[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10668-10671]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1000
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2354, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
             AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 337 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 337

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2354) making appropriations for energy and 
     water development and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived. During consideration If the bill for 
     amendment, the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and 
     reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that 
     the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), my 
colleague on the Rules Committee, pending which I yield myself such 
time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all 
time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  House Resolution 337 provides for an open rule for consideration for 
H.R. 2354, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act of 2012. This rule provides for ample debate and 
opportunities for the Members of the minority and majority to 
participate in that debate. The rule places no limitations on the 
number of amendments that may be considered, as long as they comply 
with the rules of the House.
  This continues the Speaker's and the Rules chairman's desire and 
commitment to have transparency and openness, which was demanded by the 
American people. It's been a long time since we had this type of 
process, and it's great to have an open process. I think it helps with 
the partisanship that we have experienced.
  The underlying bill funds the Department of Energy, while also moving 
forward several ongoing construction and operation and maintenance 
efforts by the Corps of Engineers. It also provides $1.2 billion in 
emergency funding for the communities of the Midwest and South ravaged 
by tornadoes, storms, and floods earlier this year. $477 million is set 
aside for fossil energy research and development. Nearly three times 
the amount, $1.3 billion, is appropriated for energy efficiency and 
renewable energy programs to ensure that we continue to move forward in 
developing next-generation power sources and fuels. Critical defense 
environmental cleanup efforts are funded at a total of $4.9 billion.
  This bill recognizes the importance of a long term nuclear waste 
disposal policy for the United States; $3.5 million is provided for 
nuclear waste disposal for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage 
site in Nevada. Further, no funds in this bill will be used to shut 
down Yucca Mountain. Since 1983, taxpayers have spent over $15 billion 
for the construction of this facility, and this bill reasserts the 
sense of the body that Yucca Mountain is the future repository for 
nuclear waste.
  Is every program or project funded at the levels that we would like? 
Probably not. For example, long-awaited Federal funds for the 
Everglades effort in my home State of Florida are significantly pared 
back in this bill. I am sure almost every Member of this body could 
find some program, some project or effort that they would like to see 
plussed up. This is not a perfect world, however, and at the end of the 
day the funding levels in this bill represent only a 3.3 percent modest 
cut from last year.
  We have to scale back our spending. Appropriations in the last 
Congress accrued about $1.65 trillion in deficit spending. That's the 
largest ever. We borrow about $4.5 billion every day. And we just have 
to pare back.
  Will the cuts made in this bill alone right our Nation's fiscal ship? 
No, but it's a start. It moves the rudder; maybe a half a degree, but 
it does move the rudder to turn it around. The bill changes the way 
Washington has spent taxpayers' money in the past. For example, there 
are no earmarks in this bill. Also, because this bill is being 
considered in an open rule, any Member can offer an amendment to 
increase or decrease funding levels. Again, a 3.3 percent cut to the 
Department of Energy and Corps of Engineers budget will not solve all 
of our Nation's fiscal problems, but at least it's a step in the right 
direction.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation. Given our current budget situation, the 
Appropriations Committee has worked diligently to provide us with a 
fiscally responsible bill that allows Congress to begin living within 
its means, just like American families and businesses are forced to do 
every day.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on 
the underlying bill.

[[Page 10669]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to thank my colleague from Florida for the time, as well 
as to thank the majority members of the Rules Committee for a fair rule 
that will enable a wide variety of floor amendments to be brought 
forward.
  I do rise in opposition to the underlying bill unless there are major 
changes made, which I hope a majority of the House successfully 
achieves in doing under this fair open rule.
  The current political debate in Washington is dominated by the 
question of Federal spending. And I think it's a question that we need 
to revisit under each appropriations bill. We need to cut wasteful 
spending. We should eliminate programs that don't work, eliminate 
corporate giveaways, look at the cost of tax subsidies that cost 
billions of dollars to Americans but fail to create jobs, and really 
serve to enrich special interests.
  We also need to make sure that we don't lose sight, in our drive to 
reduce the deficit, that we impact investments that are creative and 
help our economy and reduce deficits over time. Just as a successful 
business making cuts in a recession would make the cuts intelligently 
and wouldn't cut essential investments on capital resources, Congress 
shouldn't slash domestic investments that create jobs while also at the 
same time continuing to give handouts to multibillion dollar 
corporations.
  Given the approach to budgeting this year in this body, it seems like 
the majority isn't basing their decisions on cold arithmetic that's 
needed to balance a budget. Rather, there seems to be a different 
equation in play, an approach driven by ideology and special interest 
lobbying, not by a real concern for deficit reduction. With this 
appropriations bill, I think what we are seeing is more of the same.
  How else can we explain a budget that ends Medicare while preserving 
tax subsidies for Big Oil, tax subsidies for corporate jets, and 
continues wasteful defense programs, in fact actually increases the 
defense budget when we know that we have more defense than we can 
afford in this country? Why is wasteful spending prioritized over 
health care for our seniors, the education of our children, and 
investments under this bill that keep our air and water supply clean 
and healthy, reducing health care costs in the long run?
  Now, again, when we talk about these appropriations bills it's not a 
debate over whether we should cut the deficit. I think Republicans and 
Democrats agree that we need to cut the deficit. It's a debate about 
how we restore fiscal discipline that has been abandoned over the last 
decade. Let's have that debate here in the U.S. House. And I am glad 
that this rule allows us do it under this bill. And I hope we are able 
to make some major changes to this bill.

                              {time}  1010

  Unfortunately, the Energy and Water bill as presented before the 
House under this rule exemplifies a reckless and ideological approach 
to the budget.
  This bill actually increases funding levels, increases deficit 
funding levels for fossil fuel research and development, oil and gas 
research, increases Federal spending on these programs, while cutting 
investments in clean energy research. In the past, Republicans have 
claimed that they were for an ``all of the above'' approach to energy 
policy, looking at optimizing exploitation of fossil fuels and also 
investing in new energy research, but instead of ``all of the above,'' 
this bill represents an ``oil above all'' approach to national energy 
policy. It's simply not a serious response to America's need for 
cleaner, more affordable domestic energy.
  At a time when we all agree we're confronting a fiscal crisis, how 
can we ask American taxpayers to foot the bill for ExxonMobil's R&D? 
That's exactly what we do under this bill. It's one of a series of 
subsidies for Big Oil that the majority has chosen to protect at a time 
that they're also demanding Americans see funding cut for schools and 
for seniors. Instead of increasing wasteful spending which benefits 
only the fossil fuel industry, we should invest in the American clean 
energy innovation that will benefit our national security, our 
environment, and our economy.
  This legislation cuts total funding for the Energy Department's 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 42 percent compared 
to 2010, at the same time increasing subsidies to oil and gas. These 
cuts will mean less innovation, dirtier energy and fewer clean energy 
jobs. In my home State of Colorado alone, over 5,000 jobs have been 
spun off of research that was conducted at the National Renewable 
Energy Laboratory, and the lab gives an estimated $714 million annual 
boost to our State's economy. It's that kind of research that is 
devastated under this bill. Through this open amendment process, I call 
upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support efforts to 
restore that funding.
  These labs, like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the 
basic Federal research, are incubators for the private sector. The 
investments don't go to bloated bureaucracies or government bureaucrats 
in Washington. They go to the actual hiring of experts and innovators 
that will spin off their ideas to entrepreneurs to bring to the 
marketplace, a model for private sector job growth that's critical for 
our Nation's economy and critical for our national security in meeting 
our own energy needs domestically.
  The Department of Energy's investments in clean energy are the first 
step in a job create domino effect. As of August 2010, as an example, 
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory had 329 contracts with 
Colorado companies totaling $414 million, including $75.3 million in 
the most recent fiscal year. NREL had cooperative research and 
development agreements with 23 Colorado companies, and NREL supports 
interactions with companies from across the Nation. That's just one 
example of the many research initiatives and public-private 
partnerships that this bill as written would call into jeopardy.
  And while again calling into jeopardy much of this fundamental 
research that has private sector applications, we're again increasing 
subsidies to the fossil fuel industry's research. There is a $141 
million or 81 percent cut to weatherization initiatives that help 
insulate the homes of low-income, elderly and disabled individuals in 
this bill, while continuing and increasing subsidies to the fossil fuel 
industry.
  Another dangerous cut in this bill is cutting funding to the Advanced 
Research Projects Agency, ARPA-E, by 44 percent compared to the current 
year. ARPA-E has strongly had bipartisan support for years and helps 
fund innovation in the economy based on a proven successful model we've 
had in defense for many years called DARPA. It funds path-breaking 
ideas that are unlikely to get funding anywhere else at an early stage. 
This creative model is crafted after DARPA, which has led to things 
ranging from cell phones to the creation of the Internet itself, and it 
has tremendous implications for America to meet its renewable energy 
needs.
  The bill before us is not smart, and it's not sensible. It's simply 
not a fiscally responsible bill that meets our Nation's future energy 
needs and cuts our deficit. I urge my colleagues to improve this bill 
through amendments during this open amendment process and, if it's in 
anything close to its current form, to oppose the final bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just like to address a couple of items: number one, the tax 
policy we've been talking about and how we could raise extra revenues. 
The tax policy we have today was given to us by the 111th Congress. I 
assume if they had wanted to change it, they would have when they had 
the majority. They didn't. They gave us the tax policy. We haven't 
gotten to that yet, but we will at some point in time.
  As far as the money we're using in this budget, it is a small 
decrease, but we have to do it. We're borrowing 40 cents on the dollar; 
$4.5 billion a day. We cannot afford it. If we were to increase the 
allocation in this particular bill, then we would actually be borrowing 
100 percent of that allocation

[[Page 10670]]

increase because we do not have the cash.
  So to me, we are here with a good bill. The rule certainly is a good 
rule. It's an open rule. It's the perfect opportunity for anybody that 
wants to change this bill to do so. However, the underlying bill is 
also a good bill. It's done very well.
  Just to give you a picture of what the minority said about it in 
their views that serve on the committee:
  ``We commend the chairmen, both the sub chair and the full chair, for 
their efforts to assemble this bill in an inclusive manner. The bill 
funds critical water resource projects, supports science activities 
necessary to American competitiveness, and contributes to our national 
defense through vital weapons, naval reactor research and 
nonproliferation funding, all priorities that unite rather than divide 
us.''
  There was a disagreement and that is over the allocation, but we 
simply cannot afford any more of an allocation for this than we have. 
The budget that was done is an excellent one under the circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. It is my honor to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California, a former colleague of mine on the Rules Committee, Ms. 
Matsui.
  Ms. MATSUI. I want to thank my colleague from Colorado for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been a tireless advocate on behalf of 
Sacramento's flood protection priorities. Sacramento is the most at-
risk metropolitan area for major flooding, as it lies at the confluence 
of two great rivers, the Sacramento and the American. The city is home 
to California's State Capitol, an international airport, the State's 
water and electric grids and over a half million people. If Sacramento 
were to flood, the economic damages would range between $28 and $40 
billion. The consequences of such a flood would be felt across the 
Nation.
  Even in this austere budget environment, it is critical that 
Sacramento's basic flood protection needs are met. I want to applaud 
the Energy and Water appropriations subcommittee for including funding 
for Sacramento's top flood protection projects. Each one of these 
projects is a critical component to improving the flood protection for 
the entire Sacramento region. Taken together, the completed projects 
will bring us closer to the level of flood protection that families and 
businesses throughout the region need and deserve.
  Moreover, these projects are already in the midst of construction. A 
lapse of funding would not only postpone the safety that the completed 
projects will provide but would also increase project costs, something 
that we cannot afford. In fact, these projects have already been funded 
at the local and State level and are awaiting a sustained Federal 
match. For example, Federal funding will help finish the Folsom Dam 
Joint Federal Project, the JFP, where continued construction on the 
auxiliary spillway will provide greater efficiency in managing flood 
storage in the Folsom Reservoir. The hundreds of thousands of residents 
living below the dam will be better protected once the project is 
finished.
  The JFP and our levee improvements will go a long way toward 
protecting and preventing flooding in Sacramento, but the funding in 
this bill does not fully support Sacramento's flood protection needs. 
The levels in this bill are actually below the Corps of Engineers' full 
capability.
  This winter, we have had record-breaking snowpack in the Sierra 
Nevada mountain range, which rests just above Sacramento.

                              {time}  1020

  We are fortunate that the snowpack did not melt all at once. When 
this occurs, our dams and levees are put to the test.
  Mr. Speaker, luck is not something that the American people should 
have to rely upon. Hurricane Katrina and this year's flooding in the 
Midwest taught us that we need to take large leaps forward in shoring 
up our Nation's flood protection infrastructure.
  Let's take the opportunity to fix our Nation's flood protection 
system while the sun is out and not watch another American community 
get swept away in high water.
  Mr. WEBSTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I have no additional speakers and would inquire of the 
gentleman from Florida if he has any remaining speakers.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill, again, while we appreciate the open amendment 
process, will need an open amendment process to correct because it's so 
highly flawed in its current form.
  It serves as the majority's vehicle for a whole series of anti-
environment, anti-public interest riders. These riders undercut the 
Clean Water Act, putting at risk public health and increasing economic 
burdens on local communities.
  The bill prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from applying anti-
pollution protections to many rivers, streams and wetlands that supply 
drinking water and prevent flooding. Over 100 million Americans get 
their drinking water from public supplies provided in whole or in part 
from waters that are at risk of losing Clean Water Act safeguards under 
this bill as written.
  Furthermore, the committee report language that accompanies the bill 
contains even more explicit policy directives, including the mandate 
that what was to be an independent advisory board on the safety of 
shale gas drilling be dominated by industry representatives, which 
would be a prime example of the fox guarding the chicken coop.
  Unconventional shale gas has been expanding into new areas at a 
breakneck pace and has been accompanied by growing health and pollution 
problems experienced by residents and communities when the drilling is 
taking place in close proximity to where families are living. Its 
growth is outpacing current safeguards and exemptions already give the 
industry too much isolation from public safety assurances.
  I have grave concerns that the committee felt the need to interfere 
in a balanced and truly independent technology advisory panel with the 
aim of silencing public voices in favor of representing the industry 
above all other legitimate stakeholders. In fact, the advisory panel is 
already heavily tipped in industry's favor, and the language shows us 
exactly whose side this legislation is on--entrenched industries and 
polluters, not the public interest.
  The annual Energy and Water appropriations bill is important funding 
legislation. Historically, it has been broadly bipartisan, and it 
shouldn't be a playground for special interest handouts. Yet under this 
majority, that's what this bill has become that we are considering 
today.
  The bill in its current form undermines our energy future, undermines 
our national security and subsidizes an energy industry that has given 
us record gas prices, fracking health hazards and dirtier air. It 
attempts to drive a supertanker-sized loophole through the laws that 
keep our clean water safe.
  This bill should be focused on investing in innovation to strengthen 
our country and our national security and our energy future, not 
focused on wasteful spending to special interests supporting entrenched 
industries and harmful cuts to their clean competitors.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to come forth and try to improve this bill under 
the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, as you heard me say earlier, my Republican 
colleagues and I are committed to providing a more open, accountable, 
and transparent process. And the underlying bill went through regular 
order, including eight different subcommittee hearings. Several 
Democrat amendments were adopted on the committee level. It has 
provided an open rule to allow Republicans and Democrats alike to offer 
their ideas in open, honest debate.
  This vote is on the rule, which provides for an open, transparent 
process

[[Page 10671]]

where the ideas and policies will rise and fall on the basis of their 
merit, not on their party affiliations. This is what the American 
people expect of their elected officials. It's an expectation that's 
being fulfilled by this rule, and I encourage my colleagues to join me 
in supporting its passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________