Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3183) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it is, indeed, a privilege to submit to the House for its consideration H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. The Appropriations Committee approved this bill unanimously by a voice vote on July 8. This is a good bill that merits the support of the entire House.

I thank all of the members of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee for their help in bringing this bill to the floor today. This has been a challenging year with our extremely compressed schedule, and I appreciate our Members' attention and participation in this accelerated process.

I particularly want to thank the ranking member--my dear friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen)--for his extraordinary cooperation, insight and friendship.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan bill that represents the fair and balanced treatment of competing priorities. This is the way our constituents expect their Representatives to work together, and I am proud of this bipartisan process.

I also would like to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, and the ranking member, Mr. Lewis, for their support.

I was given this assignment 3 weeks ago, and without the great work of the subcommittee staff, we would not be here today. So, today, this afternoon, I want to thank the staff of the subcommittee: the Clerk, Taunja Berquam; Robert Sherman; Joseph Levin; James Windle; Casey Pearce; Rob Blair; and Kevin Jones. They worked many hours and through the weekends to get this bill today on the floor.

I would also like to thank Richard Patrick, from my office, and Ms. Nancy Fox and Ms. Katie Hazlett of Mr. Frelinghuysen's office.

I want to acknowledge our agency detailee, Lauren Minto from the Corps of Engineers, for her assistance, talent and knowledge in putting this bill and report together.

These people have formed a great team, and without their work, we would not be here today. I have to thank them again because their support has been invaluable.

Mr. Chairman, this bill provides funding to address critical issues that affect our Nation's security and prosperity--from Addressing high gas prices, our energy crisis and climate change to advancing science and innovation, to preventing nuclear proliferation, to encouraging effective project management, and to investing in our Nation's flood control and water infrastructure projects.

The total funding for energy and water development in fiscal year 2010 is $33.3 billion. This funding amount is a decrease of $1.1 billion from the budget request, and it is roughly equal to the current fiscal year. While the bill is below the budget request, the primary reason for this difference is a Congressional Budget Office score of $1.5 billion for the Department of Energy's budget request for the Innovative Loan Guarantee Program. The bill provides $406 million above the budget request in program scope.

This bill made a concerted effort to cut lower priority programs and to apply the cuts to higher priority efforts. These spending cuts include 18 activities, totaling $2.5 billion below the President's request.

Given the wide-ranging scope of issues in this legislation that are critical to our Nation's well-being, I set forth the following priorities to ensure that our tax dollars will be spent wisely and effectively. These priorities include:

addressing high gas prices, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and confronting the energy crisis through increased investment in alternative, domestic transportation fuels and new vehicle technologies;

addressing climate change with sound investments in carbon sequestration, low-emission energy technologies, and science research;

modernizing the energy sector through the research and development

of renewable energy sources, efficient energy technologies, and novel electric grid technologies;

confronting the terrorist nuclear threat by increasing the protection of nuclear materials and accelerating the deployment of systems to detect such materials at border crossing points and ports;

improving the security of our weapons by upgrading the protection of our facilities as well as improving the training and equipment of the Protective Force;

insisting that the President submit to Congress a nuclear weapons strategy and a nuclear complex transformation plan before Congress will consider funding a new nuclear warhead;

investing in dam safety, flood protection, hydropower modernization and infrastructure that is essential to waterborne commerce on our coasts, rivers and inland lakes, which is essential to the safety of our citizens and our economy; and

saving taxpayer dollars by improving management of agency programs, especially at the Department of Energy.

This bill provides adequate funds to meet the priority needs of the House. It funds the most worthwhile projects and programs near requested levels, and it reduces some programs that are less valuable or less urgent. I urge my colleagues of the House to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

As we talked earlier this morning, we said that we understand the importance of Hanford as well as all the other sites, and I told you of the possibility that some of us would need to go see the site and look at it firsthand. So you well know that I recognize the importance of cleaning up Hanford and also all of the EM sites. I will work with you on this issue and review the needs of Hanford's Richland Operations office, including the River Corridor Closure project, as we make our way through conference and write a final bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

I can assure the gentleman from Washington that the committee is aware of this sustainable domestic energy source and its potential. We will continue to work with the gentleman from Washington through conference to highlight renewable marine and hydrokinetic energy development as a priority for the agency.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, my good friend, Bobby Scott.

I thank the gentleman for bringing this important issue to us.

You have made a case that the administration request for $22 million for the continuous electron beam accelerator facility is merited.

You have my personal commitment to work with you and Mr. Wittman going forward to see that this project receives the funding it needs and deserves.

First of all, I thank the gentleman for yielding time and congratulate him on his amendments.

To you and Mrs. Schmidt, I appreciate the comments made by all my colleagues. I will be happy to work with everyone to ensure the program is run efficiently and effectively. The management and effectiveness of this program is a priority of the subcommittee. We must ensure that it is fair to all applicants. And, yes, I will work with my colleagues.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

First of all, thank you for the compliment, and I will tell you that I have Eliot Engel and Brad Sherman, as well as you, Madam Chairman and Mr. Israel, who have brought this matter to my attention, and I want to thank you for raising it on the floor.

I, too, am a supporter of the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation. This bill, as you have told us, doubles the account which funds such programs, and I look forward to working to ensure that the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation continues to receive strong support in order to accelerate the development of alternative energy programs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington for drawing the subcommittee's attention to this very serious issue. He has been a dedicated advocate for the people of the Ninth District of Washington and the surrounding areas. We will work with the gentleman to ensure that the Seattle district of the Corps is responsive to the needs of the cities and people along the lower Green and Puyallup Rivers and that adequate resources are available to repair the Howard Hanson Dam. So we look forward to working with you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I agree, and the committee was pleased to recommend that the Nuclear Power 2010 program receives $71 million in this legislation, an increase of $51 million above the President's request.

I want to thank the gentleman for pointing out the vital role this program plays in his district. I am glad that NP2010 funding is included in the bill for all participants who are moving forward with licensing and building to bring the next generation of nuclear plants to the market.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).

First of all, I want to thank you for raising this important issue, and you have my personal commitment to work with you as we go forward to find a solution that best serves the national security.

We're well aware of the capabilities and the value of Los Alamos National Laboratories.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, my good friend, Mr. Polis.

First of all, you are both correct in that when the Secretary appeared before the subcommittee, this is and was presented as a work in progress. And knowing that we are going to proceed forward with the administration and with the Secretary, we thought that it was in the best interest to fund one hub. And as the Secretary and the administration goes forward in developing these hubs, we look forward to working with you, Mr. Polis.

I yield another minute to Mr. Polis.

So we look forward to working with you and Mr. Carnahan because it's an idea that obviously will expand, will grow, and we

want to make sure that the committee, the subcommittee has the opportunity to work with the Secretary to see its development. So we look forward to working with you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Israel.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).

We don't have any other speakers. So I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, as you heard, this is a bipartisan bill. We've tried to balance the different priorities and needs of this country.

Again, I want to thank my ranking member for his cooperation, his support, and his insight in preparing this bill. It is a good bill, and we would not have been able to do it without the staff that was involved in bringing this bill to us.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment provides funding for several important programs within the bill. On behalf of Messrs. Arcuri, Michaud, Hodes, Welch and Ms. Pingree, $2.5 million for the Northern Border Regional Commission to address economic challenges in border counties from Maine to New York.

On behalf of Mr. Klein of Florida, $1.8 million for the Corps of Engineers to help address the chronic backlog of regulatory permit applications.

And on behalf of Mr. Israel, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. Dent, Mr. Massa, Mr. Inglis, $45 million for energy efficiency, renewable energy.

On behalf of Mr. Cuellar of Texas, the amendment prohibits funds in this bill from being used to purchase lightbulbs unless they the energy star or Federal energy management program designation.

Also, this manager's amendment has an amendment for Mr. Kissell which does not create any new programs or it follows the current language, and the amendment prohibits funds in the bill from being used to purchase passenger vehicles unless they're purchased from Ford, GM or Chrysler.

The amendment decreases funding for Corps of Engineers' programs and expenses by $10.8 million; the Department of Energy departmental administration by $30 million; the office of electricity by $15 million; and other defense activities by $.25 million.

I reserve my time, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I apologize to the ranking member in

that it was my understanding that the manager's amendment had been shown to him and had sought his approval, but if they had not, my deepest apologies because I think it's important that this bill, along with the manager's amendment, continue to be bipartisan.

I yield 30 seconds to Mr. Massa.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment and I would ask the House Members to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

I just want to inform the gentleman that we support his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even though I do support the amendment.

As I told you, I support this amendment since it simply adds money to the Corps construction account. However, I wish to point out that additional funds for Chickamauga Lock cannot be made available until the solvency of the Inland Waterway Trust Fund is addressed.

The project requires 50 percent of its funding from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and that trust fund isn't solvent. Before any new multiyear obligations are initiated, the revenue stream or alternative funding solutions for these projects must be addressed.

We have been working with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for a comprehensive solution to the issue for some time. I have sympathy for the project. I think I know more about this project because of Mr. Davis and Mr. Wamp. I congratulate both of them for bringing the amendment.

Again, the issue at hand is a lot larger than the $180 million project. I support the project.

I will yield to my ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

I'm very happy to tell the author of the amendment that this will be a bipartisan amendment, since we are accepting his amendment.

We understand how important hydropower is, and we need improvements at existing facilities so we can provide the reliable, efficient domestic emissions-free source of renewable energy. Investment in modern turbines has been a benefit of improving existing water quality and fish passage issues, in addition to increasing generation efficiency and capability.

As energy security and issues of global climate change are becoming increasingly important to the decisionmaking regarding infrastructure investment, improving existing hydropower facilities, we must add some priority.

I urge the Bureau of Reclamation to work with local groups and public power entities as it looks to use its water resources most efficiently. I also urge the Bureau of Reclamation to continue to focus on its core water and related resource projects and not sacrifice that valuable work while engaging in this effort. I support the amendment.

I will yield time to the ranking member, Mr. Frelinghuysen.

We support the amendment, and yield back the balance of our time.

I would just like to inform the gentleman that we are supportive of his amendment.

I just want to indicate to my friend, Dennis Cardoza, that we will be supportive of his amendment.

First of all, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would also like to thank him for bringing this amendment.

This amendment funds research and development for one of the small handful of technologies that may reduce the Nation's dependence on foreign oil. This increase in funding is consistent with the committee's efforts in this bill to address rising gasoline prices.

So I tell my dear friend from Oklahoma that we rise in support of his amendment.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. This is a good bill because it is a significant improvement over the administration's budget request, and it was put together in a very bipartisan manner.

Before I turn to the contents of the legislation before us, like Mr. Pastor, I would like to thank the fantastic staff--Taunja Berquam, the Clerk; Bob Sherman; Joe Levin; Jim Windle; Casey Pearce; and Lauren Minto. On the minority side, I would like to thank Rob Blair and Kevin Jones. In my personal office, I would like to thank Katie Hazlett and Nancy Fox. In Mr. Pastor's personal office, I would like to thank Rick Patrick. All of these individuals have worked tirelessly to put together the product before us.

No one has worked harder than Mr. Pastor, and I want to thank Mr. Pastor for his friendship and for his leadership and guidance on this bill. The gentleman from Arizona is a pleasure to work with. I thank him for his leadership and for his assistance.

Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee's recommendation totals $33.82 billion, which is $1.1 billion below the President's request and $200 million over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. While the dollar amounts are significant, the issues contained in this bill are at the core of our Nation's economic prosperity and national security, especially the energy portfolio, and our historic responsibility for the reliability and the protection of our nuclear stockpile. Thus, it is worthy of debate and amendment on the House floor.

The bill was preceded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which gave more than $44 billion to the agencies under our jurisdiction. In fact, nearly $39 billion alone went to the Department of Energy. The Department has nearly one-and-a-half times more money to manage even before we consider this annual appropriations bill, so our bill cannot be viewed simply through the traditional lens of annual appropriations. With the passage of the stimulus bill, Secretary Chu and his new team assumed new roles as major grant managers and accountants for billions of dollars for new Federal and State programs and hundreds of new employees.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we were able to improve upon the administration's request in several ways. For example, the legislation before us increases the budget request by over $400 million for the Army Corps of Engineers, enabling us to address more water needs across our country. The Army Corps projects touch virtually every congressional district; and I know Mr. Pastor and I highly respect the interests of all Members who, knowing their district needs, have sought some assistance; and we've done our best to accommodate them. Our recommendation increases research and development for both renewable energy and nuclear power while supporting clean coal initiatives and other technologies, such as geothermal, solar, fusion and wind power. I am exceptionally pleased that our bill keeps the Department on track for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant program.

There are some areas that I would have done a bit differently, of course. Not surprisingly, I would have preferred to have done more to reverse the administration's decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada, where we have spent over $11 billion of taxpayer and rate payer moneys--in fact, $7 billion of rate payer moneys--with little apparent return. We still have tons of waste to dispose of and to protect. The bill before us does contain the administration's significant cut to the program, and I am deeply concerned that this basically political decision will be followed by others trumping future scientific recommendations and judgments. However, our bill directs $70 million to ensure that the questions raised during the Yucca license application process can be answered; and it requires that funding for the President's suggested Blue Ribbon Panel is only available for a review, which includes all alternatives, including Yucca Mountain. I think this is the only way future review could be credible.

I would also have preferred much more support for nuclear power here in the United States and the greater availability of nuclear loan guarantees. Given what China and other nations are doing to build new nuclear power plants, we could produce much more electricity ourselves while adding American jobs, which we need if the administration as well as House and Senate majority leadership were more supportive. American companies are working abroad building nuclear power plants while we dither here. The President and congressional leadership appear to have a strong bias against nuclear power as well as oil and gas production, which will leave our Nation severely disadvantaged. Energy-intensive industries, like what is left of our American manufacturing base, will no longer be able to compete with nations who are making nuclear and other types of capital investments a priority, and they're not subjecting themselves to self-imposed cap-and-trade emissions reductions. Our lack of investing in nuclear power, so well illustrated in the recent passage of the so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act, is a gift that keeps on giving to our economic competitors China and India, whose economies are already sucking away U.S. jobs at an alarming rate.

We also improved that portion of the committee's jurisdiction that involves nuclear weapons activities, not to promote more nuclear weapons, but to provide more funds to reduce the weapons stockpile. The President's recent trip to Russia and his call for major changes in what is called our nuclear ``posture'' must be matched by the administration's funding requests that will pay for our country's nuclear dismantlements and for the science to certify the reliability of what's left. And we must provide adequate funding to retain our highly specialized nuclear scientists and technicians and to maintain the facilities and laboratories where they do their work. The only way to support our national security is by increasing this account, not by holding it flat. Talk about a delicate balance between nuclear and renewables is only talk, for investments in renewables received $60 billion in the $800 billion stimulus--all of that borrowed money, I should add--and nuclear received nothing. I do hope that we can address this disproportionality in conference.

One of my biggest disappointments, however, is not with the bill but the way it was brought to the floor. With all the debate about climate change, global warming, conservation, carbon footprints and green jobs, Members of Congress in both parties should have the right to propose amendments to address their concerns and support sources of power that they specifically favor and know about, whether that be nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, oil- or gas-based, fuel cell or fusion. That traditional right to amend our appropriations has been severely curtailed by the House leadership. Our appropriations bill affects virtually every

part of our economy, the household budgets of every American family and job prospects for thousands, and the thought that renewables alone are going to give us energy independence is, of course, on its face, absurd.

Before I close though, I'd like, on a positive note, to thank the Army Corps of Engineers, both military and civilian who, as we gather here today, continue to do their remarkable work in dangerous territory in Iraq and Afghanistan. We thank them for their courage, their work and their professionalism. Mr. Chairman, again I'd like to thank Vice Chairman Pastor for his leadership. Despite my unhappiness about the energy policy issues I have discussed, I intend to support the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt) for purpose of a colloquy.

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Yes. Mrs. Schmidt, I agree that 11 months is more than enough for the Department of Energy to act upon the loan guarantee submission for the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. It is a personal priority of mine to ensure that this program is run efficiently and in the best interest of U.S. taxpayers. While it needs to move quickly, the loan

guarantee application process should be open and fair to all applicants.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey, Congressman Chris Smith.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Calvert of California, a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time and ask how much time is available on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Let me say I would be happy to work, like Mr. Pastor would, to see what we could do to be helpful to all involved.

Mr. Kingston, as you know, we have yet to go to conference, but this is an interest that you and other Members have in terms of its effects on your particular States. You have my commitment, as well as the ranking member as you heard, to work with you and work it out.

We reserve our time, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I don't have any real problem with the content of my chairman's amendment. I do, however, have a problem with carrying the idea of a manager's amendment, which was once only for our full committee's consideration, right on to the House floor.

In committee, this sort of amendment is used for noncontroversial items. Many of these are. They're generally accepted by unanimous consent. But now it's largely used, in many instances, for partisan purposes on the House floor.

None of the content of this chairman's amendment was discussed with the minority, and none of the changes were made or suggested by the minority. If the changes are important, then I think we should be able to discuss them. Otherwise, I fear it is only a matter of time before the majority will include everything they can in this sort of en masse amendment. This will be bad for the institution and I think bad for the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I'm not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The gentleman's amendment would transfer $7 million to restore and protect a nationally and regionally important resource. These fisheries provide hundreds of jobs, if not thousands, to local oystermen.

I would only say that this is a huge project and must be balanced against other national priorities and ask the gentleman to work closely, as I'm sure he will, with the Corps to ensure that their budget request reflects the needs for the program against the background of other demands the Corps is facing.

With that, I'd be pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Would the gentleman yield?

Let me associate my remarks with your statement and commend both Mr. Wamp and Mr. Davis for being articulate, ardent supporters of this move forward.

I have been to the Chickamauga Lock. I can certainly attest to Mr. Wamp's boundless energy and determination to make this thing happen. He's made me aware of the dangers of what happens if we have inaction. I want to commend you. Obviously this issue is moving ahead, but there's some complex issues that need to be addressed that Mr. Pastor has appropriately commented on.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me, Mr. Chairman, associate myself again with Chairman Pastor's remarks. I've been to Congressman Hastings' district. When he talks about hydropower, he knows what he's talking about. He's obviously been a strong proponent of nuclear power.

So we're pleased to accept the amendment. Thank you for recognizing me.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, though I am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Let me say that while I am supportive of this amendment, it is Congressman Devin Nunes who's been on this floor repeatedly calling Members' attention to the catastrophic situation in California, and I'm admiring of both Representatives Costa and Cardoza's effort. But it's been Devin Nunes who's been really carrying this issue in a very visible way. He went to try to get three amendments in order before the Rules Committee yesterday afternoon and evening, and he was denied that opportunity.

But I'm no expert on California water, but let's give credit all around to Members of Congress that have stood up on this issue to articulate their position, indeed, their passionate position.

I support the amendment, but I certainly want to recognize all members of the California delegation, and since Mr. Nunes' name was not mentioned in earlier comments, I would certainly like to highlight his role making this a priority for our attention.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, though I am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I served on the Energy and Water Committee when I was first elected to Congress in 1994. I took a 2-year hiatus when I chaired the D.C. Committee, working with Mr. Fattah as ranking member.

There is a water crisis out in your neck of the woods, and we are respectful that Republicans and Democrats didn't work together on these issues. I have to say I'm hugely disappointed at your lack of inclusiveness. You may be spitting mad at Congressman Devin Nunes. Yet, for many Members of Congress, he put a human face on the water crisis out there. I'm not going to get into the issues of biological studies and things of that nature, but you at least ought to give your congressional colleague from California credit for raising this issue.

He tried to raise the issue, but quite honestly, he was voted down on the floor a number of times. When he went to the Rules Committee, his amendments were not put in order. Yours were. Basic courtesy would have called for his name to at least be mentioned as he rose to the floor today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, but I am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to recognize for 1 minute the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to recognize for 1 minute the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 645 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and, ultimately, the underlying bill. In reality, it is about trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation, itself.

I think that is wrong, and I hope my colleagues will vote to consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass this legislation today.

I have the right to close, but in the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' so that we can consider the rule and get down to doing the business of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so that we can debate and pass this important piece of legislation today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, my friend Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 645.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 645 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010. The resolution provides for 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Obey as well as Mr. Pastor and Mr. Visclosky for their work on this bill. They have been tireless advocates for vital funding in this legislation which truly meets the needs of a number of important areas from our water infrastructure to our national energy policies. Specifically, the bill provides $5.5 billion for the Corps of Engineers, which is $139 million over 2009 levels. For my constituents, this funding is more than just numbers. It is a matter of survival. My district sits at the confluence of two great rivers, the Sacramento and the American. The Sacramento is considered to have the highest flood risk of any major metropolitan city in the United States. Almost a half million people, 110,000 structures, the capital of the State of California and up to $58 billion are at risk of flooding in my district alone. The Federal investments in this legislation for the Corps of Engineers directly benefits not only my constituents but the capital of the eighth largest economy in the world. Vital funding will strengthen levees along the American and Sacramento Rivers, levees which keep my constituents safe every single day.

The bill also makes it possible for the Corps of Engineers to complete a GRR to protect the Natomas community in my district. Additional funds will go toward levee construction in south Sacramento, which will give that community 100-year protection. These are projects I have worked on throughout my career in Congress, and I am eager to see it move forward. Finally, this important appropriations bill will also invest in modifications to the joint Federal project to provide greater efficiency in managing flood storage in the Folsom Reservoir.

From the joint Federal project in Sacramento to the levee work in the Mississippi Delta to the coastal restoration in the southeast, this bill works to protect our communities and commits to a strong investment in our aging infrastructure. The legislation before us today builds on the job-creating work of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which has already started to stem the tide of bad economic news. In April, $10 million was invested in flood protection infrastructure in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. This project alone will create up to 200 quality American jobs in manufacturing and construction. In my district alone, the Recovery Act has invested $21 million already in keeping my constituents' homes safe from floods and in keeping people in their jobs. The legislation before us today builds upon this positive record of infrastructure investment as a job- creating strategy. It will employ scientists to perform hydraulic studies, engineers to design levees and construction workers to move the dirt. When we rebuild our infrastructure, we rebuild our economy. The same is true for energy. When we invest in energy independence, we invest in our economic health. I strongly support the significant energy policies that this bill supports. Thanks to the congressional leadership in this House, our country is finally on the right track toward a clean energy future that will create jobs here at home and enhance our competitiveness abroad. Between the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the American Clean Energy and Security Act, this Congress has created a new day for our national energy policy.

The legislation contains $1 billion to reduce our dependence on foreign oil

and keep energy prices low. This funding will go toward research, development, demonstration and deployment of energy technologies which will help our country become more energy independent. When I look to the future of the world economy, other countries are already investing in the clean energy technologies that will power the future. China, for example, doubled its wind power investment in 2008 and has made its intentions clear to become the world's leader in wind energy development. The legislation before us today represents a strong step that this House can take to compete with the Chinese.

This bill also looks toward the future and provides robust funding for both the Department of Energy and the Office of Science. It makes a commitment to support the advancement of innovative technologies by providing $2.25 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy. It also recognizes the importance of an efficient, reliable, secure and flexible transmission and distribution grid by increasing funding for electricity delivery and energy reliability to $208 million, 52 percent above last year's level. Every increase for clean energy in this bill is a bet on the ingenuity of the American people to compete in a global marketplace where clean energy will drive investment for decades into the future. Just as every dollar invested in levees and other infrastructure in this bill is a down payment on the safety and security of communities, like my hometown of Sacramento, safety and security is what the legislation before us today is all about.

I strongly support the rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank Mr. Obey and the committee for their work on this robust bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from New York, a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Arcuri.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point.

This bill makes an investment in nuclear power and makes it clear that nuclear energy is a component of the overall energy mix. The bill provides $812 million for nuclear, $20 million above the fiscal year 2009 level, and $51 million above the President's request. Support is provided for existing activities funded in fiscal year 2009 and ensures this area is included in our funding priorities.

And with that, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point.

Infrastructure spending on public safety projects in this bill will save jobs across America.

Infrastructure spending is also smart investment, exactly the kind of smart investment the American people want this Congress to be making at this difficult point in our history.

The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates levee construction provides a 6-to-1 return on flood damages prevented when compared to initial investment cost. At the same time, our country's levees are crumbling and putting public health at risk.

Now is exactly the time to invest in this critical public good.

With that, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

The rule before us today is a fair rule that allows us to highlight a significant appropriations bill. After seven hearings, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water crafted an important bill that brings our spending priorities in line with America's vision for a brighter tomorrow.

The bill before us invests in new technologies, scientific research and conservation efforts. It increases funding for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation allowing them to continue their mission to improve our water infrastructure.

The bill continues to invest in the development of a new smart grid to ensure electricity delivery and energy reliability, and it makes a commitment to renewable energy and scientific research. The bill also continues ongoing nuclear nonproliferation efforts and rejects funding for the development of a new nuclear weapon.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 645 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

Strike the resolved clause and all that follows and insert

the following:

Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 3183) making appropriations for energy and

water development and related agencies for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes. The first

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of

order against consideration of the bill are waived except

those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General

debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.

After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against

provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of

rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for

amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may

accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the

Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in

the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that

purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed

shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and

reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that

the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered

as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final

passage without intervening motion except one motion to

recommit with or without instructions.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) for the time, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

The underlying legislation, the Energy-Water Appropriations Act, provides over $33.2 billion in funding for critical water projects. It helps to develop a cleaner, more dependable energy sector that is less dependent on unreliable sources of foreign energy. It also supports our national defense system by funding critical weapons and nonproliferation programs. The Water Resources Development Act of 2007, known as WRDA, authorized the deepening of the Miami Harbor to a depth of 50 feet. The underlying legislation follows up on that authorization with $600,000 for the planning of the dredging project. Reaching a depth of 50 feet by the time that the Panama Canal expansion is completed in 2014 is of both local and national importance. Once the Panama Canal expansion is complete, a new class of supercargo carriers will be able to traverse the canal and will be looking for new deepwater ports to unload their cargo. However, there are very few ports in the United States ready to handle those carriers. Once Miami reaches the 50-foot depth mark, it will be the closest U.S. port to the Panama Canal that can handle the carriers and will serve as a vital entry point for international trade in and out of the United States. The ability of the Port of Miami to accommodate those carriers will double the amount of cargo the port is able to handle and will serve to cement Miami's position as the trade capital of the Americas. It will also create numerous high-paying jobs; and it will have an extraordinary impact, obviously, on the local economy.

The Florida Everglades is a great national treasure. The Everglades' combination of abundant moisture, rich soils and subtropical temperatures traditionally supported a vast array of species. Flood control and reclamation efforts in the 1940s and the 1950s manipulated the Everglades' hydrology, redirecting fresh water destined for the Everglades out to sea. Its ecosystem was also harmed by degraded water quality. Pollutants from urban areas and agricultural run-off, including pesticides and excess nutrients, have harmed plant and animal populations. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which I strongly support, will capture fresh water destined for the sea, the lifeblood of the Everglades, and direct it back to the ecosystem to revitalize it. At the same time the project will also improve water supplies, provide flood control for South Florida and protect wildlife. My colleagues in the South Florida delegation and I have worked closely with appropriators to secure funding for this important project. I'm thankful to my colleagues, and I am pleased the Appropriations Committee agreed on the importance of this project by appropriating $210 million. I would like to thank Chairman Pastor and Ranking Member Frelinghuysen for their bipartisan work on the important underlying legislation that we're bringing to the floor today.

While I support the underlying legislation, I must oppose the rule by which the majority is bringing this bill to the floor. Last month the majority set a dangerous precedent to limit debate on appropriations bills, debate that, historically, was almost always considered under an open rule, an open process of debate. Today, Mr. Speaker, we are set to consider the eighth of 12 appropriations bills, and every bill considered so far has been considered under a structured rule that severely limits the ability of Members from both sides of the aisle to bring amendments to the floor for debate and for a vote and is not in the usual open procedure which allows every Member to offer their amendments.

During last week's Rules Committee hearing on the State and Foreign Operations appropriations bill, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis, testified that there was still time to undo the majority's new precedent, restricting the ability of Members to offer amendments to appropriation bills. Mr. Lewis asked the majority to reconsider the use of structured rules on appropriations bills, to return to regular order, to historical order, to the tradition of an open debate process on appropriations bills. He even offered his services to persuade Members to not offer dilatory amendments, which would hamper the ability of Congress to complete its appropriations work on time, something that both the majority and the minority wish to accomplish. Ranking Member Dreier of the Rules Committee and I also offered to help Ranking Member Lewis rein in any Members who wished to unnecessarily prolong the debate process. I really hoped that the majority on the Rules Committee would heed Mr. Lewis' thoughtful suggestion and accept his offer to help move the process along if an open debate process was returned to. However, the majority, once again, blocked the overwhelming majority of Members from both sides of the aisle from having a full opportunity to debate the bill and represent the interests of their constituents.

So, Mr. Speaker, the majority has not understood the damage it is causing this House by closing debate unnecessarily on appropriations bills by breaking, in effect, two centuries of precedents. It is sad.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Nathan Deal.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend, Mrs. Matsui, once again for her courtesy, and I want to thank all of my distinguished colleagues who have participated in this debate on the rule bringing forward to the floor the appropriations bill, the Energy and Water appropriations bill.

I was particularly impressed by the arguments brought forth by Lee Terry who explained--and I wasn't aware of it--how, in the authorizing committee, and, quite frankly, then the Appropriations Committee, there have been systematic attempts to limit, close down debate, really, on developing, encouraging in a serious, comprehensive way nuclear power for the Nation.

It reminded me of what I consider an unfortunate aspect of the dogma of the left of the United States. Curious is their opposition to nuclear power. Not necessarily is that the case with the left everywhere. In France, for example, where about 80 percent of electricity is generated from nuclear power, governments of the left and the right. President Mitterand was a strong supporter of nuclear power, as obviously was President Giscard, and then President Chirac, and now President Sarkozy. Left and right in France have seen the critical importance of developing nuclear power and the importance of reprocessing, which was what Lee Terry was talking about, that ever since the Carter years here we have limited, we have excluded, in effect, that option.

So we're at a point now where we spend so much--we use so much imported oil in this country to generate electricity. That's insane when there is a clean option, nuclear power, which requires reprocessing in order to be really effective, as demonstrated in France. And yet the dogma of the American left on that issue curiously does not make that option possible.

Let me ask, how much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

I yield myself the remainder of my time.

It is a pillar of thought of the American left's opposition to nuclear power. I think it's evident. And the American left controls the leadership of this Congress, and it's unfortunate, as Mr. Wamp pointed out, because, and as I tried to point out earlier, in other countries left and right agree on the importance of nuclear power. It's clean energy that is available, readily available, and safe to reduce dependence on oil immediately.

Alternative sources are being developed, and they're important. But in terms of the significant substitution of oil with new sources, clean and reliable sources of energy, there is nothing that's available that can be more impacted or more effective than nuclear power. So it's a curiosity.

As a student, I studied comparative politics, comparative law. As a student of the left and the right in many countries, I find it curious as to why it is, because it is evidently a pillar of thought of the American left--opposition to nuclear power--but it's a fact.

I will be asking for a ``no'' on the previous question, Mr. Speaker, so we can amend this rule so we can allow an open process. There is no question that the rules the majority bring forth today will help to cement the dangerous precedent that it set last month. It will further damage bipartisanship and comity in this body.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can uphold our tradition of allowing free and open debate on appropriations bills. If we do not do so, I believe the majority will come to regret their decision to close down the deliberative process of the House on appropriations bills.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of the rule because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act.

The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, we are going through an appropriations process. We will do two bills this week. Traditionally, appropriations bills have been open rules. They come to the floor. Members are allowed to offer as many amendments as they wish--striking funding, moving funding around, making a policy point. That has been the tradition of this House.

It is sometimes pointed out that it hasn't always been this way, that the appropriations bills haven't always been open, and that there is no reason why they should be. Yet I would remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that, over the past 20 years, we've gotten into a practice of loading up and larding up these appropriations bills with all kinds of congressionally directed spending.

The chairman of the Appropriations Committee likes to say that, when he chaired the Appropriations Committee in 1992, when the Labor-HHS bill came through, there was not one congressional earmark, not one. That's less than 20 years ago. There was not one congressional earmark. I think, in the past couple of years, there have been upwards of 2,500 earmarks in that bill. In the bill that we'll address today, the energy and water bill, there are literally hundreds of earmarks.

Now, one would like to think that the Appropriations Committee would vet these earmarks, would actually check them out to see if they're meeting Federal purpose, if money is being wasted, if it, maybe, looks bad and looks like it's tied to campaign contributions or whatever, but they don't. They don't have the time or the resources or, perhaps, the inclination to do so, so all we have is this forum here on the floor. When you bring an appropriations bill to the floor under a closed rule or a restricted rule--a structured rule--and deny Members the ability to offer amendments, then you've shut down this place in a way that is simply not right.

For this bill, there were 103 amendments submitted. Now, because you have to pre-file your amendments, a lot of Members will submit more amendments than they intend to offer on the floor just to protect their place. So the majority party knows that we would never have offered 103 amendments on the floor. We won't have time to do it. We have done it in years past, but only 21 of these remained in order--78 Republican amendments were submitted, and only 14 were made in order.

The gentleman from Georgia, to whom I will yield 3 minutes, has been offering a number of amendments, and has not been able to have them made in order.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is an unfunded mandates point of order that has been raised. This is not unfunded mandates we're talking about here. Unfortunately, this is about the only way we can get time to actually talk about this rule at sufficient length.

As to the way that these appropriations bills are being shut down for Members and when the gentlelady said that this bill should be voted on according to its merits, the problem is there were dozens and dozens of meritorious amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee. The fact that they actually had to be submitted tells us we've got some problems here because, as I mentioned, appropriations bills have traditionally been open, but meritorious amendments have been submitted, and only a few have been allowed.

Now, I happen to have six, I believe, allowed in this bill, and I know full well the game here. I offer limitation amendments on earmarks. The majority party knows full well that earmarking is a bipartisan addiction and that the process of logrolling takes effect and that my amendments are defeated routinely. So they can throw me a bone here and there, and that's fine. I understand that. Still, we need to raise these issues. Let me tell you why.

This was in the Washington Post today, and you can look yesterday in Roll Call or in The Hill from the day before. Virtually every day there is a news story about earmarks having gone awry. This one in particular talks about defense earmarks, that there are some individuals in the lobbying community and in the defense community who have pled guilty to taking earmarks from this body and to spreading them around to several contractors who didn't do the work that they promised to do. Some actually took kickbacks for the earmark money they distributed. These were earmarks that were supposedly vetted by the Appropriations Committee, but we know that the Appropriations Committee doesn't have the time or resources to vet these earmarks.

We're going to be doing a defense appropriations bill in just a couple of weeks. We've allowed one day for that bill to be on the floor, and if history holds, only a couple of amendments will be allowed, particularly amendments to strike earmarks. If on this floor we are not going challenge these earmarks, where are we going to do it?

They're not doing it in the Appropriations Committee. From sad experience, we know that. Over the past several years, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has said they

don't have the time or the resources to adequately vet these earmarks, so we have two choices. We ought to have two choices. Either strike the earmarks and not bring the bill to the floor with congressional earmarks in there or have proper time to vet them on the floor. Or simply say that we're not going to allow them at all until we get this process fixed. Instead, what we've chosen to do is to cover up the process and to pretend that there is no problem here and to simply limit the number of amendments that can be offered on the floor and hope that nobody notices, that nobody sees.

What happens when nobody sees--last year, for example, we weren't allowed to offer any amendments on the floor. The defense appropriations bill was offered as part of a ``minibus'', and no amendments were offered at all. Then we get stories like this. Let me just quote one paragraph from this story:

It really puts a fine point on the murky unaccountable web that exists around earmarks, said Steve Ellis of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. These earmarks, because there is very little accountability, provide a petri dish for corruption.

Certainly, that is what we've seen over the past several years, but we are not allowing adequate time on the floor to vet what will be likely over 1,000 earmarks or close to it--if there are not 1,000, there will be several hundred--in the defense bill that's going to be coming up.

What is worse is that hundreds of these earmarks that will be in the defense bill will be given to companies whose executives will turn around and will write large campaign contributions to the sponsor of the earmark in the bill. So, essentially, we are earmarking for our campaign contributors.

I think we should all agree that, if there are earmarks in this body, they certainly shouldn't be going to those who can turn around and can then make a campaign contribution directly back to them. To give a Federal appropriation a no-bid contract--and that's what earmarks are, particularly in the defense bill, no-bid contracts--to somebody who can turn around and write a campaign contribution right back to you is wrong.

What makes it doubly wrong is that now, in the House, we are going to tell Members you can't even challenge those earmarks on the floor because we're going to limit you to three or four amendments. Choose them. That's it. That, Mr. Speaker, is wrong. We can't continue to do that. People say that, outside of the Beltway, nobody cares about process. That may be true, but take it from somebody who was in the majority and who is now in the minority, who is squarely in the minority: Bad process yields bad results, and it will catch up to you sooner or later. What is worse is that what we're doing, particularly with earmarks in the defense bill, reflects poorly on this House.

The cloud that hangs over this body rains on Republicans and Democrats alike; and we ought to stand up to the institution and say, We think more of this institution than that to have this cloud out there. So I would plead with everyone, Mr. Speaker, to not proceed with bills like this which don't allow Members to offer amendments on the floor, the amendments that are meritorious, that are not trying to slow down the process. They are simply trying to improve the bill.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.