[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10683-10698]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2012

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reed). Pursuant to House Resolution 337 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 2354.

                              {time}  1245


                     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. 2354) making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Poe of Texas 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 New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring the fiscal year 2012 Energy and 
Water appropriations bill before the House this afternoon.
  Before I begin my remarks, let me thank the full chairman, Mr. 
Rogers, as well as the ranking member, Mr. Dicks, for their support of 
a very open process and their support of me as well as the ranking 
member. I would particularly like to thank my ranking member, 
Congressman Pete Visclosky, for his dedication to our joint mission and 
our close working relationship. The bill is stronger for his input and 
knowledge.
  I would also like to thank the committee staff, Rob Blair, the clerk; 
Joe Levin, Loraine Heckenberg, Angie Giancarlo, and Perry Yates. On the 
minority side, I would like to thank Taunja Berquam. I would also like 
to thank my personal staff, Nancy Fox and Kathleen Hazlett, and 
certainly recognize Mr. Visclosky's personal staff in the form of Joe 
DeVo.
  Mr. Chairman, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill 
supports programs critical to our Nation's security, safety, and 
economic competitiveness. Mr. Chairman, for far too long Federal 
agencies have been assuming ever-increasing budgets, leading to 
programs with poor rationale and even less accountability. Those days 
are behind us now. This bill clearly shows that much greater fiscal 
discipline and a strong national defense and a strong economy can be 
achieved together.
  The bill for fiscal year 2012 provides $30.6 billion, $1 billion 
below fiscal year 2011, and $5.9 billion below the President's request, 
bringing the total spending levels for our bill down to approaching the 
fiscal year 2006 level. An additional $1.03 billion is emergency offset 
funding which is provided to help recovery and repair efforts due to 
the severe floods we have seen in the Mississippi and Missouri River 
regions. These floods have resulted in immense devastation and loss of 
life and livelihoods. I commend the good work of the Army Corps, which 
is in the front lines, along with municipal, county, State, and other 
Federal first responders when tragedies like this occur.
  Mr. Chairman, there are no congressional earmarks in this 
legislation. The highest national priorities are protected by 
supporting the Department of Energy's national defense programs and by 
preserving activities that directly support American competitiveness, 
such as water infrastructure and basic science research.
  The bill also supports critical national security programs by 
providing $10.6 billion for the National Nuclear Security 
Administration, including $195.3 million above fiscal year 2011 for 
weapons activities to support the modernization of our nuclear 
stockpile.
  The bill also supports urgent, ongoing efforts to secure vulnerable 
nuclear materials worldwide and the full request to design a reactor 
for the replacement of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine.
  We've seen how catastrophic flooding can affect many lives locally 
and the economy nationally, and we know that yesterday's crisis could 
be anywhere tomorrow. This bill protects public safety and keeps 
America open for business by providing $4.7 billion for the Army Corps 
of Engineers, $195 million above the President's request, and $89 
million below fiscal year 2011. The bill makes funds available above 
the President's request for navigation and flood control, the 
activities most critical to public safety, jobs, and the economy, and 
gives the Corps 45 days to deliver and justify their spending plans.

                              {time}  1250

  This will give each project, whether in the President's budget or 
not, the opportunity to compete for these funds and ensure we 
understand how the Corps really develops its request.
  Science research at the Department of Energy strengthens American 
competitiveness and enables true breakthroughs in the energy sector, 
and the bill preserves strong funding for this program at $4.8 billion, 
just $43 million below fiscal year 2011.
  The committee continues to support nuclear energy, providing $8 
million above the request for ongoing research in promising new 
programs such as small modular reactors, which it funds at the request 
level. By reducing funding where stimulus funds are still available or 
where the private sector is able to invest without Federal help, the 
bill reduces funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy to $1.3 
billion, $491 million below fiscal year 2011.
  The bill also upholds historic cleanup responsibilities by funding 
defense environmental cleanup at $4.9 billion, less than 1 percent 
below last year's programmatic level, and includes language to curb the 
department's use of bartering to evade congressional oversight.
  Finally, this bill includes numerous steps across all accounts to 
ensure the administration follows the will of Congress. For example, it 
includes funding and restrictions enforcing that Yucca Mountain is the 
law of the land and cannot be stopped by executive action alone. Over 
the years, this House, in a bipartisan fashion, has been fighting this 
administration's disdain for sound science and the hard-earned tax 
dollars of our constituents that went into building that disposal site.
  Now the Government Accountability Office has issued a report saying 
that there is no scientific reason for shutting down Yucca, and the 
administration has been forced to release its own review showing that 
the science actually supports Yucca. Even the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission's own Inspector General has released findings highly 
critical of the way the NRC chairman has withheld information regarding 
Yucca Mountain from the public and his fellow commissioners. This bill 
supports these findings by including $35 million to keep Yucca Mountain 
going and language to ensure that political appointees at the NRC can 
no longer inappropriately use their insider positions.
  It also includes new reporting requirements so the administration 
must track, and show, that the investments we make in science and 
technology are effective uses of taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I take seriously our responsibility to rein in Federal 
spending in fiscal year 2012. The bill is premised upon hard questions, 
and focused cuts where the answers didn't hold up to scrutiny. This is 
the sort of analysis that will get our fiscal house in order. This bill 
deserves our Members' support, and I look forward to an open and full 
process and discussion.

[[Page 10684]]





[[Page 10685]]



[[Page 10686]]



[[Page 10687]]



[[Page 10688]]



[[Page 10689]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman 
Frelinghuysen and his staff for their efforts to be inclusive and 
transparent in drafting this legislation. The chairman has ensured that 
the Energy and Water Subcommittee continues its tradition of 
bipartisanship and, within the constraints of the allocation, he has 
done wonderful work. While I hope that we can modify some elements of 
the bill, I would observe that our differences are marginal and our 
agreement is fundamental. Also, I would like to join the chairman in 
thanking the other members of the subcommittee and also all of our 
staff for their exceptionally good and dedicated work.
  As the chairman mentioned, the allocation for Energy and Water is 
more than $1 billion below fiscal year 2011. This allocation has 
necessitated severe cuts to crucial programs. While I appreciate the 
chairman's considerable efforts and recognize difficult choices must be 
made to address the Nation's serious financial situation, this bill 
starkly illustrates the shortsighted nature of the spending cap set by 
the House budget. The allocation for Energy and Water is simply 
insufficient to meet the challenges posed by the economic downturn and 
to guarantee our national security.
  Importantly, the chairman continues efforts to improve program and 
project management at all of the agencies under the bill's 
jurisdiction. He has honed provisions carried in the past and 
instituted others aimed at increased oversight. To point out one 
example, the bill includes a requirement that the Department of Energy 
complete independent cost estimates at major milestones for projects 
with a total cost in excess of $100 million. A recent review of the 
department's cleanup-related construction projects by the Army Corps of 
Engineers paints a bleak picture of the management system for such 
projects and casts doubt on recent reforms intended to remove the 
department off the Government Accountability Office's list for high 
risk, a list that the department has been on for the last 21 years 
running. I am pleased the chairman has included a number of reporting 
requirements and statutory limitations that will contribute to 
increased transparency and improved management, and I strongly support 
his actions.
  The science account, critical to the competitiveness of our Nation, 
is essentially the same as in 2011, not an insignificant achievement in 
light of the challenge the allocation provided. The bill also provides 
funds for the continuation of a promising new program called ARPA-E, 
which can drive innovations to support our scientific competitiveness. 
While ARPA-E has shown some promise as a new organizational model, I am 
troubled that the same vigor that led to its creation has been largely 
absent when it comes to addressing the systemic management and 
communication problems in other existing applied programs.
  I support and appreciate the inclusion of emergency funding to 
respond to the historic flooding in the Mississippi and Missouri River 
basins. Communities devastated by natural disasters deserve our full 
support. I am, however, disappointed that the bill offsets this funding 
by withdrawing critical investment dollars from economic infrastructure 
in the United States. I would note that this is the second time this 
year that the committee has transferred funds between bills, the first 
time from Energy and Water Development to Homeland Security, and now 
from Transportation to Energy and Water. We need to reconsider this 
practice and not strip investments in one area to pay for emergency 
needs in another.
  I disagree with the notion that all funding for domestic emergency 
response should be offset immediately from domestic investment. In 
every year except two since 1997, the Congress has recognized the need 
for emergency funds to respond to the impacts of natural disasters on 
the Nation's water resource infrastructure. Since 2001, the Congress 
has provided more than $24 billion to the Corps for this purpose. While 
I grant that this figure is inflated by the enormous cost of 
reconstructing New Orleans and the surrounding areas, perhaps New 
Orleans would not have flooded in 2005 had we invested in critical 
infrastructure in the prior years.
  As we debate the long-term trajectory of taxes and spending, we 
cannot forgo actions necessary for the security and safety of our 
citizens. Yes, we must make difficult choices that will impact the 
future of this Nation, but we cannot allow those decisions to fall on 
the backs of those who have already suffered. Our country has provided 
billions in infrastructure funding on an emergency basis for dams, 
schools and roads in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet we don't have the 
fortitude to acknowledge that it costs money to protect our citizens at 
home. We must stop disinvesting in the United States economy. In its 
2009 report card on America's infrastructure, the American Society of 
Civil Engineers estimated an investment of $2.2 trillion is necessary 
to bring our Nation's infrastructure up to a good condition. Moving 
forward, we must have the strength to budget for emergencies on an 
annual basis. We know they happen every year, and it is time to begin 
to responsibly budget for them.
  I appreciate the chairman increasing Corps funding by $195 million 
above the President's woefully inadequate request, ensuring that some 
ongoing projects will not be terminated.

                              {time}  1300

  Even with this additional funding, the bill provides $677 million 
less than it did in 2010.
  Our ports, harbors, navigational channels and locks continue to 
provide the foundation for long-term economic growth. At this funding 
level, we are not close to addressing the dredging backlog that plagues 
waterborne commerce in the United States.
  Currently, for the top 59 ports in the United States, the Corps is 
only able to maintain authorized steps within the middle of the channel 
33 percent of the time. Every day, this costs companies that rely on 
these ports money and serves as a major impediment to expanding their 
workforce. This is merely one of the reasons why in 2009 the American 
Society of Civil Engineers gave our Nation's dams, levees and inland 
waterways grades of D or D minus.
  Renewable energy programs in this bill are reduced. We can debate 
whether our dependency on imported oil and other carbon fuels is an 
environmental problem or an economic problem. Either way, it is clearly 
a national security problem. We must expand the mix of our energy 
supply, and we must use the energy supply we have more efficiently, and 
we must also transport it more effectively. We have to make an 
investment to do that, and I do not believe that the allocation allows 
for the support necessary.
  I would note that the bill adds two hubs to the Department of Energy 
while cutting both the Science and Renewable Energy accounts that fund 
them, giving the Department a total of five. This organizational model 
has not yet been proven, and I have serious reservations about starting 
two new hubs in light of the cuts to the underlying accounts.
  Nonproliferation accounts are reduced significantly, and while I 
appreciate the chairman's efforts to preserve some of the most critical 
activities, the bill reduces our ability to counter the most serious 
threat confronting our national security and that is the threat of 
nuclear terrorism.
  The bill cuts the defense nuclear nonproliferation account by more 
than $460 million from the request. This comes on top of more than $360 
million cut from the request that was provided in final fiscal year 
bill 2011. These cuts reduce our ability to secure vulnerable nuclear 
materials around the world, delaying the removal of bomb-grade uranium, 
and limiting our capacity to detect illegal and illicit trafficking of 
nuclear materials.
  And, finally, I am troubled that the bill includes a misguided 
prohibition on funds to develop, adopt, implement, administer or 
enforce a change or supplement to rules related to the Clean

[[Page 10690]]

Water Act regulatory guidelines. This provision applies not only to 
this fiscal year but to any subsequent energy and water act. We should 
be taking actions that address legitimate concerns while providing some 
clarity and certainty to the regulatory process, not prolonging the 
confusion, as this provision ensures.
  In closing, I am truly appreciative that we are again doing the work 
of this committee, and I commend Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member 
Dicks for their efforts to this end. And as I said at the beginning of 
my remarks, Chairman Frelinghuysen has done a superb job. While 
marginal differences exist, our agreement on the overall bill is 
fundamental.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, this is a great bill. It's a 
model of fiscal restraint. I can attest to the fact that the committee 
has taken a long, hard look at each and every line in this bill to make 
sure that we are getting the greatest value from each and every 
taxpayer dollar spent, cutting back funding for programs that are not 
operating up to par. This bill is also proof that we can make these 
commonsense spending reductions without damaging or impairing the 
programs that help keep our country safe and our citizens at work.
  This legislation rightly appropriates taxpayer dollars where they 
should be, in programs that provide the greatest benefits to the 
American people and that get the economy moving again. This includes 
$30.6 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Energy 
and a host of independent agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. Now, that is $5.9 billion below the President's request; 
it's a billion dollars below current spending levels.
  The Energy and Water appropriations bill funds important work that 
affects every community in every single one of our colleagues' 
districts. These are the quality-of-life programs that preserve our 
public safety and our economic competitiveness, including energy 
independence programs and national defense programs within the 
Department of Energy. This bill supports Army Corps construction 
projects, projects which are vital to national security and which are 
of a tangible impact on job creation.
  But this year's bill is unlike any Energy and Water appropriations 
bill in recent memory, or perhaps even in history, in one major way. 
Some of our colleagues and critics were no doubt wondering how we could 
write this bill under the earmark moratorium, but I am proud that we 
have been able to craft a responsible bill that funds projects across 
the Nation without one single earmark. By doing so, we have made the 
process much more transparent, requiring that organizations like the 
Corps provide an outline of how, when, and why they are spending 
precious Federal dollars while maintaining the constitutionally 
mandated congressional authority over budget decisions. We have 
retained the power of the purse and strict oversight of these agencies.
  On the subject of oversight, I would like particularly to note that 
$35 million is included to continue the Yucca Mountain review process. 
The committee has supported these efforts for years, and I am relieved 
to see that the rest of Congress is finally beginning to see the light 
and support this program and to realize the extent to which the 
administration's position ignores good science and wastes billions of 
taxpayer dollars.
  While providing the vital funding for our Nation's energy and water 
programs, the bill abides by the committee's promise, and my promise as 
chairman, that we would cut spending wherever and whenever we can.
  I must commend Chairman Frelinghuysen and the subcommittee members 
and staff and the ranking member who have worked so closely together on 
this bill. They have found the significant spending reductions in areas 
that seem excessive and unnecessary increases, and in these accounts 
with large unspent balances. This is the responsible and serious way to 
get our budgets back into balance and to help keep us on track toward 
economic recovery.
  Again, I want to thank Mr. Visclosky and Chairman Frelinghuysen for 
doing a great job in bringing a bill to the floor under difficult 
circumstances. They work collegially and they work intelligently 
together, and I want to particularly thank the subcommittee staff on 
both sides of the aisle for their tireless effort putting together this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill that all of us can support, and I 
urge that we do just that.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I deeply respect my colleagues coming 
here and raising the subject of increased funds in this bill for the 
Corps of Engineers. I also want to thank Mr. Frelinghuysen and Mr. 
Visclosky for understanding this very important need. That money, in 
construction accounts and the Mississippi River and Tributaries 
account, will go to address an immediate need to repair and rebuild 
flood protection so that the victims of the historic flooding all up 
and down the Mississippi River and the Missouri River can recover from 
the terrible losses they have suffered.
  It's not just the people in the southern Missouri district I 
represent who need help; it's also people in Louisiana, in Iowa, in 
North Dakota, in Kentucky, in Mississippi, Illinois and a host of other 
States.

                              {time}  1310

  Throughout the country, people who rely on flood protection to 
shelter their homes, their schools, their churches, and their 
workplaces have seen their lives and their livelihoods totally 
disrupted. In one Missouri county alone, the economic losses from 
flooding are estimated at over $300 million. In the entire MR&T, the 
total exceeds 4 billion.
  Without the certainty of future repairs to the levee systems that 
protect them, these Americans will remain at risk. They will be unable 
to rebuild. They'll find it difficult to get insurance. They'll watch 
their family businesses slip away with the receding floodwaters. Long 
after the disaster, there will be many, many personal disasters--even 
if it never rains another drop.
  I know that some of our colleagues have raised concerns that this 
funding will come at a cost to future years of high-speed rail 
development. I greatly appreciate the desire to retain the promise of 
funding for those projects, but I must ask them to weigh the immediate 
need for flood protection against the future need for high-speed rail.
  If these repairs aren't completed by next spring, a flood protection 
system that barely holds against the record flood of 2011 will be in 
extreme danger in 2012. The Corps would not have the same tools at its 
disposal to avert flooding in many parts of the country, including 
major urban areas along the river, like Memphis, Tennessee, just for 
example.
  The funds in this bill respond to an unanticipated disaster of 
enormous magnitude. Failure to fund the effort to reset the levee 
system nationwide is an unnecessary risk with widespread economic and 
public safety implications.
  I urge my colleagues to recognize the certainty this funding provides 
to distressed families all over the country, and I ask them to support 
a responsible arrangement to fund the Corps of Engineers during a very 
difficult budgetary climate for the Congress and the Nation.
  In closing, I'm very, very grateful for the support of Chairman 
Frelinghuysen for this funding increase.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member on the Natural Resources 
Committee.

[[Page 10691]]


  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from Indiana.
  We continually hear from the Republicans that the pain of budget cuts 
has to be spread all around. Everyone has to deal with some pain. But 
we saw that was completely untrue in their budget plan. The GOP said, 
Sorry Grandma, not enough money for Medicare; sorry, low-income kids, 
we can't afford Medicaid. But billions, billions in tax breaks for Big 
Oil companies, they all stay on the books. They don't even touch any of 
the tax breaks for Big Oil, for Big Gas, for Big Coal. Tax loopholes 
that help keep companies offshoring jobs, those were too important to 
cut as well.
  The Republican plan is about misplaced priorities, and we see it in 
full display here, once again, today in this bill on the House floor. 
When it comes to nuclear power, the Republicans want to spend more 
taxpayer money after Fukushima. When it comes to coal, Republicans want 
to spend more taxpayer money. This bill even keeps alive the deepwater 
drilling program, ensuring that millions in tax breaks continue to be 
wasted on developing oil drilling technologies that rich oil companies 
already have and can afford to pay for themselves by tipping American 
consumers upside down at the pumps every time they go to refill their 
gas tanks. They don't need taxpayer money to do this. The last in line 
should be oil companies. They're the first in line. They are the first 
in line under the Republican agenda.
  Now, when it comes to clean energy, though, when it comes to the 
future, what young people think should be the future of our country--
solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, clean vehicles, hybrids, plug-in 
vehicles, all-electric vehicles, more efficient buildings, increases in 
science spending for research so we make the breakthroughs in energy 
research and weatherizing homes and buildings--what does this budget 
do? Down, down, down, down, down. They cut those budgets, every one of 
them. They cut the future. They cut the future. What do they do for the 
past, for oil, for coal, for gas, for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste 
dump? Up, up, up with the past. That's what this whole debate is about. 
It's a debate about the past versus the future.
  And their budget, this budget, cuts the future. It cuts it in a 
radical way. And it says to the young people in our country, you're 
going to have to wait for another generation before we see the 
breakthroughs in wind and solar and all-electric vehicles.
  That's the message to young people all across our country in this 
Republican budget. They cut wind and solar $134 million. They cut clean 
vehicle technology $46 million, green building technology $61 million, 
science research $43 million, weatherization $141 million. The list 
goes on and on and on--more money for technologies of the past, less 
money for technologies of the future.
  I will have an amendment next week that will give us an opportunity 
to rectify some of these misplaced spending priorities. But I have to 
hand it to my Republican colleagues for one thing. They are actually 
being honest.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
  I have to hand it to my Republican colleagues. They are being honest 
with this bill. For the first time, unequivocally, the Republicans are 
telling Americans that their plan is to retreat from a clean energy 
future, from a solar, wind, biomass and all-electric future. They are 
saying it here, We want to cut all of those programs.
  There's no hiding behind the numbers. They're screaming out here at 
the Members of the House on the floor and to the young people of our 
country. They're screaming, We are going to retreat from the future. 
They can't talk about their all-of-the-above energy program anymore. 
No, ladies and gentlemen. Their program is not all of the above. It's 
oil above all. That's what it's about. That's how they keep the tax 
breaks. That's how they keep the subsidies for the oil industry. They 
cut the programs for wind and solar.
  Now, which industry in America is the last one, right now, that needs 
a tax break? It's the oil industry. They're recording the largest 
profits of any corporations in the history of America. If we're going 
to begin anywhere, can we begin with them? Do we have to take it out of 
clean energy to keep all the tax breaks for those wealthiest companies?
  Do you know who's the happiest right now, who is really smiling? The 
corners of their mouths are turned upwards all across Venezuela, all 
across Saudi Arabia, and all across OPEC. They're looking out here at 
the Republican budget for the future, and they're saying, Ah, we can 
sleep at night. We don't have to worry that there will be more 
efficient vehicles. We don't have to worry that they're moving to an 
all-electric vehicle future. We don't have to worry that they're going 
to tell us that they don't need our oil any more than we need their 
sand. No. Their message is going to be, Bring it on. Let us continue to 
go on our hands and knees and beg for them to please produce more oil, 
please sell us more oil at $100 a barrel. Please do that. That's what 
this Republican budget says.
  Vote ``no.''
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank Mr. Frelinghuysen for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and simply to make a 
point about the emergency funds and the offset that's provided to the 
Army Corps of Engineers.
  I think everyone is aware, but I want to emphasize the dire situation 
we have today on the Mississippi River and, certainly, the very dire 
situation we have on the Missouri River that is costing lives, costing 
livelihoods, businesses, and the futures for so many families.
  We also, Mr. Chairman, have a dire situation with our deficit today, 
and we've got to address that. In order to fund the immediate repairs 
for the lifesaving levees, the committee proposed an offset from the 
high-speed rail. And that's really a program that they're talking about 
that in 10 years still won't be beyond the planning phases.

                              {time}  1320

  As the chairman of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
Subcommittee on Appropriations, I understand that a portion of this 
money would have gone to very important projects in the Northeast 
corridor. Some of these projects have great merit, and Chairman 
Frelinghuysen has been the strongest advocate for funding for these 
programs that do have merit. He understands it; I understand it. We 
will do everything that we can to fund those projects because they are 
needed up there.
  But I will also say that today we have an emergency beyond anything 
that I have ever seen before in my years. It would be a week ago 
Wednesday that I was standing on a levee by the Missouri River by the 
town of Percival, Iowa. Farmers were there on the other side of the 
levee trying to fix boils that were coming through underneath the 
levee, trying to save their farms, their communities. Some of those 
farmers, they were fifth- and sixth-generation farms, and they were 
fighting desperately to save their livelihood and their family's 
heritage. That was 3 in the afternoon on Wednesday. At 4 the next 
morning, Thursday morning, that levee blew out. And those livelihoods, 
those thousands of acres of farmland, the town of Percival itself is 
now underwater.
  That is why these funds are desperately needed today, as soon as 
possible, to make sure that we can fund the type of emergency that we 
have going on today.
  The Army Corps of Engineers needs that money today so they can repair 
those levees so we can save lives and livelihoods and the heritage for 
generations to come.
  Mr. Chairman, today is not a question of what we want. We all want to 
see improvements in the Northeast corridor, and we are going to do 
everything we can to make that happen. But it is about what is needed 
today, what

[[Page 10692]]

is an emergency today, what funds have to go to dire problems that we 
face and the dire consequences we will face if, in fact, we do not do 
the work that we need to do today.
  I commend the chairman for his great work.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair and the members of the 
committee and the exceptional staff that we have for their good work.
  I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chair, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
bill is yet another glaring example of the flawed nature of the 
Republican budget. To try to meet their unrealistic goal of reducing 
the deficit solely through domestic non-defense discretionary spending 
cuts, Republicans are proposing to make crippling cuts to our national 
investment in improving energy efficiency and the development of 
renewable energy sources.
  These cuts will only serve to make our Nation more dependent on the 
coal, oil, and gas interests that own the Republican Party and more 
dependent on importing our energy from insecure foreign sources. 
Meanwhile, our global competitors recognize that this is an area in 
which there are many gains to be made and they are investing heavily to 
develop their own renewable resources and promote domestic economic and 
job growth.
  Investment in clean energy is much more cost effective than continued 
giveaways to the oil and gas industry--the Commerce Department has 
found that clean energy generates 17 jobs for every $1 million spent on 
it, compared to just 5 jobs for every $1 million we throw at an oil and 
gas industry that doesn't need subsidies but continues to fight for 
subsidies and tax breaks.
  As a representative from Silicon Valley, I hear every day from the 
companies in and around my district about how renewable energy sources 
like solar, wind, fuel cells, and hydrokinetic are the wave of the 
future. To reach their full potential, these sources must be enabled by 
basic science underlying new energy technologies, by the development of 
advanced batteries for electricity storage and through improved energy 
efficiency across the board, through solid state lighting technologies, 
building technologies, and smarter electronic devices that know when to 
reduce their energy consumption.
  These fields are where the jobs are--WIRED magazine asked the 
professional networking service LinkedIn to survey its members who have 
switched industries in the last 5 years, and what it found was that the 
growth in Renewables and the Environment was 56.8 percent, far more 
than any other. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group, an organization of 
influential high-tech CEOs, includes ``greater deployment of clean 
energy and clean technology coupled with investments in energy 
efficiency'' in its federal policy agenda, because they know it ``will 
contribute to this objective [energy independence] while generating 
hundreds of thousands of new, sustainable jobs here in the United 
States.''
  Sadly, this Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill does not 
reflect these important priorities. Instead, it provides only $1.3 
billion for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs, 27 percent 
below the current funding level and 59 percent below the President's 
Budget Request. Funding is slashed for many activities: solar energy, 
64 percent below the President's request; fuel efficient vehicle 
technologies, 57 percent below the President's request; building 
technologies, 68 percent below the President's request; biomass and 
bio-refinery research and development, 56 percent below the President's 
request; home weatherization assistance, nearly 90 percent below the 
President's request; and the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, 
82 percent below the President's request.
  The unrealistic Republican budget has left us with an allocation for 
this bill that is too small for our Nation's needs, and too small to 
offer meaningful amendments to improve these woefully inadequate 
funding levels. To make matters worse, Republicans have been so driven 
by ideology that they required the chairman to include an offset in 
this bill for emergency spending to deal with recovery from the storms 
and flooding along the Mississippi River, an offset that would gut our 
national investment in High Speed Rail. This requirement marks yet 
another way in which this Energy and Water Development bill would take 
our Nation backwards, away from achieving a sustainable future.
  We need to do better than this bill. We need to aggressively pursue 
clean energy while we still have control of the game, before it is too 
late and our climate has changed forever, we are running out of oil, 
and we are running out of time. Silicon Valley is ready to lead, we 
just need the rest of the Nation to join us. I oppose this bill because 
it fails our Nation.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I would like to express my appreciation to 
the Chair and Ranking Member of the Energy and Water Development 
Subcommittee for the work they and the subcommittee staff have done in 
developing the FY12 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
  It is impossible to make everyone happy when the fiscal reality 
requires reductions, but at a time when we borrow 40 cents for every 
dollar we spend we need to be willing to set priorities and make 
difficult decisions.
  The bill before us makes responsible investments in energy research 
and development and it funds critical waterway infrastructure 
improvements, but it does it in a responsible and sustainable manner. 
One of the lessons that we all should have learned over the past 
several years is that it is in nobody's interest to expand budgets at 
an unsustainable rate. We are now faced with the unpleasant task of 
trimming back the budget to remove the excesses of the past several 
years so that we can get back to a responsible baseline.
  The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee has 
always worked in a bipartisan basis to address the energy and 
infrastructure challenges facing our nation, and I believe that this 
product is better for the cooperative and problem-solving approach of 
both the staff and subcommittee members. It is an honor for me to be 
able to serve on this subcommittee, and I am pleased to be able to 
support this bill.
  I would also like to speak directly to the Administration and NRC 
Chairman Gregory Jaczko. I'm deeply concerned that Chairman Jaczko has 
allowed politics to influence the NRC's decisions, and in my opinion, 
in order to restore public confidence in the NRC, the Chairman should 
step aside. Absent that, the President and Chairman Jaczko should take 
note that the bill we are passing contains funding to continue with the 
Yucca Mountain repository and the associated licensing activities in 
the NRC.
  Congress is making a statement here: continuing funding of Yucca is 
the fiscally responsible thing to do to prevent billions of dollars in 
future liability and to ensure that the $15 billion already invested 
has not been wasted.
  Again, I want to express my appreciation for Chairman Frelinghuysen, 
Ranking Member Visclosky, and the subcommittee staff for the fine work 
they have done this year.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chair, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today to object to the offset in the Energy and 
Water Development Appropriations Bill that rescinds all unobligated 
funds for the High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail program. This is 
funding that has been appropriated by Congress and awarded to worthy 
projects. Pulling it back now would break our commitment to our state 
partners, and cause costly delays for these job-creating infrastructure 
projects.
  In opposing this bait-and-switch to high speed rail funding for our 
states, I am in no way discounting the need for emergency disaster 
relief for our friends in the South and Midwest who have survived 
catastrophic flooding and tornadoes this spring. Additionally, I've 
consistently been a champion of deficit reduction, believing firmly 
that we need to pay for what we spend.
  However, I rise today to call attention to the absolute charade the 
majority is engaged in of requiring cuts to vital infrastructure 
investments to offset the cost of emergency spending. When this body 
appropriated funds for the victims of Hurricane Katrina, no other 
community was made to suffer. When this body appropriated funds for the 
victims of the California wildfires, no other community was made to 
suffer. When this body appropriated funds for the victims of the 
wildfires in Arizona, no other community was made to suffer. Yet, 
today, on the floor of this House, we are being asked to make a choice 
between one suffering community and another, for no reason at all.
  Mr. Chair, I've come to the floor of this House numerous times 
explaining the dire economic situation facing my constituents. The 
foreclosure rate in my district is almost double the national average; 
three of the top ten cities in the country with the highest foreclosure 
rates are in my district. My district is home to three of the top ten 
communities with the highest unemployment in the nation. We have some 
of the highest poverty rates and lowest per capita income and 
educational levels in the nation. As if that weren't enough, the San 
Joaquin Valley also has some of the worst air quality in the nation. In 
a nutshell, there is no area in the United States that cries out for 
job-creating infrastructure investments more than my district.

[[Page 10693]]

  Yet despite this incredible need, this bill proposes to eliminate 
$386 million dollars of funding for two rail infrastructure projects in 
my district, resulting in the elimination of over 10,000 direct jobs 
and an untold number that could be created by private economic 
development around the train stations. Further, recalling this funding 
would hobble a project that will ease traffic congestion and help to 
improve the air quality of my district. And this bill, for the first 
time, cuts funding for a regional and national priority in order to 
provide emergency relief. It is simply unconscionable to subjectively 
and maliciously force one community to suffer due to natural disaster 
somewhere else. It is simply unconscionable to make disaster relief for 
one region of the country come at the expense of a region that has been 
struggling for years due to the economic downturn. It is unconscionable 
and because of that, I urge my Colleagues to vote no on this bill.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chair, I submit the following letter in support of 
funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science in H.R. 2354, 
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2012.


                                Congress of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 13, 2011.
     Hon. Rodney Frelinghuysen,
     Chairman, Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
         Subcommittee, House Appropriations Committee, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Peter Visclosky,
     Ranking Member, Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
         Subcommittee, House Appropriations Committee, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky: 
     As you begin work on the Fiscal Year 2012 Energy and Water 
     Appropriations bill, we write to express our strong support 
     for robust and sustained funding for the Department of Energy 
     (DOE) Office of Science, and the critical research, unique 
     scientific facilities, and expert personnel that it supports.
       We recognize the fragile state of the nation's economy, and 
     support efforts to reduce the deficit and create jobs. But to 
     do so, we must set priorities and make smart, strategic 
     decisions about federal funding. We believe that scientific 
     research is the foundation for the innovative solutions that 
     will enable us to overcome many of our greatest challenges--
     from economic stagnation and dependence on foreign energy to 
     curing diseases and addressing threats to our national 
     security. That is why we believe funding for the DOE Office 
     of Science must be a priority in fiscal year 2012.
       As the nation's primary sponsor of research in the physical 
     sciences, the DOE Office of Science has built--and 
     maintains--a unique collection of large-scale, cutting-edge, 
     one-of-a-kind user facilities relied upon by approximately 
     25,000 researchers annually. Nearly half of these users are 
     university faculty and students. Others come from U.S. 
     industry and many are conducting research for other key 
     federal science agencies, such as the National Institutes of 
     Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). 
     Without these critical facilities, thousands of users would 
     be forced to move their job-creating research activities 
     overseas, or terminate their research altogether.
       The DOE Office of Science also supports a first-rate 
     workforce of research scientists, engineers, and support 
     personnel who work as teams on long-term solutions to some of 
     the nation's greatest challenges and who are ready to tackle 
     pressing problems at a moment's notice. Moreover, it plays a 
     unique and critical role in the education of the next 
     generation of American scientific talent, including thousands 
     of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers at hundreds 
     of U.S. institutions who depend upon DOE Office of Science 
     support and facilities for their research and training.
       This collection of research, facilities and scientific 
     talent has enabled the DOE Office of Science to contribute 
     greatly to our quality of life, our health, and our security. 
     The DOE Office of Science has been integral to the 
     development of several innovative technologies, including MRI 
     machines and PET scans, new composite materials for military 
     hardware and motor vehicles, medical and industrial isotopes, 
     drop-in biofuel technologies, DNA sequencing technologies, 
     more aerodynamic and fuel efficient long-haul trucks, 
     electric vehicle battery technology, an artificial retina, 
     newer and safer nuclear reactor designs, 3-D models of 
     pathogens for vaccine development, tools to manufacture 
     nanomaterials, and better sensors and detectors for 
     biological, chemical, and radioactive materials.
       By prioritizing funding for DOE scientific research--
     thereby supporting both the human and physical capital--
     Congress will preserve our capacity to innovate, reduce our 
     dependence on foreign sources of energy, enhance our 
     competitive edge in the global economy, improve our quality 
     of life, ensure our national security, and create good 
     American jobs well into the future. For these reasons, we 
     urge you to make strong and sustained funding for the DOE 
     Office of Science one of your highest priorities in fiscal 
     year 2012.
           Sincerely,
         Judy Biggert, Rush Holt, Randy Hultgren, Anna Eshoo, 
           Daniel Lipinski, John C. Carney, Jr., Barney Frank 
           (MA), Michael Capuano, Russ Carnahan, John Garamendi, 
           Grace Napolitano, Alcee Hastings, Barbara Lee, Ron 
           Kind, Donna Christensen, Lloyd Doggett, Tim Bishop, 
           George Miller, Tammy Baldwin, Steve Israel, Bob Filner, 
           David Wu, Jerry McNerney, Chris Van Hollen, John 
           Dingell, Stephen Lynch, Hansen Clarke, Zoe Lofgren, 
           Jason Altmire, Sander Levin, Laura Richardson, Marcia 
           Fudge, Henry Waxman, Robert Dold, Doc Hastings, 
           Theodore Deutch, David Price, Jared Polis, Louise 
           McIntosh Slaughter, Roscoe Bartlett, Silvestre Reyes, 
           Danny Davis, Paul Tonko, John Yarmuth, Mike Quigley, 
           John J. Duncan, Jr. (TN), Judy Chu.

  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chair, the Republican Energy and Water 
Appropriations Act would take American energy policy back to the 19th 
century. It slashes funding for solar, advanced vehicles, building 
efficiency, biomass, home weatherization, advanced energy research, and 
loan guarantees for renewable energy. Incredibly, as gas prices remain 
high the Republicans gut funding for fuel efficient automobiles. These 
cuts would be devastating for domestic manufacturers of renewable 
energy and energy efficiency technology, as well as our domestic auto 
industry. Consider the magnitude of these cuts:
  $97 million cut in solar funding, helping Chinese solar manufacturers 
at the expense of American producers;
  $46 million cut in fuel efficient vehicles, hurting consumers at the 
pump while putting American auto producers at a competitive 
disadvantage;
  $61 million cut in building efficiency, which will expose consumers 
to rising electricity prices;
  $33 million cut in biomass research, crippling a critical domestic 
industry which supports the timber industry and diversifies our 
electric generation portfolio;
  $141 million cut in home weatherization funding, an 81 percent cut in 
a program which saves consumers money by reducing their electric bills;
  $80 million cut for Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-
E), a 44 percent cut in critical clean energy research;
  $1 billion cut in High Speed Rail money, punishing commuters in 
congested regions like the Washington-Boston corridor;
  $43 million cut in science research, hurting American 
competitiveness.
  In addition to attacking domestic manufacturing, clean energy 
production, and efficiency programs, the Republicans have inserted 
policy riders to advance a radical anti-environmental agenda at the 
expense of Americans' public health. Their rider would block the Army 
Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency from 
implementing the Clean Water Act in accordance with guidance from those 
agencies. Following a decade of regulatory uncertainty following a 
Supreme Court decision, the Obama administration issued guidance to 
help landowners comply with the Clean Water Act. This guidance replaced 
a confusing patchwork of lower level court decisions and produced the 
regulatory certainty that Republicans claim to support. This rider 
demonstrates that the Republicans are not actually interested in 
regulatory ``certainty;'' they are simply opposed to any and all 
environmental and public health regulations. Since they know they can't 
win a public debate about these public health standards, they are 
trying to sneak in a rider to an appropriations bill to block the 
regulations.
  American entrepreneurs developed the solar panel and more 
sophisticated wind turbines, yet China and Germany are far ahead of 
American wind and solar production. The Obama administration requested 
funding increases for renewable energy so America can compete and 
produce clean energy generation domestically, but the Republican budget 
would actually slash clean energy funding.
  Just as the American auto industry is recovering as a result of the 
Obama Administration's intervention, this Republican appropriations 
bill would gut advanced vehicle and vehicle efficiency funding. We need 
to produce more efficient vehicles and advanced hybrid vehicles here in 
America. The American auto industry declined in the 1970s and 1980s as 
foreign competitors produced more efficient, technologically advanced 
vehicles. We cannot afford to give up market share again by 
surrendering to foreign auto producers.
  This Republican appropriations bill is not an isolated attack on 
American clean energy production and industrial competitiveness. The 
same Republicans have already passed legislation in the House--
thankfully not the Senate--to repeal the Clean Air Act and block 
vehicle efficiency standards in the future. Never in the history of 
American politics has one of

[[Page 10694]]

our great political parties been so blind to opportunities of the 
future and determined to repeat failures of the past.
  We have a real opportunity to boost American manufacturing of clean 
energy and advanced vehicles. Just as a result of the Recovery Act we 
went from producing 2 percent to 40 percent of advanced batteries. We 
cannot allow this Republican appropriations bill to reverse that 
progress and cripple American industrial competitiveness.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I am opposed to the Energy and 
Water Appropriations bill for several reasons. One of these reasons is 
that while this bill increases funding for the Army Corps of Engineers 
over the President's request, it is not enough. The Army Corps 
completes critical flood control projects and also, through dredging at 
our port, fuels a major economic engine in Harris County, Texas and has 
been underfunded for years.
  The Port of Houston is the largest foreign tonnage port and the 
largest petrochemical port in the country. In fact, it moves the second 
largest amount of cargo in the country, as 8.5 percent of our nation's 
cargo moves through the Port of Houston. The commerce that occurs at 
our port is critical to our nation's energy and chemical sectors and to 
our country's ability to trade and move goods throughout our country. 
It is a port of national significance, but has not received the 
attention that is necessary to answer the challenges we face in the 
near future. Despite the national importance of our port, it is facing 
a dredging crisis.
  Currently, the Houston Ship Channel is dredged to a depth of 43 feet, 
but it should be as deep as 45 feet. The Panama Canal is expanding and 
when it is completed, the Port of Houston should be able to accept 
ships that take full advantage of the larger Panama Canal, and for 
this, they would need a depth of 50 feet.
  However, under both the President's plan and the Republicans' plan, 
dredging at the Port of Houston will be left behind. For instance, 
under the President's budget, dredging at the Port is funded at about 
$23 million, that is $60 million lower than the amount necessary to 
just get the port to a depth of 45 feet, let alone 50 feet, which would 
be millions more.
  As we confront the dual challenges of adopting policies that create 
jobs and reduce the debt, funding for dredging projects is an item 
that, while costly, will have more of a positive impact on our economy 
than a negative impact on our deficit. The Texas Transportation 
Institute performed a study and determined that a direct economic 
impact of the loss of 1 foot of draft is $373 million. The majority of 
this impact is lost business opportunities due to light loading of non-
containerized vessels. As the dredging crisis at the port continues to 
worsen, this opportunity cost will quickly accelerate.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, today I rise in opposition to the H.R. 2354, 
the Fiscal Year 2012 Energy & Water Development Appropriations Bill. In 
particular, I oppose the provisions of this legislation that would 
rescind all remaining unobligated high-speed rail American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act funds. The rescission would eliminate rail funding for 
the high-speed Chicago to Detroit line, eliminate thousands of jobs, 
and provide fewer travel options for my constituents.
  Well over $492 million is cut from three projects, which are critical 
components of this high speed rail line. Even worse, these cuts would 
eliminate more than 13,000 jobs in a community where good paying jobs 
are few and far between.
  High speed rail would give my constituents a viable and green 
commuting option in the Midwest. Having the ability to travel from 
Detroit to Chicago with the speed of a plane flight would open the 
doors to new business investments in the Metro Detroit area and connect 
major markets in the Midwest. It would be a win-win for consumers and 
business.
  Mr. Chair, it is appalling that this body seems to lack the courage 
to strive for greatness for America.
  Franklin Coolidge had that courage. He worked with Congress to create 
the Hoover Dam.
  Dwight Eisenhower had that courage. He worked with Congress to create 
the National Highway System.
  John Kennedy had that courage. He and Congress sent our country to 
the moon.
  Where is this body's courage? Where is the belief that America can 
still do and build great things? Do we still have the desire to be the 
best, or will we let China lead the way on when it comes to 
manufacturing and high speed rail in the 21st Century?
  I for one believe America can, and must, be a leader when it comes to 
investing in our country's economic future. I urge my colleagues to 
reject this defeatist bill and embrace a 21st century transit system.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chair, pursuant to the terms for debate 
on H.R. 2354, the Energy & Water Development Appropriations bill; I 
submit the following.

                                                2010 FORTUNE 100
                    source: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2010/full_list/
      [Note: Revenue figures for all companies include consolidated subsidiaries and exclude excise taxes.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Revenues  ($     Profits  ($
               Rank                      Company           millions)       millions)       Industry descriptor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2................................  Exxon Mobil........      284,650.00       19,280.00  Energy development and
                                                                                         production
3................................  Chevron............      163,527.00       10,483.00  Energy development and
                                                                                         production
4................................  General Electric...      156,779.00       11,025.00  High-value durable goods
                                                                                         manufacturing
8................................  Ford Motor.........      118,308.00        2,717.00  High-value durable goods
                                                                                         manufacturing
10...............................  Hewelett-Packard...      114,552.00        7,660.00  IT equipment development
                                                                                         and production
15...............................  General Motors.....      104,589.00            N.A.  High-value durable goods
                                                                                         manufacturing
20...............................  International             95,758.00       13,425.00  IT equipment development
                                    Business Machines.                                   and production
22...............................  Procter & Gamble...       79,697.00       13,436.00  Household product
                                                                                         manufacturing
28...............................  Boeing.............       68,281.00        1,312.00  Defense/Aerospace
33...............................  Johnson & Johnson..       61,897.00       12,266.00  Pharamaceutical
                                                                                         development and
                                                                                         production
37...............................  United Technologies       52,920.00        3,829.00  Defense/Aerospace
40...............................  Pfizer.............       50,009.00        8,635.00  Pharamaceutical
                                                                                         development and
                                                                                         production
44...............................  Lockheed Martin....       45,189.00        3,024.00  Defense/Aerospace
46...............................  Dow Chemical.......       44,945.00             648  Chemical development and
                                                                                         production
61...............................  Northrop Grumman...       35,291.00        1,686.00  Defense/Aerospace
62...............................  Intel..............       35,127.00        4,369.00  Semiconductor
                                                                                         development and
                                                                                         production
66...............................  Caterpillar........       32,396.00             895  High-value durable goods
                                                                                         manufacturing
74...............................  Honeywell                 30,908.00        2,153.00  Defense/Aerospace
                                    International.
75...............................  Abbott Laboratories       30,764.70        5,745.80  Pharamaceutical
                                                                                         development and
                                                                                         production
85...............................  Merck..............       27,428.30       12,901.30  Pharamaceutical
                                                                                         development and
                                                                                         production
86...............................  DuPont.............       27,328.00        1,755.00  Chemical development and
                                                                                         production
95...............................  Raytheon...........       24,881.00        1,935.00  Defense/Aerospace
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chair, I am concerned about the devastating impact 
that the underlying legislation will have on the clean energy economy. 
H.R. 2354 is a disappointment to those working to advance the clean 
energy economy because it slashes investments--by 40 percent from the 
President's request--in the new clean energy jobs of the future, 
ranging from solar to biomass to wind, and new technologies for more 
energy efficient cars and buildings.
  Today, more than ever, we need investments in clean energy research, 
innovation, and manufacturing--investments which can grow new 
industries, create American jobs, reduce U.S. oil dependence, and 
increase our national security. H.R. 2354 abandons efforts for a new 
American energy economy that would lower electricity prices for 
families, reduce our reliance on foreign energy, and increase energy 
independence.
  While I understand the fiscal situation we are in, H.R. 2354 cuts 
programs that can be targeted to actually grow our economy. The bill 
slashes Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EERE, by 27 percent, 
cuts the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, ARPA-E, by 44 
percent, cuts Weatherization Assistance Grants and associated training 
programs by 81 percent, all the while increasing funding for fossil 
fuel research and development. I believe that this demonstrates that 
the priorities of H.R 2354 are aligned with outdated 20th century 
energy policies that will not recharge our new economy. A 21st century 
Energy and Water Appropriations Act should include measures to increase 
funding for renewable energy and clean technology and

[[Page 10695]]

these increases should be offset by dollars from fossil energy research 
and development.
  To help strengthen our economy and create new jobs, we must rebuild 
America. In a report released this week by the Brookings Institution 
entitled ``Sizing the Clean Energy Economy: A National and Regional 
Green Jobs Assessment,'' it is reported that 2.7 million Americans are 
now employed in the clean technology economy. The report found that in 
the State of Washington, there are 83,676 clean energy jobs, with an 
annual wage of $46,457. The report showed that median wages for clean-
economy workers are about 13 percent higher than median U.S. wages. The 
clean technology economy has created export intensive jobs; on average, 
twice as much value is exported from clean tech jobs than the national 
average. The potential for future job creation in the clean energy 
economy is endless and targeted investments in this new economy make 
sense.
  As the House of Representatives considers amendments to H.R. 2354, I 
urge my colleagues to consider the opportunities for economic growth 
and job creation embodied in the clean energy economy and oppose the 
misguided priorities in this bill.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chair, I would like to address some concerns from my 
constituents about the Army Corps of Engineers permitting process.
   As I travel around Virginia's First District, I hear from many 
constituents about their frustration with policies and regulations from 
Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, large federal government bureaucracies 
can get out of control and fail to protect the citizens and taxpayers.
   The Army Corps of Engineers is an important agency in coastal 
Virginia. They have many responsibilities to promote navigation, 
commerce and environmental restoration. However, there are some 
occasions where I believe the multiple levels of bureaucracy and lack 
of accountability of decision makers can lead to situations that are 
unfair to Americans.
   I've worked on the behalf of one of my constituents, a small marina 
owner who believes he was harmed due to a permitting mistake by the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In this case a permitting decision 
ultimately cost this small business a significant amount of money.
   I raise these issues to highlight the impact Agency action can have 
on main street businesses. I raise these issues to suggest the need for 
additional accountability to ensure that Army Corps permitting 
decisions are made appropriately and that the Corps works hand in hand 
with small businesses to mitigate financial harm.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose H.R. 2354, which 
underfunds important clean energy priorities at a cost to the American 
public's health and welfare. Fiscal discipline is an important goal, 
and I support efforts to think critically about how to put the nation 
on a sound fiscal path. However this bill fails to accomplish that. 
This appropriations bill cuts funding for energy efficiency and 
renewable energy development programs that help American homeowners 
save money on their utility bills. At the same time, the bill increases 
funding for fossil fuel technologies, which have no need of tax 
incentives or financial support, and which increase the level of 
harmful air and water pollution.
  Energy efficiency and renewable energy programs offer the best chance 
that our nation has to become more energy independent and reduce 
climate-change inducing pollutants. Yet this bill cuts total funding 
for the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy by 27 percent and cuts Advanced Research Projects 
Agency--Energy by 44 percent compared to FY11. These clean energy 
programs have helped drive strong growth in solar and wind generation 
over the past decade, while reducing the costs of these technologies 
significantly. ARPA-E's support for path-breaking advanced technologies 
could hold the key to our energy future. In the long run, these cuts 
will mean less innovation, dirtier energy, and fewer clean energy jobs. 
This is absolutely the wrong way to drive American leadership and 
energy independence.
  Two programs that have been improving our energy security while 
helping households to keep down their utilities bills are the 
Weatherization Assistance Program, WAP, and the State Energy Program, 
SEP. These programs target residential buildings, reducing the burden 
on low-income families by an average of 35 percent of utility bills and 
supporting local economies. The State Energy Program encourages 
innovative technologies and leverages Federal funds; since 2006, the 
State of Oregon has leveraged approximately $27 in non-federal funds 
for every $1 of SEP funds spent. These programs have demonstrated 
success, yet H.R. 2354 severely cuts funding. In Oregon alone, these 
cuts would mean that an estimated 374 families would no longer be 
eligible for weatherization assistance. For these reasons, I support 
the amendment offered by Representatives Tonko and Bass that would 
increase WAP and SEP funding by $141.3 million and $25 million, 
respectively.
  In addition to handicapping energy innovation, the bill also includes 
a very damaging policy rider that would undermine the Clean Water Act. 
This rider would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from restoring 
Clean Water Act 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. 
The recent flood events around the country have demonstrated some of 
the problems with wetlands losses, and these would be made even worse 
by blocking the Army Corps' ability to protect these waters.
  Amendments passed on the Floor during debate mostly made this bad 
bill even worse. For example, I voted against an amendment by Rep. 
Burgess that would prevent important new efficiency standards for light 
bulbs from going into effect. These standards, passed as part of the 
2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, are supported by industry 
and consumer groups as well as efficiency advocates. They would mean 
$100 in savings for the average American family per year. I'm 
disappointed in the passage of this amendment to prevent DOE from 
enforcing these standards.
  Now is the time to be putting America on track toward a clean energy 
future, and working to reduce the damage to our water and air quality 
that harm public health. I support policies to create a green energy 
economy, to reduce dependence on foreign oil, to support advanced 
technologies and cost-saving energy-efficient systems for homes and 
businesses, and to protect the health and well-being of the nation's 
health and environment. Unfortunately, this appropriations bill is 
detrimental to all of those goals.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise in strident opposition to H.R. 2354, 
the Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This 
unfortunate bill is just another in a long line of Republican attempts 
to sabotage policies put in place to protect the health and safety of 
Americans, as well as to improve the environment while at the same time 
fostering economic recovery. I categorically reject the Republicans' 
cynical and shortsighted approach to governing and urge my colleagues 
to follow suit by opposing this bill.
  I am not without justification in my criticism of H.R. 2354. To be 
clear, it contains a rider to block the Environmental Protection 
Agency's (EPA) ability to clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act, 
landmark legislation that I helped write and pass into law. The bill 
also blocks EPA's authority to oversee mountaintop removal coal mining, 
effectively allowing mountains to be carved away at corporate leisure. 
Finally, the bill would remove EPA's authority to make storm water 
programs more effective, which strikes me as curious given my 
Republicans' bent on making government leaner, meaner, and more 
effective. On a broader note, H.R. 2354 constitutes an attack on the 
integrity of the Clean Water Act, which has helped restore the 
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. 
Just as this bill would allow coal companies to carve away mountains, 
so too would it carve away EPA's precious and necessary authorities 
under the Clean Water Act.
  H.R. 2354's assault on Americans and their environment extends beyond 
allowing the desecration of the beautiful waters they so treasure. The 
bill also curtails programs meant to advance economic recovery in a 
manner more sustainable for the environment. While I commend my 
colleagues on the House Appropriations Energy and Water Subcommittee 
for dedicating funding to repair the damage caused by the recent storms 
and floods, I do not agree with taking funding from critical 
infrastructure projects that offer enormous economic impacts in a 
myriad of communities across this country. If my colleagues recognize 
the storms and floods as emergency events, then they should have had 
the fortitude to allocate emergency funding to these repairs outside of 
the normal appropriations process.
  By nature high-speed rail funding are immediate economic generators. 
Under H.R. 2354, the 15th District is slated to lose more than $495 
million in funding awarded to four highspeed rail projects in our 
district. The projects that would be derailed are the development of 
new train stations in Ann Arbor and Dearborn, the joint Midwest 
Regional Rail passenger rail equipment purchase, and the rehabilitation 
and improvement of track between Kalamazoo and Dearborn. This 
rescission will result in the loss of as many as 13,008 jobs.

[[Page 10696]]

  And as if cutting funds for mass transit were not enough, H.R. 2354 
also seeks to eviscerate the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing 
loan program, which helps automakers and suppliers produce more fuel 
efficient vehicles and decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil. This is 
the height of folly and quite frankly indefensible.
  Mr. Chair, for all of these reasons and more, I oppose H.R. 2354 and 
urge my colleagues to do so as well. Their children and grandchildren 
will thank them if they do.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2354, the Fiscal 
Year 2011 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
  The bill slashes funding for clean energy efficiency and research 
programs. It also makes steep cuts to flood control and environmental 
cleanup programs. In short, the legislation fails to protect our 
communities and it jeopardizes American innovation and job creation.
  The last place to cut is in the area of investments in clean energy 
technologies. In my Silicon Valley District, innovation is the coin of 
the realm. I've seen dozens of burgeoning companies who are at the 
cutting edge of clean energy technology. Our nation has the capacity to 
lead the world in clean energy technology, and there are domestic 
industries poised for economic explosion if we help, not hurt them.
  According to the Brookings Institution, the nation's clean energy 
economy, defined as goods and services with an environmental benefit, 
employs about 2.7 million people, more than twice the size of the 
fossil-fuel industry.
  Investments today will lay the foundation for our future.
  I oppose H.R. 2354 and urge my colleagues to do the same because 
hobbling our future is neither smart fiscally or policy-wise.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Fiscal Year 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
  Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that only 18,000 
jobs were created in June and more than 14 million people are still 
looking for work--many for over six months.
  As members of Congress, our focus must be on pursuing policies that 
will rebuild our economy by providing these Americans with 
opportunities to work hard and succeed--the very idea that underpins 
the middle class.
  This legislation is a missed opportunity to respond to the jobs 
challenge in a serious way. Instead of investing in our infrastructure 
and supporting innovative new job-creating industries in the renewable 
energy sector, this bill under-invests in both these areas.
  For example, this bill reduces funding for energy efficiency and 
renewable energy programs by $491 million--or 27 percent below the 
already abysmal FY2011 funding levels and 59 percent less than what 
President Obama requested.
  The bill also cuts funding for the Department of Energy's Advanced 
Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) by $88 million, which is 44 
percent below current levels and 81 percent less than requested. ARPA-E 
is modeled after the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency (DARPA) which has been a catalyst in technological innovation 
since its creation in 1958.
  Together, these programs fund crucial research and development in a 
variety of renewable technologies with the goals of ending our national 
dependence on fossil fuels, more efficiently powering our homes and 
businesses, and lessening the cost of energy for families.
  These types of investments are incredibly important in my home state 
of Hawaii. We are the most oil dependent state in the nation--we must 
import 90 percent of the oil products that fuel our cars, homes, and 
businesses. So when the world markets that set the price of oil 
gyrates--as it has in recent months--our economic growth and quality of 
life are significantly impacted.
  So renewable energy isn't just a feel-good idea--it's an economic and 
national security imperative both for Hawaii and our nation's future. 
Cutting funds that provide incentives for the private sector to 
continue innovating and growing jobs in this sector may seem penny-
wise; but it is most certainly pound-foolish.
  I am also disappointed that this bill fails to make a real dent in 
our nation's water infrastructure needs. The American Society of Civil 
Engineers (ASCE) has given our nation's overall infrastructure a grade 
of ``D.'' ASCE also estimates that Hawaii needs $1.97 billion to meet 
our water infrastructure needs. While I understand the need to 
carefully prioritize how we spend precious federal dollars, I believe 
that infrastructure should be at the top of that priority list. 
Infrastructure investments create jobs, strengthen our communities, and 
improve public health.
  These are just two areas where this legislation fails to improve our 
economy, help rebuild the middle class, or lay the groundwork for our 
future prosperity. As a whole this bill is a disappointment, and I 
strongly oppose its passage.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my strong disappointment 
with the FY2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. As our Nation 
struggles to recover from the economic recession that has kept 
unemployment above 10 percent in my home State of Rhode Island, one 
message I hear over and over again from constituents and economists is 
the need to invest in new industries, including manufacturing, while 
addressing our reliance on foreign and dirty sources of energy. During 
this time of economic uncertainty, we have an opportunity to create new 
industry while working to build up and stabilize clean, domestic 
sources of energy.
  Unfortunately, this effort will be slowed because of the draconian 
cuts in this bill, including a 27 percent cut to energy efficiency and 
renewable energy research programs, which means cuts to solar energy, 
fuel efficiency investments, and research to improve energy efficiency 
in our buildings, which account for 40 percent of all U.S. energy use.
  Next week, I am holding a roundtable to hear from one of Rhode 
Island's leading renewable energy companies, Alteris, as well as 
students and faculty from the University of Rhode Island's Energy 
Center, because I want my State and our Nation to be capitalizing on 
every opportunity to invest in the energy jobs of the future. Our 
budget savings should come by ending the subsidies for big oil 
companies that don't need them, not by harming up-and-coming businesses 
like Alteris that can create sustainable job growth.
  I am also particularly concerned with cuts to weatherization 
programs, which have helped to reduce energy bills by one-third for 
low-income families in Rhode Island. Further, this bill rescinds 
critical funding to modernize and build our Nation's high speed rail 
system, including investment in the Northeast Corridor and Rhode 
Island. Construction of high speed rail will not only create jobs 
immediately, but the expansion of our infrastructure will create new 
opportunities for growth in our communities across the region.
  Another disappointing provision in this bill is the $123 million cut 
to the National Nuclear Security Administration's, NNSA's, contribution 
to our naval reactors work. This funding decrease jeopardizes what the 
Navy has called ``the nation's only day-to-day assured nuclear response 
capability,'' our ballistic missile submarines. Defense strategist 
Loren Thompson recently noted the vital need for our ballistic 
submarine force stating, ``Today, about half of the warheads in the 
nuclear arsenal are carried on 14 Ohio-class submarines that are nearly 
impossible to find much less target. . . . the reason each sub needs to 
be so fearsome is that deterrence depends on what's left after an enemy 
attacks, since the threat of retaliation is what deters the attack in 
the first place.''
  These subs are already at the end of their lifespan, but due to 
refueling and modernization efforts, they will stay in the fleet for 
another decade. This sounds like a long time until you consider that it 
takes nearly two decades to design, build, and test a successor ship 
through the SSBN(X) Ohio replacement program. Design work for the 
SSBN(X) is finishing this October, leading to an incredibly tight 
schedule which according to CRS could result in a smaller force than is 
necessary to continue our nuclear deterrent. We need this ship to come 
in on time and on budget for the sake of global nuclear security, and 
the cuts to naval reactors in this bill directly threaten our future 
national security.
  Mr. Chair, our Nation is facing too many challenges at home and 
abroad to afford such cuts to critical investments in our energy future 
and important nuclear deterrent programs, while at the same time 
increasing funding for the Fossil Energy Research and Development 
program. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and reinvest in those 
programs that look to our future, rather than relying on outdated 
technologies of our past.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, today's FY 2012 Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill continues the majority's record of missed 
opportunities and misguided priorities when it comes to our Federal 
budget.
  First and foremost, thoughtful Americans from across the political 
spectrum agree that we need to end our current dependence on foreign 
oil and replace it with affordable, reliable, homegrown clean energy. 
Yet this bill slashes funding for energy efficiency and renewable 
energy research programs by 40 percent below President Obama's 
request--and it decimates the game-changing work being done by the 
Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E) with a proposed 80 
percent cut below the President's recommended level.
  The health of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and the rest of our 
Nation's waterways

[[Page 10697]]

often rely on the Army Corps of Engineers. But today's legislation 
actually blocks the Corps from clarifying which waterways are covered 
by Clean Water Act protections.
  Finally, this bill shortchanges nuclear non-proliferation and 
environmental cleanup efforts, reducing our ability to secure nuclear 
materials around the world and mitigate the impact of more than a half 
century's worth of national security-related nuclear activity here at 
home.
  I urge a no vote.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition of the McClintock 
amendment to H.R. 2354, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Act of 2012.
  This amendment would eliminate regional economic development 
commissions, and I believe that it comes at exactly the wrong time for 
thousands of communities throughout the United States.
  Regional development commissions have a successful track record of 
spurring much needed investment into the economic development of 
distressed communities. They should be preserved and expanded, not 
eliminated.
  One of these commissions directly contributes to the economy in my 
home State of Maine. The Northern Border Regional Commission, NBRC, is 
charged with investing in the economic development of the most 
distressed areas of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and northern New 
York.
  By working directly with each state and existing economic development 
districts, the NBRC is in a unique position to address our region's 
shared challenges and obstacles in a coordinated way that cuts across 
state lines.
  Since fiscal year 2010, the NBRC has been funded at $1.5 million. 
Despite these limited resources, it has already awarded $1.3 million to 
meaningful projects throughout the region.
  For example, last September, the NBRC made its first investments in 
Maine, including an expansion of the Port of Eastport, which is part of 
a project that will result in the retention of 18 jobs and the creation 
of 26 new ones.
  The NBRC is now preparing to accept applications for a second round 
of projects, which will spur additional investment and job creation 
through our region.
  If Congress eliminates funding for the NBRC, it cannot build on the 
progress that has already been made. The NBRC and other commissions 
like it would not be able to continue their mission of creating and 
protecting job opportunities in some of the most economically 
disadvantaged parts of our country.
  Mr. Chair, during tough economic times it is unacceptable to shut 
down these commissions, which share a common mission of partnering with 
states and local communities to create jobs and further economic 
development.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the McClintock amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Fiscal Year 2012 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill. At a time when our economy is 
already fragile, the Majority appears intent on reducing Federal 
funding for the very programs that drive technological innovation, 
economic growth, and job creation.
  Scientific research lies at the very heart of the national innovation 
system that keeps us competitive, enhances our quality of life, fuels 
our economy, and improves our national security. Investments in our 
Federal science agencies and our national innovation infrastructure are 
not big government spending programs that we cannot afford. They are 
minimum down-payments on our country's national security, public 
health, and economic vitality that we cannot afford to postpone.
  Yet, this bill contains enormous cuts to several programs at the 
Department of Energy that are critical for supporting innovation and 
increasing American economic competitiveness.
  This bill slashes nearly $43 million in funding from the Department 
of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science compared to Fiscal Year 2011. The 
Office of Science is the Nation's primary sponsor of research in the 
physical sciences and has been integral to the development of dozens of 
innovative technologies. Some have become the underpinnings of modem 
scientific disciplines; some have revolutionized medicine; some have 
advanced our national energy security; some have made our troops safer. 
That is the nature and the power of scientific research--the ultimate 
outcomes cannot necessarily be known in advance, but investments in 
basic discovery can yield enormous dividends. I offered an amendment to 
restore funding to the DOE Office of Science so that it could maintain 
current operations. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated.
  This bill provided $100 million for the Department of Energy's 
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). ARPA-E supports 
high-risk, high-reward research on energy technologies. Funding for 
ARPA-E directly contributes to the creation of new technologies, new 
industries, and new jobs. Yet, the Majority intended to slash funding 
for this valuable program by an astonishing 81 percent relative to the 
President's request.
  Fortunately, the House passed an amendment offered by my colleague 
Mr. Schiff that will restore funding for ARPA-E to Fiscal Year 2011 
levels. I was pleased to join my colleagues in voting for this 
important amendment.
  This legislation contains $1.3 billion for energy efficiency and 
renewable energy programs, a remarkable 59 percent less than President 
Obama's request. This is the worst possible moment to slash funding for 
sustainable energy technologies. The DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy supports research and development of sustainable 
energy technologies that strengthen the economy and protect the 
environment. Research in sustainable and efficient energy technologies 
increases our energy security, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, 
creates jobs, and increases our economic competitiveness. Yet the 
Majority made devastating cuts to this valuable program.
  Remarkably, the Majority was not satisfied with these cuts to energy 
efficiency programs. The House adopted by voice vote an amendment that 
would bar the Department of Energy from using funds to enforce energy 
efficiency standards for light bulbs enacted by the Energy Independence 
and Security Act of 2007. Yet, just days before, the House rejected an 
identical measure. This efficiency standard, enacted in a bipartisan 
bill signed into law by President Bush, simply requires that new light 
bulbs use 25 to 30 percent less energy than traditional incandescent 
light bulbs. No light bulbs are banned. No consumers will be forced to 
use one type of light bulb over another type.
  Since Congress acted 4 years ago, lighting companies have invested 
significant capital and resources into research, development, and new 
technologies--exactly the kind of investments that our economy 
desperately needs. So again, the Majority has voted to thwart 
technological progress and cost America jobs and money.
  While I do not object to the committee's decision to add disaster 
relief funding for projects resulting from tornadoes, storms, and 
floods across the Midwest and Southeast, I oppose strongly the decision 
to rescind $1 billion in unobligated funding for high-speed rail 
projects. In May, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded Amtrak 
$450 million in funding to upgrade its rail infrastructure to support 
more frequent and faster high-speed rail service, and to improve 
reliability of current service between New York and Washington. Now 
this funding will be unavailable. This will result in a loss of jobs 
and infrastructure in my Central New Jersey district--one of the 
busiest segments of the Northeast Corridor and where the densest 
concentration of Acela Express high-speed rail operations occurs. This 
provision amounts to a step backward in the development of the nation's 
intercity rail infrastructure.
  In May, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded Amtrak $450 
million in funding to upgrade its rail infrastructure to support more 
frequent and faster high-speed rail service, and to improve reliability 
of current service between New York and Washington. Specifically, this 
award would upgrade electrical power, signal systems, track and 
overhead catenary wires in my Central New Jersey district--one of the 
busiest segments of the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and where the densest 
concentration of Acela Express high-speed rail operations occurs. This 
work is critical to Amtrak's plan to double high-speed Acela service 
between New York and Washington by 2022.
  Budgets reflect, in dollars and cents, our priorities as a nation. We 
must provide Federal support for programs that encourage scientific 
research and support economic development. At a time when our economy 
is already fragile, abandoning scientific research would cause the U.S. 
to lose even more high-tech jobs to our foreign competitors. That is 
not the way to compete in the future, especially when the economy is in 
a fragile recovery. For all of these reasons, I am voting against this 
bill.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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. 
Johnson of Ohio) having assumed the

[[Page 10698]]

chair, Mr. Poe of Texas, Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on 
the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 2354) making appropriations for energy and 
water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________