[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8090-8103]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5325, and that I may 
include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 667 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5325.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  2009


                     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. 5325) making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Woodall 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.

                              {time}  2010

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, it is my honor to bring the fiscal 
year 2013 Energy and Water bill before the full House.
  Before I begin my remarks, let me thank the full chairman, Mr. 
Rogers,

[[Page 8091]]

as well as the ranking member, Mr. Dicks, for their support of a very 
open process. I would also 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, our clerk; 
Joe Levin; Loraine Heckenberg; Angie Giancarlo; Perry Yates; and Trevor 
Higgins. On the minority side, I would like to thank Taunja Berquam. I 
would also like to thank my personal staff, Nancy Fox and Katie 
Hazlett, and 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. Our recommendation prioritizes investments in 
our nuclear security enterprise, programs to address gasoline prices, 
and opportunities to advance American competitiveness, including the 
key role of the Army Corps of Engineers.
  The bill for fiscal year 2013 totals $32.1 billion. Security funding 
is increased by $275 million over last year, while non-security funding 
is cut by $188 million.
  Mr. Chairman, there are no earmarks in this legislation.
  We also reclaim most unused funds from previous Congresses, so this 
bill actually cuts spending by $623 million below last year, forcing 
our agencies down to more appropriate sizes and to operate with less 
money. The only significant increases over last year's level are to 
nuclear security and to develop a true all-of-the-above energy 
strategy. We also provide more funding to the Corps, including $1 
billion for Harvard Maintenance Trust Fund projects. The recommendation 
also fully funds Weapons Activities to ensure that the Secretary of 
Energy has the investments he needs to certify to the President that 
our nuclear stockpile is reliable.
  We have also heard from the public frustration about ``stimulus 
fund'' investments into failed energy projects. This bill will remove 
the Energy Department back to its core responsibilities--to serve 
Americans by protecting their security and improving our energy 
independence. Our bill will help improve that independence by 
sustaining fossil and nuclear energy research development, the latter 
of which is leading to investments in new nuclear power plants and 
developing small modular reactors. And, unlike the President, we have 
always considered ``clean coal'' to be part of our national energy 
security.
  At the same time, the Department of Energy's energy programs are cut 
by nearly $600 million, or 6 percent, by reducing programs which 
received the largesse of the largely failed so-called ``stimulus'' 
program. No funding is provided for the Solyndra-like loan guarantee 
programs in our bill.
  All of our constituents are wrestling with how to pay for higher 
gasoline bills on limited budgets. This bill does not provide a quick 
fix, since there's little that the Department can do in its programs to 
immediately change oil supply and demand. However, the bill provides 
over $1.01 billion--$36 million above fiscal year 2012--to strengthen 
the Department of Energy's programs addressing the causes and impacts 
of higher gasoline prices down the road.
  Within this, the recommendation funds a new program to promote shale 
oil recovery. If we could fully use this resource, our country's 
reserves could equal all global conventional reserves. This would make 
a major dent in oil prices and reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
  Additionally, scientific research at the Department of Energy 
strengthens American competitiveness and enables true breakthroughs in 
the energy sector, and the bill preserves and protects it. The bill 
also protects public safety and keeps America literally open for 
business by providing $4.8 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, $83 
million above the request and $188 million below fiscal year 2012.
  As in fiscal year 2012, our bill maintains the constitutional role of 
Congress in the appropriations process by ensuring that all worthy 
Corps of Engineers projects have a chance to compete for funding. The 
bill provides $324 million in addition to the President's requested 
projects, investing in navigation and flood control--activities most 
critical to public safety, jobs, and our economy.
  Finally, a word about Yucca Mountain. The recommendation includes $25 
million for Yucca Mountain with language prohibiting activity which 
keeps that facility from being usable in the future. The recommendation 
also denies funding for Blue Ribbon Commission activities, which need 
legislative authorization. Research and development activities to 
support Yucca Mountain are permitted. This will ensure that we keep 
Congress in the driver's seat for nuclear waste policy.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a tight, fiscally conservative bill which funds 
critical national security, jobs, and infrastructure priorities while 
helping to fight future gasoline price increases. This bill deserves 
our Members' support, and I look forward to an open and full discussion 
and open process.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 8092]]





[[Page 8093]]



[[Page 8094]]



[[Page 8095]]



[[Page 8096]]


  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to Chairman 
Frelinghuysen for his efforts to be inclusive and transparent in 
drafting this legislation. The process has been collegial, and the 
chairman has ensured that the Energy and Water Subcommittee continues 
its tradition of bipartisanship and cooperation. I would like to join 
the chairman in thanking the other members of the subcommittee and also 
all of their staffs for their exceptionally good and dedicated work. 
Finally, this bill could not have been written without the dedication, 
hard work, and sound judgment of our committee staff. The chairman has 
kindly enumerated them by name.
  Given the constrained allocation that the subcommittee was dealt, I 
believe that Chairman Frelinghuysen has crafted a good bill. While I 
hope that we can modify some elements of the bill going forward, I 
would observe that our differences are marginal.
  As the chairman mentioned in his remarks, the allocation for the 
Energy and Water bill is $31.2 billion, which is $964 million below the 
administration's budget request and $88 billion above last year's 
level. As a result, the bill makes dramatic reductions to vital energy 
programs to stay within the allocation.
  While I recognize that difficult choices must be made to address the 
Nation's serious financial situation, and I believe that Chairman 
Frelinghuysen has made a considerable effort to craft a balanced bill, 
this legislation is severely hampered by the shortsighted nature of the 
spending cap set by the House-approved budget resolution. The 
allocation for Energy and Water is simply insufficient to meet the 
challenges posed by our energy crisis, the need to maintain our water 
infrastructure, and our national security requirements.
  That being said, I would like to point out some of the very positive 
aspects of the bill. I am grateful that additional funds for core 
Nonproliferation activities and Vehicle Technologies were included. 
These are very smart investments. The first is vital to our national 
security as securing, removing, and curbing the spread of nuclear 
materials is one of the great international challenges our country 
faces. I would argue the increased funding for Vehicle Technology is 
also a smart national security investment. Specifically, the program 
researches the development of lightweight materials, high-powered 
batteries, and hybrid electric drive motors. As the cars and trucks of 
our citizens and the ships, planes, and tanks of our military rely 
heavily on petroleum fuels, technology breakthroughs and fuel 
efficiency are crucial to reducing our dependency on carbon fuels and 
crucial to improving our national security since so much of our current 
fuel mix is imported from unfriendly nations.
  Additionally, I truly appreciate the chairman's commitment to 
American manufacturing. This was a theme of many of our subcommittee 
hearings this year and he has included strong language in this regard. 
I believe we need to pull out all the stops to support domestic 
manufacturing, which remains one of the most important drivers of our 
economy.
  Further, I see very little merit to using Federal dollars to foster 
breakthroughs for products that are not ultimately manufactured 
domestically. The bill upholds and continues many of the efforts to 
improve program and projects management at all of the agencies under 
its jurisdiction. I strongly support the committee in this effort and 
all the provisions, old and new, aimed at increased oversight and 
improved project management at the Corps of Engineers and the 
Department of Energy. I am grievously disappointed that the bill has to 
carry these commonsense provisions year after year after year, and I 
hope that the agencies begin to incorporate these policies into their 
management structure.

                              {time}  2020

  That being said, with the recent Inspector General report detailing 
egregious overpayments to lab employees by DOE, including an example of 
one worker receiving a taxpayer-funded per diem for more than a decade, 
I am not optimistic that the message is yet engrained in Energy's 
culture. Where were the auditors? Where was the Inspector General for 
the last decade?
  The bill includes continued funding for the Office of Health, Safety 
and Security and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. These 
Agencies play important roles in oversight of DOE and NNSA projects. 
Their independent assessment and enforcement are crucial to worker 
health and safety at these facilities.
  With regard to the Army Corps of Engineers, I am pleased that the 
bill provides $83 million above the President's woefully inadequate 
request, ensuring that some ongoing projects will not be terminated. 
However, the bill provides $188 million less than current-year funding. 
We must invest in our infrastructure by making preventive and proactive 
investments. Just last year, this bill carried more than $2 billion in 
emergency funding to respond to natural disasters. I believe this again 
proves that it makes more fiscal sense to prevent a disaster than to 
respond to one.
  Specific to the applied energy programs at the Department of Energy, 
the bill provides appropriate funding for fossil and nuclear energy, 
which continue to provide the bulk of our energy needs. However, I am 
disappointed that renewable energy programs in this bill are reduced by 
over $400 million from 2012 and nearly $900 million from the 
President's request. This disinvestment is a serious setback to our 
energy future. We know energy can achieve cost competitiveness, but at 
this time a continued and sustained research and development program is 
necessary and appropriate.
  Lastly, I would like to express my support for the chairman's 
inclusion of funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal 
project and for including the provision to prohibit the use of funding 
to abandon the project. I agree with him and the other subcommittee 
members that the administration's actions to close the project run 
counter to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
  In closing, I am pleased that we are considering this bill under an 
open rule and that the Appropriations Committee continues to function 
amidst the turmoil that has stagnated so many other legislative 
efforts. Much of this credit is due to Chairman Rogers and Ranking 
Member Dicks. I commend them for their efforts in this regard. I would 
also like to reiterate my sentiments at the beginning of my statement 
that Chairman Frelinghuysen has done an excellent job, and I support 
the bill we are considering today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for that generous offer.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It is a hard-fought bill. It is a 
tough bill, and I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member 
for their hard work because the allocation to this subcommittee was not 
greatest in the world. But Chairman Frelinghuysen and Mr. Visclosky, I 
think, have done wonders with a short allocation.
  It funds the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
Bureau of Reclamation $32.1 billion. That's a cut of nearly $1 billion 
off of the President's request; and within the bill we've placed the 
highest priorities on programs that shore up our national security, 
help tackle skyrocketing gasoline and energy prices, and support 
American competitiveness.
  We know this is a bill that can do a great deal to help promote job 
creation, improve public safety and regional commerce, and help relieve 
some of that pain at the pump in the future. So we've made those smart 
investments that will help boost the American economy.
  Nuclear security programs, as the chairman mentioned, are increased 
by $275 million over last year. We've made

[[Page 8097]]

the key investments that are needed to modernize our nuclear weapons 
stockpile and its supporting infrastructure, advance our nuclear 
nonproliferation activities around the world, and power the reactors 
that run our Navy--all in order to maintain the safety and readiness of 
our national defense. To achieve this, the President's request of $7.6 
billion for weapons activities is fully funded.
  In total, nonsecurity spending in this bill is cut $188 million below 
last year. Within this nonsecurity category, the committee prioritized 
programs that support energy security and American competitiveness.
  For instance, the Corps of Engineers budget contains $83 million more 
than what the President requested, directing funds to ensure our 
waterways stay open in support of commerce that will help our economy 
thrive.
  The committee also invests in finding ways to help America achieve 
greater energy independence, providing over $1 billion to strengthen 
DOE programs to help address rapidly rising gasoline prices.
  The bill also creates a new shale oil research and development 
program, and promotes advanced research into coal, natural gas, and 
other fossil energy resources that provide more than 83 percent of our 
Nation's energy.
  In order to strengthen defense programs and these other national 
priorities, the committee had to find cuts elsewhere in the bill, cuts 
that targeted inefficiencies and waste and did the least harm to our 
Nation's infrastructure and competitiveness.
  We've also cut certain energy programs that aren't as valuable to 
manufacturing and commerce, and we've rescinded prior-year funds 
wherever possible.
  I want to stress that we're still able to fund important programs at 
adequate levels in order to ensure the safety of our citizens and our 
future economic security. But as we face the dangers of unresolved 
debts and skyrocketing deficits, we simply cannot fund everything at 
elevated amounts. We have to cut back--just as families know they have 
to cut back in these precarious times.
  As I said, Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky did an 
excellent job working together as they distributed their 302(b) 
suballocation in the most responsible and effective way possible. The 
subcommittee and its staffs from both sides of the aisle should be 
proud, as I know they are, of their hard work on this bill, and I want 
to thank them for the many hours they spent crafting this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a good piece of legislation. I think any 
reasonable person looking at this bill will find that this committee 
did the very best that they could with the allocation that they have 
received. It gives priority to programs that boost our national 
defense, supports competitiveness and innovation, and helps reduce the 
volatility of gasoline prices. So I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill. And with that, I thank Mr. Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member 
Visclosky and members of your subcommittee and staff for a job well 
done.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to commend 
Chairman Frelinghuysen, whom I've enjoyed working with both here and on 
the Defense Subcommittee, and Ranking Member Visclosky on their efforts 
to continue in the tradition of bipartisanship and cooperation. I know 
that all members of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, in addition to 
the staff, have worked hard to bring this bill forward and get us where 
we are today. And I want to commend our chairman, Mr. Rogers, for again 
presenting us with an open rule which allows the Members to have a 
chance to offer amendments. In an era when we don't have earmarks, it 
is very important that Members have an opportunity to come here to the 
floor and offer an amendment. I'm not trying to encourage anybody, but 
it is a reality.
  Now, despite the decision made by the Republican leadership, 
unfortunately, to abandon the overall spending level contained in the 
Budget Control Act agreement reached last year, I'm encouraged that 
this bill provides funding above last year's level.

                              {time}  2030

  The reality, however, is that if we do not return to the overall 
levels we agreed to in August, proceeding with additional 
appropriations bills here in the House will be exceedingly difficult.
  Many programs in the Energy and Water bill are sufficiently funded; 
however, I do have concerns about the funding levels provided to 
certain accounts. Of particular concern to me are deep cuts in the 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program, as well as steep 
reductions in the ARPA-E program. These programs are vital to continue 
our Nation's innovation in the energy sector.
  I would also like to reiterate Mr. Visclosky's concern over the 
funding levels of the Army Corps of Engineers relative to FY12, 
particularly as the Corps struggles with its aging structure. The bill 
provides the Corps with $188 million less than 2012. We must invest in 
our infrastructure by making preventative and proactive investments.
  Although this subcommittee mark does not fully fund the budget 
request for the clean-up at the Hanford nuclear site in Washington 
State, I understand that the funding level is sufficient for continued 
progress and a realistic work schedule for FY13.
  I want to applaud the chairman and ranking member for continuing the 
funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility. During 
the amendment process of this bill, I expect to join an effort led by 
Chairman Shimkus to increase funding in this account in order to 
underscore the strong bipartisan support in the House for moving ahead 
with the plan to open the Nation's high-level waste storage facility. I 
believe, as many do in the House, that the administration's position to 
close the Yucca Mountain site runs counter to the letter and spirit of 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act passed by the Congress.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a 
valuable and knowledgeable member of our Subcommittee on Energy and 
Water, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).
  Mr. WOMACK. I want to thank the chairman of our committee and the 
ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, for their great leadership.
  As has been mentioned in the limited discussion we've had already, 
great kudos have been given to Rob and the staff team here that have 
done such a remarkable job. I'm just a freshman on this committee, and 
this is my first trip through these appropriations processes. But I've 
got to tell you that when I go back to my district, I brag on the 
competence of the staff that work so hard to ensure that the intent of 
the Congress and of our committee is carried out. So to Rob and his 
team, I can't thank them enough for the work that they've done.
  We've also mentioned Chairman Rogers and the ranking member, Mr. 
Dicks, and the full committee for the great leadership that they 
provide. Hopefully, tonight people can see that amidst all of our 
difficulties and all of our divisions between the Congress, that people 
can understand that there are things that we can agree on.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that this Energy and Water bill reflects the 
priorities of our country. There's no question that one of the great 
priorities facing our country today is the fiscal condition that we're 
in. And while we'd like to see funding levels at greater than what 
we're marking tonight, clearly the fiscal condition of our country, 
money is an object, and it is something that we have to take into 
consideration.
  But I think, as I said, it reflects the priorities, conservative 
values that lead, guide and direct our fiscal position; but it also 
addresses some very key national security issues with regard to the 
National Nuclear Security Administration. And as has already been 
mentioned, it does put money into programs that drive energy--
commonsense, all-of-the-above energy strategies for our Nation.

[[Page 8098]]

  So, with that, I would commend this bill to this Congress in hopes 
that we can run rapidly through it. I know there will be amendments. 
The open rule is a great process, and we're fully supportive of that. 
But again, I want to commend the chairman and the ranking member for 
the great leadership, their staffs, and encourage support for this bill 
and look forward to the process with amendments.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy 
and Water, Mr. Frelinghuysen and Mr. Visclosky, on the Army Corps of 
Engineers' policy on vegetation on levees.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to engage in a colloquy 
with the gentlelady from California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the gentlemen from New Jersey and Indiana.
  Mr. Chairman, in many areas of the country, such as the communities I 
represent, Federal flood control projects are essential. Indeed, 
Sacramento, California, is the most at-risk city in the Nation for 
potentially catastrophic flooding.
  I am a strong supporter of the work done by the Army Corps of 
Engineers to protect our communities and strengthen our levees. It is 
therefore with some reservation that I rise to address a matter where 
the Corps' good intentions could inadvertently have adverse 
consequences.
  In its laudable efforts to ensure that flood control levees function 
as intended, the Corps has issued draft guidelines regarding the 
presence of vegetation on and adjacent to flood control levees that 
could, if implemented without close collaboration with State and local 
authorities and without flexibility to take into account site-specific 
conditions, result in the unwarranted and unacceptable loss of critical 
environmental resources as well as the misapplication of limited 
Federal and non-Federal dollars.
  On May 18, I introduced H.R. 5831, the Levee Vegetation Review Act, a 
bipartisan bill which is cosponsored by 30 of my colleagues. The bill 
directs the Corps to review its current policy, taking into account a 
broad array of factors, including potential regional or watershed-based 
variances to the national policy where appropriate. It also provides 
flexibility to the Corps to exempt certain areas from the policy where 
deemed necessary by the Corps.
  Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, I ask that you consider the 
objectives of our bill and the potential impacts of the Corps' current 
policy, not just on California, but on the Nation, as you move to 
conference with the Senate on the Fiscal Year 2013 Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations Bill.
  I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentlelady from California for bringing 
this important matter to our attention.
  The committee has heard from a number of our colleagues on the Corps' 
vegetation-on-levees policy. While we commend the Corps for its 
continued efforts to improve its policies and thereby improve public 
safety for everyone, we also understand and appreciate that 
occasionally new policies have unintended consequences. As we move 
forward with this bill, we intend to have further discussion on this 
subject.
  I commend, again, the gentlewoman from California for her leadership 
on this issue.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I, too, commend the gentlewoman's 
efforts to bring this matter to our attention. She has described well 
the sometimes conflicting concerns regarding vegetation and levees. I 
look forward to continuing to work with her and our other colleagues 
interested in this issue to ensure that the Corps gives serious 
consideration to their concerns and perhaps conducts additional 
research if it is deemed advisable prior to finalizing its levee 
vegetation policy.
  Ms. MATSUI. I thank the chairman and the subcommittee ranking member.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. It is my privilege to yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give 
special thanks to Mr. Visclosky and his staff, as well as Congressman 
Dicks and his staff, for their tremendous support for fusion energy in 
this bill.
  I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman 
of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, since the need for a national ignition facility was 
first established in the 1990s, the project had a mandate of supporting 
nuclear weapons science expertise required for stewardship of our 
Nation's stockpile and the development of fusion power.
  Basic science research has always been a central mission of NIF. In 
the 1997 Facility Use Plan for NIF, the Statement of Mission projected 
that the uses of the facility fall into five major areas: one, ignition 
physics; two, weapons physics; three, weapons effects; four, inertial 
fusion energy; and, five, basic science and technology.

                              {time}  2040

  I want to affirm with you that the mission of NIF has not changed and 
that inertial fusion energy and basic science research, as well as 
stockpile stewardship, will continue to be vigorously pursued at NIF.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
her concern about sustaining the mission of science, fusion energy, 
research, and other activities at the National Ignition Facility. I 
know she's a strong advocate for science, and I commend her for her 
attention and support.
  While this facility's primary purpose is to support sustainment of 
our nuclear weapons stockpile, it was also envisioned to be a user 
facility. Basic science and fusion energy will always remain an 
important part of the NIF's mission.
  I thank her for her advocacy and work on behalf of the NIF.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that 
reassurance. And thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my remarks, along with the 
chairman, to thank the gentlewoman for her vision of our energy future, 
for her doggedness, and for her commitment to basic scientific research 
in this country, as well as the issue of fusion.
  Too often people lose sight that we have to be consistent, we have to 
be persistent and dogged, and some day we are going to achieve success 
and primarily because of the gentlelady from California. I appreciate 
her remarks very much.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.
  I also want to thank the chairman and his staff, the ranking member 
and his staff for the help that they've provided on this very important 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, and Members, the Bureau of Reclamation manages Lake 
Berryessa in my district. They manage it for the purposes of 
recreational access, and they ensure that the facilities are safe and 
accessible to local residents and visitors. As part of this, they award 
concessions to third-party bidders for resort operations.
  Since the Bureau of Reclamation began the most recent bidding process 
in 2007, their performance has been disappointing, at best. The 
concession contract was finally awarded in January 2010, and the third-
party contractor has not met the terms of that agreement.
  The BOR is the responsible agency for concession bidding, and they 
conducted an inefficient process, provided

[[Page 8099]]

lax oversight, and refused to take action in a timely manner, despite 
constant requests from me and local government officials. Now, BOR is 
entering into mediation, which means even more time to dispute the 
concessionaire's shortcomings and provide yet another second chance.
  Mr. Chairman and Members, enough is enough. Reassurances and 
placations from the Board of Reclamation that they're fixing the 
problem are no longer enough. We need the matter resolved. The 
residents of Lake Berryessa and the tourists who visit the area deserve 
to have this situation fixed.
  Recreational access to the lake has been restricted, tourism is down, 
and the local economy has taken a hit. The summer season officially 
began last weekend, and there's no solution in sight to these problems.
  I expect the Bureau of Reclamation to take immediate action to right 
these wrongs and take steps to prevent a similar nightmare from 
happening in my district or any of your districts.
  I trust that the chairman and the ranking member share my concerns of 
the mismanagement of Lake Berryessa by the Bureau of Reclamation and 
ask that you, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member work with me to find 
a way to correct BOR's previous errors and amend the concession bidding 
process to ensure this doesn't happen again.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman, Mr. 
Thompson, for bringing this issue to our committee's attention. We take 
seriously our obligation of ensuring that Reclamation is efficiently 
using its appropriated funds to maximize the taxpayer return on 
investment, and I would be happy to work with the gentleman to continue 
congressional oversight of the actions at Lake Berryessa specifically.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would also be happy to work with the 
gentleman from California to ensure that Reclamation is executing its 
mission in the best interests of the taxpayer. I expect the Bureau of 
Reclamation to take immediate actions to right these wrongs and to take 
steps to prevent a similar situation in the future.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and 
the ranking member for their commitment to work with me on this. It's a 
serious problem. It's hurting people in my district and the surrounding 
area. I want it stopped, and I don't want to see any of you have to 
suffer through this process again.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would only add that I hope to avoid 
any further confusion in addressing this issue. And I do appreciate the 
gentleman's very serious concern here.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee for working with me 
to try to rectify a problem with the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and 
the big-time shortfall we've got in dredging funds going forward.
  Our top 60 ports in the country are not being dredged to their 
authorized specifications, and this is hurting commerce. It's 
inhibiting our ability to export. It's creating all kinds of problems. 
It's a jobs bill if we can get these ports and waterways dredged 
adequately.
  It's at a crisis level. For instance, the Lower Mississippi River, 
for every foot of draft we lose, it's $1 million per ship per day lost 
in economic activity.
  Now, the Harbor Maintenance Tax generates $1.3 to $1.6 billion a 
year, but little over half of it's being used for the appropriate 
purpose. The rest is being funneled off into other accounts. This is 
not fair to those who pay this tax, which, in effect, is a user fee. It 
was designed as a user fee.
  And so I hope that the chairmen of the subcommittee and full 
committee will continue to work with me to correct this inequity. This 
is not right, and it's hurting American competitiveness. We can do 
better than this.
  This tax is a tax that was created as a user fee. It's ad valorem tax 
on the owners of the goods based on the value of the goods. This is 
supposed to be used for operations and maintenance dredging. And as the 
chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee on Ways and Means, where we have 
oversight on the tax revenues, I have a problem with the misuse of 
these funds. It's hurting American competitiveness.
  We can do better, and I hope that the chairman of the subcommittee 
and the chairman of the full committee will continue to work with me to 
solve this problem. We can solve it without adding a single dime to the 
deficit. It will help create jobs. We've got numerous studies to show 
the job impact, the commercial impact, the impact on trade.
  It is imperative that we move forward on things that we can fix, and 
it really is disappointing to me that we've not done better.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, if I could ask how much time each side has, 
please, remaining in general debate?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana has 10 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from New Jersey has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. 
Chair.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Harris).
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise with my colleague from New Jersey to 
discuss the funding provided to the Department of Energy for 
unconventional fossil energy research and development.
  I first want to commend Mr. Frelinghuysen, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, for his strong support of the unconventional fossil 
energy research at the Department of Energy. As the committee report 
notes, the United States' oil shale reserves are estimated to exceed 2 
trillion barrels of oil, more than five times the proven oil reserves 
held by Saudi Arabia. However, additional research is necessary to 
enable economic and environmentally safe production from this 
incredibly plentiful domestic resource.
  In order to accelerate the safe and effective development of the 
Nation's oil shale reserves, this legislation provides $25 million for 
oil shale technology research and development activities.

                              {time}  2050

  As chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on 
Energy and Environment, I recently chaired a hearing to examine the 
challenges and opportunities associated with expanding the development 
and use of unconventional oil and gas production technologies. The 
subcommittee received testimony from expert witnesses about the need 
for targeted government research to address specific issues associated 
with developing these unconventional oil resources.
  These research areas include but are not limited to: oil shale 
resource characterization, the minimization and reuse of process water, 
the use of high-end computing applied to the physics and chemistry of 
oil shale production, the modeling and simulation of oil shale 
exploration and production technologies, and surface and groundwater 
protection.
  It is my hope that the funding provided in this bill will address 
these and other key science and technology areas that are critical to 
enabling oil shale production and will be used to advance the 
environmentally sound and efficient production of our resources rather 
than a regulatory agenda aimed at restricting such production or 
limiting access to oil shale reserves located on Federal lands.
  I would now like to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland 
for yielding and for the additional and very valuable extra background 
information regarding his subcommittee's very important and critical 
work on shale oil.
  As the gentleman noted, our bill's all-of-the-above energy strategy 
to address high gasoline prices includes $25 million for research to 
reduce barriers to the safe environmental and economic development of 
the United

[[Page 8100]]

States' vast, untapped oil shale resources.
  I strongly agree with the gentleman that this funding is intended for 
investments in technology and scientific research, not regulatory 
action, which can ultimately enable economic and environmentally 
responsible shale oil production. The gentleman has identified some 
very important, specific research areas in his remarks, and we will 
continue to consider these and other lines of work as we look to 
further shape the program. I look forward to continued discussion with 
my colleague as we move forward in that process, and I thank him for 
his work on this very critical issue.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that we have one 
more speaker on this side and that the other side does not have any 
more speakers.
  With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I congratulate my colleague from New Jersey and you, Mr. 
Visclosky, for your very diligent and focused work on this bill. I know 
it was difficult.
  Mr. Chairman, we thank these Members for their leadership.
  Today, the people of the United States sent about $1 billion overseas 
to countries from whom we bought imported oil. This is $1 billion that 
could have been spent to employ American construction workers, to give 
more activities to American research scientists, to reward the 
investment of American entrepreneurs, and to create domestic energy and 
American jobs here in the United States.
  One of the most effective ways to create a nearly $200 billion annual 
stimulus program paid for entirely by private sector dollars and not by 
government would be to dramatically reduce the amount of oil we import 
into our country. This is an issue on which I think there is strong 
agreement. We obviously part company on exactly how to do that, and I 
think this bill illustrates three of the ways in which there is some 
disagreement.
  Let me begin by thanking the chairman and the ranking member for what 
I view as a very wise decision to make a funding investment in nuclear 
waste disposal at the Yucca Mountain facility. This is a very 
controversial issue, particularly in the other body, but I think that 
clean and well-managed nuclear energy is a key part of this country's 
economic future. Sadly, there has been a backpedaling from years of 
research and investment in the Yucca Mountain facility.
  I think that the geological evidence is compelling, and I think that 
the national security arguments are compelling. I think that the best 
way for us to dispose of nuclear waste at one site is as isolated from 
any population center and geologically insulated from any water table 
that would be nearby. I think that the Yucca Mountain site has been 
proven to be the right move. I think for unfortunate political 
situations we've not invested in that.
  I commend the chairman and the ranking member for reversing that 
decision to the extent possible in this bill and for moving forward 
with the further exploration of that option.
  One of the areas of the bill in which I would agree with Mr. 
Visclosky is somewhat disappointing is its relatively meager investment 
in alternative renewable energy. Now, I do think, as the President has 
said and as our Speaker has said, that an all-of-the-above energy 
independence policy is the right choice for our country. So we must 
understand that investing in wind or solar or geothermal or hydrogen is 
not meant to be completely in lieu of more traditional fuels. It's 
meant to be a supplement and a transition.
  I think that the transition here is insufficient for the possibility 
of powering our country through wind and the growing solar industry. 
Our State of New Jersey is actually number two in solar energy in the 
country, which is, I think, a tribute to our innovation given our 
relative climatological disadvantage relative to other States. There is 
promising research in hydrogen and other areas. I think that we are 
being, frankly, somewhat shortsighted and penny-wise and pound-foolish 
by not making a more robust investment in these areas of alternative 
energy in this bill, which leads me to my third point.
  I understand the justification, not by the subcommittee chairman or 
the ranking member, but by the budget resolution that was passed. The 
justification for what I view as an unduly meager investment in 
alternative energy is because of the budget allocations adopted by the 
House several weeks ago.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentleman.
  That budget allocation was short of the agreement that the majority 
and minority in the House and Senate struck last year on August 1. 
We've adhered to that agreement in so many other ways. I think the 
right thing to do is what the other body is likely to do, which is to 
fund these appropriations bills at levels consistent with that August 1 
agreement.
  I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we will and should be back in this 
Chamber at some point this year enacting final legislation that is 
consistent with that August 1 agreement. That meager increase, that 
small increase in allocations, would, in my view, go a long way toward 
funding the wind and solar and hydrogen and other alternative energies 
that we should be seeking.
  Let's continue to try to work together as the authors of this bill 
have. Let's try to truly have an energy independence policy where, 
instead of sending $1 billion a day to the Middle East, we are 
investing $1 billion a day of private sector money in manufacturing, 
innovation, and economic growth here in the United States. This bill, I 
think, makes an important step in that direction.
  I commend the authors, but look forward to even a better result later 
in the year when the bill comes back from the other body.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. I would note 
that we have no further requests for time and would conclude by simply, 
again, thanking the chair, all of the subcommittee members and staff 
for their very good work that has brought us to this point.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me associate my remarks with the ranking 
member's. We thank all of those who have come forward. We look forward 
to a vigorous couple of days ahead as we consider the rest of the 
energy and water bill. I thank the gentleman and all those who have 
participated.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chair, I am concerned about 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.
  Additionally, by cutting New Starts completely, this bill prevents 
funding for a vital project in Houston that will explore widening and 
deepening the shipping channel to the Turning Basin. This funding is 
critical to preparing our Port for the years ahead.
  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.
  In 1998, the Federal Government and the Port of Houston invested $700 
million over the course of years, to deepen

[[Page 8101]]

and widen the Ship Channel. An investment we have benefitted from 
tremendously.
  As the years have passed silt has settled and reduced the draft in 
the channel significantly. Today, only .4 percent of the channel is 
dredged to its proper depth across the entire width of the channel. 
That is astounding. Our Nation's investment is rapidly deteriorating.
  Currently, the Houston Ship Channel is dredged to a depth of 43 feet, 
but it should be 45 feet. The Panama Canal is expanding and when it is 
completed, the Port of Houston should be at a minimum of 45 feet and we 
could take advantage of additional depth.
  In the most recent President's budget request, the Administration 
asked for $700,000 in new dredging money and new start funding of 
$100,000 toward study on the widening and deepening of the Houston Ship 
Channel to the Turning Basin. The new start funding is particularly 
important, once a project gets new start money it is more likely to be 
funded in the future. Unfortunately, in the bill we are considering 
today, the funding for the new start will be eliminated.
  This increased funding level for dredging just over $24 million, 
which is maintained in the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, is 
welcome and I am pleased that Congress and the Administration are 
committing more resources to our maintenance dredging needs, 
particularly in a budget environment when most programs are cut. 
However, it's about a third of the total needed to bring our channel 
back to its authorized depth. The reduced draft costs our region money.
  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. If the dredging crisis at the port continues to 
worsen, this cost will quickly increase.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chair, I stand today in opposition to this 
legislation because it provides funding for the fundamentally flawed 
and wasteful Delaware Deepening project. Prior to the Army Corps' 
recent decision to partially fund this $300 million project, it had 
previously only been funded through Congressional earmarks for the 
previous 6 years.
  In June of 2002 the General Accounting Office (report # GA0-02-604) 
found that the Army Corps grossly misrepresented the costs and benefits 
of the project. The GAO determined that the economic analysis provided 
for the project contained a number of ``material errors,'' 
``miscalculations, invalid assumptions, and the use of significantly 
outdated information.'' Based on the GAO's findings, the benefit to 
cost ratio of the project is closer to 0.49 to 1 as opposed to the 1.4 
to 1 originally asserted by the Army Corps. A re-analysis completed by 
the GAO in 2010 (report # GA0-10-420) came to the same conclusion that 
the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening would not provide a good 
return on investment for the taxpayers. The latest re-analysis 
completed by the Army Corps last year fails to reexamine the costs. It 
also makes highly questionable projections about future benefits based 
on limited historical data.
  The OMB, at President Obama's direction, has said the federal 
government should only provide funding for projects that are a 
demonstrated benefit for the nation; i.e. projects that have a benefit 
cost ratio of at least 2.5 to 1. As noted by the Corps of Engineers, 
the Delaware River Deepening is the only navigation project nationwide 
that had a benefit cost ratio less than the 2.5 minimum criteria. 
Previous Presidents, both Democrat and Republican, have not supported 
this project because it makes no economic sense.
  Mr. Chair, there also continues to be an overwhelming number of 
serious environmental concerns raised by state and federal 
environmental protection agencies and experts about the project's 
impact on drinking water, commercial and recreational fish, shellfish, 
wetlands, wildlife, water quality--not to mention the hundreds of 
millions of dollars of economic revenue and jobs these natural 
resources support. This project is an economic loser and Congress 
should not be in the business of funding old earmarks.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I strongly support two important provisions in 
this bill, included at my request, which provide necessary direction to 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This bill withholds Additional 
Funding for Ongoing Work until the Corps provides this Committee with 
an acceptable explanation of their allocation decisions. The 
accompanying report from the Committee also recommends various national 
domestic priorities for additional funds, including harbors that 
support domestic manufacturing. This language will greatly enhance the 
Corps' ability to ensure that our maritime infrastructure meets the 
changing needs of our nation.
  The Fiscal Year 2013 Energy and Water Appropriations bill provides 
$325 million in additional funding for the Corps to address priority 
projects throughout the country. When given a similar allocation last 
year, the Corps disregarded this Committee's directive to establish a 
rating system of projects to be funded and explain why each project was 
given priority.
  This is unacceptable. I share the concern of the Chairman and many of 
my colleagues that the Corps must be accountable for their distribution 
of these extra funds.
  Given significant backlogs in many of our nation's ports, these 
additional funds provide an opportunity for improved maintenance of our 
water borne infrastructure, which is so crucial for growing our economy 
and creating jobs.
  But it would be irresponsible to provide these dollars without 
exercising proper oversight to ensure that these funds are spent 
responsibly.
  The Committee report already included direction to the Corps to 
report to the Committee their decisions regarding the use of these 
funds, but given the previous disregard for this directive last year, 
it became necessary to include this directive in the bill itself and 
establish consequences for the Corps, should it fail to meet this 
obligation.
  Additionally, the report accompanying this bill recommends several 
priorities for the rating system to be created by the Corps. In 
particular, I strongly support the inclusion of domestic manufacturing 
as a component of the economic assessment for determining funding.
  The significant backlogs of Corps maintenance activity across the 
country, especially in the Great Lakes region, greatly reduce the 
competitiveness of American manufacturing.
  In the Great Lakes region, which has long been the heart of 
manufacturing in the U.S., heavy manufacturers are severely affected by 
light loading restrictions in our harbors. Bulk commodity shipments, 
which are essential to heavy manufacturing, are being transported 
inefficiently, preventing domestic manufacturers in the region from 
competing with foreign manufacturers.
  The directive language in the report establishes this necessary 
manufacturing-oriented priority in determining which projects are to be 
funded by the additional funds provided in the bill.
  The Corps' work is critical for maintaining critical U.S. maritime 
infrastructure. The language in this bill and the accompanying support 
will ensure that this work meets the needs of our nation.
  I appreciate the willingness of the Chairmen and the Ranking Members 
of both the full Appropriations Committee and the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee to work with me to include this language. In response to 
the Army Corps' disregard for Congressional directives during fiscal 
year 2012, language in this bill demand proper compliance to the 
Constitutional authority of Congress.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, since late 2009, the Army Corps of Engineers 
has been working on a study of the Great Lakes and Mississippi 
Interbasin--

[[Page 8102]]

  ``To evaluate options and technologies to prevent the spread of 
aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi 
River.''
  Recently, the Corps indicated this study may not be completed until 
March 2016.
  When it comes to aquatic invasive species, 7 years is 7 years too 
long.
  Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio introduced and passed an amendment to 
the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, ensuring that the 
Corps finishes their study no later than July 1, 2014.
  Further, the amendment ensures that the Corps fully examines the 
feasibility of all options, including permanent hydrological 
separation.
  I can't help but stand here today and express my sincere 
disappointment for the missed opportunities in the legislative vehicle 
before us.
  The Energy and Water Appropriations bill that we consider on the 
House floor this week is not only missing this vital amendment, but its 
priorities are way out of whack.
  The bill increases funding for the Nation's nuclear weapons 
stockpile, as well as for fossil fuels programs and nuclear energy 
research and development.
  Meanwhile, funding would be reduced for a wide range of very 
important activities including: Army Corps of Engineers projects, 
Energy Department science programs, advanced energy research, defense 
and non-defense environmental cleanup activities, nuclear non-
proliferation programs, and most renewable energy programs (including 
solar, wind, water and geothermal programs).
  But, to the point at hand--the Great Lakes and the terrifying 
prospect that we might continue standing still on this issue of 
invasive species prevention.
  First and foremost, I must recognize the hard work and bipartisan 
effort from the Senators, including Senator Durbin, and am hopeful that 
this provision is preserved throughout the appropriations process.
  After all, this amendment does not tell anybody what to do.
  It simply recognizes the urgency of the Asian carp threat to the 
Great Lakes and compels the Corps to quicken its study of solutions in 
the face of a potential catastrophe that no one wants.
  The Great Lakes make up 20 percent of our fresh water and are home to 
a fishing and boating industry worth 7 billion dollars annually.
  The Lakes are a priceless treasure for the millions of people who 
live in the region.
  We must do all we can to encourage a speedy creation of an action 
plan to block Asian carp from entering the Great Lakes.
  In 1998 the late Senator Paul Simon predicted wars would be fought 
over water.
  Let us not pretend this is near as drastic as war.
  But, at the same time, let us not neglect or fail to acknowledge that 
the importance of today's actions will weigh heavily on the successes 
of tomorrow. I urge the Committees to preserve and protect Senator 
Brown's amendment and hope that the final Energy and Water package 
looks far better for our land, air and water than it does today.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise today in reluctant opposition to 
H.R. 5325, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act. This bill provides $32.1 billion, an $88 million 
increase from Fiscal Year 2012 levels but $965 million below the 
President's Fiscal Year 2013 request.
  The purpose of the annual energy and water spending bill is to 
provide the funding necessary to ensure that the nation's energy and 
water resources are sufficient to address the nation's needs. This 
year's spending bill, H.R. 5325, provides funding for critical national 
priorities such as Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Energy, 
Department of the Interior, and independent agencies that provide 
research and development of future energy industries, job training, and 
health care.
  Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Peter J. 
Visclosky for shepherding this bill to the floor. I appreciate the way 
they worked together and with my office to accommodate several of my 
legislative priorities regarding energy and water development programs.
  Although this bill provides adequate funding for some programs that I 
support, it also includes numerous other provisions that are 
unacceptable. On balance, these unpalatable provisions outweigh the 
positive aspects of the bill.
  This bill substantially underfunds key priorities like science and 
innovation which are critical to the recovery of our economy and 
rebuilding our waterways and ports. The bill only provides $1.45 
billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy research programs, 
which is $374 million below Fiscal Year 2012 and $886 million below the 
President's request.
  The bill only provides $200 million for the Advanced Research 
Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E), which is $75 million below Fiscal 
Year 2012 levels and $150 million below the President's request. ARPA-E 
supports breakthrough of domestic clean energy innovations.
  Mr. Chair, the bill before us dramatically cuts funding for energy 
efficiency and renewable energy research programs by 39 percent and 
reduces funding for several other energy innovation programs:
  Solar energy research funding is cut by nearly 50 percent from Fiscal 
Year 2012;
  Wind energy development research is underfunded at only $70 million, 
$24 million below the Fiscal Year 2012 and $25 million below the 
President's request;
  Building technologies research funding is cut by more than 50 percent 
from fiscal year 2012 and $185 million below the President's request. 
These funds are used to research energy-efficient technologies in 
buildings, which account for roughly 40 percent of all U.S. energy use.
  This bill does not stop there. It also contains provisions that 
weaken energy reduction targets in new and renovated federal buildings. 
Buildings account for almost 40 percent of U.S. energy consumption, and 
as the largest consumer of energy in the U.S., the federal government 
should lead the way in designing and building facilities that use less 
energy to spur the development of new materials and technologies and to 
show that these reductions are practical, achievable, and cost-
effective.
  Section 110 of the bill would stop an Administration effort to 
provide clarity on which water bodies are covered by Clean Water Act 
(CWA). The existing regulations were the subject of two Supreme Court 
cases in 2001 and 2006, in which the Court indicated the need for 
greater regulatory clarity on the scope of CA jurisdiction.
  Mr. Chair, for many of these same reasons the President has put the 
Congress on notice that he will ``veto'' H.R. 5325 if it is presented 
to him for signature in its present form. It make no sense to pass a 
bad bill that has no chance of becoming law. We should instead be 
working together across the aisle to craft a bill that can win and be 
worthy of bipartisan and bicameral support. The bill before us does not 
meet this standard.
  For these reasons, I will vote no on H.R. 5325 on final passage. I 
urge my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose attempts to weaken energy 
efficiency standards for lighting that were included in the bipartisan 
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Plain and simple--these 
attempts to do away with energy efficiency standards will hurt our 
competitive advantage against China.
  America's lighting industry has invested millions of dollars to 
manufacture new energy efficient incandescent light bulbs here in the 
United States. These bulbs produce the same type of light as the former 
bulbs but use 28 percent to 33 percent less energy. An amendment to 
prohibit enforcement of the energy efficiency standards is an attack on 
our domestic lighting industry. Denying the Department of Energy the 
power to enforce an existing law opens the door to the importation of 
non-compliant products from foreign manufacturers that will not only 
harm

[[Page 8103]]

the investments made by American manufacturers but put American jobs at 
risk.
  The current lighting efficiency standards are creating American jobs 
because the manufacturing of these light bulbs is done in the United 
States. Most of the operations producing less efficient lighting were 
moved offshore years ago. We are creating American jobs making better 
light bulbs that meet the new standards. The energy-efficient lighting 
industry currently employs more than 14,000 American workers. I do not 
want to send those jobs to China!
  The light bulb has been a symbol of American ingenuity since the late 
1800s. When Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, it revolutionized 
our economy and electricity around the world. If America wants to lead, 
we need to become more efficient. That is the way of the future.
  Supporting America's energy-efficient lighting industry is about more 
than jobs. It's about saving money, saving each American household $100 
per year in the form of lower electric bills. I know my constituents 
want that $100 in their pockets.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing any amendment 
that would prohibit the Department of Energy from utilizing energy 
efficiency standards for lighting to help save money and energy while 
supporting U.S. manufacturing.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chair, at its best, the Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill sets forth a forward-looking agenda for our 
national investment in ports and waterways, clean energy development, 
environmental reclamation, scientific innovation, the responsible 
management of our nuclear weapons stockpile and our ongoing commitment 
to nuclear nonproliferation. Unfortunately, in too many places, H.R. 
5325 falls short of that forward-looking agenda.
  As Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, I fully understand the 
need to cut federal spending. Indeed, I supported last year's Budget 
Control Act, which cut about $1 trillion in federal spending over the 
next ten years. However, we also need to compete in clean energy, 
science, innovation and advanced manufacturing--and that is where this 
legislation misses the mark.
  For example, this legislation cuts funding for clean energy and 
energy efficiency by $374 million below FY 2012 and $886 million below 
the President's request. The budget for the Department of Energy's 
Office of Science is cut $64 million below current levels and $167 
million below the President's request. And the Advanced Research 
Projects Agency, or ARPA-E--which is doing transformational, 
potentially game-changing work on behalf of our nation's long term 
energy security--is provided only $200 million, which is $75 million 
below FY 2012 and $150 million below the President's request.
  Additionally, the underlying bill contains a misguided policy rider 
blocking the Administration from restoring long-standing Clean Water 
Act protections for stream and wetlands across the country--and an 
amendment was adopted during floor debate which will block enforcement 
of common sense light bulb energy efficiency standards.
  Mr. Chair, we can do better. I urge a no vote.
  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. 
West) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, Chair of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5325) making 
appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, 
had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________