washington State these efforts are currently underway. The U.S. 
Navy and Verdant Power will install a demonstration project in Puget 
Sound in 2010, and Snohomish County PUD will install a project in 
Admiralty Inlet just north of Seattle in 2011. Federally backed 
research is underway at the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy 
Center, a partnership between the University of Washington and Oregon 
State University. In Sequim the DOE's Marine Science Lab is researching 
ocean energy potential and environmental issues. Hawaii, Oregon, Maine, 
New York, California, Massachusetts and Alaska are also working to 
develop this industry. Our colleagues in the Senate have recommended 
$60 million for water power R&D, and I hope to work with Mr. Pastor 
through conference to work toward those Senate levels for this 
important, very promising program.
  With that, I thank Mr. Pastor for his efforts.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I can assure the gentleman from Washington 
that the committee is aware of this sustainable domestic energy source 
and its potential. We will continue to work with the gentleman from 
Washington through conference to highlight renewable marine and 
hydrokinetic energy development as a priority for the agency.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of the fiscal 
year 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. I would like to thank 
Vice Chairman Pastor and Ranking Member Frelinghuysen for their work on 
this important bill. They have done a great job putting this bill 
together.

                              {time}  1315

  I also want to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their 
hard work and dedication on this piece of legislation.
  I would like to focus my remarks today on the Department of Energy's 
loan guarantee program. The loan guarantee program is one of the few 
policy tools we have that delivers immediately available, market-ready, 
innovative, clean energy technologies that will have a positive impact 
on our economy.
  Congress has authorized $2 billion in loan guarantee authority for 
front-end nuclear facilities. DOE should be recognized for their work 
creating a loan guarantee program that has sound criteria to ensure the 
protection of taxpayers and award guarantees to the most creditworthy 
projects.
  I support the efforts of my colleagues in the House to encourage DOE 
to administer the loan guarantee program, particularly for front-end 
facilities, efficiently and in the earliest possible time frame. I also 
support efforts to ensure that these decisions are based on merit and 
that all loan guarantees are issued to the most qualified and not 
necessarily the most politically connected applicants.
  This program is not a bailout. It is designed to allow creditworthy 
companies to invest in large, multibillion dollar ``investment grade'' 
projects that will create thousands of jobs and inject several billion 
dollars in the local economy without jeopardizing taxpayers' interest.
  For the loan guarantee program to succeed, it must demonstrate 
integrity and credibility through a fair, objective and timely process. 
It must also meet the reasonable business needs of the applicants and 
protect the Treasury and the U.S. taxpayer from undue exposure.
  The Department of Energy has personally assured me that all decisions 
regarding loan guarantees will be made based on the merit of the 
recommended projects rather than on politics.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues, the Department of 
Energy and Secretary Chu to issue loan guarantees in the earliest time 
frame possible by applying the program criteria in a fair and unbiased 
manner.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Virginia, my good friend, Bobby Scott.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I, along with my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), 
would like to briefly discuss the importance of fully funding the 
Thomas Jefferson Lab's 12 GeV Upgrade.
  This important project received accelerated funding in the Recovery 
Act. It is vital that this project receive the administration's full 
request of $22 million in this bill. If full funding is not in place 
for the upcoming fiscal year due to stringent controls in how Recovery 
Act funds are spent, there is little flexibility for the lab to meet 
their construction project without costly scheduling delays or 
potential elimination of physics-related work.
  I would hope that the gentleman from Arizona will work with me and 
Mr. Wittman to ensure that this project is funded at the 
administration's request for fiscal year 2010.
  And I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, my colleague, Mr. 
Wittman.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
  I rise in support and to echo the remarks of my colleague from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott). The Thomas Jefferson Lab is a world leader in 
nuclear physics research and education. The lab is currently in the 
midst of a major upgrade to their accelerator facility. Fully funding 
the accelerator upgrade will significantly expand the facility's 
research potential and will lead to a greater understanding of atomic 
particles, the building blocks of all matter. Research at Jefferson Lab 
will continue to expand our knowledge of nuclear physics that lead to 
many exciting scientific advances.
  I respectfully request that the gentleman from Arizona would work to 
fully fund this important project at Jefferson Lab.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Pastor).
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I thank the gentleman for bringing this 
important issue to us.
  You have made a case that the administration request for $22 million 
for the continuous electron beam accelerator facility is merited.
  You have my personal commitment to work with you and Mr. Wittman 
going forward to see that this project receives the funding it needs 
and deserves.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank you for your commitment and thank you 
for your willingness to work on this important issue and thank my 
colleague from Virginia for his support and look forward to working 
with you in conference.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) for purpose of a colloquy.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I rise to bring attention to the lack of progress by 
the Department of Energy in processing loan guarantee applications, 
particularly with respect to USEC's long-pending loan guarantee 
application for its American Centrifuge Plant project.
  USEC filed its application with the Department of Energy for the loan 
guarantee nearly 1 year ago, yet its application still languishes. USEC 
has informed the Department of Energy that it needs, at minimum, a 
conditional commitment from the Department of Energy for a request for 
a loan guarantee by early August of 2009 or else USEC will begin to 
demobilize its project.

[[Page 17850]]

  I would like to now turn this over to my good colleague from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentlelady.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleague said, this loan application is critical 
for thousands of jobs in Ohio and throughout the country.
  I would hope that the Secretary of Energy and other departmental 
leadership will provide the loan guarantee office staff with the 
necessary guidance and leadership to address this issue in the 
immediate future so that a conditional commitment can be issued on 
reasonable terms.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I would like to now yield to Mr. Wamp from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentlelady. I'm proud that the United States 
Enrichment Corporation has been developing the highly advanced uranium 
enrichment technology for the American Centrifuge Plant in my district, 
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory facility.
  USEC's enrichment technology is very well established, the risks have 
been mitigated, and the technology is fundamentally sound. We should 
not allow a seemingly risk-averse loan staff at the Department to 
continually delay a decision on the loan application which will have 
the effect of terminating this incredible state-of-the-art facility.
  Would the chairman work with us to ensure that the program is run 
efficiently and effectively?
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. First of all, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time and congratulate him on his amendments.
  To you and Mrs. Schmidt, I appreciate the comments made by all my 
colleagues. I will be happy to work with everyone to ensure the program 
is run efficiently and effectively. The management and effectiveness of 
this program is a priority of the subcommittee. We must ensure that it 
is fair to all applicants. And, yes, I will work with my colleagues.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I just want to add that USEC also plays a critical role 
in our national defense and energy security. USEC's ACP project uses 
U.S.-owned and developed technology. Under U.S. law and international 
agreements, only uranium fuel that is of U.S. origin and produced using 
U.S. technology can be used to meet our defense needs. Our Nation's 
national security alone is enough of a reason for the Department of 
Energy to issue USEC a loan guarantee at reasonable terms and 
conditions.
  I just want to appreciate everyone's comments here. We are also 
talking about 8,000 good-paying jobs in Ohio, Tennessee, and other 
States. If we are serious about stimulating the economy, this is a 
great place, because these projects are truly ``shovel ready.''
  The Department of Energy must finish its review and issue a 
conditional commitment with reasonable terms and conditions by the end 
of this month. If it doesn't, we can expect to see layoffs beginning in 
early August.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I just wish to say that I would hope that we can get 
this resolved quickly, and ask if the gentleman from New Jersey has 
anything to add?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Yes. Mrs. Schmidt, I agree that 11 months is more 
than enough for the Department of Energy to act upon the loan guarantee 
submission for the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. It is a 
personal priority of mine to ensure that this program is run 
efficiently and in the best interest of U.S. taxpayers. While it needs 
to move quickly, the loan guarantee application process should be open 
and fair to all applicants.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman and appreciate your yielding me the 
time and commend your leadership on the bill. I'm proud of the 
subcommittee's decision to double the International Renewable Energy 
Program from $5 million to $10 million this year.
  Last year, the committee provided $2 million to promote cooperation 
between the United States and the Government of Israel for renewable 
and alternative energy programs. The Government of Israel matched that 
funding, which is now being directed towards cooperation in the fields 
of advanced battery technology, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and 
energy efficiency.
  Moving forward, I urge the House to support continued cooperation 
between the United States and Israel in the field of alternative 
energy.
  And with that, I yield to my distinguished colleague from New York, 
Chairwoman Nita Lowey.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I strongly believe that we must continue to show support 
to the United States-Israel Energy Cooperation. Last year, President 
Obama told the American people, ``It is time for the U.S. to take real 
steps to end our addiction to oil, and we can join Israel building on 
last year's U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Act to deepen our 
partnership in developing alternative sources of energy.'' I agree with 
President Obama and believe we must work with our global partners and 
allies to diversify our energy portfolio.
  Will the distinguished Mr. Pastor work with us to ensure that U.S.-
Israel Energy Cooperation receives substantial funding and support as 
you proceed to conference with the Senate?
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. First of all, thank you for the compliment, 
and I will tell you that I have Eliot Engel and Brad Sherman, as well 
as you, Madam Chairman and Mr. Israel, who have brought this matter to 
my attention, and I want to thank you for raising it on the floor.
  I, too, am a supporter of the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation. This 
bill, as you have told us, doubles the account which funds such 
programs, and I look forward to working to ensure that the U.S.-Israel 
Energy Cooperation continues to receive strong support in order to 
accelerate the development of alternative energy programs.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman and the gentlewoman.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Chris Smith.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 3183. The bill includes funding to allow the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers to take a greater role in ongoing efforts to fix significant 
recurring environmental hazards posed by Wreck Pond, located in my 
district.
  On an average summer day, Wreck Pond is a picture-perfect postcard. 
However, just below the surface lie dangerous concentrations of high 
levels of fecal coliforms as well as other nasty contaminants. When it 
rains, this poison goes onto the beaches, and it has caused, on 
average, about 80 percent of all beach closings in New Jersey in the 
past few years.
  When Wreck Pond floods, this poison pours into the basements and 
first floors of nearby homes, which I have seen myself on several 
occasions. Immediate action is necessary to improve the water quality 
conditions and mitigate the serious health and environmental hazards 
caused by its pollution to local residents.
  The Corps' work at Wreck Pond will be greatly enhanced and proceed to 
construction earlier than normally anticipated because of extensive 
analysis already completed by other agencies at the Federal, State and 
local level, including work of a $400,000 EPA study, surveillance work 
by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, as well as 
the State's installation of provisional storm water outflow pipes and 
the upstream watershed management programs.
  These actions have been effective. However, they are not the best 
long-term solution, and a permanent fix can be achieved only after the 
Corps begins its work.
  I want to especially thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. 
Frelinghuysen, for his work, and Chairman Oberstar, of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who actually made a trip 
to Wreck Pond in 2007 to view this himself. I thank them

[[Page 17851]]

both. Rodney, thank you for your great work on this.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations bill, and I am 
appreciative of the work done by the chairman and ranking member on 
this bill.
  I would like to briefly engage the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Pastor) in a colloquy regarding an issue related to the Seattle 
District of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Howard Hanson Dam.
  The Green and Puyallup Rivers located in part in the Ninth District 
of Washington were flooded by record levels of water in January 2009, 
causing cities along these rivers to sustain major damage. Levees along 
those rivers are now in need of repair and rehabilitation, and when 
added to the other levees that were already priorities for the Seattle 
district, the need for resources and action is imperative.
  Following the record high level of water behind the Howard Hanson Dam 
on the Green River, significant structural weaknesses were discovered. 
Because of this damage, water levels at the Howard Hanson Dam are being 
held at lower-than-normal levels, drastically increasing the 
possibility of flooding along the banks below.
  This is extremely troubling as we are rapidly approaching the 
upcoming rain and flood season. If the dam were to fail, or if a strong 
storm brings a heavy level of rain, then the levees below are at 
serious risk of being breached, causing significant property damage and 
driving large numbers of people from their homes and businesses.
  I respectfully ask to work with the gentleman to ensure that the 
Seattle district of the Army Corps of Engineers is responsive to the 
flood prevention needs of those along the lower Green and Puyallup 
Rivers and will make the repairs of their levees a top priority.
  I also ask to work with the subcommittee to make the resources needed 
to fix the Howard Hanson Dam available in a timely manner as they are 
identified.
  And with that I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Washington for drawing the subcommittee's attention to this very 
serious issue. He has been a dedicated advocate for the people of the 
Ninth District of Washington and the surrounding areas. We will work 
with the gentleman to ensure that the Seattle district of the Corps is 
responsive to the needs of the cities and people along the lower Green 
and Puyallup Rivers and that adequate resources are available to repair 
the Howard Hanson Dam. So we look forward to working with you.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Thank you. I appreciate that support.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2010 Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill. I want to commend Chairman Pastor and Ranking 
Member Frelinghuysen and their subcommittee for putting together a 
balanced bill that clearly recognizes the importance of scientific 
research and energy security to our Nation's competitiveness.

                              {time}  1330

  There are several provisions of this bill I'm proud to support. Chief 
among those is the increase for the Department of Energy's Office of 
Science. I, along with 70 of my colleagues, asked appropriators for an 
increase consistent with the President's request to double the 
investment in the basic sciences within the next decade. The committee 
provided for $170 million more than the fiscal year 2009. This funding 
is critical to our basic research infrastructure and national 
laboratory work, like that of Argonne in my district.
  The innovations and solutions that will enable us to overcome many of 
our greatest challenges from our economic crisis, environmental 
concerns, dependence on foreign energy, and escalating health care 
costs all start with basic research investments.
  Economic experts have concluded that science-driven technology has 
accounted for more than 50 percent of the growth of the U.S. economy 
during the last half century.
  In recent years, Congress has come to recognize that science will be 
the foundation to address those needs and keep America globally 
competitive. As evidenced by the American COMPETES Act in 2007, both 
Democrats and Republicans support efforts to increase basic research in 
the physical sciences to meet the needs of our growing population. I 
will insert a copy of our letter in the Record.
  I support the underlying bill and appreciate the committee's efforts 
to carefully balance the needs of our energy future and scientific 
investments. However, I am particularly disappointed that the committee 
followed the President's budget request to slash Yucca Mountain funding 
and the failure to increase important loan guarantees to support a 
revitalized nuclear energy sector.
  Illinois receives almost half of its electricity generation from 
nuclear power, followed by coal. If we are to work towards a low carbon 
economy, we cannot pick energy winners and losers to meet the growing 
energy needs of our population.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, April 3, 2009
     Hon. Peter Visclosky
     Chairman, Energy and Water Development, Appropriations 
         Subcommittee, House Appropriations Committee, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Rodney Frelinghuysen,
     Ranking Member, Energy and Water Development, Appropriations 
         Subcommittee, House Appropriations Committee, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member Frelinghuysen: 
     As you begin your work on the Fiscal Year 2010 Energy and 
     Water Appropriations bill, we write to express our strong 
     support for the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of 
     Science. In particular, we urge you to increase Fiscal Year 
     2010 funding for its research and facilities by 8 percent 
     over Fiscal Year 2009 to $5.2 billion, which is consistent 
     with President Obama's plan to double the Federal investment 
     in the basic sciences within the next decade.
       In recent years, Congress has come to recognize that 
     science will be the foundation for the innovation and 
     solutions that will enable us to overcome many of our 
     greatest challenges--from our economic crises and 
     environmental concerns to our dependence on foreign energy 
     and escalating health care costs--and to remain globally 
     competitive as a nation. As evidenced by the overwhelming 
     bipartisan vote for enactment of the America COMPETES Act in 
     2007 (P.L. 110-69), both Democrats and Republicans support 
     efforts to double federal funding for basic research in the 
     physical sciences within the next decade. Congress built on 
     this commitment by funding the programs and activities 
     authorized by the America COMPETES Act in the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act and in the Fiscal Year 2009 
     Omnibus Appropriations bill.
       Congress must build on and provide the resources to sustain 
     this investment in Fiscal Year 2010. Report after report--
     from the National Academy of Sciences and the President's 
     Council of Advisors on Science and Technology to the Task 
     Force on the Future of American Innovation and the Council on 
     Competitiveness--has called on Congress and the President to 
     invest in U.S. research capabilities. The benefits of such an 
     investment to the U.S. economy and U.S. competitiveness are 
     well known. Economic experts have concluded that science-
     driven technology has accounted for more than 50 percent of 
     the growth of the U.S. economy during the last half-century.
       This kind of technology-based economic growth cannot be 
     sustained without additional investment in the kind of basic 
     research supported by the DOE Office of Science. We face a 
     world in which our economic competitors in Asia and Europe 
     are making significant new investments in their own research 
     capabilities. These investments are beginning to pay off, as 
     Asian and European countries challenge U.S. leadership in the 
     sciences no matter how it is measured--by number of patents 
     won, articles submitted to scientific journals, degrees 
     awarded, Nobel prizes won, or the percentage of Gross 
     Domestic Product (GDP) dedicated to research and development.
       Even as we face greater international competition, these 
     are exciting times for science in the United States. There 
     are many great opportunities for scientific discovery, and 
     with adequate funding, the DOE Office of Science will ensure 
     the U.S. retains its dominance in such key scientific fields 
     as nanotechnology, materials science, biotechnology, and 
     supercomputing well into the next century. Through critical 
     new investments in biofuels research and basic energy 
     science, the DOE Office of Science will

[[Page 17852]]

     continue to play a vital role in developing the knowledge and 
     the technologies essential to ensuring the nation's future 
     energy security. Finally, increased funding for the DOE 
     Office of Science will give the economy a boost in the near-
     term by creating good-paying, American jobs in construction, 
     manufacturing, and research. And in the long-term, such an 
     investment in the nation's scientific and research 
     enterprise--both human and physical capital--will increase 
     our capacity to innovate, reduce our dependence on foreign 
     sources of energy, enhance our competitive edge in the global 
     economy, and thus create the jobs of the future.
       U.S. scientists are as bright as any in the world, but they 
     traditionally have had better tools than everyone else. The 
     DOE Office of Science has led the way in creating a unique 
     system of large-scale, specialized user facilities for 
     scientific discovery. This collection of cutting-edge--often 
     one-of-a-kind--tools makes the DOE Office of Science an 
     exceptional and critical component of the federal science 
     portfolio. Other federal science agencies, such as the 
     National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science 
     Foundation (NSF), greatly depend upon these DOE Office of 
     Science facilities in carrying out their own research 
     activities. In Fiscal Year 2009 alone, over 21,500 
     researchers have access to these special DOE facilities. 
     Nearly half of those users will be university faculty and 
     students--many whose research is being supported by other 
     federal agencies--and a significant number will be from U.S. 
     industry.
       For these many reasons, we urge you to increase funding for 
     the DOE Office of Science in Fiscal Year 2010 by 8 percent 
     over Fiscal Year 2009, consistent with President Obama's plan 
     to double the Federal investment in the basic sciences within 
     the next decade. Furthermore, we urge you to focus this 
     funding on mission-related activities and facilities, and to 
     avoid using core DOE research program budgets to fund 
     extraneous projects. With this funding, the DOE Office of 
     Science will attract the best minds, educate the next 
     generation of scientists and engineers, support the 
     construction and operation of modern facilities, and conduct 
     even more of the quality scientific research that will create 
     jobs and ensure the U.S. retains its competitive edge for 
     many years to come.
       Thanks for your consideration. We are cognizant of the 
     difficult budget situation under which your subcommittee is 
     working, and we urge you to contact us if we may be of 
     assistance in any way.
           Sincerely,
       Judy Biggert, Rush Holt, Howard Berman, John Dingell, 
     Barney Frank, Zoe Lofgren, Ron Kind, David Wu, Michael 
     Capuano, Tammy Baldwin, Bill Pascrell, Joe Sestak, Jerry 
     McNerney, Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Shimkus, Mike Rogers (MI), 
     Adam Schiff, Ron Klein.
       Jay Inslee, Daniel Lipinski, James Oberstar, Michael 
     Michaud, Gary Peters, Bill Foster, Anna Eshoo, Zach Wamp, 
     David Loebsack, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Brad Miller, Carolyn 
     Maloney, Doris Matsui, Mary Jo Kilroy, Solomon Ortiz, Lynn 
     Woolsey, Maurice Hinchey, Ellen Tauscher.
       Neil Abercrombie, Rosa DeLauro, Bob Etheridge, Stephanie 
     Herseth Sandlin, Henry Waxman, Paul Hodes, Jerrold Nadler, 
     Vernon Ehlers, Earl Blumenauer, Dennis Moore, Chris Van 
     Hollen, Lois Capps, Jan Schakowsky, John Duncan (TN), Tim 
     Bishop, Adam Smith, Jim McGovern, Steve Kagen.
       Peter Roskam, Christopher Carney, Carol Shea-Porter, Susan 
     Davis, Raul Grijalva, Russ Carnahan, Eliot Engel, Bob Inglis, 
     Donna Edwards, Stephen Lynch, Allyson Schwartz, Marcia Fudge, 
     Eleanor Holmes Norton, Jim Costa, Doc Hastings, Roscoe 
     Bartlett.

  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) for the purpose of a 
colloquy.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend Mr. Pastor for his 
excellent work on this legislation and to thank him for his continued 
support of the Nuclear Power 2010 program, which is now in its final 
year.
  This program is a success story. It has reestablished the U.S. 
leadership in standardized, state-of-the-art nuclear power plants and 
created a licensing process that allows electric utilities the business 
certainty to make capital investments while also preserving public 
participation.
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I agree, and the committee was pleased to recommend that the Nuclear 
Power 2010 program receives $71 million in this legislation, an 
increase of $51 million above the President's request.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank Mr. Pastor. And as he may know, the Nuclear 
Power 2010 program is of particular importance to my district, home to 
the Westinghouse Electric Company headquarters and the thousands of my 
constituents who work for Westinghouse.
  Westinghouse helped establish the civilian nuclear energy industry, 
building the first emission-free electricity generating plant in 1957. 
Today, more than 40 percent of the world's operating plants are 
Westinghouse designs, and 62 of the 104 plants in the U.S. are 
Westinghouse designs.
  NP2010 has helped Westinghouse meet today's regulatory requirements 
for standardizing, siting and licensing the latest nuclear power plant 
designs.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I want to thank the gentleman for pointing out 
the vital role this program plays in his district. I am glad that 
NP2010 funding is included in the bill for all participants who are 
moving forward with licensing and building to bring the next generation 
of nuclear plants to the market.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I appreciate Mr. Pastor for his support of this project 
and am proud of my constituents who helped bring the AP1000 reactor 
design to market and make the NP2010 program the success that it is.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to Mr. Calvert of California, a member of our committee.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to bring your attention to 
the ongoing water crisis in my home State which has exacerbated the 
economic downturn throughout California.
  Statewide, the unemployment rate has risen to more than 11 percent. 
In the Central Valley, regional unemployment has reached 20 percent 
with some communities' unemployment now up to over 40 percent. 
California's water crisis is the result of severe drought conditions on 
top of the federally imposed pumping restrictions that have been placed 
on our State's critical water infrastructure.
  The appropriations bill before us provides some funding for a number 
of California's mid- and long-term water resource management projects. 
Unfortunately, many of the projects that are receiving funding are 
years away from completion and will not provide any assistance to 
Californians suffering today.
  Even the most promising short-term projects in the Delta, like the 
Two Gates project, will only provide relief if regulatory permitting 
and anticipated court challenges are resolved in quick fashion. Many of 
the most affected communities have made it clear that they aren't 
looking for a handout. They want their water and they want their jobs 
back.
  During the markup of this bill in the committee, I offered an 
amendment to do just that by ending the federally imposed pumping 
restrictions. Sadly, most of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle rejected the amendment and voted to protect a 3-inch fish instead 
of protecting jobs and the people of my State of California. I'm 
disappointed the Rules Committee denied a similar amendment offered by 
my colleague, Mr. Nunes.
  Mr. Chairman, the federally imposed pumping restrictions are harming 
California families up and down the State. If this Congress and this 
administration fail to take the bold steps necessary to address the 
crisis in the next 6-12 months, the people of California will know 
exactly who's responsible for the job losses.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I would yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend my good friend 
from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) for the strong commitment this bill shows 
toward shoring up both science and the national security of this 
country. The strong support for the Office of Science will be well 
received in my home State of New Mexico.
  I'm seeking the commitment of the gentleman from Arizona to work with 
me on refurbishing LANSCE, the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center. This 
facility plays a crucial role in providing one-of-a-kind experimental 
capabilities to further the lab's science mission. In addition, it's a 
key draw for new scientific talent in Los Alamos National Laboratory 
and high-tech research into northern New Mexico. The

[[Page 17853]]

capabilities resident within the LANSCE facility cannot be duplicated 
in a cost-effective manner anywhere else in the country. The investment 
in the capabilities the refurbishment will sustain will pay for itself 
many times over.
  I yield to Mr. Pastor.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. First of all, I want to thank you for raising 
this important issue, and you have my personal commitment to work with 
you as we go forward to find a solution that best serves the national 
security.
  We're well aware of the capabilities and the value of Los Alamos 
National Laboratories.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to commend my friend, 
the gentleman from Arizona for this legislation, and I thank him for 
his willingness to work with me on this important issue.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time and 
ask how much time is available on both sides.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 8 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from Arizona has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado, my good friend, Mr. Polis.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I, along with my colleague Mr. Carnahan, 
rise to enter into a colloquy.
  Mr. Pastor, several weeks ago the House Sustainable Energy and 
Environment Coalition met with the Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu. He 
shared his vision of eight energy innovation hubs that would deliver 
transformational energy technologies. This bill only funds one of those 
important hubs.
  When these hubs were first discussed with the committee, DOE's action 
plan was not fully developed. Since that time, they have made necessary 
revisions to develop the concept. While we support funding only 
proposals that are fully developed, we hope that you will work with the 
members of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition and the 
Department of Energy to continue working to fund this initiative as 
this process continues.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to my colleague and fellow SEEC 
member, Mr. Carnahan of Missouri.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. As co-chair of the Congressional High Performance 
Building Caucus, I know firsthand that improvements to our built 
environment are some of the lowest hanging fruit in terms of energy 
efficiency gains.
  In the long term, we would work with you, Mr. Chairman, to see that 
all eight energy innovation hubs are fully funded. In the short term, 
as we enter into conference with the Senate, we would like to work with 
you to ensure that the Fuels from Sunlight Hub and the Energy Efficient 
Building Systems Hub are fully funded.
  I submit for the Record letters from Members and organizations who 
also support funding of the energy efficient building systems.
  I thank you, Mr. Pastor, for your willingness to address this issue, 
and I look forward to working with you.

                                    Congress of the United States,


                            High-Performance Buildings Caucus,

                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 2009.
     Hon. David R. Obey,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ed Pastor,
     Acting Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
         Development, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jerry Lewis,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Rodney Frelinghuysen,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members: As members of the High-
     Performance Buildings Caucus, we commend your work on the 
     Energy and Water Appropriations Act of 2010. This Act makes 
     investments in all areas of energy and makes critical 
     investments in our nation's infrastructure. Of those 
     investments, we hope you will give priority consideration to 
     the Energy Efficient Buildings Systems Hub.
       As a Caucus, we have consistently advocated for investments 
     in a particular element of our nation's infrastructure--our 
     built environment. Each year our nation's homes, offices, 
     schools, and other buildings consume 70 percent of the 
     electricity in the U.S., emit 39 percent of the nation's 
     carbon dioxide emissions, and our citizens spend 
     approximately 90 percent of their time indoors. Investing in 
     the research and development of high-performance building 
     technologies can have a direct impact on decreasing our 
     nation's carbon footprint, reducing costs and improving 
     building energy efficiency.
       In light of these facts, the Department of Energy fiscal 
     year 2010 budget introduced a request for eight Energy 
     Innovation Hubs, each focused on a specific national energy 
     related topic. These Energy Innovation Hubs would function in 
     a new structure modeled after the research laboratories 
     involved in the Manhattan Project Labs, Lincoln Labs at MIT 
     that developed radar and AT&T Bell Laboratories that 
     developed the transistor.
       According to the Department of Energy, the proposed Energy 
     Efficient Building Systems Hub would:
       Develop systems-based approaches to designing commercial 
     and residential buildings that integrate windows and 
     lighting, natural ventilation and HVAC, thermal inertia, on-
     site energy generation and other factors. Develop building 
     design software with imbedded energy analysis to assist 
     architects and engineers in adopting new technologies for 
     conserving energy. Develop automated operating platforms for 
     real-time optimization of the building control systems, 
     analogous to computer optimization of automobile engine 
     performance.
       We understand that during difficult economic and budgetary 
     times, we must be especially careful with federal research 
     investments. It is because of our strong belief in the 
     benefits of energy efficiency gains that we believe that this 
     Energy Innovation Hub will offer the best return for our 
     investment.
       While we understand the concerns of the Appropriations 
     Committee regarding possible redundancies within existing 
     initiatives, we hope to work with the Committee and the 
     Department of Energy to address these specific concerns 
     before moving forward. It is our hope that as this 
     legislation moves forward, we will be able to work with you 
     to address this important issue.
           Sincerely,
     Russ Carnahan,
       Co-Chair.
     Judy Biggert,
       Co-Chair.
                                  ____

         Congress of the United States, Sustainable Energy and 
           Environment Coalition,
                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 2009.
     Hon. David R. Obey,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ed Pastor,
     Acting Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water 
         Development, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Obey and Acting Chairman Pastor: As members 
     of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition (SEEC), 
     we thank and commend you for your continuing leadership in 
     making the investments in clean energy and energy efficiency 
     technologies that are essential for a transition to a 
     cleaner, more prosperous and independent American energy 
     future.
       As a Coalition we believe firmly in the advancement of the 
     technologies that will provide cleaner, more economically and 
     environmentally sustainable energy to every segment of our 
     economy. Further, as members of SEEC we have fought 
     continuously for investments in research and development of 
     renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies that will 
     spawn a new American clean energy economy that will create 
     jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and arrest the 
     progression of global climate change.
       In a meeting on June 16, 2009, Secretary of Energy Steven 
     Chu expressed to our members his desire for a new American 
     energy future. As a part of his visionary plan to bring this 
     future to reality, the Secretary called for the creation of 
     eight ``Energy Innovation Hubs'' for the advanced research 
     and development of the energy technologies that will allow 
     America to lead the world in a twenty-first century energy 
     economy.
       Under the Energy and Water Appropriations, Fiscal Year 2010 
     legislation, funding has been allocated for the Department of 
     Energy to establish one Energy Innovation Hub. According to 
     the Department of Energy, this Hub would be chartered for the 
     research and development of ``Fuels from Sunlight'' 
     technologies. While we stand with the Secretary of Energy in 
     supporting the research and development of game-changing, 
     twenty-first century fuel technologies, we would like to 
     express support for the establishment of a second Energy 
     Innovation Hub--using existing funding appropriated to the 
     Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy--for the 
     research and development of ``Energy Efficient Building 
     Systems''.
       The creation of an Energy Innovation Hub to research and 
     develop advancements in increasing the energy efficiency of 
     buildings is a high priority for the Secretary and the 
     Department of Energy. As a nation, our built environment 
     accounts for 40 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions, and 
     consumes 70 percent of the electricity from our electric 
     grid. A lack of energy efficiency contributes to higher 
     energy prices and greater greenhouse gas emissions for homes 
     and for businesses in every state. Greater and more

[[Page 17854]]

     widespread energy efficiency in buildings would result in 
     lower energy prices, less greenhouse gas emissions, and less 
     wasted use of our energy resources. Therefore, we would like 
     to work with the Committee on Appropriations, the 
     Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and the 
     Department of Energy to realize the creation of an Energy 
     Innovation Hub to research and develop Energy Efficient 
     Building Systems.
           Sincerely,
     Russ Carnahan,
     Jay Inslee,
     Paul Tonko,
     Martin Heinrich,
     Donna Christensen,
     Bruce Braley,
     Jared Polis,
     Paul Hodes,
     Tammy Baldwin,
     Betsy Markey,
     Peter Welch.
            The Members of the Sustainable Energy and Environment 
     Coalition.
                                  ____

         High-Performance Building Congressional Caucus Coalition,
                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 2009.
     Chairman David Obey,
     Committee on Appropriations,
     Washington, DC.
     Ranking Member Jerry Lewis,
     Committee on Appropriations,
     Washington, DC.

     Re DOE Energy Efficient Building Systems Hub.

       Dear Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Lewis: As you 
     consider appropriations for the Department of Energy that 
     will impact the energy use associated with buildings, the 
     members of the High-Performance Building Congressional Caucus 
     Coalition (HPBCCC) indicated below, strongly encourage 
     providing funding for the implementation of an innovation hub 
     for energy efficient building systems.
       High-performance buildings, which address human, 
     environmental, economic and total societal impact, are the 
     result of the application of the highest level design, 
     construction, operation and maintenance principles--a 
     paradigm change for the built environment. The U.S. should 
     continue to improve the features of new buildings, and adapt 
     and maintain existing buildings, to changing balances in our 
     needs and responsibilities for health, safety, energy 
     efficiency and usability by all segments of society.
       Within the private sector, we have made considerable gains 
     toward the design and construction of energy efficient 
     buildings and equipment. In further pursuit of the nation's 
     energy goals and to fully realize the results of private 
     sector innovation, we look forward to working with you and 
     the Department of Energy to establish public-private 
     partnership programs (including the Energy Efficient Building 
     Systems Hub) to effectively develop and implement energy 
     savings technologies and practices.
       The High-Performance Building Congressional Caucus 
     Coalition (HPBCCC) is a private sector coalition of leading 
     organizations from the building community formed to provide 
     guidance and support to the High-Performance Building Caucus 
     of the U.S. Congress. The High-Performance Building Caucus of 
     the U.S. Congress was formed to heighten awareness and inform 
     policymakers about the major impact buildings have on our 
     health, safety and welfare and the opportunities to design, 
     construct and operate high-performance buildings that reflect 
     our concern for these impacts. Fundamental to these concerns 
     include protecting life and property, developing novel 
     building technologies, facilitating and enhancing U.S. 
     economic competitiveness, increasing energy efficiency in the 
     built-environment, assuring buildings have minimal climate 
     change impacts and are able to respond to changes in the 
     environment, and supporting the development of private sector 
     standards, codes and guidelines that address these concerns.
           Sincerely,
       American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
     conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE); Glass Association of North 
     America (GANA); AEC Science & Technology; National Electrical 
     Manufacturers Association (NEMA); National Institute of 
     Building Sciences (NIBS); The Carpet and Rug Institute; 
     American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE); International 
     Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO); 
     Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors-National Association 
     (PHCC); U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC); and 
     International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC).
       National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC); Green Building 
     Initiative (GBI); American Institute of Architects (AIA); 
     Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI); Portland 
     Cement Association (PCA); International Code Council (ICC); 
     Architecture 2030; Center for Environmental Innovation in 
     Roofing; Mechanical Contractors Association of America 
     (MCAA); Green Builder Media; International Association of 
     Lighting Designers (IALD); and Air Conditioning Contractors 
     of America (ACCT).

  Mr. CARNAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. First of all, you are both correct in that 
when the Secretary appeared before the subcommittee, this is and was 
presented as a work in progress. And knowing that we are going to 
proceed forward with the administration and with the Secretary, we 
thought that it was in the best interest to fund one hub. And as the 
Secretary and the administration goes forward in developing these hubs, 
we look forward to working with you, Mr. Polis.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I yield another minute to Mr. Polis.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield to Mr. Pastor.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. So we look forward to working with you and Mr. 
Carnahan because it's an idea that obviously will expand, will grow, 
and we want to make sure that the committee, the subcommittee has the 
opportunity to work with the Secretary to see its development. So we 
look forward to working with you.
  Mr. POLIS. I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman and wanted to rise today for a 
colloquy. And what this has to do with is some poor language that's in 
the bill, some on the House side and some on the Senate side. But the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) had put language in the bill that 
directs the Corps to report back to Congress an outline of the study 
based on the findings of the National Research Council workshop on 
water issues in Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint and Alabama-Coosa-
Tallapoosa River basins, and we in the Georgia and Alabama and Florida 
delegations are in support of that language.
  However, there was also some language that was put in by Mr. Shelby 
on the Senate side that directs the Corps to report the critical yield 
of Federal reservoirs on the ACF-ACT, and the majority of Members from 
the Georgia delegation are opposed to that, and it's a bipartisan 
opposition. It's something that we are very concerned about. We feel 
strongly that the Corps of Engineers' water manuals need to be updated 
and that what the Senator from Alabama has put on the bill on the 
Senate side will hurt that.
  So what I would like to do, if possible, is ask the ranking member 
and the chairman to keep an eye on this issue and hopefully, as this 
thing develops, oppose the language that's been put in the bill on the 
Senate side and support the language that Mr. Boyd put in on the House 
side. Those two bits of language are not in opposition of each other. 
You can support one without the other.
  But the one that we have the most heartburn about in terms of the 
bipartisan Georgia delegation is the Shelby language on the Senate 
side.
  I would like to yield to anybody who would like to speak.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me say I would be happy to work, like Mr. 
Pastor would, to see what we could do to be helpful to all involved.
  Mr. Kingston, as you know, we have yet to go to conference, but this 
is an interest that you and other Members have in terms of its effects 
on your particular States. You have my commitment, as well as the 
ranking member as you heard, to work with you and work it out.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York, a member of the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Israel.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Arizona. I 
appreciate his leadership on so many issues. In particular, I want to 
thank him for including my bipartisan amendment with our colleagues, 
Mr. Larson from Connecticut, Mr. Massa, Mr. Dent, Mr. Doyle, and Mr. 
Inglis to restore $45 million to the hydrogen and fuel cell program at 
DOE. This bill brings the total to $153 million, which I believe can be 
used to establish a public-private partnership with industry partners 
who have already displayed a significant investment in the United 
States.

[[Page 17855]]

  Currently, Mr. Chairman, the United States is in a neck-and-neck 
competition with the global market on hydrogen fuel cells. We've got to 
support these technologies for commercialization within 5 years as a 
matter of national security, energy independence, and to remain 
competitive in the energy sector. This investment keeps us ahead.
  And I want to again thank the gentleman from Arizona for his 
leadership and his cooperation, and my colleagues for their 
bipartisanship in drafting this legislation which the gentleman has 
accepted.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself 
with the remarks of Steve Israel, as the aforementioned also members of 
the Hydrogen Caucus who have been so critical to promoting this 
legislation. But I especially want to thank Chairman Pastor and 
especially his staff, Taunja Berquam, and also Joe Levin, who played an 
instrumental role in making sure that we got this important funding 
included in the bill.
  Now, in Connecticut we pride ourselves as being the fuel-cell center. 
We have more than eight companies, three in my home district. But as 
Steve Israel pointed out--and I know Mr. Pastor knows this--the 
importance of being energy independent cuts to the core of what we need 
to do.
  This is a technology that has been around for some time. We use it 
very successfully in NASA. We're able to power our space vehicles. 
We're able to use the water and be able to heat and cool and power our 
spacecraft. With that, can we get people back and forth to work and 
heat and cool our buildings? I think so.
  The whole goal here is to make sure that we're able to embrace the 
most abundant element in the universe, which is hydrogen. If we expect 
to wean ourselves off of foreign dependency then we have to go with 
cutting edge technology.
  Another young President in 1960 said we could put a man on the moon 
in 10 years. We did it in nine. Part of the technology in getting us 
there was hydrogen fuel cells.
  It's long overdue for us to make the kind of investments in the 
public-private partnerships that Mr. Israel alluded to that are so 
essential to us moving this economy forward and making sure that we're 
no longer dependent upon OPEC countries, on Libya, on Venezuela or 
Russia for our source of fuel, but we make it here in America with 
American innovation and technology.
  And with that, again, I thank Mr. Pastor for your leadership and your 
outstanding staff for providing us this opportunity, what I know is a 
bipartisan effort to move this Nation forward.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We reserve our time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. We don't have any other speakers. So I reserve 
my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, as you heard, this is a 
bipartisan bill. We've tried to balance the different priorities and 
needs of this country.
  Again, I want to thank my ranking member for his cooperation, his 
support, and his insight in preparing this bill. It is a good bill, and 
we would not have been able to do it without the staff that was 
involved in bringing this bill to us.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the FY 10 Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill. Under the leadership of President Obama, the 
United States is committing itself to a new national clean energy 
policy for the 21st century, and this legislation advances that 
critical objective. Additionally, I am pleased with the important 
investments this bill makes in our nation's water infrastructure.
  The Department of Energy will receive $26.9 billion to fund five 
primary mission areas: science, energy, the environment, nuclear non-
proliferation and national security. Specifically, DoE's Office of 
Science will receive $4.9 billion--an amount exceeding the goals of the 
America COMPETES Act--for its basic and applied research in support of 
our nation's future energy needs. The Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy will receive $2.25 billion for research, grants and 
demonstration projects in areas ranging from solar power to industrial 
energy efficiency. This legislation also provides $5.4 billion for 
environmental clean-up related to contamination from nuclear weapons 
manufacturing, and $592 million is dedicated to safeguarding Russian 
nuclear materials and combating international nuclear trafficking.
  To support our nation's water infrastructure, the Army Corps of 
Engineers receives $5.5 billion for operations, maintenance and 
construction of vital water projects across the country, and the 
Department of the Interior is provided $1.1 billion for the Bureau of 
Reclamation's important work on the nation's dams, canals, water 
conservation and rural water projects. Finally, I am heartened by the 
wide-ranging support for Chesapeake Bay restoration initiatives 
included in this legislation.
  Mr. Chair, this bipartisan bill reflects the clean energy and water 
infrastructure priorities of the American people. I urge my colleagues' 
support.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule, and the bill shall be considered read through 
page 63, line 12.
  The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3183

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for energy and water 
     development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, namely:

                   TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

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

                             investigations

       For expenses necessary when authorized by law for the 
     collection and study of basic information pertaining to river 
     and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore 
     protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related needs; 
     for surveys and detailed studies and plans and specifications 
     of proposed river and harbor, flood and storm damage 
     reduction, shore protection, and aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration projects and related efforts prior to 
     construction; for restudy of authorized projects; and for 
     miscellaneous investigations and, when authorized by law, 
     surveys and detailed studies and plans and specifications of 
     projects prior to construction, $142,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That, except as provided 
     in section 101, the amounts made available under this 
     paragraph shall be expended as authorized by law for the 
     projects and activities specified in the text and table under 
     this heading in the report of the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives to accompany this Act.

                              construction

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For expenses necessary for the construction of river and 
     harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects 
     authorized by law; for conducting detailed studies and plans 
     and specifications of such projects (including those 
     involving participation by States, local governments, or 
     private groups) authorized or made eligible for selection by 
     law (but such detailed studies and plans and specifications 
     shall not constitute a commitment of the Government to 
     construction), $2,122,679,000, to remain available until 
     expended; of which such sums as are necessary to cover the 
     Federal share of construction costs for facilities under the 
     Dredged Material Disposal Facilities program shall be derived 
     from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as authorized by the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-303); 
     and of which such sums as are necessary to cover one-half of 
     the costs of construction, replacement, rehabilitation, and 
     expansion of inland waterways projects shall be derived from 
     the Inland Waterways Trust Fund: Provided, That $1,500,000 of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading in title I of 
     division C of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 
     111-8; 123 Stat. 601-609) is transferred to the 
     Investigations account and, in addition to funds appropriated 
     by this Act, applied toward the cost of carrying out the 
     Seven Oaks Water Conservation Study, California: Provided 
     further,

[[Page 17856]]

     That, except as provided in section 101, the amounts made 
     available under this paragraph shall be expended as 
     authorized by law for the projects and activities specified 
     in the text and table under this heading in the report of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     to accompany this Act.

                   mississippi river and tributaries

       For expenses necessary for flood damage reduction projects 
     and related efforts in the Mississippi River alluvial valley 
     below Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as authorized by law, 
     $251,375,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such sums as are necessary to cover the Federal share of 
     eligible operation and maintenance costs for inland harbors 
     shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund: 
     Provided, That, except as provided in section 101, the 
     amounts made available under this paragraph shall be expended 
     as authorized by law for the projects and activities 
     specified in the text and table under this heading in the 
     report of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives to accompany this Act.

                       operation and maintenance

       For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and 
     care of existing river and harbor, flood and storm damage 
     reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related 
     projects authorized by law; providing security for 
     infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, including 
     administrative buildings and laboratories; maintaining harbor 
     channels provided by a State, municipality, or other public 
     agency that serve essential navigation needs of general 
     commerce, when authorized by law; surveying and charting 
     northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters; 
     clearing and straightening channels; and removing 
     obstructions to navigation, $2,510,971,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which such sums as are necessary 
     to cover the Federal share of eligible operation and 
     maintenance costs for coastal harbors and channels and for 
     inland harbors shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance 
     Trust Fund; of which such sums as become available from the 
     special account for the Corps established by the Land and 
     Water Conservation Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a(i)) shall 
     be derived from that account for resource protection, 
     research, interpretation, and maintenance activities related 
     to resource protection in the areas at which outdoor 
     recreation is available; and of which such sums as become 
     available from fees collected under section 217 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-303) shall 
     be used to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of the 
     dredged material disposal facilities for which such fees have 
     been collected: Provided, That, except as provided in section 
     101, the amounts made available under this paragraph shall be 
     expended as authorized by law for the projects and activities 
     specified in the text and table under this heading in the 
     report of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives to accompany this Act.

                           regulatory program

       For expenses necessary for administration of laws 
     pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands, 
     $190,000,000, to remain available until expended.

            formerly utilized sites remedial action program

       For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites 
     in the United States resulting from work performed as part of 
     the Nation's early atomic energy program, $134,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                                expenses

       For expenses necessary for the supervision and general 
     administration of the civil works program in the headquarters 
     of the Corps and the offices of the Division Engineers; and 
     for the management and operation of the Humphreys Engineer 
     Center Support Activity, the Institute for Water Resources, 
     the Engineer Research and Development Center, and the Corps 
     Finance Center, $184,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which not more than $5,000 may be used for 
     official reception and representation purposes and only 
     during the current fiscal year: Provided, That no part of any 
     other appropriation in this title shall be available to fund 
     the above activities: Provided further, That any unobligated 
     balances from prior appropriation Acts for ``Flood Control 
     and Coastal Emergencies'' may be used to fund the supervision 
     and general administration of emergency operations, repairs, 
     and other activities in response to any flood, hurricane, or 
     other natural disaster: Provided further, That upon 
     submission to the Congress of the fiscal year 2011 
     President's budget, the Chief of Engineers shall transmit to 
     Congress the annual congressional budget justifications for 
     fiscal year 2011: Provided further, That the amount herein 
     appropriated shall be reduced by $100,000 per day for each 
     day after initial submission of the President's budget that 
     the report has not been submitted to the Congress.

        office of assistant secretary of the army (civil works)

       For the Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil 
     Works) as authorized by 10 U.S.C. 3016(b)(3), $6,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                        administrative provision

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

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

       Sec. 101. Reprogramming Restriction.--(a) None of the funds 
     provided in this title shall be available for obligation or 
     expenditure through a reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or 
     activity;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project, 
     or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this 
     Act;
       (4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
     specific program, project, or activity by this Act;
       (5) increases funds for any program, project, or activity 
     by more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
       (6) reduces funds for any program, project, or activity by 
     more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less.
       (b) Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any project or 
     activity authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control 
     Act of 1948, section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946, 
     section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954, section 107 of 
     the River and Harbor Act of 1960, section 103 of the River 
     and Harbor Act of 1962, section 111 of the River and Harbor 
     Act of 1968, section 1135 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986, section 206 of the Water Resources Act of 1996, 
     or section 204 of the Water Resources Act of 1992.
       (c) The Army Corps of Engineers shall submit reports on a 
     quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate detailing all the 
     funds reprogrammed between programs, projects, activities, or 
     categories of funding. The first quarterly report shall be 
     submitted not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       Sec. 102. Competitive Sourcing.--None of the funds in this 
     Act, or previous Acts making funds available for Energy and 
     Water Development, shall be used to implement any pending or 
     future competitive sourcing actions under OMB Circular A-76 
     or High Performing Organizations for the Army Corps of 
     Engineers.
       Sec. 103. Contract Modification.--None of the funds made 
     available in this title may be used to award or modify any 
     contract that commits funds beyond the amounts appropriated 
     for that program, project, or activity that remain 
     unobligated, except that such amounts may include any funds 
     that have been made available through reprogramming pursuant 
     to section 101.
       Sec. 104. Inland Waterways Trust Fund.--None of the funds 
     in this Act, or previous Acts making funds available for 
     Energy and Water Development, shall be used to award any 
     continuing contract that commits additional funding from the 
     Inland Waterways Trust Fund unless or until such time that a 
     long-term mechanism to enhance revenues in the Fund 
     sufficient to meet the cost-sharing authorized in the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662) is 
     enacted.
       Sec. 105. Two Harbors, Minnesota.--The project for 
     navigation, Two Harbors, Minnesota, being carried out under 
     section 107 of the River and Harbor Act of 1960 (33 U.S.C. 
     577), and modified by section 3101 of the Water Resources 
     Development Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 1133), is further modified 
     to direct the Secretary to credit, in accordance with section 
     221 of the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), 
     toward the non-Federal share of the project the cost of 
     planning, design, and construction work carried out by the 
     non-Federal interest for the project before the date of 
     execution of a partnership agreement for the project.
       Sec. 106. Northern Wisconsin.--Section 154(h) of title I of 
     division B of the Miscellaneous Appropriations Act, 2001 (114 
     Stat. 2763A-254) (as enacted into law by Public Law 106-554) 
     is amended by striking ``$40,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$60,000,000''.
       Sec. 107. Martin, Kentucky.--The Secretary is directed to 
     use such funds as are necessary, from amounts made available 
     in this Act under the heading ``Construction'', to expedite 
     acquisition of those properties located in the vicinity of 
     Martin, Kentucky, that were damaged by the floodwaters in the 
     May 2009 flood event and that fall within Phases 3 and 4 of 
     the mandatory and voluntary acquisition elements identified 
     in Plan A of the Chief of Engineers, Town of Martin 
     Nonstructural Project Detailed Project Report, Appendix T, 
     Section 202 General Plan, dated March 2000.
       Sec. 108. White River Minimum Flow, Arkansas.--Section 132 
     of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 
     2006 (119 Stat 2261) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``Corps of 
     Engineers'' and inserting ``Southwestern Power 
     Administration'';
       (2) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following 
     new paragraph:

[[Page 17857]]

       ``(5) Payment to non-federal licensee.--Southwestern Power 
     Administration shall compensate the licensee of Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 2221 pursuant to 
     paragraph (3) using receipts collected from the sale of 
     Federal power and energy related services. Pursuant to 
     paragraph (6), Southwestern Power Administration will begin 
     collecting receipts in the Special Receipts and Disbursement 
     account upon the date of enactment of this paragraph. Payment 
     to the licensee of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     Project No. 2221 shall be paid as soon as adequate receipts 
     are collected in the Special Receipts and Disbursement 
     Account to fully compensate the licensee, and in accordance 
     with paragraph (2), such payment shall be considered non-
     reimbursable.'';
       (3) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(6) The Southwestern Power Administration shall 
     compensate the licensee of Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission Project No. 2221 in annual payments of not less 
     than $5,000,000, until the licensee of Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission Project No. 2221 is fully compensated 
     pursuant to paragraph (3). At the end of each fiscal year 
     subsequent to implementation, any remaining balance to be 
     paid to the licensee of Project No. 2221 shall accrue 
     interest at the 30-year U.S. Treasury bond rate in effect at 
     the time of implementation of the White River Minimum Flows 
     project.'';
       (4) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(7) Establishment of special receipt and disbursement 
     accounts.--There is established in the Treasury of the United 
     States a special receipt account and corresponding 
     disbursement account to be made available to the 
     Administrator of the Southwestern Power Administration to 
     disburse pre-collected receipts from the sale of federal 
     power and energy and related services. The accounts are 
     authorized for the following uses:
       ``(A) Collect and disburse receipts for purchase power and 
     wheeling expenses incurred by Southwestern Power 
     Administration to purchase replacement power and energy as a 
     result of implementation of the White River Minimum Flows 
     project.
       ``(B) Collect and disburse receipts related to compensation 
     of the licensee of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     Project No. 2221.
       ``(C) Said special receipt and disbursement account shall 
     remain available for not more than 12 months after the date 
     of full compensation of the licensee of Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission Project No. 2221.''; and
       (5) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(8) Time of implementation.--For purposes of paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), `time of implementation' shall mean the 
     authorization of the special receipt account and 
     corresponding disbursement account described in paragraph 
     (7).''.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Central Utah Project

                central utah project completion account

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah 
     Project Completion Act, $40,300,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which $1,500,000 shall be deposited into 
     the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for 
     use by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation 
     Commission. In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in 
     carrying out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the 
     Interior, $1,704,000, to remain available until expended. For 
     fiscal year 2010, the Commission may use an amount not to 
     exceed $1,500,000 for administrative expenses.

                         Bureau of Reclamation

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

                      water and related resources

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For management, development, and restoration of water and 
     related natural resources and for related activities, 
     including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of 
     reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling 
     related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and 
     related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with, 
     State and local governments, federally recognized Indian 
     tribes, and others, $910,247,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $53,240,000 shall be available for 
     transfer to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and 
     $17,936,000 shall be available for transfer to the Lower 
     Colorado River Basin Development Fund; of which such amounts 
     as may be necessary may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam 
     Fund; of which not more than $500,000 is for high priority 
     projects which shall be carried out by the Youth Conservation 
     Corps, as authorized by section 106 of Public Law 91-378 (16 
     U.S.C. 1706; popularly known as the Youth Conservation Corps 
     Act of 1970): Provided, That such transfers may be increased 
     or decreased within the overall appropriation under this 
     heading: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, the amount for program activities that can be 
     financed by the Reclamation Fund or the Bureau of Reclamation 
     special fee account established by section 4(i) of the Land 
     and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-
     6a(i)) shall be derived from that Fund or account: Provided 
     further, That funds contributed under the Act of March 4, 
     1921 (43 U.S.C. 395) are available until expended for the 
     purposes for which contributed: Provided further, That funds 
     advanced under the Act of January 12, 1927 (43 U.S.C. 397a) 
     shall be credited to this account and are available until 
     expended for the same purposes as the sums appropriated under 
     this heading: Provided further, That funds available for 
     expenditure for the Departmental Irrigation Drainage Program 
     may be expended by the Bureau of Reclamation for site 
     remediation on a nonreimbursable basis: Provided further, 
     That $4,000,000 of the funds appropriated under this heading 
     shall be deposited in the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund 
     established by section 110 of title I of appendix D of Public 
     Law 106-554: Provided further, That, except as provided in 
     section 201 of this Act, the amounts made available under 
     this paragraph shall be expended as authorized by law for the 
     projects and activities specified in the text and table under 
     this heading in the report of the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives to accompany this Act.

                central valley project restoration fund

       For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, habitat 
     restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the 
     Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $35,358,000, to be 
     derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central 
     Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d), 
     3404(c)(3), and 3405(f) of Public Law 102-575, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau of 
     Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount 
     of the additional mitigation and restoration payments 
     authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available under this 
     heading may be used for the acquisition or leasing of water 
     for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed to 
     in-stream purposes by a court adopted decree or order.

                    california bay-delta restoration

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For carrying out activities authorized by the Water Supply, 
     Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act, consistent 
     with plans to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, 
     $31,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     such amounts as may be necessary to carry out such activities 
     may be transferred to appropriate accounts of other 
     participating Federal agencies to carry out authorized 
     purposes: Provided, That funds appropriated herein may be 
     used for the Federal share of the costs of CALFED Program 
     management: Provided further, That the use of any funds 
     provided to the California Bay-Delta Authority for program-
     wide management and oversight activities shall be subject to 
     the approval of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided 
     further, That CALFED implementation shall be carried out in a 
     balanced manner with clear performance measures demonstrating 
     concurrent progress in achieving the goals and objectives of 
     the Program.

                       policy and administration

       For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and 
     related functions in the Office of the Commissioner, the 
     Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau 
     of Reclamation, to remain available until expended, 
     $61,200,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be 
     nonreimbursable as provided in section 4(o) of the Act of 
     December 5, 1924 (43 U.S.C. 377): Provided, That no part of 
     any other appropriation in this Act shall be available for 
     activities or functions budgeted as policy and administration 
     expenses.

                        administrative provision

       Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be 
     available for the purchase of not more than seven passenger 
     motor vehicles, which are for replacement only.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

       Sec. 201. Reprogramming Restriction.--(a) None of the funds 
     provided in title II for Water and Related Resources shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or 
     activity;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity 
     for which funds have been denied or restricted by this Act;
       (4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
     specific program, project, or activity by this Act;
       (5) transfers funds in excess of the following limits:
       (A) 15 percent for any program, project, or activity for 
     which $2,000,000 or more is available at the beginning of the 
     fiscal year; or
       (B) $300,000 for any program, project, or activity for 
     which less than $2,000,000 is available at the beginning of 
     the fiscal year;
       (6) transfers more than $500,000 from either the Facilities 
     Operation, Maintenance, and

[[Page 17858]]

     Rehabilitation category or the Resources Management and 
     Development category to any program, project, or activity in 
     the other category; or
       (7) transfers, when necessary to discharge legal 
     obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation, more than 
     $5,000,000 to provide adequate funds for settled contractor 
     claims, increased contractor earnings due to accelerated 
     rates of operations, and real estate deficiency judgments.
       (b) Subsection (a)(5) shall not apply to any transfer of 
     funds within the Facilities Operation, Maintenance, and 
     Rehabilitation category.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``transfer'' 
     means any movement of funds into or out of a program, 
     project, or activity.
       (d) The Bureau of Reclamation shall submit reports on a 
     quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate detailing all the 
     funds reprogrammed between programs, projects, activities, or 
     categories of funding. The first quarterly report shall be 
     submitted not later than 60 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       Sec. 202. San Luis Unit.--(a) None of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be 
     used to determine the final point of discharge for the 
     interceptor drain for the San Luis Unit until development by 
     the Secretary of the Interior and the State of California of 
     a plan, which shall conform to the water quality standards of 
     the State of California as approved by the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, to minimize any 
     detrimental effect of the San Luis drainage waters.
       (b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program 
     and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program 
     shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as 
     reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully 
     repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program-Alternative 
     Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP-Alternative Repayment Plan'' 
     described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report, 
     Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley 
     Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department 
     of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future 
     obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or 
     providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the 
     San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit 
     beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal 
     reclamation law.

                    TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

                 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for energy efficiency and 
     renewable energy activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $2,250,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That, of the 
     amount appropriated in this paragraph, $500,000 shall be for 
     research and development of novel hydrogen energy carriers 
     that are liquid at standard temperature and pressure and 
     store hydrogen in bound chemical states rather than as free 
     molecules, to be awarded under full and open competition: 
     Provided further, That, of the amount appropriated in this 
     paragraph, $500,000 shall be for development of a 
     demonstration plant for the production of biodiesel fuels 
     from crops that, to the greatest extent possible, are 
     cultivated on existing cropland during off-season rotations 
     and minimize land use per unit of fuel energy produced, to be 
     awarded under full and open competition:  Provided further, 
     That, of the amount appropriated in this paragraph, 
     $3,000,000 shall be for development of a parking canopy 
     facility with solar photovoltaic roof panels for electricity 
     generation to measure the viability of using photovoltaic 
     technologies in locations where environmental and space 
     limitations render conventional power generation costly, to 
     be awarded under full and open competition: Provided further, 
     That, of the amount appropriated in this paragraph, 
     $153,560,000 shall be used for the projects specified in the 
     table that appears under the heading ``Congressionally 
     Directed Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Projects'' in 
     the report of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives to accompany this Act.

              Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for electricity delivery and 
     energy reliability activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $208,008,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That, of the 
     amount appropriated in this paragraph, $7,600,000 shall be 
     used for the projects specified in the table that appears 
     under the heading ``Congressionally Directed Electricity 
     Delivery and Energy Reliability Projects'' in the report of 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives to accompany this Act.

                             Nuclear Energy

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for nuclear energy activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion, and the purchase of not more than 36 passenger 
     motor vehicles, including one ambulance, all for replacement 
     only, $812,000,000, to remain available until expended:  
     Provided, That, of the amount appropriated in this paragraph, 
     $500,000 shall be used for the projects specified in the 
     table that appears under the heading ``Congressionally 
     Directed Nuclear Energy Projects'' in the report of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     to accompany this Act.

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development

       For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy 
     research and development activities, under the authority of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition of interest, including 
     defeasible and equitable interests in any real property or 
     any facility or for plant or facility acquisition or 
     expansion, and for conducting inquiries, technological 
     investigations, and research concerning the extraction, 
     processing, use, and disposal of mineral substances without 
     objectionable social and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 
     1602, and 1603), $617,565,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That funds appropriated for prior 
     solicitations under the Clean Coal Technology Program, Power 
     Plant Improvement Initiative, Clean Coal Power Initiative, 
     and FutureGen, but not required by the Department to meet its 
     obligations on projects selected under such solicitations, 
     may be utilized for the Clean Coal Power Initiative, pursuant 
     to title IV of Public Law 109-58, in accordance with the 
     requirements of this Act rather than the Acts under which the 
     funds were appropriated: Provided further, That no Clean Coal 
     Power Initiative project may be selected for which full 
     funding is not available to provide for the total project: 
     Provided further, That if a Clean Coal Power Initiative 
     project, selected after enactment of this Act for negotiation 
     under this or any other Act in any fiscal year, is not 
     awarded within 2 years from the date the application was 
     selected, negotiations shall cease and the Federal funds 
     committed to the application shall be retained by the 
     Department for future coal-related research, development, and 
     demonstration projects, except that the time limit may be 
     extended at the Secretary's discretion for matters outside 
     the control of the applicant, or if the Secretary determines 
     that extension of the time limit is in the public interest: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary may not delegate this 
     responsibility for applications greater than $10,000,000: 
     Provided further, That financial assistance for costs in 
     excess of those estimated as of the date of award of original 
     Clean Coal Power Initiative financial assistance may not be 
     provided in excess of the proportion of costs borne by the 
     Government in the original agreement and shall be limited to 
     25 percent of the original financial assistance: Provided 
     further, That funds shall be expended in accordance with the 
     provisions governing the use of funds contained under the 
     heading ``Clean Coal Technology'' in Public Law 99-190 (42 
     U.S.C. 5903d): Provided further, That any technology selected 
     under these programs shall be considered a Clean Coal 
     Technology, and any project selected under these programs 
     shall be considered a Clean Coal Technology Project, for the 
     purposes of 42 U.S.C. 7651n, and chapters 51, 52, and 60 of 
     title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations: Provided 
     further, That funds available for the Clean Coal Power 
     Initiative may be used to support any technology relating to 
     carbon capture and storage or beneficial uses of carbon 
     dioxide, without regard to the 70 and 30 percent funding 
     allocations specified in section 402(b)(1)(A) and (2)(A) of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15962(b)(1)(A) and 
     (2)(A)):  Provided further, That, of the amount appropriated 
     in this paragraph, $750,000 shall be for development of 
     technologies for integration into gasification systems for 
     the low-cost production of synthesis gas, to be awarded under 
     full and open competition:  Provided further, That, of the 
     amount appropriated in this paragraph, $500,000 shall be for 
     development of fuel cell technologies for conversion of 
     commercially available fuels and biofuels into electricity, 
     to be awarded under full and open competition: Provided 
     further, That, of the amount appropriated in this paragraph, 
     $300,000 shall be for development of control technologies for 
     increased performance in synthesis gas combustion 
     applications, to be awarded under full and open competition: 
     Provided further, That, of the amount appropriated in this 
     paragraph, $8,000,000 shall be used for the projects 
     specified in the table that appears under the heading 
     ``Congressionally Directed Fossil Energy

[[Page 17859]]

     Research and Development Projects'' in the report of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     to accompany this Act.

                 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

       For expenses necessary to carry out naval petroleum and oil 
     shale reserve activities, including the hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, $23,627,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, unobligated funds remaining from prior years shall be 
     available for all naval petroleum and oil shale reserve 
     activities.

                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve

       For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     facility development and operations and program management 
     activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $228,573,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                   Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

       For necessary expenses for Northeast Home Heating Oil 
     Reserve storage, operation, and management activities 
     pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6201 et seq.), $11,300,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                   Energy Information Administration

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Energy Information Administration, $121,858,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                   Non-defense Environmental Cleanup

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for non-defense environmental 
     cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes of the 
     Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $237,517,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

       For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment 
     facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial 
     actions, and other activities under title II of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954, and title X, subtitle A, of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992, $559,377,000, to be derived from the 
     Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, 
     to remain available until expended.

                                Science

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for science activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or 
     expansion, and purchase of not more than 50 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, including one law enforcement 
     vehicle, two ambulances, and three buses, $4,943,587,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That $15,000,000 
     appropriated under this heading under prior appropriation 
     Acts for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy is 
     hereby transferred to the ``Advanced Research Projects 
     Agency--Energy'' account: Provided further, That, of the 
     amount appropriated in this paragraph, $37,740,000 shall be 
     used for the projects specified in the table that appears 
     under the heading ``Congressionally Directed Science 
     Projects'' in the report of the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives to accompany this Act.

                         Nuclear Waste Disposal

       For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the 
     purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Public Law 
     97-425) (``NWPA''), including the acquisition of real 
     property or facility construction or expansion, $98,400,000, 
     to remain available until expended, and to be derived from 
     the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That of the funds made 
     available in this Act for Nuclear Waste Disposal, $5,000,000 
     shall be provided to the Office of the Attorney General of 
     the State of Nevada solely for expenditures, other than 
     salaries and expenses of State employees, to conduct 
     scientific oversight responsibilities and participate in 
     licensing activities pursuant to the NWPA: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding the lack of a written agreement with the 
     State of Nevada under section 117(c) of the NWPA, $1,000,000 
     shall be provided to Nye County, Nevada, for on-site 
     oversight activities under section 117(d) of such Act: 
     Provided further, That $9,000,000 shall be provided to 
     affected units of local government, as defined in the NWPA, 
     to conduct appropriate activities and participate in 
     licensing activities: Provided further, That, of the 
     $9,000,000 provided, 7.5 percent of the funds shall be made 
     available to affected units of local government in California 
     with the balance made available to affected units of local 
     government in Nevada for distribution as determined by the 
     Nevada units of local government: Provided further, That this 
     funding shall be provided to affected units of local 
     government, as defined in the NWPA: Provided further, That 
     $500,000 shall be provided to the Timbisha-Shoshone Tribe 
     solely for expenditures, other than salaries and expenses of 
     tribal employees, to conduct appropriate activities and 
     participate in licensing activities under section 118(b) of 
     the NWPA: Provided further, That notwithstanding the 
     provisions of chapters 65 and 75 of title 31, United States 
     Code, the Department shall have no monitoring, auditing, or 
     other oversight rights or responsibilities over amounts 
     provided to affected units of local government: Provided 
     further, That the funds for the State of Nevada shall be made 
     available solely to the Office of the Attorney General by 
     direct payment and to units of local government by direct 
     payment: Provided further, That within 90 days of the 
     completion of each Federal fiscal year, the Office of the 
     Attorney General of the State of Nevada and each of the 
     affected units of local government shall provide 
     certification to the Department of Energy that all funds 
     expended from such payments have been expended for activities 
     authorized by the NWPA and this Act: Provided further, That 
     failure to provide such certification shall cause such entity 
     to be prohibited from any further funding provided for 
     similar activities: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     herein appropriated may be: (1) used directly or indirectly 
     to influence legislative action, except for normal and 
     recognized executive-legislative communications, on any 
     matter pending before Congress or a State legislature or for 
     lobbying activity as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1913; (2) used for 
     litigation expenses; or (3) used to support multi-State 
     efforts or other coalition building activities inconsistent 
     with the restrictions contained in this Act: Provided 
     further, That all proceeds and recoveries realized by the 
     Secretary in carrying out activities authorized by the NWPA, 
     including any proceeds from the sale of assets, shall be 
     available without further appropriation and shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That no funds 
     provided in this Act or any previous Act may be used to 
     pursue repayment or collection of funds provided in any 
     fiscal year to affected units of local government for 
     oversight activities that had been previously approved by the 
     Department of Energy or to withhold payment of any such 
     funds: Provided further, That of the funds made available in 
     this Act for Nuclear Waste Disposal, $5,000,000 shall be 
     provided to create a Blue Ribbon Commission to consider all 
     alternatives for nuclear waste disposal.

         Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program

        Such sums as are derived from amounts received from 
     borrowers pursuant to section 1702(b)(2) of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 2005 under this heading in prior Acts shall be 
     collected in accordance with section 502(7) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided, That for 
     necessary administrative expenses to carry out this Loan 
     Guarantee program, $43,000,000 is appropriated, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That $43,000,000 
     of the fees collected pursuant to section 1702(h) of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 2005 shall be credited as offsetting 
     collections to this account to cover administrative expenses 
     and shall remain available until expended, so as to result in 
     a final fiscal year 2010 appropriations from the general fund 
     estimated at not more than $0: Provided further, That fees 
     collected under section 1702(h) in excess of the amount 
     appropriated for administrative expenses shall not be 
     available until appropriated.

        Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans Program

       For administrative expenses in carrying out the Advanced 
     Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans Program, $20,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                      Departmental Administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy 
     necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the 
     purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and official reception and representation expenses 
     not to exceed $30,000, $289,684,000, to remain available 
     until expended, plus such additional amounts as necessary to 
     cover increases in the estimated amount of cost of work for 
     others notwithstanding the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency 
     Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That such increases 
     in cost of work are offset by revenue increases of the same 
     or greater amount, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That moneys received by the Department for 
     miscellaneous revenues estimated to total $119,740,000 in 
     fiscal year 2010 may be retained and used for operating 
     expenses within this account, and may remain available until 
     expended, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238, 
     notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by 
     the amount of miscellaneous revenues received during 2010, 
     and any related appropriated receipt account balances 
     remaining from prior years' miscellaneous revenues, so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2010 appropriation from the 
     general fund estimated at not more than $169,944,000.

[[Page 17860]]



                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, $51,927,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                           Weapons Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of 
     not more than one ambulance; $6,320,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That, of the amount 
     appropriated in this paragraph, $3,000,000 shall be used for 
     the projects specified under the heading ``Congressionally 
     Directed Weapons Activities Projects'' in the report of the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     to accompany this Act.

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for defense nuclear 
     nonproliferation activities, in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of 
     not more than one passenger motor vehicle for replacement 
     only, $1,471,175,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That, of the amount appropriated in this paragraph, 
     $250,000 shall be used for the projects specified under the 
     heading ``Congressionally Directed Defense Nuclear 
     Nonproliferation Projects'' in the report of the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives to accompany 
     this Act.

                             Naval Reactors

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval 
     reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or 
     otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment, 
     facilities, and facility expansion, $1,003,133,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                      Office of the Administrator

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Administrator 
     in the National Nuclear Security Administration, including 
     official reception and representation expenses not to exceed 
     $12,000, $420,754,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That $10,000,000 previously appropriated for 
     cleanup efforts at Argonne National Lab shall be transferred 
     to ``Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup'': Provided further, 
     That, of the amount appropriated in this paragraph, 
     $13,000,000 shall be used for the projects specified in the 
     table that appears under the heading ``Congressionally 
     Directed Office of the Administrator (NNSA) Projects'' in the 
     report of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives to accompany this Act.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense 
     environmental cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes 
     of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 
     et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any 
     real property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of 
     not more than four ambulances and three passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, $5,381,842,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $463,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the ``Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and 
     Decommissioning Fund''.

                        Other Defense Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses, necessary for atomic energy defense, 
     other defense activities, and classified activities, in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion, and the purchase of not more than 12 passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only, $1,518,002,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That, of the funds 
     provided herein, $504,238,000 is for project 99-D-143 Mixed 
     Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, Savannah River Site, South 
     Carolina; $70,000,000 is for project 99-D-141-02 Waste 
     Solidification Building, Savannah River Site, South Carolina; 
     $84,296,000 for MOX operations; and $7,000,000 for WSB 
     operation: Provided further, That the Department of Energy 
     shall adhere strictly to Department of Energy Order 413.3A 
     for Project 99-D-143: Provided further, That, of the amount 
     appropriated in this paragraph, $2,000,000 shall be used for 
     the projects specified in the table that appears under the 
     heading ``Congressionally Directed Other Defense Activities 
     Projects'' in the report of the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives to accompany this Act.

                     Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

       For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the 
     purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Public Law 
     97-425), including the acquisition of real property or 
     facility construction or expansion, $98,400,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                    POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

                  Bonneville Power Administration Fund

       Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund, 
     established pursuant to the Federal Columbia River 
     Transmission System Act (Public Law 93-454), are approved for 
     the Leaburg Fish Sorter, the Okanogan Basin Locally Adapted 
     Steelhead Supplementation Program, and the Crystal Springs 
     Hatchery Facilities, and, in addition, for official reception 
     and representation expenses in an amount not to exceed 
     $1,500. During fiscal year 2010, no new direct loan 
     obligations may be made from such Fund.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy, including transmission wheeling and ancillary 
     services pursuant to section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southeastern power 
     area, $7,638,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and section 5 
     of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), up to 
     $7,638,000 collected by the Southeastern Power Administration 
     from the sale of power and related services shall be credited 
     to this account as discretionary offsetting collections, to 
     remain available until expended for the sole purpose of 
     funding the annual expenses of the Southeastern Power 
     Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2010 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $0: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 31 
     U.S.C. 3302, up to $70,806,000 collected by the Southeastern 
     Power Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 
     1944 to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be 
     credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain 
     available until expended for the sole purpose of making 
     purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302 and 
     section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), 
     all funds collected by the Southeastern Power Administration 
     that are applicable to the repayment of the annual expenses 
     of this account in this and subsequent fiscal years shall be 
     credited to this account as discretionary offsetting 
     collections for the sole purpose of funding such expenses, 
     with such funds remaining available until expended: Provided 
     further, That for purposes of this appropriation, annual 
     expenses means expenditures that are generally recovered in 
     the same year that they are incurred (excluding purchase 
     power and wheeling expenses).

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy, for construction and acquisition of transmission 
     lines, substations and appurtenant facilities, and for 
     administrative expenses, including official reception and 
     representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500 in 
     carrying out section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 
     U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the Southwestern Power 
     Administration, $44,944,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and 
     section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), 
     up to $31,868,000 collected by the Southwestern Power 
     Administration from the sale of power and related services 
     shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting 
     collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole 
     purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southwestern 
     Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2010 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $13,076,000: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $38,000,000 collected 
     by the Southwestern Power Administration pursuant to the 
     Flood Control Act of 1944 to recover purchase power and 
     wheeling expenses shall be credited to this account as 
     offsetting collections, to remain available until expended 
     for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
     expenditures: Provided further, That notwithstanding

[[Page 17861]]

     31 U.S.C. 3302 and section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 
     (16 U.S.C. 825s), all funds collected by the Southwestern 
     Power Administration that are applicable to the repayment of 
     the annual expenses of this account in this and subsequent 
     fiscal years shall be credited to this account as 
     discretionary offsetting collections for the sole purpose of 
     funding such expenses, with such funds remaining available 
     until expended: Provided further, That for purposes of this 
     appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures that are 
     generally recovered in the same year that they are incurred 
     (excluding purchase power and wheeling expenses).

 Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area 
                          Power Administration

       For carrying out the functions authorized by title III, 
     section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7152), and other related activities including conservation 
     and renewable resources programs as authorized, including 
     official reception and representation expenses in an amount 
     not to exceed $1,500; $256,711,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $245,216,000 shall be derived from the 
     Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, section 5 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), and section 1 of the 
     Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1939 (43 U.S.C. 392a), 
     up to $147,530,000 collected by the Western Area Power 
     Administration from the sale of power and related services 
     shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting 
     collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole 
     purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Western Area 
     Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2010 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $109,181,000, of which $97,686,000 is derived 
     from the Reclamation Fund: Provided further, That of the 
     amount herein appropriated, $7,584,000 is for deposit into 
     the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account 
     pursuant to title IV of the Reclamation Projects 
     Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $349,807,000 
     collected by the Western Area Power Administration pursuant 
     to the Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Reclamation Project 
     Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485 et seq.) to recover purchase power 
     and wheeling expenses shall be credited to this account as 
     offsetting collections, to remain available until expended 
     for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
     expenditures: Provided further, That of the amount herein 
     appropriated, up to $18,612,000 is provided on a 
     nonreimbursable basis for environmental remediation at the 
     Basic Substation site in Henderson, Nevada: Provided further, 
     That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, section 5 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), and section 1 of the 
     Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1939 (43 U.S.C. 392a), 
     funds collected by the Western Area Power Administration from 
     the sale of power and related services that are applicable to 
     the repayment of the annual expenses of this account in this 
     and subsequent fiscal years shall be credited to this account 
     as discretionary offsetting collections for the sole purpose 
     of funding such expenses, with such funds remaining available 
     until expended: Provided further, That for purposes of this 
     appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures that are 
     generally recovered in the same year that they are incurred 
     (excluding purchase power and wheeling expenses).

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

       For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the 
     hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams, 
     $2,568,000, to remain available until expended, and to be 
     derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance 
     Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in 
     section 2 of the Act of June 18, 1954 (43 U.S.C. 485g): 
     Provided, That notwithstanding the provisions of such Act and 
     of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $2,348,000 collected by the Western 
     Area Power Administration from the sale of power and related 
     services from the Falcon and Amistad Dams shall be credited 
     to this account as discretionary offsetting collections, to 
     remain available until expended for the sole purpose of 
     funding the annual expenses of the hydroelectric facilities 
     of these Dams and associated Western Area Power 
     Administration activities: Provided further, That the sum 
     herein appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2010 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $220,000: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding the provisions of section 2 of the Act of 
     June 18, 1954 (43 U.S.C. 485g) and 31 U.S.C. 3302, all funds 
     collected by the Western Area Power Administration from the 
     sale of power and related services from the Falcon and 
     Amistad Dams that are applicable to the repayment of the 
     annual expenses of the hydroelectric facilities of these Dams 
     and associated Western Area Power Administration activities 
     in this and subsequent fiscal years shall be credited to this 
     account as discretionary offsetting collections for the sole 
     purpose of funding such expenses, with such funds remaining 
     available until expended: Provided further, That for purposes 
     of this appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures 
     that are generally recovered in the same year that they are 
     incurred.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and 
     representation expenses not to exceed $3,000, $298,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed 
     $298,000,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges and 
     other services and collections in fiscal year 2010 shall be 
     retained and used for necessary expenses in this account and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated from the general fund shall be 
     reduced as revenues are received during fiscal year 2010 so 
     as to result in a final fiscal year 2010 appropriation from 
     the general fund estimated at not more than $0.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

       Sec. 301. Unfunded Requests for Proposals.--None of the 
     funds appropriated by this Act may be used to prepare or 
     initiate Requests For Proposals (RFPs) for a program if the 
     program has not been funded by Congress.
       Sec. 302. Department of Energy Defense Nuclear Facilities 
     Workforce Restructuring.--None of the funds appropriated by 
     this Act may be used--
       (1) to augment the funds made available for obligation by 
     this Act for severance payments and other benefits and 
     community assistance grants under section 4604 of the Atomic 
     Energy Defense Act (50 U.S.C. 2704) unless the Department of 
     Energy submits a reprogramming request to the appropriate 
     congressional committees;
       (2) to provide enhanced severance payments or other 
     benefits for employees of the Department of Energy under such 
     section; or
       (3) to develop or implement a workforce restructuring plan 
     that covers employees of the Department of Energy.
       Sec. 303. Unexpended Balances.--The unexpended balances of 
     prior appropriations provided for activities in this Act may 
     be available to the same appropriation accounts for such 
     activities established pursuant to this title. Available 
     balances may be merged with funds in the applicable 
     established accounts and thereafter may be accounted for as 
     one fund for the same time period as originally enacted.
       Sec. 304. Bonneville Power Authority Service Territory.--
     None of the funds in this or any other Act for the 
     Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration may be 
     used to enter into any agreement to perform energy efficiency 
     services outside the legally defined Bonneville service 
     territory, with the exception of services provided 
     internationally, including services provided on a 
     reimbursable basis, unless the Administrator certifies in 
     advance that such services are not available from private 
     sector businesses.
       Sec. 305. User Facilities.--(a) When the Department of 
     Energy makes a user facility available to universities or 
     other potential users, or seeks input from universities or 
     other potential users regarding significant characteristics 
     or equipment in a user facility or a proposed user facility, 
     the Department shall ensure broad public notice of such 
     availability or such need for input to universities and other 
     potential users.
       (b) When the Department of Energy considers the 
     participation of a university or other potential user as a 
     formal partner in the establishment or operation of a user 
     facility, the Department shall employ full and open 
     competition in selecting such a partner.
       (c) For purposes of this section, the term ``user 
     facility'' includes--
       (1) a user facility as described in section 2203(a)(2) of 
     the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13503(a)(2));
       (2) a National Nuclear Security Administration Defense 
     Programs Technology Deployment Center/User Facility; and
       (3) any other Departmental facility designated by the 
     Department as a user facility.
       Sec. 306. Intelligence Activities.--Funds appropriated by 
     this or any other Act, or made available by the transfer of 
     funds in this Act, for intelligence activities are deemed to 
     be specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of 
     section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     414) during fiscal year 2010 until the enactment of the 
     Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010.
       Sec. 307. Laboratory Directed Research and Development.--Of 
     the funds made available by the Department of Energy for 
     activities at government-owned, contractor-operated 
     laboratories funded in this Act, the Secretary may authorize 
     a specific amount, not to exceed 6 percent of such funds, to 
     be used by such laboratories for laboratory directed research 
     and development: Provided, That the Secretary may also 
     authorize a specific amount, not to exceed 4 percent of such 
     funds, to be used by the plant manager of a

[[Page 17862]]

     covered nuclear weapons production plant or the manager of 
     the Nevada Site Office for plant or site directed research 
     and development.
       Sec. 308. Limited Transfer Authority to Address Pension 
     Requirements.--(a) If the Secretary of Energy determines that 
     additional funds are needed to reimburse the costs of defined 
     benefit pension plans for contractor employees, the Secretary 
     may transfer not more than one percent from each 
     appropriation made available in this Act to any other 
     appropriation available to the Secretary in the same Act for 
     such reimbursements.
       (b) In carrying out a transfer under this section, the 
     Secretary shall use each appropriation made available to the 
     Department in that fiscal year as a source for the transfer 
     and shall reduce each appropriation by an equal percentage, 
     except that appropriations for which the Secretary determines 
     there exists a need for additional funds for pension plan 
     costs in that fiscal year, as well as appropriations made 
     available for Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, 
     Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Northeast Home Heating Oil 
     Reserve, the Power Marketing Administrations, the Energy 
     Information Administration, Uranium Enrichment 
     Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, Nuclear Waste 
     Disposal, Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal, and Office of the 
     Inspector General, shall not be subject to this requirement.
       (c) This transfer authority is in addition to any other 
     transfer authority provided in this or any other Act.
       (d) The Secretary shall notify the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     in writing not less than 30 days in advance of each transfer 
     authorized by this section.
       Sec. 309. Congressional Notification Requirement.--None of 
     the funds made available by this Act may be used to make a 
     grant allocation, discretionary grant award, discretionary 
     contract award, or other transaction agreement or to issue a 
     letter of intent totaling in excess of $1,000,000, or to 
     announce publicly the intention to make such an allocation, 
     award, or agreement or to issue such a letter, including a 
     contract covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 
     unless the Secretary of Energy notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     at least 3 full business days in advance of making such an 
     allocation, award, or agreement or issuing such a letter: 
     Provided, That if the Secretary of Energy determines that 
     compliance with this section would pose a substantial risk to 
     human life, health, or safety, an award may be made without 
     such notification, and the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate shall be notified 
     not later than 5 full business days after such an allocation, 
     award, or agreement is made or letter issued.
       Sec. 310. Wage Rate Requirements.--Section 1702 of the 
     Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16512) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Wage Rate Requirements.--All laborers and mechanics 
     employed by contractors and subcontractors in the performance 
     of construction work financed in whole or in part by a loan 
     guaranteed under this title shall be paid wages at rates not 
     less than those prevailing on projects of a character similar 
     in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in 
     accordance with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, 
     United States Code. With respect to the labor standards in 
     this subsection, the Secretary of Labor shall have the 
     authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan 
     Numbered 14 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1267; 5 U.S.C. App.) and 
     section 3145 of title 40, United States Code.''.
       Sec. 311. Bonneville Power Administration Fund.--(a) 
     Subject to subsection (b), no funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act or any other Act may be used to 
     record transactions relating to the increase in borrowing 
     authority or bonds outstanding at any time under the Federal 
     Columbia River Transmission System Act (16 U.S.C. 838 et 
     seq.) referred to in section 401 of division A of the 
     American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 
     111-5; 123 Stat. 140) under a funding acount, subaccount, or 
     fund symbol other than the Bonneville Power Administration 
     Fund Treasury account fund symbol.
       (b) Funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     Act or any other Act may be used to ensure, for purposes of 
     meeting applicable reporting provisions of the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123 
     Stat. 115), that the Bonneville Power Administration uses a 
     fund symbol other than the Bonneville Power Administration 
     Fund Treasury account fund symbol solely to report accrued 
     expenditures of projects attributed by the Administrator of 
     the Bonneville Power Administration to the increased 
     borrowing authority.
       (c) This section is effective for fiscal year 2010 and 
     subsequent fiscal years.
       Sec. 312. Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loans 
     Program.--(a) Ultra Efficient Vehicles.--Section 136 of the 
     Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 
     17013) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``an ultra efficient 
     vehicle or'' after ``means''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Ultra efficient vehicle.--The term `ultra efficient 
     vehicle' means a fully closed compartment vehicle designed to 
     carry at least 2 adult passengers that achieves--
       ``(A) at least 75 miles per gallon while operating on 
     gasoline or diesel fuel;
       ``(B) at least 75 miles per gallon equivalent while 
     operating as a hybrid electric-gasoline or electric-diesel 
     vehicle; or
       ``(C) at least 75 miles per gallon equivalent while 
     operating as a fully electric vehicle.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by inserting ``, ultra efficient vehicle 
     manufacturers,'' after ``automobile manufacturers'';
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A);
       (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``or''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) ultra efficient vehicles; and''; and
       (C) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, ultra efficient 
     vehicles,'' after ``qualifying vehicles'';
       (3) in subsection (g), by inserting ``or are utilized 
     primarily for the manufacture of ultra efficient vehicles'' 
     after ``20 years''; and
       (4) in subsection (h)(1)(B), by striking ``automobiles'' 
     the first place it appears and inserting ``ultra efficient 
     vehicles, automobiles,''.
       (b) Reconsideration of Prior Applications.--The Secretary 
     of Energy shall reconsider applications for assistance under 
     section 136 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
     2007 (42 U.S.C. 17013) that were--
       (1) timely filed under that section before January 1, 2009;
       (2) rejected on the basis that the vehicles to which the 
     proposal related were not advanced technology vehicles; and
       (3) related to ultra efficient vehicles.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized 
     by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, for 
     necessary expenses for the Federal Co-Chairman and the 
     Alternate on the Appalachian Regional Commission, for payment 
     of the Federal share of the administrative expenses of the 
     Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, $76,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That any 
     congressionally directed spending shall be taken from within 
     that State's allocation in the fiscal year in which it is 
     provided.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
     Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by section 1441 of 
     Public Law 100-456, $26,086,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                        Delta Regional Authority

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Delta Regional Authority and 
     to carry out its activities, as authorized by the Delta 
     Regional Authority Act of 2000, notwithstanding sections 
     382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 382M, and 382N of such Act, $13,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                           Denali Commission

       For expenses of the Denali Commission, including the 
     purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 
     equipment, as necessary, and other expenses, $11,965,000, to 
     remain available until expended, notwithstanding the 
     limitations contained in section 306(g) of the Denali 
     Commission Act of 1998.

                  Northern Border Regional Commission

       For necessary expenses of the Northern Border Regional 
     Commission in carrying out activities authorized by 40 U.S.C. 
     15303(1), $500,000, to remain available until expended.

                 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

       For necessary expenses of the Southeast Crescent Regional 
     Commission in carrying out activities authorized by 40 U.S.C. 
     15303(1), $500,000, to remain available until expended.

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out 
     the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954, including official representation 
     expenses (not to exceed $25,000), $1,061,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of the amount 
     appropriated herein, $56,000,000 shall be derived from the 
     Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided further, That revenues from 
     licensing fees, inspection services, and other services and 
     collections estimated at $878,102,000 in fiscal year 2010 
     shall be retained and used for necessary salaries and 
     expenses in this account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of 
     revenues received during fiscal year 2010 so as to result in 
     a final fiscal year 2010 appropriation estimated at not more 
     than $182,898,000.

[[Page 17863]]



                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, $10,102,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2011: Provided, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection 
     services, and other services and collections estimated at 
     $9,092,000 in fiscal year 2010 shall be retained and be 
     available until expended, for necessary salaries and expenses 
     in this account, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced by 
     the amount of revenues received during fiscal year 2010 so as 
     to result in a final fiscal year 2010 appropriation estimated 
     at not more than $1,010,000.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical 
     Review Board, as authorized by section 5051 of Public Law 
     100-203, $3,891,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste 
     Fund, and to remain available until expended.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation 
                                Projects

       For necessary expenses for the Office of the Federal 
     Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects 
     pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act of 2004, 
     $4,466,000: Provided, That any fees, charges, or commissions 
     received pursuant to section 802 of Public Law 110-140 in 
     fiscal year 2010 in excess of $4,683,000 shall not be 
     available for obligation until appropriated in a subsequent 
     Act of Congress.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

       Sec. 401. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reporting 
     Requirement.--The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall, not 
     later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate identifying barriers 
     to and its recommendations for streamlining the issuance of a 
     Combined Construction and Operating License for qualified new 
     nuclear reactors.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 501. Lobbying Restriction.--None of the funds 
     appropriated by this Act may be used in any way, directly or 
     indirectly, to influence congressional action on any 
     legislation or appropriation matters pending before Congress, 
     other than to communicate to Members of Congress as described 
     in 18 U.S.C. 1913.
       Sec. 502. Delta Regional Authority.--Section 382B(c)(1) of 
     the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     2009aa-1) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--A decision by the Authority shall 
     require the affirmative vote of the Federal co-chairperson 
     and a majority of the State members (not including any member 
     representing a State that is delinquent under subsection 
     (g)(2)(C)) to be effective.''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment shall be in order except the amendments 
printed in part A of House Report 111-209, not to exceed one of the 
amendments printed in part B of the report if offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell) or his designee; not to exceed six of 
the amendments printed in part C of the report if offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) or his designee; and not to exceed 
three of the amendments printed in part D of the report if offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) or his designee. Each 
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, shall 
be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not 
be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  After disposition of the amendments specified in the first section of 
House Resolution 645, the Chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations or their designees each may offer one pro 
forma amendment to the bill for the purpose of debate, which shall be 
controlled by the proponent.


        Part A Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Pastor of Arizona

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-209.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Pastor of Arizona:
        Page 6, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,800,000)''.
       Page 7, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,800,000)''.
       Page 23, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $45,000,000)''.
       Page 24, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
        Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 36, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 60, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 503. Light Bulb Restriction.--None of the funds made 
     available in this Act may be used to purchase light bulbs 
     unless the light bulbs are ``Energy Star'' qualified or have 
     the ``Federal Energy Management Program'' designation.
       Sec. 504. Passenger Motor Vehicles.--None of the funds made 
     available in this Act may be used to purchase passenger motor 
     vehicles other than those manufactured by Ford, General 
     Motors, or Chrysler.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Pastor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  This amendment provides funding for several important programs within 
the bill. On behalf of Messrs. Arcuri, Michaud, Hodes, Welch and Ms. 
Pingree, $2.5 million for the Northern Border Regional Commission to 
address economic challenges in border counties from Maine to New York.
  On behalf of Mr. Klein of Florida, $1.8 million for the Corps of 
Engineers to help address the chronic backlog of regulatory permit 
applications.
  And on behalf of Mr. Israel, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Dent, Mr. 
Massa, Mr. Inglis, $45 million for energy efficiency, renewable energy.
  On behalf of Mr. Cuellar of Texas, the amendment prohibits funds in 
this bill from being used to purchase lightbulbs unless they the energy 
star or Federal energy management program designation.
  Also, this manager's amendment has an amendment for Mr. Kissell which 
does not create any new programs or it follows the current language, 
and the amendment prohibits funds in the bill from being used to 
purchase passenger vehicles unless they're purchased from Ford, GM or 
Chrysler.
  The amendment decreases funding for Corps of Engineers' programs and 
expenses by $10.8 million; the Department of Energy departmental 
administration by $30 million; the office of electricity by $15 
million; and other defense activities by $.25 million.
  I reserve my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any real problem with 
the content of my chairman's amendment. I do, however, have a problem 
with carrying the idea of a manager's amendment, which was once only 
for our full committee's consideration, right on to the House floor.
  In committee, this sort of amendment is used for noncontroversial 
items. Many of these are. They're generally accepted by unanimous 
consent. But now it's largely used, in many instances, for partisan 
purposes on the House floor.
  None of the content of this chairman's amendment was discussed with 
the minority, and none of the changes were made or suggested by the 
minority. If the changes are important, then I think we should be able 
to discuss them. Otherwise, I fear it is only a matter of time before 
the majority will include everything they can in this sort of en masse 
amendment. This will be bad for the institution and I think bad for the 
American people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. First of all, I apologize to the ranking 
member in that it was my understanding that the manager's amendment had 
been shown to him and had sought his approval, but if they had not, my 
deepest apologies because I think it's important that this bill, along 
with the manager's amendment, continue to be bipartisan.
  I yield 30 seconds to Mr. Massa.

[[Page 17864]]


  Mr. MASSA. I would like to commend the efforts of my colleagues on 
the Energy and Water Subcommittee for recognizing the importance of 
hydrogen fuel-cell technologies and what those technologies will play 
in the future of the American energy portfolio.
  Funding for this important research through this bill and through Mr. 
Pastor's amendment will help America continue to lead in this critical 
field necessary for our Nation's energy security.
  I believe that using these funds to support important breakthroughs 
in automotive fuel cells through a public-private partnership with an 
experienced industrial leader will put America on track to 
commercialize this revolutionary technology within 5 years.
  Significant domestic investments have already been made in this 
technology, and I have personally experienced the successes of these 
efforts by riding from my hometown of Corning, NY to Washington, DC in 
a Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicle.
  We must ensure the continuation of this industry here in the US by 
partnering with those who have demonstrated the capacity to innovate 
and produce tangible results in efforts to commercialize Automotive 
Fuel Cells.
  We must not fall behind our foreign competitors in this field. By 
making this a priority in Washington and providing the necessary 
funding for this technology, we can ensure America continues to be the 
leader in Hydrogen Fuel Cells.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Deal).
  Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise to comment about language that is in the report that is 
attached to this legislation. My good friend and colleague from 
Florida, Mr. Boyd, has asked that a study be done. The study relates to 
the ongoing dispute about water between the States of Alabama, Florida 
and Georgia, and I have no real problem with the study being done.
  I simply would hope that we could get assurances from the 
subcommittee chairman that with regard to the scope of that study that 
it would be broad enough to include all of the issues that are involved 
and that it would also allow all three States who have an interest in 
this to have equal participation.
  There has been a perception I think that is a wrong perception that 
my State of Georgia doesn't have a water conservation program in place. 
In fact, we have had one in place since 2003, and we believe that all 
of these issues should be encompassed within the study that is set 
forth in the report to this particular bill.
  And we would hope that we could get assurances, not only from the 
subcommittee chairman but also from Mr. Boyd, that in determining the 
scope of that study, that all three States would have equal opportunity 
to participate.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment and I 
would ask the House Members to support it. I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


       Part A Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-209.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia:
       Page 3, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $7,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $7,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address an 
amendment to augment the Army Corps of Engineers oyster restoration 
program by $7 million. This is a critical investment in the health of 
America's largest estuary.
  The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. It was the port of entry 
for Jamestown's European settlers. Many of America's founding fathers, 
from George Washington to George Mason, settled on the banks of the Bay 
and tidal reaches of her tributaries. When the colonists arrived, the 
Bay was extraordinarily fecund. John Smith wrote that one could walk 
across the backs of swimming rockfish and that a single turtle could 
feed 40 men. He also wrote that oysters ``lay thick as stones'' 
covering the Bay's floor. This productivity fueled economic growth in 
our region. In the early 20th century, H.L. Mencken wrote that oysters, 
as the most common fare in Baltimore, were the standard meal of every 
workingman.
  Today, we are attempting to restore an ecosystem and oyster 
population that has been devastated by pollution, to the extent that 
some have proposed replacing it with nonnative oysters. The Bay's 
economic productivity, whose fisheries are still worth over $100 
million a year, relies on the health of its oyster population, not only 
for their own value but also because they are a keystone species for 
the Bay and the major filtration for pollutants in the Bay.
  This amendment is an important part of our broader efforts to restore 
the health of the Bay. I thank Mr. Pastor and Mr. Frelinghuysen for the 
committee's support for this amendment and the subcommittee's staff for 
their assistance.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to Mr. Pastor.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I just want to inform the gentleman that we 
support his amendment.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank the gentleman, and I reserve my 
time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, 
although I'm not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The gentleman's amendment would transfer $7 
million to restore and protect a nationally and regionally important 
resource. These fisheries provide hundreds of jobs, if not thousands, 
to local oystermen.
  I would only say that this is a huge project and must be balanced 
against other national priorities and ask the gentleman to work 
closely, as I'm sure he will, with the Corps to ensure that their 
budget request reflects the needs for the program against the 
background of other demands the Corps is facing.
  With that, I'd be pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wittman).

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. WITTMAN. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I 
want to commend the gentleman from Virginia for his efforts to restore 
oyster populations in the Chesapeake Bay. Just as he pointed out, 
they're extraordinarily important both economically and culturally to 
the State of Virginia.
  Historically, the Chesapeake Bay has been one of the most productive 
fisheries in the world. However, native oyster populations are 
currently at less than 1 percent of historic levels. Pollution and 
diseases have taken a substantial toll on oyster populations.
  Oysters play a critical role in the Bay. And we all know that oysters 
are a commercially important resource. The Virginia seafood industry is 
one of the largest in the Nation and provides a positive economic 
impact to Virginia of over a half a billion dollars a year.
  Oysters also filter and clean the Bay's waters. The oyster is a 
natural

[[Page 17865]]

filter. Oysters filter water by removing algae and nutrients, thereby 
improving water clarity and quality. Oyster reefs provide habitat for 
fish, crabs, and many other forms of marine life.
  We'll probably never be able to restore the Bay to how it was when 
Captain John Smith landed in Jamestown in 1607. However, by improving 
water quality and increasing oyster populations, we will go a long way 
to restoring the Bay's health. The challenges to oyster restoration are 
daunting and complex.
  The Army Corps of Engineers, along with Federal, State, and private 
partners, have been working to restore oyster populations. And while 
relatively limited in scope, the Army Corps oyster restoration efforts 
have shown oyster restoration successes on several watersheds.
  The Army Corps is nearing completion of a Programmatic Environmental 
Impact Statement to identify an oyster restoration strategy. This major 
undertaking will guide bay-wide oyster restoration for years to come.
  It is clear that the oyster is a critical species to the Chesapeake 
Bay, and this amendment is an important step to support oyster 
restoration activities in the Bay.
  I urge my colleagues' support.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the 
managers of this bill for their bipartisan support and for their 
respective staffs, particularly my colleague from Virginia for his 
support as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.


               Part A Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Wamp

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-209.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Wamp:
       Page 3, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $14,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $14,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. WAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the chairman and I thank the committee for an extraordinary 
product. I think this bill is worthy of our support. The staff has done 
an excellent job supporting the Members.
  I want to thank the Rules Committee for ruling this amendment in 
order because Mr. Davis of Tennessee and myself come to the floor today 
to offer the amendment to transfer $14 million from the Corps of 
Engineers regular account, their operating account, over to the 
construction account. And the reason is that we have on the Tennessee 
River the Chickamauga Lock, an aging lock with a real problem of 
concrete growth.
  We have known now for 15 years that this lock must be replaced. We 
are under construction. We're in the middle of construction. The 
cofferdam is virtually finished now, so the center of the river will be 
dried out in just the next few months.
  The stimulus funding allowed the purchase of the equipment--the 
steel, the gates--to go ahead and do the construction; but, 
unfortunately, only $1 million was requested for this project, which 
will not allow us to go forward. We must go forward.
  There are many priorities within the Corps of Engineers Inland 
Waterway System and they should all be supported as much as possible, 
but this one can't go forward.
  This amendment is really to transfer $14 million from the Corps 
expense account to the Corps construction account to be used for the 
purpose of awarding a lock construction contract for the Chickamauga 
Lock on the Tennessee River.
  The reason we have just taken the money from this expense account is 
to try to get this amendment adopted on the floor so when we go to 
conference--and I'm a longstanding member of this subcommittee, as is 
Mr. Davis of Tennessee, now a new member of this subcommittee--when we 
go to conference we can try to work this out, something that the 
chairman and the ranking member have expressed a desire to do at both 
the subcommittee level and the full committee level.
  We don't want to hold up the trains or cause any problems, but the $1 
million would literally freeze us for a year with a lot of equipment, a 
lot of progress; and we're running out of time. This lock has to be 
completed and finished by 2014. We spent millions of dollars repairing 
the lock to keep the current lock open.
  We can't allow the Tennessee River to close to navigation and 
commerce. It would be the largest lock closure in the history of our 
country if we allowed this to happen. So it's of critical importance to 
continue to work with us, and I can't thank the chairman and the 
ranking member enough for their willingness to work with us.
  I want to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee. My colleague from Tennessee, I appreciate his 
work that he's been doing to be sure that the Chickamauga Lock is 
continuing in the process of being sure that we keep that river open.
  I want to make further comments. And I deeply appreciate the ranking 
member and our vice chairman and chairman for at least allowing an 
opportunity to speak today on this amendment.
  When you look at inland water systems and the impact they have on 
America's economy, if you go to the tributaries of the Ohio, 
Mississippi, the Cumberland, and the Tennessee Rivers and look at 
commerce and agriculture that travels those, that becomes the road, 
basically, for exports for America's production--at least much of it 
does.
  So it's important that we keep our infrastructure along our inland 
waterways open. It is some of the least expensive methods of 
transportation. But one of the bright spots in America's economy as far 
as export is concerned is agriculture. That is the only area where we 
have a surplus in trade.
  So my support of the legislation obviously is to keep all of our 
rivers open, all of our waterways open for our commerce. It is my 
hope--and I concur in everything that my friend Congressman Wamp from 
Tennessee has said--it is my hope that we will be able to pass the 
legislation, and recommend Members on both sides of the aisle to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. WAMP. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, 
even though I do support the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arizona is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. As I told you, I support this amendment since 
it simply adds money to the Corps construction account. However, I wish 
to point out that additional funds for Chickamauga Lock cannot be made 
available until the solvency of the Inland Waterway Trust Fund is 
addressed.
  The project requires 50 percent of its funding from the Inland 
Waterways Trust Fund, and that trust fund isn't solvent. Before any new 
multiyear obligations are initiated, the revenue stream or alternative 
funding solutions for these projects must be addressed.
  We have been working with the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee for a comprehensive solution to the issue for some time. I 
have sympathy for the project. I think I know more about this project 
because

[[Page 17866]]

of Mr. Davis and Mr. Wamp. I congratulate both of them for bringing the 
amendment.
  Again, the issue at hand is a lot larger than the $180 million 
project. I support the project.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I will yield to my ranking member.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me associate my remarks with your statement 
and commend both Mr. Wamp and Mr. Davis for being articulate, ardent 
supporters of this move forward.
  I have been to the Chickamauga Lock. I can certainly attest to Mr. 
Wamp's boundless energy and determination to make this thing happen. 
He's made me aware of the dangers of what happens if we have inaction. 
I want to commend you. Obviously this issue is moving ahead, but 
there's some complex issues that need to be addressed that Mr. Pastor 
has appropriately commented on.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  The amendment was agreed to.


      Part A Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-209.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in 
order under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hastings of 
     Washington:
       Page 17, line 17, strike the period and insert the 
     following: ``; Provided further, That $5,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be available for the 
     `Power Program Services' to implement the Bureau of 
     Reclamation's hydropower facilities installations identified 
     under section 1834 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that seeks to expand 
hydropower in the western United States. For almost a century, Western 
communities have benefited from this low-cost, renewable and emissions-
free resource.
  In today's environment, where talk centers around the need to provide 
clean and environmentally friendly power, there is a clear need to 
promote the original renewable energy, which is moving water. This 
amendment is a clear opportunity and first step to do just that.
  My amendment seeks to follow up on the progress made in the report 
authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This report will require 
the Bureau of Reclamation to determine where new hydropower projects 
can be added to the agency's existing water supply facilities.
  The Bureau of Reclamation is already the second leading hydropower 
producer in the Nation so it's only natural to require that agency to 
reassess its hydropower potential.
  While the agency failed to look at potential projects on small canals 
and laterals, it did find six larger opportunities to generate almost 
300 megawatts from new hydropower facilities. To date, the Bureau of 
Reclamation has not implemented one aspect of this report.
  If this amendment is adopted, there will no longer be bureaucratic 
excuses about the necessary resources to begin the installation of new 
emissions-free resources.
  While I'm pleased this amendment was made in order, Mr. Chairman, it 
only covers part of the hydropower equation. Regrettably, the Democrat 
leadership did not make my other amendments in order.
  One of my other amendments would have decreased carbon emissions by 
keeping more hydropower resources online. Currently, the Army Corps of 
Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation are forced to divert water from 
hydropower production at some of their dams. This results in a loss of 
generation that has to be found from some other energy source.
  The vast majority of this replacement power is carbon based in the 
form of coal and natural gas and is much more expensive than 
hydropower. My amendment, which the Democrat majority chose not to 
debate on, would have reduced these carbon emissions to help the 
environment and keep energy affordable by allowing for more hydropower 
production.
  Another amendment would have prohibited the reduction of Federal 
hydropower if that hydropower backs up other renewable energies, like 
wind and solar. As almost everybody knows, the sun doesn't shine 24 
hours a day and the wind doesn't blow all the time.
  Because of these indisputable facts, wind and solar energy need a 
backup, or a firmed-up, in energy speak, as a base resource. In my home 
region of the Pacific Northwest, the Federal dams are the models of the 
backup electricity generation when it comes to wind generation.
  In fact, in December of last year, some of the turbines didn't 
produce electricity, wind turbines, for 11 straight days. Yet the only 
reason that the lights stayed on was because of the backup electricity 
provided by hydropower.
  My amendment, which was also rejected by the Democrat majority, would 
have prohibited the loss of hydropower needed to back up these 
renewable energy sources.
  So, in conclusion, the Democrat majority is sending a mixed message 
by not allowing amendments to protect our existing Federal hydropower, 
yet allowing an amendment to increase a limited amount of hydropower 
resources. I appreciate that. The American people deserve to see a full 
debate about hydropower, the original emissions-free and renewable 
energy. Nevertheless, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, 
even though I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arizona is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I'm very happy to tell the author of the 
amendment that this will be a bipartisan amendment, since we are 
accepting his amendment.
  We understand how important hydropower is, and we need improvements 
at existing facilities so we can provide the reliable, efficient 
domestic emissions-free source of renewable energy. Investment in 
modern turbines has been a benefit of improving existing water quality 
and fish passage issues, in addition to increasing generation 
efficiency and capability.
  As energy security and issues of global climate change are becoming 
increasingly important to the decisionmaking regarding infrastructure 
investment, improving existing hydropower facilities, we must add some 
priority.
  I urge the Bureau of Reclamation to work with local groups and public 
power entities as it looks to use its water resources most efficiently. 
I also urge the Bureau of Reclamation to continue to focus on its core 
water and related resource projects and not sacrifice that valuable 
work while engaging in this effort. I support the amendment.
  I will yield time to the ranking member, Mr. Frelinghuysen.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me, Mr. 
Chairman, associate myself again with Chairman Pastor's remarks. I've 
been to Congressman Hastings' district. When he talks about hydropower, 
he knows what he's talking about. He's obviously been a strong 
proponent of nuclear power.
  So we're pleased to accept the amendment. Thank you for recognizing 
me.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. We support the amendment, and yield back the 
balance of our time.

[[Page 17867]]



                              {time}  1415

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I thank the gentleman, the distinguished subcommittee chairman and 
the distinguished ranking member for accepting this amendment.
  I just simply wanted to point out that had we been under regular 
order, we could have probably enhanced hydropower with the two other 
amendments that were not made in order.
  But nevertheless, this is an important step. It is something that we 
need to recognize, because I firmly believe that an energy plan that 
includes all of the above is what the American people understand and 
what they accept.
  And with that, I appreciate the gentleman for accepting my amendment.
  I yield back my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington will be 
postponed.


              Part A Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Costa

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-209.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Costa:
       Page 18, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
        Page 19, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. COSTA. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor), the 
chairman of the subcommittee, to speak on behalf of the amendment.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I would just like to inform the gentleman that 
we are supportive of his amendment.
  Mr. COSTA. I want to thank the subcommittee chair and those Members 
who have worked very hard on our behalf. This amendment, along with the 
next amendment offered by my colleague and friend, Congressman Cardoza, 
should be taken as two amendments because they are both part of an 
overall effort that many of us from the Valley delegation have been 
working on for over the last year on a bipartisan basis to deal with 
the third year of the drought in California, which, unfortunately, 
could last a fourth and a fifth year.
  Water in California has traditionally not been a partisan issue. My 
colleagues, Congressmen Radanovich, Nunes, McCarthy, and Cardoza and I 
have worked together on many of these issues. I hope that that 
tradition will continue.
  The drought has been devastating. These two pictures reflect ground 
zero, which is in my district, in which we have farm communities that 
have 30 to 40 percent unemployment, food lines in Mendota that I have 
helped provide food for for those farmworkers, who are some of the 
hardest working people you will ever meet in your life.
  The picture next to that shows fallow fields, over 300,000 acres this 
year, on which family farmers, in second and third generation, are in 
fear and frustration of losing their farms.
  These two amendments, taken together, are important. Congressman 
Cardoza deserves a great deal of credit and effort for working very 
hard. These two amendments are not a silver bullet, but they are part 
of an overall effort to provide incremental additional water to our 
valley.
  Amendment 93 provides $10 million for drought relief to the San 
Joaquin Valley to fund two important projects that we have identified 
on our list of things to do. The Two Gates project that we have strong 
support throughout the State on that, if implemented this November, we 
believe, could act as real relief to allow the Federal and State 
operating--Federal projects and the pumps to operate as they were 
intended to. The pumps have operated intermittently and sometimes have 
been shut down this year. Today, thank God, they are operating at near 
full capacity. But that will not continue on next year if a biological 
opinion is implemented that I think is flawed, as does my colleague.
  The Two Gates project and the Delta-Mendota Canal Aqueduct Intertie 
funding will provide, in this amendment, money for the Secretary of the 
Interior, within the Central Valley Project, to be used to implement 
both a Two Gates and the Intertie project.
  In addition to that, this amendment provides a resolution to the 
giant garter snake issue which has long been an impediment to water 
transfers. It gives the Bureau of Reclamation flexibility needed to 
facilitate water transfers throughout counties in the Central Valley 
Project area.
  Lastly, I want to commend my colleague and thank Congressman Cardoza, 
my colleague, for his hard work on this issue. As a result of our 
efforts beginning in January working with the Westlands Water Agency, 
with the San Luis unit and others, we have provided, together, with the 
State of California and the Bureau of Reclamation, over 560,000 acre-
feet of water to the west side that otherwise would not be there in 
these drought conditions, on top of, sadly, what has been a 10 percent 
allocation of water. Together, that has provided nearly 700,000 acre-
feet to the very dry west side.
  I want to thank all of those who have been a part of it: Leadership, 
Steny Hoyer; the Secretary of the Interior, who visited at our request 
last month to the Valley; Secretary Salazar and his Deputy Secretary 
Hayes and Commissioner Connor, all of whom have been designated as a 
part of a drought task force team with Secretary Vilsack, the Secretary 
of Agriculture, because God forbid this drought could last a fourth or 
a fifth year, in which all of California would be rationing water.
  Today, my district is ground zero, along with Congressman Cardoza's 
district, but next year it could be far worse. So we will continue to 
work with Chairman Obey and other members of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  I want you to know that the San Luis-Delta Water Authority supports 
these amendments, along with the Friant Water Authority and most of the 
water agencies in California, because they understand that this 
amendment, along with the next amendment, is part of that incremental 
effort to bring water to a drought-stricken area in California that 
could be, next year, the rest of the State.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, though I 
am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me say that while I am supportive of this 
amendment, it is Congressman Devin Nunes who's been on this floor 
repeatedly calling Members' attention to the catastrophic situation in 
California, and I'm admiring of both Representatives Costa and 
Cardoza's effort. But it's been Devin Nunes who's been really carrying 
this issue in a very visible way. He went to try to get three 
amendments in order before the Rules Committee yesterday afternoon and 
evening, and he was denied that opportunity.
  But I'm no expert on California water, but let's give credit all 
around to Members of Congress that have stood up on this issue to 
articulate their position, indeed, their passionate position.
  I support the amendment, but I certainly want to recognize all 
members of the California delegation, and since Mr. Nunes' name was not 
mentioned in earlier comments, I would certainly like to highlight his 
role making this a priority for our attention.

[[Page 17868]]

  I yield back.
  Mr. COSTA. For the record, I indicated that, traditionally, water has 
been a bipartisan issue, and I said for over a year now, Congressmen 
Radanovich, Nunes, McCarthy, Cardoza and myself, the five of us, have 
been working on a bipartisan basis. And I said I hope it continues to 
work on a bipartisan basis.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Costa).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Part A Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Cardoza.

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-209.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in 
order under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Part A amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Cardoza:
       Page 22, after line 15, insert the following:
       Sec. 203. Central Valley Project.-- Section 3405(a)(1)(M) 
     of Public Law 102-575 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``countries'' and inserting ``counties''; 
     and
       (2) by inserting ``a transfer between a San Joaquin River 
     Exchange Contractor and a Friant Division contractor, a 
     transfer between a San Joaquin River Exchange Contractor and 
     a south-of-Delta CVP agricultural water service contractor, 
     and a transfer between a Friant Division contractor and a 
     south-of-Delta CVP agricultural water service contractor,'' 
     after ``under California law,''.
       Sec. 204. Draft Recovery Plan.-- The Secretary of the 
     Interior, acting through the Director of the Fish & Wildlife 
     Service, is directed to expeditiously revise, finalize, and 
     implement the Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake 
     (Thamnophis gigas).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cardoza) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment, an amendment that makes technical changes to allow water 
transfers in the Central Valley of California. This amendment takes a 
significant step towards addressing the impacts of the water supply 
crisis in the San Joaquin Valley.
  This is a companion amendment to the one that Mr. Costa and I just 
introduced. Mr. Costa is my coauthor of this amendment. And together, 
these two amendments, in fact, do work to help us deal with the 
incredibly significant crisis that we have in the Central Valley. 
People are suffering greatly.
  Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation restricts certain water 
transfers to intracounty transfers. The inability to transfer water 
beyond county lines has created incredible impediments to efficient and 
practical water use in our State. This amendment will allow those 
transfers to occur beyond these county lines so that water users who 
have enough supply in one county will be able to use it in another 
county to help their fellow farmers.
  As Mr. Costa indicated, the amendments also direct the Secretary to 
implement recovery plans for the giant garter snake, an endangered 
species. The recovery plan will remove the bureaucratic red tape that 
prevents water projects from moving forward, while also protecting this 
important species.
  We could not be here today working on these problems if it wasn't for 
the work of the chairman, Mr. Pastor, for Mr. Obey, for the cooperation 
that the entire Valley delegation has shown on this issue. Mr. Costa 
has indicated that because of the efforts that we have employed, we 
have provided our farmers with 500,000 acre-feet that they wouldn't 
have had otherwise under the current rules.
  I want to specifically also indicate my sincere appreciation to 
Majority Leader Hoyer, who has been steadfast in his support of Mr. 
Costa and me trying to move this effort forward.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), who has also been a diligent 
supporter of our efforts and has been concerned, has actually visited 
our district, and I greatly appreciate his help and support.
  Mr. SALAZAR. First of all, I want to thank you for your diligence in 
trying to help the agricultural community in California.
  On June 28 of 2009, Mr. Chairman, at the request of Congressman Costa 
and Congressman Cardoza, the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary 
Salazar and Deputy Secretary Hayes, Reclamation Commissioner Connor 
held a public meeting to address the issues of the drought in 
California.
  But previous to that, I want to also thank the administration for 
previously working on issues, because they understood that the drought 
was of deep concern to this country.
  In April of 2009, the Department announced the allocation of $220 
million of ARRA funding from the Bureau of Reclamation for water and 
environmental infrastructure projects in California. Of this amount, 
$160 million was directed to projects to address needs of the Central 
Valley. Allocation of $40 million will be made for drought relief 
actions, most of which will go to California, with final awards coming 
very, very soon.
  Reclamation has released $134 million in water recycling and water 
reuse grants, of which $120 million was allocated to communities of 
California. Reclamation has also processed over 100 transfers, totaling 
263,000 acre-feet of water to address shortages in the San Joaquin 
Valley.
  Reclamation has also accommodated a rescheduling request by Westside 
and other Central Valley Water Project contractors to allow them to 
preserve and use prior year allocations in the sum of 250,000 acre-feet 
in San Luis Reservoir and 57,000 acre-feet in Millerton Lake. Secretary 
Salazar has also asked Deputy Secretary Hayes to coordinate Federal 
efforts related to California water issues.
  So I just want to commend the administration for their diligence in 
trying to address the issues in California.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 15 seconds to the 
chairman of the committee.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I just want to indicate to my friend, Dennis 
Cardoza, that we will be supportive of his amendment.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman. As I 
said before, without his help, we could not have made these amendments 
in order and brought them to the floor. I think these amendments offer 
significant opportunities to the Central Valley. They are not a 
panacea. They are not going to cure every problem. We have more work to 
do.
  But, in closing, I want to thank Secretary Salazar for taking time 
out, coming and visiting our valley, understanding the problem. We have 
a lot of work to do with the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of 
Reclamation, but with continued work and cooperation, I think we will 
make significant progress on the significant challenges that we face in 
the Central Valley.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for an ``aye'' vote of my 
colleagues.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, though I am 
not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I served on the Energy and Water 
Committee when I was first elected to Congress in 1994. I took a 2-year 
hiatus when I chaired the D.C. Committee, working with Mr. Fattah as 
ranking member.
  There is a water crisis out in your neck of the woods, and we are 
respectful that Republicans and Democrats didn't work together on these 
issues. I have to say I'm hugely disappointed at your lack of 
inclusiveness. You may be spitting mad at Congressman Devin Nunes. Yet, 
for many Members of Congress, he put a human face on the

[[Page 17869]]

water crisis out there. I'm not going to get into the issues of 
biological studies and things of that nature, but you at least ought to 
give your congressional colleague from California credit for raising 
this issue.
  He tried to raise the issue, but quite honestly, he was voted down on 
the floor a number of times. When he went to the Rules Committee, his 
amendments were not put in order. Yours were. Basic courtesy would have 
called for his name to at least be mentioned as he rose to the floor 
today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cardoza).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Part A Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Boren

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-209.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Part A amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Boren:
       Page 23, line 2, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 36, line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Boren) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. BOREN. I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues may be familiar with an initiative I have 
been working on, the NAT GAS Act, to promote the use of natural gas 
fueled vehicles, particularly to replace traditionally fueled heavy- 
and light-duty trucks. I am a strong proponent of natural gas as an 
alternative fuel source because it is clean, abundant, cheap and 
readily available, and best of all, as T. Boone Pickens says, it's 
ours. According to a study by the Department of Energy, it is feasible 
to produce biomethane from landfills, sewage and animal waste, so one 
could even argue that it is renewable.
  As we continue efforts to drive our country towards a cleaner 
transportation sector, natural gas vehicles are a natural fit. There is 
no single silver bullet solution to our transportation energy dilemma. 
All available alternatives to petroleum must be used in the marketplace 
and in an application where they make the most sense. For many of these 
applications, that means natural gas.
  In 2008, NGVs displaced 250 million gallons of petroleum in the 
United States. With adequate support, by 2020, that could grow to 10 
billion gallons, but the NGV industry is made up of mostly small 
companies. In order for the industry to achieve that growth potential 
in the timeframe we need, more research is needed for vehicle 
integration, deployment, engine development, and cost reductions.
  In 1992, Congress authorized a Vehicle Technologies Program to fund a 
wide range of research activities on passenger vehicles and heavy-duty 
trucks. The program's mission is to develop leapfrog technologies that 
will provide Americans with greater freedom of mobility and energy 
security while lowering costs and reducing impacts on the environment. 
Though natural gas vehicle research was funded through this program 
until fiscal year 2005, since then, there have been no DOE activities 
in this area.
  My amendment would add $5 million in funding to this account for 
natural gas vehicle research. This is a relatively small investment for 
something that could easily move America towards a cleaner and 
independent energy future. I hope my colleagues will join me in 
launching a new direction in transportation fuel by supporting this 
amendment.
  I would like to yield to my friend from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. First of all, I would like to thank the 
gentleman for yielding, and I would also like to thank him for bringing 
this amendment.
  This amendment funds research and development for one of the small 
handful of technologies that may reduce the Nation's dependence on 
foreign oil. This increase in funding is consistent with the 
committee's efforts in this bill to address rising gasoline prices.
  So I tell my dear friend from Oklahoma that we rise in support of his 
amendment.
  Mr. BOREN. Thank you so much. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, 
but I am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of 
the amendment.
  We really need to move toward using natural gas. It is a clean-
burning fuel, and we have a huge supply of it in this country. In fact, 
down in Louisiana just recently, they discovered probably one of the 
biggest finds of natural gas in the whole world.
  As I said, it is a clean-burning fuel, and we need to transition from 
our dependency on foreign oil. If we continue at the pace we're heading 
right now, over the next 10 years, we will see a transfer of $10 
trillion of our money to countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and 
many of those are not friends of ours. So this is a great step in the 
right direction.
  I want to congratulate Mr. Boren on the amendment. You're doing good 
work.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Radanovich).
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I am using this opportunity to speak 
for the amendment that was previous because I was not able to get out 
of committee to come down for the debate.
  I want to rise in support of the Cardoza amendment. As you are well 
aware, California is in the midst of a devastating manmade drought. Any 
action to alleviate the drought faced by the San Joaquin Valley is 
needed. Facilitating transfers of water from areas of California that 
have water to spare and sending it to the wetlands in the San Joaquin 
Valley is a good start, but we must have increased pumping out of the 
Delta.
  I would like to commend my colleagues Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Costa and Mr. 
Nunes for their hard work and for their efforts in offering solutions 
to the drought in California.
  In the meantime, temporary solutions such as the Two Gates and the 
Canal Intertie projects are necessary to keep farmers in the San 
Joaquin Valley farming. These projects must be constructed and online 
by this fall in order to provide any relief to this terrible drought.
  The only way to keep the State of California strong is to change the 
water infrastructure. The California water system cannot continue as it 
is. If there are no changes, we will continue to see escalating 
unemployment rates of over 40 percent and the depletion of the 
agriculture industry.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to recognize for 1 
minute the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boren amendment. 
This amendment would provide $5 million to fund natural gas vehicle 
research and development at the Department of Energy.
  Natural gas is the bridge fuel toward decreasing our dependence on 
foreign sources of oil and for putting our Nation on a path to energy 
independence. We have a proven reserve of natural gas right here in the 
United States. We have enough known natural gas reserves to last us 
more than a century.

[[Page 17870]]

As a matter of fact, 98 percent of the natural gas we consume is 
produced right here in North America. In addition to our vast supply, 
we already have a way to get natural gas to the consumer with over 1.5 
million miles of natural gas pipeline distribution across the country.
  Natural gas vehicle technology is readily available in Europe, South 
America and Asia, with nearly 10 million natural gas vehicles in 
circulation worldwide. General Motors and Ford currently make 18 
different models for purchase overseas, yet have fewer than 150,000 
natural gas vehicles here in the United States. We must increase our 
research and development funding in this amendment, which it seeks to 
do.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Sullivan), who has been a real leader in this effort for natural 
gas vehicles.
  We have got one more speaker on our side, I think, so I am going to 
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to recognize for 1 
minute the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, while I support the Boren amendment, I 
do rise in opposition to the manager's amendment and to some provisions 
that are there.
  It strikes me that the manager's amendment results in an earmark for 
the Big Three automakers. What it does is to stipulate that the 
alternative fuel cars have to be bought from them. What it does is to 
ignore the many other American citizens and taxpayers who produce 
American-made passenger vehicles in this Nation, but they are 
manufacturers that are not the Big Three.
  I view this as being something that is bad policy. It is bad 
environmental policy. It is bad appropriations policy. It is bad 
economic policy. There are 209 vehicles, Alternative Fuel Vehicles, 
that are going to be purchased to go into these different agencies as 
stipulated in this bill. The way this manager's amendment is written, 
it is an earmark for the Big Three, which have already received 
billions of bailout money.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe that these changes will 
greatly help the integration of cleaner natural gas vehicles in the 
marketplace. I think that we have a real opportunity today to invest in 
a cleaner independent energy future for America and to move away from 
our dependence on foreign oil.
  I want to thank my colleagues on the other side, especially my friend 
John Sullivan from Oklahoma. I want to thank the chairman for accepting 
our amendment.
  Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of 
Congressman Boren's amendment for natural gas vehicle research. Natural 
gas has an important role to play in United States energy policy 
because it is more domestically abundant and cleaner-burning than 
traditional transportation fuel. We cannot afford to continue sending 
billions of dollars overseas while neglecting the vast energy resources 
right here in America. It is critical to our long-term economic 
prosperity that we invest in our own domestic sources of energy. By 
increasing research and development funding for natural gas vehicles we 
can ensure American innovation moves us toward greater energy security 
while decreasing our carbon emissions. I urge all my colleagues to 
support Congressman Boren's amendment to increase funding for the DOE's 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Vehicle Technologies program for 
natural gas vehicle research.
  Mr. BOREN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma will be postponed.


       Part A Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in 
Part A of House Report 111-209.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk made in order under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 8 offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan:
       Page 23, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 35, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 36, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Miller) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, you know there has been a 
great deal of discussion for decades, really, about the issue of 
energy, specifically the need for our Nation to generate and to utilize 
renewable and clean energy.
  I have lived my entire life on the shores of the magnificent Great 
Lakes, and I have spent an awful lot of time boating as well on those 
magnificent waterways. I have always been awed by the power of that 
water, flowing from Lake Superior all the way to the Atlantic Ocean, 
actually. I have watched the St. Clair River under the Blue Water 
Bridge in Port Huron, Michigan, and I have been amazed at the swiftness 
and the consistency with which that water moves.
  I believe that the energy created by that water-flow is a source of 
energy that we must do more to harness for the use of our people and 
for industry. To that end, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase by 
$10 million the Water Power Energy Program within the Department of 
Energy. Increasing this vitally important program by $10 million will 
restore that program back to FY 2009 funding levels.
  The Water Power Energy Program within the Department of Energy is 
such an important program to our overall goal of reducing our 
dependence on fossil fuels and of becoming a Nation more reliant on 
renewable and green sources of energy. The Water Power Energy Program 
is a program designed to develop, test and evaluate new water 
technologies and to address barriers to the development of 
hydrokinetics and hydropower. The program conducts important research 
and development, and it deploys new innovative water technologies in 
order to get those products out on the market in an expedient, cost-
efficient and environmentally responsible manner.
  Additionally, this program allows for the testing and modeling of 
existing technologies. Hydropower technology has literally been around 
for hundreds of years, beginning with the earliest waterwheels and then 
water mills, which helped produce flour from grains, sawing timber and 
powering textile plants, to today's more advanced technologies, from 
hydroelectricity to harnessing wave and tidal power.

                              {time}  1445

  Hydropower currently accounts for approximately 19 percent of the 
world's electrical needs and produces no harmful emissions, but it 
accounts for less than 6 percent of the total United States' 
electricity needs. Compare that to our neighbor to the north, Canada, 
who uses hydropower to meet 61 percent of its energy needs. While 
hydropower only accounts for less than 6 percent, as I said, here in 
the United States, it makes up 71 percent of our total renewable 
electricity and produces enough electrical power to power 28 million 
households.
  There are two examples from the great State of Michigan where this 
technology is being examined and needs to be looked at further, I 
think, Mr. Chairman. I already mentioned the St. Clair River, but I 
should also mention the Detroit River. These rivers are known for their 
very strong currents, moving along at approximately 6-plus knots. Water 
from Lake Huron funnels down into the St. Clair River through Lake St. 
Clair and then quickens again

[[Page 17871]]

through the Detroit River before entering Lake Erie, where that energy 
is currently just dissipating. This technology can be put to work in 
rivers, harbors and other coastal areas to capture energy from currents 
and tides. The best part is that this can be achieved with minimal 
impact on our environment or the flow of the river. Harnessing this 
energy will create a truly renewable and green source of clean energy.
  Mr. Chairman, again, there has been a lot of interest, a lot of talk 
about alternative energy sources in the past week. I have heard many 
express strong support for wind power, and I certainly share their 
enthusiasm for that energy source. But I will remind my colleagues that 
sometimes the wind doesn't blow, but the water always flows. With that, 
I would ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition, though I am not in opposition and staying with the flow.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. First of all, to the manager's amendment and 
the issue about the purchasing of cars, I have been told that the 
current GSA policy that has jurisdiction in the purchasing of cars over 
the agencies in which this committee has jurisdiction thereof, that we 
have just restated that policy. It was not intended to be an earmark. 
It was not intended to do anything different. It is not authorizing on 
an appropriation bill. It's a restatement of GSA policy. If there is a 
reason to be against it, it would be because it was redundant. But we 
did not create any new legislation. We are just restating GSA policy as 
it concerns purchase of cars under the agencies.
  I rise in support of this amendment from the gentlelady from 
Michigan. In this bill the committee supports strong investment in 
renewable energy technologies, such as solar, wind and geothermal 
power. Water power is an important piece of this renewable portfolio. 
Refining conventional hydropower technologies can increase the 
efficiency of our Nation's hydropower dams and cost-effectively 
increase clean power generation without the need for new dams. Research 
and development of technologies that use waves, tides and streams for 
power can deliver a new source of virtually untapped renewable energy. 
So we continue to be with the flow and support the young lady's 
amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I want to commend Mrs. Miller for being a strong 
and articulate advocate, and I support her amendment. I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan will be 
postponed.


             Part A Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Heinrich

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-209.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk made in 
order under the rule.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Heinrich:
       In section 307, strike ``6 percent'' and insert ``7 
     percent''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in strong support 
of research and development at our national laboratories. Specifically, 
my amendment provides a 1 percent increase in the Laboratory Directed 
Research and Development, which is commonly referred to as LDRD. LDRD 
increases the ability of laboratories to retain expertise and pursue 
innovative projects by providing additional discretion for Department 
of Energy laboratories to select research activities. These high-risk, 
high-reward projects yield cutting-edge advancements in science and 
technology and produce some of our most successful research and 
development initiatives. These are projects with an immediate relevance 
and a direct impact on national security and our goal of energy 
independence. Many LDRD projects have formed the basis of some of the 
national labs' most successful research initiatives. For example, at 
Sandia National Laboratories in my district, an LDRD researcher 
developed the chemistry for a decontamination foam that is used by our 
military to protect us against chemical and biological attacks. In 
fact, this was the foam that was used to decontaminate the Senate Hart 
Office Building after the anthrax attacks of 2001. We know all too well 
that those who wish our country harm are constantly adapting their 
methods, making these LDRD projects vitally important to our national 
security.
  LDRD is equally relevant to our goal of energy independence. An LDRD 
project developed a manufacturing process that will substantially 
reduce the cost of highly efficient LED lightbulbs. These LED 
lightbulbs have the potential to decrease electricity consumed in 
lighting by a full 50 percent by 2025. This will translate into 
meaningful cuts in utility bills for our working families and real 
savings for our small businesses. Energy independence is a critical 
element of our national security, and LED efficiency will significantly 
reduce our demand for energy. These advancements represent just two 
examples of the multiple innovative science and technology achievements 
made through LDRD initiatives.
  Under the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill, our labs were granted 
authority to use up to 8 percent of their budgets for LDRD initiatives, 
yet the bill before us today would reduce that amount for 2010 to only 
6 percent. My amendment would allow our labs to dedicate up to 7 
percent of their budgets to LDRD. It is important to note that my 
amendment does not require any additional spending, as the LDRD funding 
percentage is derived from the labs' overall funding level, nor does my 
amendment cut any other program. Simply put, my amendment encourages 
innovative research and development that will promote our national 
security and help us to reach our goal of energy independence. I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining 
on his time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'd like to thank 
the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding to me and to inform him that 
we will support the amendment as offered. However, I have some concerns 
about increasing the percentage of laboratory-directed research at this 
time. I hope that this increase in lab directed research and 
development will, in this tight budget environment, produce a net 
increase in the national security output of the laboratories. I look 
forward to working with you to ensure this increase is tightly mission-
oriented and will be compatible with meeting other challenges of the 
laboratories. With that, I will inform you that we are supporting this 
amendment.
  Mr. HEINRICH. I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, 
though I am not in opposition to the amendment.

[[Page 17872]]

  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate my 
comments with Chairman Pastor. These are tight budget times, and I 
think we worked hard to provide the right balance for priorities on our 
Energy and Water bill. Many of us would have liked much more, shall we 
say, money spent on the safety and security of our nuclear weapons 
stockpile; but quite honestly, that was not to be. We all had to 
compromise, and this package is a fair, balanced one.
  A few comments about the LDRD, the Lab Directed R&D programs. These 
programs often allow our laboratories to skirt congressional priorities 
laid out in our legislation. Historically these funds have been used by 
labs to perform research and development on issues that at times are 
not at all germane to the Department of Energy. I have seen it 
firsthand. At the same time, these programs can be most innovative and 
give our researchers creative opportunities for work. So I don't oppose 
the amendment. But I want to make it clear that all members of the 
committee, I am sure, will be watching very carefully to ensure that 
these funds are used to support the mission of the department.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEINRICH. I want to add real quickly that the gentleman mentioned 
our nuclear stockpile. One of the other LDRD programs that I think was 
particularly important was the creation and assembly of safety devices 
for our stockpile, like the gel mylar capacitors that are used in the 
W76-1. I think the bottom line is that these programs represent some of 
the most cutting-edge research that we do. They are critical to our 
national security. They are critical to our energy independence, and I 
would urge the support of my colleagues.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico will be 
postponed.


               Part A Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Cao

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-209.
  Mr. CAO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Cao:
       Page 62, line 15, strike ``90'' and insert ``60''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Cao) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. CAO. Thank you.
  Mr. Chair, I submitted an amendment to H.R. 3183, the Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill, to reduce the amount of time the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission has to report to Congress. The purpose of this 
amendment is to encourage agencies to be good partners in the 
regulatory process by completing their requirements to report to 
Congress for oversight in a timely manner.
  What is the motivation for this amendment? During the last 
administration the agency was charged with identifying ways to 
streamline its licensing and review process. Though the Commission 
stated in a Legal Times article that it would shorten its review time 
to 30 months, recently a number of companies have complained of the 
process taking anywhere from 36 to 42 months. Also in June of 2008 the 
agency was the subject of a New York Times article on lengthy delays in 
its processing at Yucca. It cited a lack of funds to complete the 
process.
  In this appropriations bill, the NRC is to provide a report to 
Congress regarding streamlined issuance of construction for new nuclear 
reactors. As written, the agency was given 90 days to do so. My 
amendment would reduce it to 60. The reporting which must be done by 
the commission requires it to report to the Committee on Appropriations 
of the House of Representatives and the Senate, identifying barriers to 
and its recommendations for streamlining the issuance of a combined 
construction and operating license for qualified new nuclear reactors.
  In order for Congress to conduct proper oversight of this agency and 
help it improve its function, the NRC must report its findings to 
Congress in an expeditious manner. As we go through the process of 
reviewing our energy needs in this country, it is important that we 
have the information needed to make decisions as quickly as possible. 
Therefore, I ask the Members of the House to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition, even though I'm not opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arizona is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I support Mr. Cao's amendment because the 
provision the gentleman is amending requires the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission to provide a report on improving its licensing procedure by 
reducing the time for submission of the report to Congress from 90 days 
to 60 days. This should improve the NRC's responsiveness to Congress 
and provide more timely information to the Congress on measures that 
can be taken to improve the regulatory process.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We support the gentleman from Louisiana's 
amendment and commend him. It's actually a perfecting amendment of what 
Mr. Kingston had in the full committee. So we commend you for your 
efforts and support it. Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. We are in support of the amendment.

                              {time}  1500

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Cao).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana will be 
postponed.


           Part A Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed in 
part A of House Report 111-209.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part A amendment No. 11 offered by Mrs. Blackburn:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Percentage Reduction of Total Funds.--Each amount 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act that is 
     not required to be appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 5 percent.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, 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, I rise today on behalf of the American 
taxpayer to continue my push to rein in Federal spending by just 5 
percent.
  As with the other appropriations bills that my colleagues and I have 
attempted to amend this year, this proposal would enforce a 5 percent 
across-the-board cut to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. My 
amendment would save the taxpayer $1.7 billion

[[Page 17873]]

and reset Energy and Water spending levels for the next budget.
  Spending on Energy and Water programs has increased by, get this, 183 
percent over the past 3 years. Under the majority's control, spending 
has increased 183 percent. The very programs being funded on the House 
floor this afternoon have already received $51 billion in stimulus 
funding and $7 billion in supplemental funding this year, this one 
year.
  This Congress has already spent more than $1 trillion than we have 
taken in. This trillion-dollar deficit is the largest in American 
history. In my opinion, this deficit represents the height of fiscal 
irresponsibility and is absolutely unconscionable. On top of it, many 
of my colleagues are proposing another $1 trillion in government-run 
health care spending.
  Every day we are laying more and more debt on the backs of our 
children and grandchildren. I ask my colleagues: How do we expect these 
children and grandchildren, how do I expect my grandsons to pay for 
college or a first home or start a business when they already owe 
$70,000 to the Federal Government?
  Mr. Chairman, we have to realize debt incurred is opportunity denied. 
My constituents keep telling me, We are tired of the government 
spending money we have not made yet on programs we don't want.
  Through this appropriations cycle, I have intended to rein in this 
deficit by cutting spending. And today, again, I will ask the 
bureaucrats in Washington and their patrons in Congress to trim a 
nickel from every dollar that they are going to spend.
  As our deficit and our debt grow to historic and dangerous 
proportions, it is more urgent than ever that we take action and bring 
spending under control.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I rise in opposition to the amendment of the 
gentlelady from Tennessee.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. The amendment proposes a 5 percent reduction 
to every account in this bill. If you exclude the recovery money, as I 
mentioned in my opening statement, this bill that is before you is $1 
billion below the President's request and is slightly above last year's 
2009 funding.
  This Energy and Water appropriations bill is a key part of ongoing 
efforts to meet the infrastructure needs of the country; and after 
years of neglect, addressing the inadequacies of our national energy 
policies, we are trying to do it with this bill.
  The Energy and Water bill is only slightly above last year's enacted 
level and is $1.1 billion below the budget request, as I mentioned. 
Balancing priorities with this allocation require a concerted 
bipartisan effort. We ended up with a bill that meets the priorities 
and supports fiscal responsibility.
  A reduction of 5 percent would cut $1.7 billion from the bill and 
undercut a number of priorities at a time when we can ill afford to 
reduce them further.
  I do not support the amendment and urge Members to vote ``no.''
  I will yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I also rise in opposition to the amendment. 
Certainly, I commend the gentlewoman for her hard and repeated attempts 
to cut the Federal budget. But I agree with the chairman that we have a 
good bill. It is well balanced. It has been done in a bipartisan way.
  I worry about indiscriminate cuts to a bill that affects the 
protection and reliability of our nuclear stockpile. That is important. 
We crafted some good things out of the energy portfolio which I think 
are worthy and defensible. This bill also includes funding that only 
begins to address a $1 billion-plus retirement pension shortfall 
through the individual accounts. That is something which I commend the 
chairman for his and staff leadership on.
  This across-the-board cut would take a $1.6 billion bite across each 
of these initiatives. And I think that would be pretty devastating.
  As a result, I rise with him to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I would request that Members vote against this 
amendment, and I yield back my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my good colleagues that 
this is not Federal Government money. This is taxpayer money. And every 
year on April 15, the taxpayers send their portion to the Federal 
Government, and they charge us with looking out after that money. Many 
times they set aside hopes, dreams and college educations. They don't 
get to pursue their priorities because they have to send the money to 
Washington.
  I find it absolutely incomprehensible that this body is not willing 
to turn to the bureaucrats that line all of these streets and these 
granite buildings and say, save a nickel out of the dollar. Allow our 
children and grandchildren to have opportunities. We have to realize, 
as I said, debt incurred today is opportunity denied for these children 
and grandchildren. I have heard all those arguments before.
  When I was in the State senate in Tennessee, they had this grandiose 
health care plan called TennCare. Oh, it was going to save all this 
money. It was a public option. It was the test case for public option. 
It nearly bankrupted the State. When I offered an amendment to make 
across-the-board cuts, oh, those are draconian, those are 
indiscriminate. It is going to shut government down.
  Well, guess what? They never took the cuts that we had. But when a 
Democrat Governor came in and he was faced with seemingly 
insurmountable odds on balancing a budget because we have an amendment, 
he made 9 percent across-the-board cuts.
  We need to do this. We need to make the hard choices of where we are 
going to spend this money. You can't say, well, when you exclude this 
from the stimulus, and when you exclude this amount of money, when you 
exclude this $51 billion from stimulus and this $7 billion from 
supplemental, then it is only this. Well, guess what? That money is 
already spent. You spent the money. So unless they pay it all back, you 
can't exclude it. So your fuzzy math doesn't add up. It doesn't add up. 
You have already spent that money.
  The person that is being undercut is the American taxpayer. And it is 
being done by the selfishness and by the greed of those who refuse to 
say ``no'' to a growing, out-of-control Federal bureaucracy.
  I think it is time that we get some backbone on this spending issue. 
Stop the out-of-control deficit. Stop the out-of-control debt. Vote for 
the amendment and ``no'' on the debt.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee will be 
postponed.


                       announcement by the chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in House Report 111-209 on which 
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Pastor of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Hastings of Washington.
  Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Boren of Oklahoma.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mrs. Miller of Michigan.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


        part a amendment no. 1 offered by mr. pastor of arizona

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

[[Page 17874]]

  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 261, 
noes 172, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 543]

                               AYES--261

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--172

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dreier
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bordallo
     Faleomavaega
     Schrader
     Sestak
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1536

  Mr. BRIGHT, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. CULBERSON, Ms. ESHOO, Messrs. WITTMAN, 
ORTIZ, and HONDA changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. MITCHELL and TEAGUE changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


       Part A Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 362, 
noes 69, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 544]

                               AYES--362

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bono Mack
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum

[[Page 17875]]


     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                                NOES--69

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Cassidy
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gohmert
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Linder
     Luetkemeyer
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     McClintock
     McKeon
     Melancon
     Miller (FL)
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Price (GA)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schauer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuler
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Teague
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walden
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Faleomavaega
     Herseth Sandlin
     Meek (FL)
     Pastor (AZ)
     Schrader
     Sestak
     Young (FL)


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1541

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


      Part A Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 432, 
noes 0, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 545]

                               AYES--432

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olson
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Faleomavaega
     Moore (WI)
     Platts
     Schrader
     Sestak
     Young (FL)


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining on this 
vote.

                              {time}  1546

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Ms. Richardson was allowed to speak out of 
order.)

[[Page 17876]]




             Congratulating the House Women's Softball Team

  Ms. RICHARDSON. Colleagues, it's with great pleasure that we come 
before you to announce the incredible success that we had last night at 
the First Annual Congressional--may I say--Bipartisan Women's Softball 
Game.
  We want to recognize our two captains, Republican JoAnn Emerson and, 
of course, our fearless leader who did it all, Debbie Wasserman 
Schultz. We want to thank all of you, our teammates.
  Mrs. EMERSON. You all, thank you very, very much from the bottom of 
my heart.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. And from mine.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. From the bottom of my foot.
  Mrs. EMERSON. We have been told that this was a triumph for women and 
a triumph of bipartisanship. And I think that says it all. We have 
proven, I think, that we will rise above any kind of partisanship, work 
together, come together as a team, and really work hard for something. 
And I think we're a good example for the whole House.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In addition to that, we became even closer 
friends than we were when we started and raised awareness about the 
fact that young women can and do get breast cancer. We raised $50,000 
for the Young Survival Coalition.
  So, thank you to all the Members who came out, and all the staff. We 
especially want to thank the ladies of the Republican National 
Committee, Democratic National Committee, DCCC, NRCC, and the DSCC for 
participating and doing a great job. We're going to get you next year.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.


              Part A Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Boren

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 429, 
noes 4, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 546]

                               AYES--429

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olson
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                                NOES--4

     Campbell
     Ehlers
     Flake
     McClintock

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Faleomavaega
     Sablan
     Schrader
     Sestak
     Young (FL)


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1553

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


       Part A Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.

[[Page 17877]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 431, 
noes 1, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 547]

                               AYES--431

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boccieri
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Driehaus
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Graves
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olson
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pierluisi
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quigley
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sablan
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                                NOES--1

       
     Baird
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Johnson (GA)
     Schrader
     Sestak
     Young (FL)


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1558

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1600

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Cuellar). It is now in order to consider one of 
the amendments printed in part B of House Report 111-209.


             Part B Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Campbell

  Mr. CAMPBELL. 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:

       Part B amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Campbell:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Congressionally Directed Project Eliminated.--None 
     of the funds provided in this Act under the heading 
     ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Energy Efficiency 
     and Renewable Energy'' shall be available for the Housatonic 
     River Net-Zero Energy Building project, and the aggregate 
     amount otherwise provided under such heading (and the portion 
     of such amount specified for Congressionally Directed Energy 
     Efficiency and Renewable Energy Projects) are each hereby 
     reduced by $1,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Campbell) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike a $1 million 
earmark that is for--and being from California, I will apologize in 
advance to the gentleman from Massachusetts if I butcher the name of 
the river, the pronunciation of the name of the river, but is it 
Housatonic? You can correct me when it's your time, but the Housatonic 
River Museum in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and it reduces funding in 
the overall bill by that amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not unusual lately to see amendments for funding 
of museums in local communities and around the country, but this one's 
particularly unusual, I believe, because, as far as I can determine 
from the Web site, this museum doesn't currently exist. And if I am 
reading the Web site for this museum correctly, they're still in the 
design and development phase of this building, and it would appear that 
this is a $1 million earmark to go to a museum in Massachusetts which 
does not currently exist and which, according to their own Web site, 
would not even have construction completed until 2012. And of course, 
this is the appropriations funding for 2010, so this funding would be 
available for the museum 2 years before even their Web site indicates 
they might be completed. So this appears to be an amendment for a 
museum, $1 million for the museum that doesn't exist.
  And I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the amendment before us. 
In 2006, Congress created the Upper Housatonic National Heritage Area 
in southwestern Massachusetts and in northwestern Connecticut based on 
legislation that was cosponsored by our distinguished former colleague 
Representative Nancy Johnson of Connecticut and myself in the House and

[[Page 17878]]

by all the Senators from Massachusetts and Connecticut in the other 
body.
  The Housatonic River Museum is being created by a group of local 
citizens and environmentalists, all residents of that national heritage 
area, as a venue to highlight the rich cultural history and explore the 
hopes for the future of that area. The 13,000-square-foot museum is 
being designed to achieve two sustainable goals: zero carbon footprint 
and zero net energy usage.
  Ninety percent of the money for this project is being raised 
privately, but the money provided in this bill will allow the museum to 
maximize energy conservation and efficiency using passive strategies 
such as natural lighting, natural ventilation, water conservation, 
high-performance building materials, and, in addition, to generate 
enough power for its own needs, all from renewable sources utilizing 
photovoltaic panels, recycled wood pellet boilers and a geothermal well 
system. The museum will return excess power to the public electricity 
grid when available and possible.
  All of these techniques and processes for energy conservation and 
efficiency will be made available for explanation and demonstration to 
thousands of visitors of all ages, but especially to school-age 
children from near and far.
  The museum itself will be lead certified, and will serve as a 
flagship demonstration project and an example of sustainable 
construction. It will be the first public building on the East Coast to 
be listed by the Department of Energy as a zero energy, and will join 
only seven others of similar designation in the Nation.
  This is a good project with high goals and deserves to be funded, and 
I urge a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that it sounds like the 
museum is going to be a very neat, cool, useful museum in the local 
area, but I guess I would ask the gentleman a question. Does this 
museum currently exist?
  And I would yield to the gentleman. Does it currently exist?
  Mr. OLVER. It is under design.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. So it is under construction.
  Mr. OLVER. It is under design, and the money is being raised as we 
speak.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Reclaiming my time, but I would ask the gentleman, have 
all the funds for this, the construction of this museum been raised?
  And I would yield.
  Mr. OLVER. I am not familiar with the day-to-day progress of the 
collection of those construction funds.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is $1 million of 
the public's money going to a museum that doesn't currently exist, that 
is not currently under construction, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts can't tell me if it's even fully funded. I mean, if you 
don't have enough, if there isn't enough money to build it, it may 
never be built. It may never be funded.
  So where is this million dollars going to go and what is it going to 
go for?
  The gentleman pointed out that most of this museum, or so far they've 
been doing this raised on private funds. That's great. That's very 
admirable. That's outstanding. That's the way local museums and stuff 
should be done. I support them. I'm sure he does as well, and that's 
the way that funding should be.
  And so, should the taxpayers from California and Texas and Louisiana 
and every place else put their tax money towards subsidizing a 
privately funded museum in Massachusetts no matter how admirable the 
message that that museum may be?
  And I would reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. I continue to reserve.
  I think I have the right to close, do I not?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. May I ask how much time I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, you know, the fiscal and financial status 
of this country is at an unprecedented low. We will have a deficit this 
year of probably over $2 trillion. President Obama's budget projects a 
deficit of $1 trillion a year as far as the eye can see.
  Of the million dollars that will go to this museum that doesn't exist 
and may never exist, $460,000 of that will be borrowed. Much of that 
money will be borrowed from people in China and India and other places.
  And I guess I would ask, Mr. Chairman, in this time of great fiscal 
strain, in this time when people are losing their jobs, in this time 
when we have a gigantic deficit, gigantic debt, borrowing money from 
all around the world, and a Congress and a President who seem to be 
unwilling or unable to stop spending and spending and spending, isn't 
at least this, can't we at least not spend $1 million on something that 
doesn't even exist and hasn't been fully funded? Can't we at least stop 
here?
  I tell you, Mr. Chairman, if this sort of spending, this sort of $1 
million on a local project subsidizing a privately funded museum that 
doesn't even exist, if this isn't a million dollars we can save, then 
the message I think, Mr. Chairman, to the American people is that this 
Congress is absolutely unwilling to save any of their money and to 
reduce these deficits in the future, which is not just a problem for 
our children and grandchildren; the problem's going to come on us much 
sooner than that. It's a problem for us.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I thank the gentleman for yielding and to 
inform him and our Members that the committee supports the construction 
of this museum and is against the amendment, so we are urging Members 
to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. I would just reiterate in this instance that all of this 
money goes to achieve those specific goals for providing zero carbon 
footprint and net zero energy usage in this to-be-constructed museum. 
All of the techniques, an array of techniques, I mentioned five or six, 
but the array of techniques, all of those will be available as 
demonstrations for all of the visitors all of the years of the future 
of this museum.
  And he worries that it may never be constructed. Well, if they don't 
raise the money, which I expect them to do, and to be able to be in 
construction quite as fast as a good many of our recovery projects 
might get into construction, but certainly within this and the next 
fiscal year, that none of that money gets expended. So there is no harm 
at all in that. And otherwise, we have a very fine museum and a very 
fine demonstration project which hundreds of thousands of people will 
see over the next decade.
  So I would hope that the amendment will be rejected. I urge a ``no'' 
vote on the amendment.
  I yield back.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. 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.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider the amendments 
printed in part C of House Report 111-209.


              Part C Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. 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:

       Part C amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Congressionally Directed Project Eliminated.--None 
     of the funds provided in this Act under the heading 
     ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Energy

[[Page 17879]]

     Efficiency and Renewable Energy'' shall be available for the 
     Maret Center project, and the aggregate amount otherwise 
     provided under such heading (and the portion of such amount 
     specified for Congressionally Directed Energy Efficiency and 
     Renewable Energy Projects) are each hereby reduced by 
     $1,500,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with the time constraints 
here, I would ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified to 
the form I have placed at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to part C amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. 
     Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Procurement and Acquisition of Alternative 
     Fuels.--None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to carry out, or pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel who carry out, section 526 
     of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public 
     Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142).

                              {time}  1615

  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I object to the modification.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire of the gentleman from Arizona why he 
objects? We were told that this appropriations process, particularly 
today's bill, was under a modified structured rule simply because of 
time constraints. I am simply offering to modify my amendment to 
reflect an amendment that was offered but not accepted by the committee 
so that no more time would be consumed. This is an amendment that is in 
order, and it is germane.
  I would just ask the gentleman why the objection is being heard.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Members' remarks will be directed to the Chair.
  Mr. FLAKE. I would ask the Chair to ask the gentleman.
  I would yield to the gentleman for a response if the gentleman from 
Arizona would respond to why he is objecting to this unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. This amendment was taken up by the Rules 
Committee, and I don't have the authority to change or to modify it. 
So, rather than get into the debate, I thought it was in proper form to 
object.
  Mr. FLAKE. I will have to go back to my original amendment. Let me 
just make a point, and I will be making it frequently coming up, so the 
gentleman or others may want to consult with the Rules Committee.
  We were told at the beginning of this process that we were going to 
be restricted in terms of what we could offer simply because of time, 
that we could not have so many amendments that would take so much time. 
There were 108 amendments offered. We would never be able to get them 
done, we were told. So here we have a bill. The time constraints are 
set. We are told that some 20 amendments are going to be offered. We 
are simply asking to swap out amendments.
  The Appropriations chairman said, We have an obligation to get our 
work done, so what Mr. Hoyer and I did was offer the minority leader an 
opportunity from a compressed number of amendments to select their own 
amendments, any amendments they wanted, but they did not want to limit 
the number of time.
  Here we are saying we will agree to the time, and we are simply 
asking for unanimous consent to allow us to offer the amendments we 
would like to offer, and they're objecting. So, Mr. Chairman, all you 
can conclude, again, is that the majority simply doesn't want to take 
votes on these amendments. For the first time in years, in decades, we 
are shutting down an appropriations process, and saying, You can't 
offer the amendments you want. You only offer the amendments we want. 
Now, that is simply wrong. I just want to make that point, and I'll be 
making it again and again.
  So I don't blame the gentleman from Arizona. He is not authorized 
here, but his party has told us that we are only compressing and 
having, basically, martial law in terms of appropriations bills because 
of compressed time. We are agreeing to the compressed time. We are 
simply saying allow us to offer the amendments that are germane that we 
want to offer. We are being told, no, you only offer the amendments we 
want to hear.
  That's what we're being told here, and I just want to register an 
objection to that because we ought to have the freedom to offer the 
amendments that we have offered like we've been able to do for decades 
in this House.
  With that, let me get to the substance of the amendment.
  This amendment would simply strike $1.5 million for the MARET Center 
at Crowder College in Missouri.
  May I ask as to the time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute and 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair.
  According to the Web site, the MARET Center is also known as the 
Missouri Alternative Renewable Energy Technology Center. It has been 
around since 1992. It has been funded several times, I believe, with 
earmarks. It has received, I think, $3 million in earmarks. When we 
have a deficit nearing $2 trillion this year, I think it behooves us to 
find areas where we can save. This is an earmark that goes to a college 
to study renewable energy when we are doing that all over in the 
budget--in this bill and in others. I think it behooves us to save the 
money where we can. This amendment would strike that funding, and would 
save it in the bill.
  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, I would yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank Chairman Pastor and Ranking 
Member Frelinghuysen for recognizing the importance of this center, the 
Missouri Alternative Renewable Energy Technology Center, located at 
Crowder College in southwest Missouri. I am even glad that Congressman 
Flake created an opportunity to speak about this project.
  I really don't object to this process at all. I think the more we 
determine how we are deciding how to spend money, the better off the 
country is. I also think that it's good to understand that not every 
decision on where to spend our research and development money should be 
made by the current administration or by the current Department of 
Energy. In fact, I am proud of the research that we are doing in 
southwest Missouri, and it has already had and will continue to have an 
impact regionally and nationally on renewable energy technology.
  This center will serve as a living laboratory. It already serves as a 
living laboratory, modeling the best practices for solar and 
thermodynamic energy systems and striving to go even beyond zero energy 
consumption. Through these efforts, it has served as a regional center.
  The project we are talking about today integrates a variety of green 
construction practices, such as Earth shelter design, a green roof, 
rainwater harvesting, and low-volatile organic compounds, interiors and 
furnishings. This is designed to be one of the very first working 
examples of a net positive energy structure. In other words, this won't 
be a structure that just produces its own energy. It actually will be a 
structure that produces all of the energy it uses. It goes beyond the 
net zero building to put energy back into the grid, and it will provide 
distributed power to the electric utility company that serves the 
college.
  Crowder College has long been a pioneer in renewable energy. In 1984,

[[Page 17880]]

Crowder College, a junior college--a 2-year college--designed and built 
the first solar-powered vehicle to cross the United States. These are 
southwest Missouri kids out of high school and who are in their first 
or second year of post-high school training. They built the first solar 
car that did that.
  This same group, this same school, finished second behind General 
Motors in the first world solar challenge in Australia in 1982. In 
2001, they won the fuel-efficiency category of the second ethanol 
vehicle challenge. That's a vehicle, by the way, that is still used on 
the campus as a maintenance vehicle. This school won the People's 
Choice Awards in 2002 in Washington, DC, for the solar house 
competition.
  So they don't come to this, competing for Federal funds, without 
having had successes. They don't come without having done things that 
others have copied, shared and looked at. They come asking for this 
funding not only to help design, engineer and construct a center that 
is about to go out for bid but also to use that funding to help people 
learn how to use these building techniques. They are right there on the 
campus, learning how to create jobs. We talk a lot here about green 
energy jobs. This is a center that will actually be used as a 
laboratory in the building process to teach others how to do this green 
energy job creation and green energy building.
  As we know, buildings consume 48 percent of the Nation's energy. The 
MARET Center will consume zero percent of the Nation's energy. In fact, 
it will put energy back into the system. Programs like this are crucial 
to the efforts we have for our economy and for our national security. 
Our Nation needs to have a new energy policy, an all-of-the-above 
strategy, and this is definitely part of that all-of-the-above 
strategy.
  So I urge my colleagues to look at this issue and to look at it 
carefully, to look at a program that has already had national impact 
and to help this small 2-year college continue to do the things that 
they have been doing for over 20 years now to help establish green-
collar jobs and green technology.
  I would love to see our colleagues come to southwest Missouri and 
look at what is happening at the MARET Center, because people from all 
over America will be following their efforts and will benefit from this 
investment in the future.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I will inform our colleagues 
that the committee is opposed to the amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, this sounds like a great program. There are many great 
programs all over the country. Why do we need to earmark money for this 
one? There are a lot of other universities that would love to compete 
for these dollars and for this kind of funding.
  That is the problem with the earmarking process that we have. Members 
of Congress are able to pick and choose. We typically take from those 
accounts where we have money set aside for competition, where people 
can, based on merit rather than on political designation, compete for 
these funds. So, with that, I would ask for support for the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.
  Mr. FLAKE. Before proceeding with my amendment, Mr. Chairman, and so 
I won't gobble up my time, I would move that the Committee rise so that 
the whole House may entertain the unanimous consent request to modify 
my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's motion is not in order according to 
the rule (House Resolution 645).


              Part C Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. 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:

       Part C amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Congressionally Directed Project Eliminated.--None 
     of the funds provided in this Act under the heading 
     ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Energy Efficiency 
     and Renewable Energy'' shall be available for the Consortium 
     for Plant Biotechnology Research, and the aggregate amount 
     otherwise provided under such heading (and the portion of 
     such amount specified for Congressionally Directed Energy 
     Efficiency and Renewable Energy Projects) are each hereby 
     reduced by $3,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be 
modified to the form I have placed at the desk.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to part C amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. 
     Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Procurement and Acquisition of Alternative 
     Fuels.--None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to carry out, or pay the 
     salaries and expenses of personnel who carry out, section 526 
     of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public 
     Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142).

  Mr. FLAKE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous 
consent request. It has been rejected already.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. I want to make the point again here. I offered a unanimous 
consent request to stick within the time frames that we've been given 
by the majority party. The majority party said to us, Mr. Obey, said, 
We have an obligation to get our work done, so what Mr. Hoyer and I did 
was to offer the minority leader the opportunity, from a compressed 
number of amendments, to select their own amendments, any amendments 
they wanted, but they don't want to be limited by number of time. I 
don't fault them for that. I'm simply stating the facts.
  Well, here we are with the facts. We're willing to be limited by 
time. We have the constraints. All we want to do is have the ability to 
offer our own amendments, and we're not being given that ability. The 
majority party has objected to a unanimous consent request, not to 
offer an amendment that is not germane or that would not be made in 
order. It's just an amendment that they don't want to vote on.
  So this is the second time. It will probably happen again and again 
and again. I don't fault the gentleman from Arizona. He is carrying out 
the wishes of the leadership.
  I want people to recognize what is happening here. We have what 
amounts to martial law on appropriations bills this year for no reason 
other than the majority party wants to select the amendments that they 
want to vote on, not because of time constraints. We are living within 
the time constraints. We are okay with the time constraints. We are 
simply being objected to here, and are not allowed to offer the 
amendments that we want to offer.

                              {time}  1630

  With regard to this amendment, this amendment would remove $3 million 
for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research and would reduce

[[Page 17881]]

the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
opposition to this amendment. First I would like to thank Chairman 
Visclosky, Chairman Pastor, Ranking Member Frelinghuysen and all the 
Energy and Water Subcommittee members for their leadership on this 
important legislation and their support for this project. This is a 
good bill, and this is a good project. It will protect America's 
waterways and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I urge my 
colleagues to support the bill.
  This amendment that the gentleman from Arizona offers would remove 
funding for a project that would speed the transition of biotechnology 
from the laboratory to the marketplace.
  Since 1989, Mr. Chairman, the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology 
Research has steered more than $122 million towards energy research 
projects that are chosen on the basis of scientific merit and their 
importance for building a renewable energy economy, especially from 
biomass. The consortium works with more than 50 research universities 
in the United States of America and matches those universities with 
private entities, which transform their lab work into technology that 
can be introduced into the economy, creating jobs in the rapidly 
growing alternative energy sector. This is a picture of a wonderful 
public-private partnership that so many on both sides of the aisle talk 
about.
  Through the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research, the Federal 
dollars made available by this earmark are matched 130 percent with 
non-Federal funds so that for every $1 the government puts in, the 
private sector puts in $1.30, for a total of $2.30 worth of research.
  Recently, Mr. Chairman, Rutgers University in my home State of New 
Jersey partnered with the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research. 
Rutgers' work is focused on creating plants that require less 
fertilizer to grow, the result being less energy used in the 
manufacture of fertilizer, cheaper crops and easily produced biomass 
that can be converted into clean energy. The result is tremendously 
efficient research that is cheaper, that will give us better crops and 
the next generation of clean, renewable biofuels.
  Mr. Chairman, if we're going to combat global warming and break 
America's dependence on foreign oil, investing in research into the 
next generation of locally generated, renewable biofuels is crucial. 
The Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research facilitates exactly 
that, and I am proud to support this earmark.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair.
  One of the 11 sponsors of this earmark describe this organization to 
receive it as a ``nonprofit organization.'' A quick glance at its 
membership roster shows that in addition to 45 well-endowed university 
members, 46 for-profit corporations also partner in this consortium. 
Among them are Procter & Gamble and MeadWestvaco. There is a lot of 
private money for this institution as well. Here again we have a 
deficit of nearly $2 trillion, and yet we're spending $3 million on an 
earmark for a Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research that already 
receives funding from a lot of private sector organizations, and we're 
simply adding on with another earmark. Again, it's the case here that 
when you earmark dollars, in this case you are removing dollars from 
the account that universities and other organizations can compete for. 
Over at the Federal agencies, we have a mandate that they compete out 
these kinds of projects. People compete on the basis of merit, yet here 
when we skim money off the top and earmark it for certain 
organizations, there is less money for other colleges, organizations 
and universities to compete for; and that's simply not right. As we've 
said over and over again, it amounts to quite a spoils system because 
just a relatively few people in the House get the bulk of the dollars 
that actually go toward earmarks. So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a 
favorable vote on this amendment. We simply need to save money where we 
can when we're running nearly a $2 trillion deficit by the time we get 
to the end of the fiscal year.
  When I came to Congress just 8 years ago, I think our total Federal 
budget was just north of $2 trillion. Our deficit this year will reach 
nearly that amount. And still we're earmarking dollars right and left 
to universities or other organizations that have big endowments already 
or have private sector partners who already contribute money, and still 
we're saying they need more. Where does it end? When do we say enough 
is enough? I would submit that we should say it right here on this 
earmark, and I urge support for the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. May I ask the Chair how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes.
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will 
just inform Mr. Rothman that we are against the amendment and support 
the gentleman's earmark.
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. I thank the chairman. There are good 
investments, and there are bad investments. I think one would find it 
difficult and unreasonable to say that in the present world economic 
climate, as well as energy climate, that the United States doesn't need 
to do more to become energy independent. We do need to do more. This is 
a public-private partnership involving 50 research universities in the 
United States, where for every dollar of Federal money, the private 
sector invests $1.30 to come up with ways to provide renewable energy 
in a clean fashion and clean, green American jobs. I urge opposition to 
this amendment.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose an amendment 
offered by Representative Flake to H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. This amendment 
would strike $3 million in funding from the Consortium for Plant 
Biotechnology Research located in Georgia.
  I support this funding because of the amazing progress CPBR funded 
projects have been able to make. CPBR receives a small amount of 
funding annually and in turn has a competitive selection process to 
fund projects that further plant biotechnology that impacts the seed, 
agrochemical, forestry, food, energy, electric power, and other nonfood 
agriculture-based industries.
  On average, federal funds to CPBR are matched 130 percent with non-
federal funds. Industry must provide at least 50 percent cash matching, 
this requirement is not required by federal grants and goes to prove 
the worthiness of these CPBR projects and expedites their path to the 
marketplace. It is noteworthy that 372 CPBR-funded research projects 
have resulted in 129 patents, 67 patent applications pending, 274 
licenses, and 5 start-up companies. In fact, CPBR-funded projects 
average 2.5 patents/$1 million of federal funding. This is 
significantly higher than the university rate of 0.13 patents/one 
million federal dollars, that's 1900 percent higher.
  In Hawaii, CPBR funded a professor at the University of Hawaii who 
developed a process called ``flash carbonization'' which is now 
patented and has been licensed to several companies including 
Kingsford. This process uses a large cylindrical reactor to pressurize 
and heat tires, green waste and municipal solid waste to make a 
``biochar'' or charcoal that can be used to enhance soil or burn as a 
fuel. This technology has spawned two energy companies that are 
building new environmentally friendly industries and creating high 
paying jobs in Hawaii. This progress started with a small research 
grant from CPBR.
  CPBR supports higher-risk, longer-term environmental research that is 
essential to innovation, research that companies cannot afford to do on 
their own. With these federal funds,

[[Page 17882]]

innovative advancements in environmental and energy research are 
hastened to the marketplace where they can be implemented. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment offered by Representative Flake and 
vote against its passage.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, today, I rise in opposition to Representative 
Flake's amendment, which would reduce funding for the Consortium for 
Plant Biotechnology Research by $1 million. This project, which 
provides grants to universities for plant-based biotechnology research 
to promote a cleaner environment, has bipartisan and multiregional 
support.
  Funding for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research helps 
promote goals set out by this Congress: higher education, job training 
and environmental protection. A non-profit corporation based in 
Georgia, CPBR has partnered with researchers and students in 
universities located in 32 states across the country to develop 
biotechnology and renewable energy, biofuels and ``green'' chemicals 
that can be used in place of ones that are harmful to the environment. 
CPBR has been a pioneer in using plants and plant-based materials as 
affordable and environmentally safer alternatives to fossil fuels.
  CPBR is an example of what a public-private partnership should look 
like. Federal funding is matched, on average, with 130% of non-federal 
funds, allowing for $2.30 worth of research to be done for every dollar 
appropriated by Congress. The vast majority of the project funding, 
92%, will go to research projects.
  In my own District, the University of Michigan at Dearborn received 
funding from CPBR and the Ford Motor Company which allowed Professor 
John Thomas and his students to research safer methods of cleaning up 
toxic waste. They were examining whether plants could be used to 
extract harmful contaminants from the soil.
  Important research like this is being done in universities all across 
the country because of collaboration between CPBR, the federal 
government, and private companies. In addition to invaluable 
information gained from this research, a new generation of 
environmental students and engineers is being exposed to cutting edge 
technology. CPBR also has a history of working with predominately 
African American institutions like Tuskegee University and Albany 
State. These partnerships provide exciting opportunities for minority 
students who are traditionally underrepresented in the environmental 
science and research fields.
  Innovation from these projects can lead to new, high-paying jobs. As 
of September, CPBR research had led to 129 patents granted and 5 start-
up companies. Additionally, students that have participated in this 
research have gained experience that makes them more competitive 
applicants when they seek high tech jobs after they graduate.
  I am pleased to support the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology 
Research and its vital mission of providing universities and private 
industry the tools to collaborate to allow for vital environmental 
research. I encourage my colleagues to oppose Mr. Flake's amendment.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I join my colleagues in opposition 
to the Flake Amendment to H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2010.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I believe it is our duty 
to work with our colleagues across the aisle in crafting a bill that 
helps our country in times of economic peril. In a political climate 
where energy sources and technology have become a central focal point, 
we must do everything in our power to do what is in the best interest 
of the constituents in our respective districts, and indeed, the nation 
as well. This amendment, however, is not in the best interest of our 
constituents.
  The Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research (CPBR), Inc., which 
is based in the State of Georgia, is an organization which specializes 
in the transfer of plant biotechnologies from the research laboratory 
to the marketplace, and in the process, provides expanded economic 
opportunities through university research. CPBR's research programs and 
activities are undertaken cooperatively with major colleges and 
universities around the nation, including Albany State University, 
which is located in my Congressional district.
  In its short history, the CPBR has produced over 2.5 U.S. Patents 
with every $1 million dollars of federal funding provided. Through 
CPBR, every federal dollar is matched at a rate of 130% with non-
federal funds. Additionally, the organization has a commercialization 
rate on successful projects which is over 210% higher than what 
universities get on their own.
  The amendment offered by Congressman Flake frankly represents a gross 
lack of judgment, particularly given the enormous benefits we are 
continuing to gain as a result of the CPBR's research activities and 
tangible results being put in practice.
  The CPBR has successfully worked with a number of historically black 
colleges and universities (HBCU) through its HBCU and Minority 
Institutions Research Fellowship Program. This program provides peer 
reviewed projects at these colleges and universities which, has in 
turn, sparked development and growth between the faculty and students.
  This also broadens its interaction with its private sector partners, 
who work closely with the CPBR and its researchers, to carry out the 
transfer research and technology into the production of new and 
improved agricultural and manufacturing processes and products. Keep in 
mind, these are new products which were created and developed by 
students and researchers at Universities around the country.
  These industrial innovations create thousands of new jobs and 
strengthen our national economy. One example of CPBR's research is the 
current use of Miscanthus as a feedstock for bio-ethanol and other 
industrial chemicals--a discovery which is currently used to reduce 
pollution from petroleum-based products throughout the energy industry. 
This is a clear example of the contributions which this group has made 
in moving our nation toward energy independence and improved 
technological efficiency.
  We are all aware that advancing energy technology is one of the most 
important issues we face today. It is an issue that many feel very 
passionate about and affects the pockets of all of us and our 
constituents.
  So it is essential that we continue to support activities of worthy 
organizations such as CPBR.
  Mr. Chair, in closing, the enormity and size of the challenges facing 
communities impacted by the energy crisis is overwhelming. Funding for 
the work of the CPBR is worthy of continuation, and I would urge my 
colleagues to oppose the Flake amendment.
  Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


              Part C Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated 
as No. 4, part C.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part C amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Congressionally Directed Project Eliminated.--None 
     of the funds provided in this Act under the heading 
     ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Energy Efficiency 
     and Renewable Energy'' shall be available for the Ethanol 
     from Agriculture project, and the aggregate amount otherwise 
     provided under such heading (and the portion of such amount 
     specified for Congressionally Directed Energy Efficiency and 
     Renewable Energy Projects) are each hereby reduced by 
     $500,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be 
modified in the form that I have placed at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Arizona?
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. You know, I thought the third time might be the charm, but 
apparently not. Let me just make the case again. The reason that we 
have martial law this year on appropriations bills is because we were 
told we needed to stay within the time structure. Now

[[Page 17883]]

that excuse, I have to say, Mr. Chairman, was a bit suspect to start 
with. We are finished with voting today. We finished I think just 
before 4 o'clock. We'll be finished with these amendments and be out of 
here by 5 p.m. That's 2 o'clock on the west coast. Done for the night. 
And we don't have time to make in order a few other amendments? But 
here if that were the case, okay. We're accepting the time constraints. 
We accept that the majority party believes we should be done at 3 
o'clock or 4 o'clock today. So we'll just say, Let's just substitute 
one of the amendments that we would like to offer for one of the ones 
that we had made in order under the rule. Yet the majority party says, 
No, we only want to vote on the amendments that we want to vote on, not 
the ones you want to offer.
  So let's get rid of, once and for all, the excuse that this is a 
matter of time, that the minority party simply won't agree to live 
within the time strictures. That is simply untrue. We are agreeing here 
to live within the time constraints, unreasonable though they may be, 
from the majority party as long as we can offer the amendments that we 
would like to offer, but we're not being allowed that. We've asked for 
three unanimous consent requests, each have been objected to.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike $500,000 in funding for 
ethanol from agriculture at Arkansas State University, and it would 
reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount.
  Mr. Chairman, again, we see what we know is probably best referred to 
as a spoils system. One appropriator approached me the other day and 
said, ``I wish you wouldn't use that term. It's pejorative.'' I don't 
know if there's a less pejorative term that can be used. But here's the 
case: So far the earmark dollars that have flown out with the 
appropriations bills thus far, powerful Members of Congress--these are 
the appropriators and those who are chairmen or ranking minority 
members--they represent about 24 percent of this body. Yet when you 
look at the earmark dollars in CJS, 58 percent went to just 24 percent 
of the body; Homeland Security, 68 percent; Interior, 64 percent; 
Agriculture, 67 percent; MILCON-VA, 52 percent; Energy and Water--this 
bill that we're discussing today--58 percent of the earmark dollars go 
to just 24 percent of this body. It's a spoils system. I don't know of 
any less pejorative term to use. To the victors go the spoils, I guess. 
But that's another problem with earmarking. It's not just that dollars 
are wasted or that dollars in defense bills are basically given out as 
no-bid contracts. It's that just a small number of people in this body 
control too many of the dollars, and we're told that we shouldn't let 
some faceless bureaucrat over in some agency decide where to spend the 
money because it's our role under the Constitution here in Congress. 
But if you accept that, you have to accept the fact that every Member 
of Congress knows their district better than some faceless bureaucrat, 
as it's always said. But if that's the case, why do appropriators and 
other Members in leadership know their districts so much better than 
everybody else around here?
  So it seems to be a bit of a spoils system, Mr. Chairman. I have to 
say, on this earmark with ethanol, we're spending a lot of money on 
ethanol. When you take the farm bill into account, when you take just 
about everything else we are doing into account with the energy bills 
that have been passed, it's not as if we are starving this beast. There 
is a lot of money going in here. Again, we're sending $500,000 more 
when we have a deficit nearing $2 trillion.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERRY. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank our chairman Mr. 
Visclosky, Mr. Pastor and ranking member Mr. Frelinghuysen for putting 
together a really good bill, and the staff has done an outstanding job 
with all of this, and we certainly appreciate all the hard work that 
they've done and continue to do. It would be the most foolish thing we 
could possibly do in this country. We have economically succeeded and 
lived off of the great research--most of it that was begun during World 
War II, continued after World War II and made us the technology leaders 
of the world. It has tremendous economic benefits. For us to now pursue 
a course to say that we don't need to do research, that it doesn't 
serve a good purpose.
  The research that is being done at Arkansas State University, by the 
Arkansas Biosciences Institute that was created and funded by the State 
of Arkansas, and tremendous investments have gone into that institute 
and great work is being done there, some of it, a very small part of 
it, is being funded by the Federal Government. That is most 
appropriate. What this does is to make it possible to take the straw 
that is left after you harvest an acre of rice, and convert it to 270 
gallons of ethanol. That's after you take the grain off of it.

                              {time}  1645

  It makes all the sense in the world to do this, and this would also 
be applicable to other crops.
  So we are talking about using something right now that just lays 
there and rots and turning it into fuel that is environmentally 
friendly. And it makes absolutely no sense not to continue this 
research, bring it to fruition and put it on the ground and make it 
work for the American people and reduce our need for foreign oil.
  So I rise in strenuous opposition to this amendment. I would ask the 
House to join me in being opposed to this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. One minute remains.
  Mr. FLAKE. We spend upwards, in cumulative subsidies, of about $420 
billion at an average of $28 billion annually and climbing on ethanol. 
We keep hearing year after year after year, we just need to seed corn 
here, if you will, we just need it to prime the pump, and it will take 
care of itself later. And 30 years later, we are still subsidizing at 
about $28 billion annually. And then we have to mandate use for it.
  The truth is, we all know you can turn ethanol out of an old boot if 
you expend enough energy doing it. At some point, you have to question 
are we doing the right thing here with our dollars. When we are already 
spending $28 billion annually, does it make sense to throw in another 
$500,000 to Arkansas State University? Are they going to discover 
something that $28 billion annually for about 30 years has not 
discovered?
  At some point, we have to say we have a $2 trillion deficit and we 
have priorities here. So, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we have to 
start somewhere. Please, with this program, let's save some money.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERRY. I continue to be opposed to this amendment.
  I'm very proud of the work that has been done at the Arkansas 
Biosciences Institute. I think it is the kind of investment that this 
government needs to make in research and development to make sure that 
we continue to be the leader in the world in these areas.
  With that, I ask my fellow Members to vote against this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


              Part C Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated 
as No. 5 in part C.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page 17884]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part C amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Congressionally Directed Project Eliminated.--None 
     of the funds provided in this Act under the heading 
     ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Energy Efficiency 
     and Renewable Energy'' shall be available for the Fort Mason 
     Center Pier 2 project, and the aggregate amount otherwise 
     provided under such heading (and the portion of such amount 
     specified for Congressionally Directed Energy Efficiency and 
     Renewable Energy Projects) are each hereby reduced by 
     $2,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be 
modified in the form I placed at the desk.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. An objection is heard.
  The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. FLAKE. Let the record state, four times now, four times asking 
unanimous consent to simply swap for an amendment that we would like to 
offer rather than one that the majority party would like to hear. But 
again, it has been rejected. So I will go on.
  This amendment would prohibit $2 million for funding for the Fort 
Mason Center Pier 2 earmark and reduce overall cost of the bill a 
commensurate amount.
  According to the sponsor, and I don't see the sponsor here today, the 
Fort Mason Center operates the retired U.S. Army West Coast Port of 
Embarkation as a ``national standard for historic preservation, urban 
planning, sustainable business practices, nonprofit support and 
incubation'' and on and on.
  According to a 2001 press release, this is not the first earmark for 
the Fort Mason Center by the same sponsor. That year, the sponsor 
directed a $13 million earmark to the center for seismic upgrades. 
According to the sponsor, this year's earmark was requested for costs 
associated with ``repairs related to sustainability and energy 
efficiency, as well as seismic safety and patron access.''
  According to its Web site, the center ``embodies the essence of San 
Francisco, nearness to nature, combined with novel architecture, a nod 
to the past, and a dose of the different'' and boasts 300,000 square 
feet of space for 17 venues and on and on. This center hosts a lot of 
events annually. I suspect that more than a few of the attendees made 
their way also to the center's Cowell Theater last year, which is on 
the same premises, I believe.
  Now, I don't know why in the world we keep earmarking dollars for 
centers like this. They clearly are in areas, in this case, San 
Francisco, where there is other funding or other funding is already 
used. But in this case we have a particularly powerful individual who 
requested the earmark who is able to get it time and time again, and so 
we are seeing this earmark funded.
  At what point do we say we have to make priorities here? When you 
have a deficit that may hit $2 trillion this year, at what point do we 
say we can't spend another $2 million for the Fort Mason Center Pier 2 
earmark?
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Before I get into the substance of Fort Mason 
Center, what I would like to announce is there was concern expressed 
regarding the manager's amendment, especially as it related to the 
vehicle purchase as outlined in that manager's amendment. I am 
committing to work with all Members to address that their concerns will 
be addressed in conference.
  The gentleman from Arizona is right: we have a congressionally 
directed mark in this bill that will assist the Fort Mason Center to 
continue its best practices in its development. He is correct: since 
this base was basically closed down, this area has been developing to 
assist the people of San Francisco and the surrounding areas as a 
center for culture, education and recreation. It is located on the 
northwest side of San Francisco and includes a number of buildings and 
piers, and it leases space to 24 nonprofit organizations.
  The gentleman from Arizona is correct: this is an earmark that 
continues the development of the center. The attempt of this earmark is 
to specifically incorporate sustainable design and construction 
strategies consistent with LEED silver certification in the likelihood 
it will be better than that certification.
  The continued development of the center will now include more and 
extensive use of solar and wind energy and will serve as a model for 
sustainable practices within a historically sensitive context.
  And so with that, I would request a ``no'' to the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. I would yield to the gentleman from Arizona if he would 
indicate whose earmark this is.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. This earmark, its sponsor is the Congresswoman 
from San Francisco.
  Mr. FLAKE. I believe that is the Speaker of the House.
  Now, I mentioned before that the center contains a theater called the 
Cowell Theater. Last year the earmark sponsor went on a 12-city tour 
with her new book, ``Know Your Power: A Message to America's 
Daughters.'' I think that the Member who requested this earmark 
certainly knows her power. That is part of the problem with this 
earmark process.
  Again, let me point out, in this piece of legislation, the Energy and 
Water bill, 58 percent of the funding is going to just 24 percent of 
the body, people who know their power and know that they can get 
earmarks. And we hear a lot of high-minded rhetoric about earmarks, 
that we are doing it because we know our districts better than those 
bureaucrats, and these bureaucrats shouldn't be able to choose because 
I know my district better. But apparently just a quarter of the Members 
of this body seem to know their district better than everybody else 
because they keep getting all of the earmark dollars.
  So, when you strip it all away, we are earmarking dollars because we 
can here and sometimes to the same organizations or institutions that 
get it year after year after year. And when we are running a deficit 
that may hit $2 trillion, I would think that we ought to say enough is 
enough. The sponsor of this earmark appears to be associated with, 
either is a lone sponsor or in collaboration with other Members, more 
than $87 million worth of earmarks last year and more than $94 million 
the year before. So knowing your power certainly helps around here.
  At some point, this body has to stand up and say we can't continue to 
do this. We have to be stewards of the taxpayer money. And I would 
submit that when we are running a $2 trillion deficit this year, we may 
hit that coming up, then now is the time to say we can't continue to 
fund earmarks like this.
  I would ask for support of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Well, I would tell my dear friend from 
Arizona, and he is a dear friend, that this year we, our colleagues, at 
least those from Arizona, that requested congressional direct earmarks 
in this bill are part of that 24 percent and are very happy to belong 
to it. So, we will continue to work with Mr. Flake and other Members of 
Congress.
  I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page 17885]]


  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


              Part C Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 10 in 
part C.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part C amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Congressionally Directed Project Eliminated.--None 
     of the funds provided in this Act under the heading 
     ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Energy Efficiency 
     and Renewable Energy'' shall be available for the Whitworth 
     University Stem Equipment project, and the aggregate amount 
     otherwise provided under such heading (and the portion of 
     such amount specified for Congressionally Directed Energy 
     Efficiency and Renewable Energy Projects) are each hereby 
     reduced by $300,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be 
modified in the manner designated at desk.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, for the fifth time I will 
object.
  The Acting CHAIR. An objection is heard.
  Mr. FLAKE. I can't say that I'm shocked by now. This is the fifth 
time, I guess, but be it noted it is the fifth time we have asked for 
unanimous consent to offer the amendments that we would like to offer 
on this side of the aisle. But, again, this request has been rejected, 
not because of time constraints. We are living within the time 
constraints. It is because the majority party seems to only want to 
entertain amendments that they know they can defeat. They don't want 
anything controversial on the floor, and so we are breaking with 
tradition that has held for decades and decades, if not a century in 
this House, that we have open appropriations bills. Instead, we have a 
sort of a martial law with appropriations bills where they come under a 
modified rule that only allows the amendment that the majority chooses 
to hear, not the ones that Members want to offer.
  That simply disenfranchises most of the Members of this body, I 
should say on both sides of the aisle. Many amendments that were 
bipartisan amendments or amendments offered by Democrats were rejected 
as well, because the leadership of this body and the majority party 
simply didn't want to hear those amendments.
  This amendment would prevent $300,000 in funding for the Wentworth 
University for STEM equipment and to reduce the cost of the bill by a 
commensurate amount. STEM in this case stands for Science, Technology, 
Engineering and Math. Wentworth University is a private residential 
liberal arts institution. The STEM equipment provided by this earmark 
would be located in Wentworth's University Center for Applied Health 
Sciences.
  Now I can't imagine that any university in the United States would 
not want Federal funding to increase student capacity at their 
institution. In fact, I doubt these universities would even be picky 
about the field to which the money was designated.

                              {time}  1700

  But simply wanting Federal money does not equate or merit getting the 
money. You simply ought to have--to the extent that we provide Federal 
dollars for institutions of higher learning, they ought to be 
distributed on a competitive basis, not on a spoils system, not because 
one Member can designate here or there.
  We tell the agencies you have to set up a program by which people can 
compete for grants like this, but then we tell them, All right, but not 
for this pot of money. We're just going to designate it, and for the 
rest of the money in the account, then let people compete for that. But 
I'm going to get mine for my university, or she's going to get hers for 
her university, or they're going to get theirs for their university. 
That's simply not right.
  If we don't like the way the Federal agencies are distributing the 
money, then, by golly, we ought to change the way it is set up. And, by 
the way, they distribute that money, but we shouldn't run a parallel 
system where we say, We don't like the way you are distributing money 
so you simply will have to wait and watch while we distribute off the 
top.
  With that, 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. I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from 
Washington State, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers.
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Thank you for yielding, and I appreciate the 
time.
  I am in opposition to this amendment. To the gentleman from Arizona's 
point, if there was a way for us to set up a system whereby 
universities and colleges could compete for this funding, I would like 
to look at it. Bottom line, I believe that we do need to be investing 
more in this type of education.
  As a Member of Congress, I have become very concerned about America's 
competitiveness, and I look at what's happened in this country, and we 
talk a lot about our taxes and our tax code and the fact that we have 
the second highest corporate tax in the world and the impact that that 
has on our competitiveness and our ability for small businesses to 
compete.
  We talk about our regulatory climate, our litigious system, but I 
also think we ought to be looking at our education system. And we know 
that around the world other countries are investing in the STEM areas 
especially, the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and 
it's important to our future. As you think about America's ability to 
continue to be a leader in innovation and technology, a leader in 
research, I do believe that we need to be investing more in these 
areas.
  I'm one who is shocked to know that a third of our kids will drop out 
of high school. Fifty percent who go to college need some kind of 
remedial math or English. We need to be raising the bar and we need to 
be giving them more opportunities.
  As it relates to natural science and engineering majors, it's 
estimated by the National Science Foundation that we will acknowledge a 
shortage of 675,000 natural science and engineering majors in the next 
few years. We need to give our students the critical skills necessary 
to compete in the new global economy. Utilizing the advanced technology 
and state-of-the-art equipment in our colleges, such as what the 
funding allows in this bill, will help accomplish that goal.
  Whitworth University has seen a 57 percent rise in the number of 
students majoring in science. The STEM Project, which is also matched 
by private funds, will give Whitworth the ability to install the 
necessary technology and equipment to allow an additional 2,500 
students to pursue science majors. Moreover, inclusion of this advanced 
technology and state-of-the-art equipment in required research-
intensive courses will enable students to be better prepared to 
contribute to our Nation's workforce immediately upon graduation. This 
project is supported by a bipartisan group of State legislators, the 
Greater Spokane Incorporated, and many others that are focused on this 
issue, Mr. Chairman.
  There is no doubt that we must be concerned about out-of-control 
spending; yet I do believe there are worthy projects out there such as 
this one which will enable the United States to remain a global leader 
in the 21st century. And I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.

[[Page 17886]]


  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I rise just to inform the gentlelady that the 
committee is opposed to the amendment and supports her congressional-
directed earmark.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back.
  Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Let me just say again, here we have a private university. 
I'm sure that it's a great university. I'm sure this is a great program 
that it has, but we have private and public universities all over the 
country that are hurting badly and would like to receive funding like 
this and would like to be able to compete for funding like this under a 
program where they're on equal footing, where the money is not 
earmarked or cut off the top and just awarded to individual 
organizations or institutions. That's the problem with this process. 
It's one of the problems of this process. And so I would urge adoption 
of the resolution.
  And, again, let me just go back to the request for unanimous consent 
to modify the amendment.
  Again, going back to what the appropriations chairman said the other 
day to the majority leader or said with the majority leader, We did 
offer the minority leader the opportunity in the compressed number of 
amendments to select their own amendment, any amendments they wanted, 
but they did not want to be limited in number or time.
  Here we're saying we will be limited to number and time. We simply 
would like to select the amendments that we would like to offer, but 
we're being denied that opportunity. Five times. Five requests for 
unanimous consent. Five denials to simply offer the amendments that we 
would like to offer.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


              Part C Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Flake

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

       Part C amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Congressionally Directed Project Eliminated.--None 
     of the funds provided in this Act under the heading 
     ``Department of Energy--Energy Projects--Energy Efficiency 
     and Renewable Energy'' shall be available for the Boston 
     Architectural College's Urban Sustainability Initiative, and 
     the aggregate amount otherwise provided under such heading 
     (and the portion of such amount specified for Congressionally 
     Directed Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Projects) are 
     each hereby reduced by $1,600,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $1.6 million 
from funding the Boston Architectural College Urban Sustainability 
Project.
  I appreciate the fact that Boston Architectural College is interested 
in urban sustainability and green innovation. According to the college, 
they're hopeful that that project will serve as a model for densely 
built areas, such as Boston's Back Bay historic district. In fact, the 
Green Alley funding for this earmark would be constructed in one of 
Back Bay's public alleys. For those unfamiliar with Boston, Back Bay is 
a residential, retail, and commercial office district. It's considered 
to be one of Boston's most--in one of Boston's most high-rent 
neighborhoods.
  While the construction of the project may be carried out by the 
Boston Architectural College, it will benefit an apparently affluent 
neighborhood.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CAPUANO. The gentleman is right. It is an affluent neighborhood, 
but the school is not affluent. The neighborhood is not doing the work; 
the school is going to do it. The neighborhood will benefit from it in 
some indirect way because they all live near the Charles River. The 
storm water currently runs into the Charles River and pollutes it.
  I want to make it clear. This is like many other things, my 
presumption is--I don't know yet--but it doesn't sound like this 
objection is with this particular earmark. It's with earmarks as a 
whole.
  I want to make it clear. Based on things I have read in the papers, 
this college does not have a lobbyist, either a Federal or State 
lobbyist. No one from the school has ever donated to my campaign. 
Nothing at the school is named after me or is proposed to be named 
after me, and to my knowledge, the school has never received an earmark 
of any sort from the Federal Government prior to this. So unless there 
is an objection with this specific earmark, I don't know if it fits 
into all of the categories that I've heard in the past.
  Just for the record, I would like to point out that not every Member 
of the majority wanted this amendment to be offered today, but I don't 
mind.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. The gentleman is correct. This goes to the Boston 
Architectural College. The Sustainable Design Program is an online 
program. It allows students from all over the country to enroll in 
classes and complete a certificate without even stepping onto the 
campus. Who then will be carrying out the project?
  I just wonder how the residents of Chicago, for example, whose 
alleyways have to outnumber just about every city in the world, feel 
about this earmark. In 2006, Chicago created its own Green Alley 
Initiative, one of the most ambitious public street makeover plans in 
the U.S. However, instead of relying on Federal funds, Chicago used its 
own resources and relied on the Chicago Department of Transportation to 
implement the program.
  If the Boston Architectural College is trying to be an example in 
urban sustainability, maybe they should be, and we all should be, 
looking to Chicago for that. Not only has Chicago implemented several 
green initiatives on a much wider scale, but it does not appear to rely 
on an earmark to do it.
  We simply can't afford to continue to earmark dollars for this 
program or others when we're running a deficit that could approach $2 
trillion this year. I don't know how many times we have to say it or 
how many times we have to be voted down on the floor on these before we 
recognize we have to change things here.
  We are on a path, fiscally, that is unsustainable. And when we 
continue to have bills like this that earmark hundreds of millions of 
dollars not on a competitive basis--remember, earmarks aren't 
competitive. Earmarks mean that you forego the competitive process. You 
circumvent it. You tell those that are competing for moneys like this, 
You will have to take a backseat because we're going to take that money 
that you could have competed for and we are going to give it to 
somebody else.
  So perhaps this program is worthy of Federal money. Perhaps it isn't. 
It should have to compete for it. If we don't like the way the Federal 
agencies have set up the programs for competition, we should change 
them. We should instruct them to change it. That's part of the process 
of authorizing, appropriating, and then exercising appropriate 
oversight.
  But instead, here we're saying we don't like the way you do it over 
there so we're going to create a parallel system and we are going to do 
it ourselves, and that's simply not right. It's

[[Page 17887]]

done. It amounts to a spoils system, as I mentioned here in Congress, 
where few powerful Members tend to get the bulk of the dollars and 
amounts to something, in the Defense bill, where you are giving a no-
bid contract to private companies. And that's simply not right.
  We tell the Federal agencies you have to set up a program for 
competition, but then we do something else, and it's not right, Mr. 
Chairman.
  And I would urge support for the amendment and yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. CAPUANO. I will make the offer right here, right now. I will 
trade every earmark that will be designated for Boston for all of those 
designated for Chicago any day of the week. And if this gentleman can 
make it happen, count me in.
  As far as where the money comes from, let me point out that the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts is a donor State across the board. We pay 
more in taxes than we get back. I dare say that the gentleman's State 
is not in that category, and I don't mind that. I don't mind that 
because I see myself as an American, not just a citizen of Boston or a 
citizen of Massachusetts. I think that's the way we built this great 
country. So I don't have a problem with that. On occasion, do I think 
we have some good ideas in Boston? Yes, I do.
  As far as the gentleman is concerned about our deficit, I think he's 
1 million percent right; actually, 1 trillion percent right. And I 
would join him in anything he would like to do to actually deal with 
the deficit. One earmark at a time doesn't do it. It makes good PR. It 
gets the gentleman up and talking, and it gets other Members--I would 
really rather be reading the health bill right now, but that's okay.
  But I ask the gentleman where was he on November 14, 2002, when this 
House was voting on roll call No. 482, which was the roll call to 
maintain the PAYGO rules that were the only things that kept the entire 
Federal Government constrained?

                              {time}  1715

  Only 19 of us voted to keep the PAYGO rules. I was one of them 
because I share the gentleman's concern about deficits. You don't deal 
with deficits one nickel or one dime or $1 million at a time. You deal 
with them across the board, if that's the concern.
  If the concern is this particular earmark, I didn't hear too many 
things that designated this. If the concern is the concept of earmarks, 
well, I didn't run for office to do nothing. I did not run for office 
to allow the President or the Governor of the State--and I was a mayor. 
I don't believe in imperial executives. So we disagree on that issue.
  If it is deficit, I will join the gentleman anytime to truly address 
the deficit problem we have in this country because I think he has a 
good point on that issue, not on this earmark, which is exactly why I 
hope this particular amendment is defeated.
  And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendments printed 
in part D of House Report 111-209.


            Part D Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
designated No. 1.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part D amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Congressionally Directed Project Eliminated.--None 
     of the funds provided in this Act under the heading 
     ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Energy Efficiency 
     and Renewable Energy'' shall be available for the Energy 
     Conservation and Efficiency Upgrade of HVAC Controls project, 
     and the aggregate amount otherwise provided under such 
     heading (and the portion of such amount specified for 
     Congressionally Directed Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
     Energy Projects) are each hereby reduced by $500,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which would strike 
an earmark for a half a million dollars to the New York Metropolitan 
Museum of Art. According to the sponsor's Web site, the money would be 
used, For needed conversion of various HVAC systems for obsolete and 
high energy consuming systems to direct digital control systems which 
will vastly reduce energy costs while allowing for greater conservation 
and use of existing energy within the building.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to stipulate that I have no doubt that this 
would be a very valuable improvement for the Met. I have no doubt this 
is a good use of somebody's money, but Mr. Chairman, I have several 
questions about this.
  And listen, let me also stipulate that the Metropolitan Museum of Art 
is one of the great art museums in the world. When I have the occasion 
to go to New York City, I love to go to the Met. I particularly love to 
go to the galleries that have the art of the various impressionists. I 
can spend hours, if not days, there.
  So let me stipulate again, I have no doubt that this is a good use of 
somebody's money, but let me give you a little background, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The spending that has been taking place in Washington, D.C., is at an 
unsustainable pace. Already this body has passed a $1.1 trillion 
government stimulus plan costing every American family $9,810, 
including $100 million for an after-school snack program, $1 billion 
for the census; an omnibus costing $400 billion, costing every American 
family $3,534, including $150,000 for lobster research in Maine, $1.9 
million for a pleasure beach water taxi service in Connecticut; a $700 
billion bailout program so that folks like Chrysler, GM, AIG and a host 
of others can get taxpayer dollars costing every American family 
$6,034.
  Only 2 weeks ago, a new national energy tax passed by the House, 
where every American family that will deign to turn on a light switch, 
it will cost them between $1,500 and $3,000, and just yesterday, a new 
proposal by House Democrats for a government-controlled health care 
plan that will cost a minimum of $1 trillion, and the spending goes on 
and on and on.
  And so given that backdrop, I ask several questions. Number one, is 
the money for the Met, is this really a Federal responsibility? I mean, 
according to the chief financial officer of the Met, 31 percent of 
their money comes from endowment, 28 percent from gifts, 14 percent 
from admissions. Is it really the responsibility of the Federal 
taxpayer to pay for this improvement in a heating, ventilation and air 
conditioning system?
  And if it's a Federal responsibility, Mr. Chairman, is it really a 
Federal priority? Given that we just had reports that the national 
deficit exceeded $1 trillion for the first time in our Nation's 
history, I just ask the question, if it is a Federal responsibility, is 
it a Federal priority?
  And if it's a Federal priority, is it equal to other Federal 
priorities? Is it as important for spending money for the National 
Institutes of Health to find the cure for cancer? Is it as important as 
spending money on our veterans health care system? And particularly in 
this economy, Mr. Chairman, is it as important as giving tax relief to 
small business, the job engine in America?
  And if it raises to that level of importance, I ask one more 
question, and that is, is it worth borrowing money from the Chinese to 
send a bill to our

[[Page 17888]]

children and grandchildren in order to give this improvement for the 
HVAC at the New York Met? And as great as the museum is, as great as 
this HVAC system is, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it rises to that 
level.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you for offering me the opportunity to talk about 
the merits of the energy conservation and efficiency upgrade of the 
HVAC controls project.
  This has been vetted by my office, the Energy and Water 
Appropriations Subcommittee, and the Department of Energy, and they 
have decided that it will not only directly and positively impact my 
district but the Nation at large.
  Included in the energy efficiency and energy renewable account, this 
project will use solid-state sensors and controllers in direct digital 
control systems which have considerable energy-efficiency advantages 
over conventional systems. These features will yield energy savings of 
up to 15 percent when compared to conventional systems, thus a 
significant savings to the environment and a substantial reduction in 
energy use by a major museum.
  One of the goals of the Metropolitan Museum of Art is to reduce the 
energy consumption of its buildings while improving cost-effectiveness. 
To achieve these goals, the museum is seeking to use energy efficiency 
and renewable energy technologies, recycled and sustainable materials, 
and site-sensitive design to minimize the burden on the environment. 
And one major piece of this energy-efficiency effort is the upgrade of 
the various systems to boost energy output, while allowing greater 
control per building in the complex. And this will reduce energy waste. 
This conversion project will also help generate 20 employment 
positions, which is needed in this time of job loss.
  Finally, I would say that the Metropolitan Museum of Art is a 
national treasure. It is a cultural and artistic center in our country, 
and even if the gentleman or others do not recognize the value of 
funding art in our society, which I certainly support, it is part of 
the economic lifeblood of New York and this country. It pays 
considerable taxes, and it also generates revenues in our city from the 
over 5 million annual visitors to the museum. It is one of the top 
tourist attractions in the country, and by supporting this funding 
request, you support the thousands of small businesses in the community 
that will benefit from the many who visit it.
  I might also say that the museum is considered one of the finest in 
the world, and it includes not only the art history of America but the 
historical art from around the world, and it is also a center that 
helps other museums, including Texas.
  The museum recently volunteered its help to the Kimbell Art Museum in 
Fort Worth, which draws attendees from Congressman Hensarling's 
district, and exhibited the first known painting by Michelangelo. This 
painting was cleaned, transported, restored and hung by the 
Metropolitan Museum of Art. Without the contribution of the Met, the 
Kimbell museum in Texas would not have been able to support the 
exhibition of this invaluable work.
  I am confident this project is a valuable use of taxpayers dollars, 
investing in creating jobs and helping other museums, and helping the 
economic development of the district that I am proud to represent.
  In response to the gentleman's other points, our economic problems 
were not created in the 5 months that President Obama has been in 
office, and they're not going to be resolved in 5 months either. We are 
facing the most severe recession since the Great Depression, and it 
will take time for the Recovery Act to take hold.
  Likewise, the Recovery Act was not designed to work in 5 months. It 
was designed to work over 2 years, and the Recovery Act was designed to 
provide a boost necessary to stop the free-fall and lay the foundation 
for recovery.
  We are working as quickly as possible in my district and across New 
York State to move the stimulus money into the economy as quickly as 
possible. Economist Zandi estimates that in the last 3 months alone 
over 500,000 jobs were saved as a result of the stimulus spending. So 
far, $43 billion of the recovery spending has come in the form of tax 
relief to America's working families and businesses. Let's imagine the 
situation we would have been in if we had not had the TARP money to 
stabilize our financial institutions and let them fail. The failure of 
our financial and credit systems would have followed the failure of 
institutions, crippling our economy with millions of losses of jobs in 
so many directions and unemployment to millions of Americans.
  So I strongly support this. I believe it's a good investment in 
energy efficiency and job creation and the economic development of our 
country.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
left?
  The Acting CHAIR. Thirty seconds.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend, the 
gentlelady, I don't have the honor of representing Fort Worth in the 
Congress. My constituents appreciate the Kimbell museum. They 
appreciate the Met. More importantly, they appreciate the fact that 
they don't want to borrow a half a million dollars from the Chinese and 
send the bill to their children and grandchildren and future 
generations. Those are the taxpayers and the citizens of the Fifth 
District of Texas that I have the honor of representing.
  Spending is out of control. Let's start somewhere. Let's say ``no'' 
to somebody today so we can say ``yes'' to our children's future 
tomorrow. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


            Part D Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
designated No. 2.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part D amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Congressionally Directed Project Eliminated.--None 
     of the funds provided in this Act under the heading ``Corps 
     of Engineers-Civil--Construction'' shall be available for the 
     Pier 36 Removal project in California, and the aggregate 
     amount otherwise provided under such heading is hereby 
     reduced by $6,220,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would strike 
an earmark, also known as pork barrel spending, for Pier 36 removal in 
San Francisco California, reduce the overall account by $6.22 million. 
Apparently, Pier 36 is located along the Embarcadero in San Francisco 
Bay. Apparently, according to San Francisco's Port Authority, which 
owns the pier, removal of the pier is necessary to begin a new wharf 
project.

                              {time}  1730

  Again, Mr. Chairman, I would just ask several different questions 
about this particular earmark. Although I have no doubt that removal of 
this pier must be a good thing, I'm kind of curious why the San 
Francisco Port Authority doesn't pay for it itself. I don't think the 
Federal Government owns this particular pier.

[[Page 17889]]

  Again, I'm not going to debate that it's not a good use of money. I, 
again, question whether or not it is a good use of the Federal taxpayer 
money at this time.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to be put in context of the 
spending that goes on around here. Mr. Chairman, sometimes I just 
think: When will we stop the madness? When will it stop?
  My Democratic colleagues from across the aisle have now brought us a 
budget which will triple--triple--the national debt in 10 years. Triple 
it, Mr. Chairman. We will run up under their budget more debt--more 
debt in the next 10 years than in the previous 220 years of our 
Republic combined. This is shocking, absolutely shocking.
  Mr. Chairman, as you well know, for the first time in our Nation's 
history the Federal deficit has exceeded $1 trillion, and in just 2 
years the Federal deficit has increased tenfold. We are borrowing 
forty-six cents on every dollar--borrowing it from the Chinese, from 
the Japanese, from the Russians--tin cup in hand, running around the 
world saying, Please, please, lend me money, because I can't stop 
spending.
  I heard one of my colleagues earlier say, Well, you know, this is 
just nickel and dime kind of stuff. Number one, Mr. Chairman, I hope 
I'm never in Washington so long that I conclude that $6.22 million of 
the taxpayer money is not a lot.
  Now, I know relative to the entirety of the spending explosion that's 
going on around this place, maybe it's not a huge amount. But, Mr. 
Chairman, you know, if you don't start saving the pennies and nickels, 
how will you ever save the dollars?
  I have seen no attempt around this place to reform Medicare, reform 
Medicaid, reform Social Security. I mean, I'm told that somehow if we 
nationalize, federalize health care, that if we have a Federal 
bureaucrat somehow stand between people's families and their doctors, 
that somehow that's going to save money, when the Congressional Budget 
Office says it will cost at least a trillion dollars. And that's just a 
down payment.
  I have never known the Federal Government to take something over and 
somehow it's going to cost less money.
  Mr. Chairman, this goes to the culture of spending. Unless you change 
the culture of spending, you're never going to change spending.
  And so, according to the Web site, this is a request of the Speaker 
of the House. She can lead by example. More so than any individual in 
this institution, she can lead by example. In November of 2006, she 
said, ``You can't have bridges to nowhere for America's children to pay 
for.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, apparently you can't have piers to nowhere 
for America's children to pay for.
  The Speaker of the House once said, ``It's just absolutely immoral--
immoral for us to heap those deficits on our children,'' yet the 
Speaker of the House will heap an additional $6.22 million of deficit 
on our children. She, more than anybody else, can lead by example. And 
I'm disappointed this earmark was brought to us today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Actually, this pier is somewhere. It's in San 
Francisco. Pier 36.
  I bring to the gentleman that this removal--in the 2007 WRDA bill, 
the funds were authorized so that the Corps would begin removing the 
deteriorated Pier 36, which is located in the San Francisco waterfront.
  This pier was built in 1908-1909, and it was built of reinforced 
concrete for the use as a freight ferry facility. The pier was 
originally 721 feet long and 201 feet wide. The outer wood portions of 
the pier, after 70 years of being in the elements, have deteriorated.
  Recently, further deterioration has caused the pier to be closed and 
it has been secured with fencing to prevent entry. The deteriorating 
sections of decking and wooden support pieces continue to rot, break, 
and float into the bay, which represents a potential hazard to 
navigation in the adjacent Federal Channel.
  In addition, Pier 36 was constructed using creosote-soaked pilings, 
which contain a class of chemical compounds known to affect the 
viability of fish spawning. Use of creosote-treated wood is now 
prohibited in new construction in the San Francisco Bay.
  So, the removal of Pier 36, which was authorized in the WRDA bill 
2007, is needed to ensure that the continued deterioration, the piles 
that would fall into the water, would not cause a threat to navigation 
and the chemicals that they were treated with would be eliminated as an 
environmental hazard.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman. May I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 30 seconds.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, again, the Speaker of the House has 
said previously, in November of 2006, ``I'd just soon do away with all 
earmarks,'' which begs the question: Why is she bringing at least two 
of them today?
  She has also said, ``It is absolutely immoral--immoral for us to heap 
those deficits on our children.'' Why is she asking us to heap another 
immoral $6.22 million of debt on our children?
  It is time to lead by example. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, the committee finds merit in 
this authorized Pier 36 removal and we ask our colleagues to object to 
and refuse the amendment as offered.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.


            Part D Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment designated No. 4.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Part D amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Congressionally Directed Project Eliminated.--None 
     of the funds provided in this Act under the heading 
     ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Electricity Delivery 
     and Energy Reliability'' shall be available for the Automated 
     Remote Electric and Water Meters in South River project, and 
     the aggregate amount otherwise provided under such heading 
     (and the portion of such amount specified for Congressionally 
     Directed Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 
     Projects) are each hereby reduced by $500,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 645, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would strike 
another earmark. This one is for $500,000. According to the sponsor's 
Web site, funding would be used by the Borough of South River, New 
Jersey, to purchase and install automated remote electric and water 
meters for both of the utilities owned by the borough. These meters 
would provide bi-directional real-time information to both the 
utilities and the consumer.
  Again, not unlike my previous amendments, Mr. Chairman, I will 
stipulate I assume this is very interesting, useful, cutting-edge kind 
of stuff for the Borough of South River, New Jersey. I'm sure that this 
would help the gentleman's constituents. Maybe it will help make them 
more energy efficient. I will just assume that this is

[[Page 17890]]

good technology. Again, I assume it's a good use of somebody's money.
  But I again question, is it a Federal responsibility, number one. Why 
the citizens of the Borough of South River, New Jersey? Why not the 
citizens of Provo, Utah; Missoula, Montana, Bangor, Maine; not to 
mention Mineola, Texas, which happens to be in my district. Should we 
buy these for every single borough, city, town, village in the Nation?
  Again, Mr. Chairman, this has to be put in a backdrop of what is 
going on in our economy today. Since the President took office, what we 
know, Mr. Chairman, is that unemployment has gone up to 9.5 percent, an 
increase of just 25 percent since the President has been in office.
  Since he's been in office, the economy has shed 2.6 million jobs. The 
public debt has increased 13.66 percent. The Federal deficit now 
exceeds $1 trillion, $1 trillion for the first time in our entire 
Nation's history.
  And so I would again ask my colleagues: Where do you draw the line? 
Where do you finally say ``no'' to someone's project today so you can 
say ``yes'' to our children and grandchildren's future tomorrow? I 
would hope it would be here. I would hope it would be now.
  Again, like another of my colleagues said, I wish we were talking 
about savings trillions of dollars today. Frankly, I, as other Members 
of the Republican side, have offered amendments that would save 
substantial amounts of money, but a funny thing happened on the way to 
the Rules Committee. Somehow those--those weren't found in order. And 
so we don't have the opportunity to debate those amendments on the 
House floor.
  So I guess we're left to debate half a million dollar amendments 
instead of half a trillion dollar amendments like we would like.
  You know, we've got to remember that dollars have alternative uses, 
Mr. Chairman. Every dollar that is spent on an automated remote 
electric water meter for the Borough of South River by the Federal 
taxpayer is $1--$1 that cannot be spent on cancer research at the 
National Institutes of Health; cannot be spent for a rural veterans 
health care clinic; cannot be spent for tax relief for small 
businesses--the job engine of America. That's the national priority 
now, is to get the economy moving again.
  And I just ask, number one, is that a Federal priority? Is it a 
Federal responsibility? Why not other cities? Again, the critical 
question at a time where we're tripling the national debt over the next 
10 years, is it worth borrowing money from the Chinese and sending the 
bill to our children and grandchildren?
  Mr. Chairman, I say ``no.'' I say ``no'' so that I can say ``yes'' to 
my 5-year-old son's future, my 7-year-old daughter's future, and the 
future of all the children and great grandchildren of our country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. I understand the hope of my colleague from Texas to rein in 
excessive government spending, but he is really misguided on this one.
  This is a project that would provide real benefit to the residents of 
the Borough of South River, and as a demonstration project it would 
serve as an example for the rest of New Jersey and the Northeast and 
indeed the whole Nation of how to use technology to conserve energy, to 
use it more wisely. In fact, every dollar spent, to paraphrase my 
friend here, on smart metering, is indeed a dollar well spent.
  My constituents in New Jersey pay some of the highest utility rates 
in the Nation. In the Borough of South River, they are seeking 
assistance to help decrease the electric bills of the borough 
residents, and they're seeking to demonstrate that this works. Funding 
for the automated remote electric project will provide relief to the 
constituents in this municipal energy system, and it will serve as a 
wonderful example.
  South River owns and operates its own utilities. It's moving toward 
implementing a borough-wide smart grid. This metering that the borough 
intends to purchase is the first step toward this eventual goal. They 
would provide real-time consumption information. It would allow the 
users to make wise decisions based on the real cost of service in real 
time.
  It's just exactly what we have been discussing here in the House of 
Representatives in recent weeks. It's well established in the 
scientific community that climate change of recent decades can be 
attributed to the way we produce and use energy and that climate change 
is altering our planet in ways that are expensive and deadly.
  I spoke to the mayor of South River yesterday, who assured me that he 
is ready to go ahead with the project. It's one of their top 
priorities. They have been working on it for years, one in which they 
have already made considerable investment in preparing an efficient 
municipal utility.

                              {time}  1745

  This will serve, as I say, as an example.
  I might add that the gentleman's home State of Texas ranks 32nd in 
the Nation in tax dollars returned from Washington. My home State of 
New Jersey ranks considerably lower than that. As a so-called donor 
State, I don't apologize to my constituents for working to return their 
tax dollars. I really only regret that all municipal utilities in the 
country are not funded to convert to smart metering. This is certainly 
a good investment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I saw that the gentleman from New 
Jersey was lamenting the high energy rates of his constituents. And 
although I don't have the House Record in front of me, I'm under the 
impression he recently voted for the national energy tax, which would 
cost his constituents anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 a year.
  Second of all, I believe in the value of demonstration projects as 
well. My constituents would like a demonstration project of fiscal 
sanity in the United States Congress. They have yet to see one. Here is 
a small demonstration project of fiscal sanity on behalf of our 
children and grandchildren by adopting this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. May I ask the Chair the remaining time?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Let me try to figure out why it is that the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling) is proposing to do this. I can assure, I think 
it is unlikely that he knows as much about this project as I do, but I 
must say energy has been my professional field for most of my life.
  This is, I would argue, a good investment. To refer to the comments 
of my colleague from Massachusetts a while ago, this approach of trying 
to deal with the deficit and excess spending one project at a time is 
sort of a waste. If the gentleman is really concerned about this, I 
presume that we will find his vote in the ``aye'' column next week when 
we consider pay-as-you-go legislation.
  If he's concerned about earmarks, as a concept, then I would say, 
yes, the OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, speaking on behalf 
of the White House, should have included this project in their request 
to Congress and many more like it. But they didn't.
  And so, is the gentleman saying that the House of Representatives 
should just be an up-or-down vote on what the President sends to us? 
The President will decide what the budget should be. We take it or 
leave it.
  Well, no, that's not the way it should work. This is something that I 
offer. It provides no partisan political advantage. In fact, the mayor 
of this town is from the other party. No one from the borough, to my 
knowledge, has made any campaign contribution to any Member of 
Congress, any member of the borough government. No lobbyist is involved 
in this.
  This is just good policy. It should have been in the budget sent over 
by the President, but it wasn't. Lots of things should be in the budget 
sent over by the President, but they're not. That's why we scrub the 
budget and decide what should be added and what

[[Page 17891]]

should be subtracted. Call it earmarking if you want, but I don't. I 
would hope that the gentleman would not think that we should abdicate 
our responsibilities here as Members.
  I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will 
be postponed.
  Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Nye) having assumed the chair, Mr. Cuellar, 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. 3183) 
making appropriations for energy and water development and related 
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other 
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________