Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act of 2011

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 2354 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 337, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chair or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees for the purpose of debate; amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 21, 26, 27, 53, 63, 66, 67, 70, 75, 76, 80, and 81; an amendment by Mrs. Adams regarding limiting funds for a Department of Energy Web site that disseminates information regarding energy efficiency and educational programs to children or adolescents; two amendments by Mrs. Blackburn regarding across-the-board cuts; an amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia regarding limiting funds for certain programs, projects or activities in Energy Programs-Science; two amendments by Mrs. Capps regarding limiting funds for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant; an amendment by Mr. Cohen regarding funding levels for the Solar Energy Program; an amendment by Mr. Denham regarding limiting funds to implement section 10011(b) of Public Law 111-11; an amendment by Mr. Engel regarding limiting funds for lease or purchase of new light-duty vehicles; an amendment by Ms. Eshoo regarding limiting funds for contracts with business entities that do not disclose political expenditures; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding limiting funds for Advanced

Research Projects Agency-Energy; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding limiting funds for Fossil Energy Research and Development; amendments by Mr. Frelinghuysen regarding funding levels; an amendment by Mr. Gosar regarding the Davis-Bacon Act; an amendment by Mr. Graves regarding limiting funds to be used in contravention of the 2006 Missouri River Master Manual; an amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida regarding limiting funds to be used in contravention of Executive Order No. 12898; an amendment by Mr. Hastings of Washington regarding limiting funds for the McNary Shoreline Management Plan; an amendment by Mr. Hastings of Washington regarding limiting funds for the Office of Nuclear Security; an amendment by Mr. Hastings of Washington regarding limiting funds for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project No. 2342; an amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas regarding limiting funds to be used in contravention of the Department of Energy Organization Act; an amendment by Ms. Kaptur regarding funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; an amendment by Mr. Luetkemeyer regarding the study pursuant to section 5018(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007; an amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher regarding limiting funds for loan guarantees for carbon capture and sequestration; an amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher regarding 10 percent of loan guarantee funds for non-water advanced nuclear reactors; an amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher regarding loan guarantees for carbon capture and sequestration projects not exceeding funds for non-water advanced nuclear reactor loan guarantees; an amendment by Mr. Richmond or Mr. Scalise regarding funding for Corps of Engineers construction; and an amendment by Mr. Sherman regarding limiting funds for international activities at the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; and, further, that each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Congressional Record or a designee, shall not be subject to amendment, except that the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations (or a respective designee) each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole; and, further, that each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and, further, that an amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment.

The Department of Energy relies heavily on a dedicated contractor workforce to manage and operate our national laboratories. Therefore, such an Executive order would impact nearly every program at the Department of Energy.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the gentleman from Oklahoma's amendment, a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

His amendment would increase funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Solar Energy program at the expense of fossil energy research. Our bill applied solar energy research to $97 million below fiscal year 2011 because, especially within today's budgetary constraints, we cannot afford to spend taxpayers' dollars on activities like demonstrations of proven technologies that should be funded by the private sector. But our bill preserves funding for the cutting-edge research that will advance American industry and help us lead globally. By the numbers, I can't support an amendment that adds funding back into this program.

Fossil energy generates 70 percent of our Nation's electricity and, may I add, generates, I believe, close to 55 percent of your State's energy. And it will continue to provide the lion's share of your and our Nation's energy's needs well into the 21st century.

The Fossil Energy Research program receives $477 million in our bill for research that's let us squeeze more energy out of our domestic fossil energy resources. This research aims to increase the efficiency of our fossil energy plants across the Nation. If we were to increase the efficiency of our fossil energy plants by just 1 percent, we would increase the output of our power plants by 12 times the total output of solar power in the United States. That's without using 1 pound or 1 liter of extra fuel from the ground.

I appreciate, truly, the gentleman's desire to move towards solar technologies, coming from a State that is a leader in that regard, and that's why we have included $166 million in our bill for that purpose. The Energy Efficiency and Renewable account has nearly $9 billion in unspent stimulus money. We've heard that before in earlier debates. And the importance of using fossil energy sources well is too great; so I can't support cutting into further fossil energy research and development. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do likewise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

The recommendation I brought to the full committee prohibited Davis- Bacon provisions on any sort of construction, roads, bridges, dams, and buildings, because the taxpayers, as a result, pay more.

Unfortunately, this provision was stricken, impacting right to work States and, quite honestly, shortchanging them.

You do the math. There have been plenty of studies. Davis-Bacon provisions inflate costs for construction projects as much as, in some cases, 22 percent. These added expenses come at a time when we are really close to being broke as a nation. How many more jobs, union or nonunion jobs, could we provide to put America back to work by supporting this amendment? Plenty more, and thus I am pleased to support the amendment.

I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

We would be happy to accept your amendment as it restates current law, and we appreciate your advocacy in this regard.

We have no objection to your amendment. We are pleased to support it. Certainly anyone who lives near the Columbia and Snake Rivers knows this is a beautiful part of the country. We are aware of this issue and commend you for addressing it forthrightly.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

The gentlewoman's amendment would reduce funding in the departmental accounts. Because of quite a few amendments we

have already passed on the floor, your reduction would not be a 5 percent reduction; it probably would be a 10 percent reduction.

I know generally there is not a lot of sympathy for administrative responsibilities in the Department of Energy, but this would leave Secretary Steve Chu with not perhaps enough people in his operation to oversee a lot of issues that he has before him, including solar energy.

May I say for the record, the Solar Energy account in the Department of Energy budget is $166 million. It is less than perhaps what it should be, but if you take it from the Department administrative account, we will have, I think, cause for more managerial problems to deal with. We also, may I say, have in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable program, as I have mentioned on a number of occasions, $9 billion of unspent stimulus funds. So there is plenty of money in here, and I don't think that the Department salaries and wages ought to suffer and be reduced at a time when they need the additional leadership over there. I somewhat reluctantly oppose your amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I would be happy to support your amendment. Of course, I will reserve judgment as to what Secretary Chu's plans are as they're somewhat on the drawing board; but we would agree with you that he needs to come to the Appropriations Committee and explain fully how he is going to have a better program for environmental management. It's too important to the Nation, not only to your State, but to other cleanup operations and sites around the Nation.

We are prepared to accept your amendment and commend you for it.

I am pleased to support your amendment.

I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

My colleague's amendment would eliminate funding for ARPA-E. The committee's top responsibility, of course, is to reduce government spending, and I appreciate my colleague's amendment and perhaps some of his other amendments for that reason. To that end, our bill reduces spending for energy and water development to near the 2006 level, $100 billion below fiscal year 2011, and a full $5.9 billion below the request.

I certainly share many of my colleague's concerns about this program. The committee has taken a very close look at it. Right now, ARPA-E must not intervene where private capital markets are already acting, and it must not be redundant with other programs of the Department of Energy.

I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

We respect the gentlewoman's efforts to protect the interests of her State and district; however, her amendment intervenes in a specific local project by prohibiting funds for a required step in the licensing process. I do not believe this is an appropriate Federal role in a process that should be driven by the State and local communities while being carefully evaluated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I, therefore, must oppose the amendment and urge other Members to oppose it as well.

I would be happy to yield to the ranking member from Indiana.

The gentleman's amendment would eliminate funding for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program, causing hundreds, if not thousands, of job losses and threatening our Nation's ability to compete in the rapidly growing portion of the energy sector.

I may also note for the record, Mr. Chairman, that Arizona itself is dependent, I believe, with close to 60 percent of its energy coming from fossil energy. So fossil energy is a part of the Nation's equation, and we had better be careful before we eliminate research and development.

Let me say, I appreciate and recognize the gentleman's passion for cutting spending and spending that is duplicative, but this type of research is important.

I yield to the ranking member.

I rise in reluctant opposition. First of all, I want to commend the gentleman for his advocacy for coastal restoration, and should we say literally carrying the ball for coastal restoration and for his remarkable props. We know on this committee what a high priority it is for his district and his State. May I thank him also for coming to the floor earlier to make a case, obviously, for controlling spending, but also doing some things that are very important to his constituents and others affected by the devastating floods. I want to commend him for his strong advocacy.

The bill before us includes more than $16 million, or more than 15 percent of the entire investigations account, to continue work on coastal restoration through studies, engineering, and design on various components of the program.

The committee had to make some tough choices in the bill, though, and although the Corps of Engineers construction account has increased $86 million above the President's request, let me say, above the President's request, it is still a reduction from fiscal year 2011.

The Corps had numerous projects under construction that were not included in the President's budget request and so were likely to be funded in construction year 2012.

While construction funding is trending downward, I believe it is most prudent to prioritize funding for these ongoing projects so they can be completed and the Federal Government can realize some benefits from previous spending, rather than starting new projects, as important as they are.

And even given that this project is currently authorized at approaching $2 billion and may continue to grow, it would not be prudent to begin another major new project while we have so many new commitments.

For these reasons I must oppose the amendment, but I sympathize with the gentleman on the purposes for which he is here.

I yield to the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana.

The amendment of the gentleman from Georgia would prohibit funds for the Vehicle Technologies activities at the Department of Energy that work with cities across the country to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The gentleman should know that the committee closely evaluated the alternative fuels program and slashed it to $202 million below the budget request, leaving only $26 million that we found to be well justified.

So we are making some progress and we are making some tough decisions. And even though the gentleman's heart is in the right place, we do need the $26 million to continue the program, and thus I oppose the gentleman's amendment, albeit reluctantly.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I am prepared to accept the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas. His amendment strengthens national security by allowing the Federal Government more alternatives to imported petroleum fuels.

More than half of the oil the Nation consumes each year is imported, as we know, and today the price of gasoline is hovering around the $4- a-gallon mark. By declaring some new fuel options to be off limits, section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 limits our Nation's ability to reduce its dependence on oil imports.

His amendment puts all alternatives back on the table, which I think is needed, so the Nation can begin to develop and use fuels that are made with resources from here in the United States. Energy self- sufficiency is a national security issue, and this amendment takes us in the right direction. I am pleased to support the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

We accept the amendment as well.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentlewoman from Tennessee's amendment.

First of all, I do appreciate the fact that she recognizes the committee made some tough choices. In fact, our overall bill is really down close to the 2006 level. Obviously, in some quarters, that doesn't satisfy every Member of Congress, but I'm respectful of her desire to go further.

Cuts of this magnitude, quite honestly, go far too deep. The types of things we do in our bill--our responsibility for the reliability of the nuclear stockpile--that's utmost, as is our responsibility for cleaning up nuclear waste. In fact, there are consent decrees where things have to be cleaned up because of things left over from World War II. There is research and development, which is important, and water issues. We heard for 2\1/2\ hours earlier today of the types of things that can happen to our Nation when water infrastructure is not kept up and modernized. There is the loss of human life, the loss of livelihoods, the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

I am respectful of the gentlewoman's perspective, but in reality this would be very damaging to our national security and to things that are important to life and property.

I am happy to yield to the ranking member.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment and join with my colleagues from California and New Jersey in their opposition.

The amendment is a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft Executive order which would provide for increased disclosure of the political contributions of government contractors, especially contributions given to third-party entities.

The argument is made that companies should not disclose more information because people in power would misuse that information to retaliate against them. Using that logic, all campaign disclosures are bad. Government contractors already disclose contributions and expenditures by their PACs and those who contribute to them. By extension, we ought to take that law and ensure that the voters of this country are protected so that they also know what those corporations are doing with their money as far as involvement in the electoral process.

The provisions, as drafted, are, I think, very good. The information is required to be provided, and the Executive order that the amendment would circumvent enhances the quality of information that people and citizens ought to have before they go to the polls. Disclosure is good. And for that reason I rise, again, in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I would take a different tact on the issue of common sense and security. I would like to talk about the security of our Nation and about our economic infrastructure and about these Corps regions.

I understand that the intent of the gentleman's amendment is to prohibit the Corps from preventing individuals from having handguns on projects administered by the Corps. I understand it's aimed at those who obviously support the Second Amendment. I do, myself. The fact is, I believe the gentleman's amendment is injurious to our national security. I do not think it is a good idea to allow individuals to walk around with guns over dams and water treatment plants that are administered by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Now, I assume that some of my colleagues disagree with me. However, this amendment also prohibits the Corps from implementing or enforcing rules on explosives and fireworks and other weapons. I don't believe there are

other Members in this body who believe the Corps should not be able to stringently enforce rules on explosives at dams and water projects and treatment facilities that they have jurisdiction over. Further, what if there's danger of fire on the Corps land? Unless there is some other law that supersedes the regulations that your amendment is aimed at, Corps employees would not be able to prevent people from launching fireworks, despite the dangers of wildfires.

I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and would hope that he would consider withdrawing his overly broad and misguided amendments.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I will reiterate my strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

We are talking about allowing people with weapons in areas where we have dams and water treatment plants, and the Army Corps of Engineers ought to be able to exercise control over those for the protection of those major economic infrastructures. I would respectfully disagree with the gentleman, that he would also reduce their ability as far as the regulation of people with explosives. And I think that, again, is very detrimental relative to our national security. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Davis-Bacon is a fairly simple concept, and it is a very fair one.

What it does is to protect the government and the taxpayers, as well as the workers, in carrying out the policy of paying a decent wage on government contracts.

The Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers on federally funded construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the community for similar work. The fact is that opponents claim Davis- Bacon requires union wage jobs. However, more than 75 percent of Davis- Bacon wage determinations are not based solely on union wages.

The quality of work on energy and water projects, for example, is crucial to the communities depending on them, and we do need individuals who are trained, who are more efficient, and who are going to do the job right the first time. One of the things that tends not to be noted when we have a discussion and debate about Davis-Bacon is the money it saves to the taxpayers that are hidden costs by those who do not use union labor and do not pay union scale wages.

By including fringe benefits in wage calculations, the Davis-Bacon act delivers health care and pensions for workers on Federal projects, ensuring that they aren't part of the many uninsured Americans who rely on Medicaid and cost the American taxpayers. The Department of Labor survey methods also incorporate hourly investments in training and apprenticeship, where appropriate, to ensure the skilled, productive, future workforce.

I would also point out that in the past the House has taken two votes on this issue, the first vote taken included a limitation on Davis- Bacon and was considered in H.R. 1, and it failed by a vote of 189-233. The second vote was a limitation taken during consideration of the FAA bill, and it failed 183-238.

But, most importantly, and the gentleman indicated that he is spurred on to action here because of the recession, is because of the money involved relative to those who work in the United States of America. Since 1977, we have fortunately had great growth in this general economy.

But I would point out to all of the Members that according to the Department of Labor in 1977, the real hourly wage that a human being in the United States of America earned for 1 hour's worth of labor was $19.57. In 2010 the Department of Labor reported that a human being in the United States of America for their human labor for 1 hour now earns $19.04.

People today, for an hour's worth of work, make less than they did in 1977, despite the growth of our economy. The last thing we need to do here today is to put more downward pressure on the ability of an American citizen to work at a good-paying job that guarantees them a decent living, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition. I would close by indicating that there has been discussion about the burden that this act imposes upon small businesses. And I would, again, wish to contradict that.

I also believe that the administrative requirements of the act are critical to prevent a fraud against government agencies. First, to comply with the IRS and overtime regulations, all law-abiding contractors must retain records on hours worked, wages, and benefits. Second, electronic transmission of data has streamlined reporting. Third, the integrity of the whole program relies on this reporting to avoid kickbacks, misclassification of workers, and cheating under the Davis-Bacon Act. It is important to remember that Federal overtime law, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, requires all employers--not just those that must comply with Davis-Bacon--to keep records.

So, again, I would ask that my colleagues oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would make the point that this past Friday, the Department of Energy said that the Office of Environmental Management has made unparalleled progress in cleaning up our Nation's Cold War nuclear legacy at sites across the country, and then they announced restructuring. This subcommittee held a hearing on the issue of cleanup in April of 2006. We find ourselves here in 2011 still talking about it, let alone the cost.

I appreciate the gentleman's concern. My point would be I have some ambivalence, as I'd mentioned to the gentleman earlier, simply because I had a conversation with the Secretary relative to the change. My observation to the Secretary is I appreciate he knows he has a problem, and I also appreciate he has done something about the problem.

I certainly appreciate the attentiveness of the gentleman, of your involvement and your good work on this, and I certainly do not object to what you're trying to accomplish here, because I do think, the stronger the message, the more diligent the department will be on this matter. I thank the gentleman for raising the issue.

I appreciate the chairman yielding and would join him in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

We just had a vote earlier in the Chamber adding $79 million to this program. But setting that particular vote

aside, as I have mentioned several times, while I have great trepidation about people at the Department of Energy talking to each other and the Department not having the same vigor, if you would, that they have for ARPA-E, instilling that in other research centers, it does appear that this is a successful program in its infancy. We certainly ought to make sure that it has a chance to show that it can be successful over a limited number of years--they are talking about 3. My emphasis with them is to distill that same effort across the Department of Energy.

So I would join my chairman in opposing the gentleman's amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I reluctantly join him in his opposition. Again, I understand what the gentlewoman from California is attempting to do. I appreciate her endeavors here and certainly would commit to working with her to ensure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is moving forward in a considered and responsible manner on this license application.

I want to join the chairman in his opposition.

Recognizing that 70 percent of our energy consumption comes from carbon fuels, it's very important for this government and for this Nation to learn how to, as efficiently and as effectively, use them. And again I think, for that reason alone, we should oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I appreciate the chairman yielding.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from California. In 2009, Congress ratified the San Joaquin Settlement Act, which ended 18 years of litigation in the Central Valley of California over water. The agreement was supported by the previous administration and California's then-Republican Governor Schwarzenegger.

The Federal authorizing legislation was initially cosponsored by Congressman Pombo in the House and Senator Feinstein in the Senate. The underlying bill zeroes the $9 million request for the San Joaquin River Restoration Fund and rescinds $66 million in mandatory funds for these activities.

As we stand on the House floor today, we are undermining this agreement, which, if it were to stand, that is the amendment, will land this case simply back into court. If the court is forced to take over river restoration, the Friant water users would be at risk of losing over 20 years of water supply certainty provided by the settlement. The amendment, I believe, is an attempt to end the broadly supported and bipartisan effort to restore the river, while also improving water supply management, flood protection, and water quality.

The amendment is piling on, if you would, given that the vast majority of funding for the settlement has been cut. There is no need to eliminate all funding just to ensure water attorneys can make a few more boat payments.

As I said at the outset, I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In closing, I would again point out that in 2009, Congress ratified this settlement to end 18 years of litigation. I do not think we should adopt the amendment and potentially begin another 18 years of litigation and would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

I also would use the word ``reluctantly'' because I understand the need that the gentleman has in his region in this country. I appreciate his efforts in this regard.

But, again, I do support the Chair's policies as far as no new starts, given the fact that over the last several years we have terminated hundreds of ongoing projects. This is going to be a significant cost.

Until we can have the intestinal fortitude with the administration to provide the necessary funds for ongoing funds alone, it is difficult to begin a new endeavor. The gentleman indicated his efforts to increase a request made by the President, despite his best efforts to add money to the bill. We are now $677 million below what we are spending on water projects in this country in fiscal year 2010.

So, again, with all reluctance I am constrained to join with my chairman in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out to my colleagues that the amendment, as stated by the gentleman, would eliminate all funding for the Office of Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

The bill already includes a reduction of $491 million from the current year level, which is a 25 percent cut.

The debate, relative to energy policy in this House--and not necessarily restricted to this amendment--talks about subsidies. But there are two parts to a Federal budget: There are spending-side issues and there are revenue- and tax-side issues.

I would hazard a guess as we stand here that there is not an energy source in the United States of America, be it coal, be it nuclear, be it gas, be it solar, be it wind, that does not somehow receive some benefit either by loss revenue or direct spending of the Federal Government in its endeavors.

What we do have to do is necessary research to make sure that we do expand the mix of energy utilization in this country, and certainly that is the purpose of the Renewable Energy Program Research at the national level. With 70 percent of our energy now generated through coal or natural gas, this cannot continue.

As I have said in earlier debates during the week, my senior Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar, has always described our energy problem as a national security issue given where petroleum products tend to be bought in the United States of America. Without this type of very serious research, we are not going to solve that national security problem, and we are not going to assiduously create job opportunities and economic opportunities.

I would respectfully object and oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, section 526, I believe, is a commonsense provision that stops Federal agencies from wasting taxpayer dollars on new, alternative fuels that are dirtier and more polluting than the fuels we use today. The section simply bars agencies from entering into contracts to purchase alternative and unconventional fuels that emit more carbon pollution than conventional fuels on a lifecycle basis. I think that is just a rational, commonsense requirement.

The effect of this provision that has been in place is to spur development of advanced biofuels. These fuels are being successfully tested and proven today on U.S. Navy planes at supersonic speeds. And I believe it is a testament to American ingenuity.

I think the path that the gentleman wants to pursue is the wrong one. It is unsustainable in the longer term, and it will not lead us to energy security. Therefore, I am opposed to his amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

If I could ask the author of the amendment just one question.

On the letter, was that a letter from Senator Inhofe to the Department of Energy or from the Department of Energy to the Senator?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I appreciate the clarification.

I remain opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

We accept the amendment.

These are legal appointments made by the President of the United States--by this President, the last President, the President before that, the President back to George Washington. It is the administration's priority to make these appointments.

While each of us, or collectively, disagree with some of the individuals put into particular positions, until we change the law, the House should not pick and choose the staff for the executive branch any more than it should be picking ours.

If the gentleman wants a say in the President's hires and appointments, I suggest he work to change the Constitution. Article II, section 2 gives the Senate say over Presidential appointments and gives the President power to make recess appointments.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a constitutional issue, and we have no business in it. I would urge my colleagues to vote against the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the chairman for yielding and join with him in opposition. I think he has stated the case very well.

I would also add the expenditures in this legislation on nonproliferation. I think one of the greatest threats our country faces is the issue of nuclear terrorism. Again, we have to be very thoughtful. The chairman has had to make some very serious and profound choices. I think he has done an excellent job doing so, and we ought to stop where we are.

I am opposed to the woman's amendment.

I have an amendment at the desk.

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

For years, the Walla Walla District of the Army Corps of Engineers has managed several miles of the public shoreline along the Columbia and Snake Rivers in the Tri-Cities area of my congressional district.

Five years ago, in 2006, the Corps sought to update its McNary Shoreline Management Plan, which had last been revised in the early 1980s. The existing management plan includes a permit program for private property owners that seek to build or use docks along the river shoreline.

The 2006 revision was so controversial that the Corps was forced back to the drawing board. It proposed a variety of restrictive measures, including a moratorium on the building of docks by private property owners along the shoreline and requiring existing dock owners to tear out their docks at great personal expense in order to keep their permits.

The Corps got an earful at a public meeting on the proposal and this year came back with a similarly controversial proposal, which included new questionable mandates from the National Marine Fisheries Service-- including specific requirements for the length, width, color, and transparency of each dock, all of which NMFS claims would help save salmon.

Mr. Chairman, with all existing local docks as is right now, salmon runs are at near record levels along the Columbia River, and the Corps itself acknowledges that juvenile salmon in the McNary area average 20 to 30 million. Mr. Chairman, docks aren't killing salmon.

Regrettably, the Corps did little to justify their plan's sketchy science at another recent public meeting at which over 200 people attended to voice their opposition.

This amendment will ensure that the Army Corps will not charge ahead with a shoreline management plan until it answers questions about the questionable NMFS mandate and addresses concerns raised by a substantial number of citizens. Without this amendment, the Corps' unwise shoreline plan would be implemented and force questionable regulations on local residents and recreational activities.

Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that the Corps should not be allowed to implement a revised shoreline plan, but it should not do so based on shaky science and without ensuring that the local public's concerns are adequately addressed.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I appreciate the chairman's concurrence on this. If that is the same on both sides, I will be more than happy to yield back.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, last Friday, the Department of Energy made a surprise announcement that not only was the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management--or EM--leaving but that they were restructuring the entire $6 billion program under the Under Secretary of Nuclear Security, who also serves as the head of the NNSA.

EM is responsible for cleaning up the nuclear waste created during our Nation's defense program that helped end World War II and the Cold War. The Federal Government has signed legal agreements with the States to clean up this waste. The major restructuring was simply declared by DOE with absolutely zero consultation with Congress, the States, the communities or the stakeholders.

I haven't been given sufficient answer to the simple question: How does EM benefit from this change?

We have no idea how this decision was reached or why restructuring was considered. Given what little has been made public, I believe there are some real risks, including the potential for cleanup to become less of a priority under as structure that has always been focused--and rightfully so--on nuclear security.

In the late 1980s, DOE moved the cleanup program out of the weapons program in order to provide more definition, transparency and to focus on cleanup. Now DOE wants to put them back together.

I ask again: What is the benefit to EM?

In DOE's own words from this past Friday: ``The Office of Environmental Management has made unparalleled progress in cleaning up our Nation's Cold War nuclear legacy at sites across the country.'' Yet, out of nowhere, they decide to throw the program into a state of flux.

Without sufficient answers, I can't stand idly by while the department makes a seemingly snap decision that will impact something as important and as complex as nuclear waste cleanup. So my amendment would prohibit the use of funds to move the Office of Environmental Management under the Under Secretary of Nuclear Security.

I yield to the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey.

I thank the gentleman for his support.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

In reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will simply say that this may be a good idea; but for goodness sakes, what is the benefit to a $6 billion program that only 6 days ago was announced is moving under another structure? There may be a good reason, but tell us what that reason is. So this amendment, hopefully, will elicit that answer, and we can move forward.

With support on both sides, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, for the last time, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, in these tight budget times, it is more important than ever that the Federal Government focus its funding on the most essential and core functions. The Federal Government, however, should not subsidize private companies' business decisions, particularly when that business decision involves tearing out a 14 megawatt hydropower dam that has served two rural counties in my district.

The Condit Dam, a privately owned and operated hydropower-producing dam located in my district, was constructed in 1913 on the White Salmon River, which is a tributary of the Columbia River. Since 1947, the Condit Dam has been owned and operated by PacifiCorp and has held a license with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Over the past 20 years, rather than agree to the rigorous and costly measures associated with the FERC relicensing process, PacifiCorp opted to pursue actions to surrender its license to operate the dam and now wants to remove that dam at its own cost. This amendment will ensure that no Federal tax dollars will be used by the Corps of Engineers to remove or mitigate for the removal of the Condit Dam.

Recently, PacifiCorp representatives communicated to my office that they acknowledge that PacifiCorp itself, and not the Corps, is responsible for all impacts that removing this dam might cause to the Federal Columbia River navigation channel. My amendment simply ensures that the Federal taxpayers do not get left holding the bag for a private company's actions that could cost this private company, by their own admission, up to $32 million.

Having said that, I do want to say this, Mr. Chairman. While I give tacit approval to a dam being removed in the Northwest--it's a private decision by a private company--I want to reiterate and continue my opposition to any attempt to remove any of the Federal dams along the Columbia or Snake River. This is a private company making their decision, and they should pay for it; and that's what this amendment attempts to address.

I yield to the distinguished chairman.

I thank the gentleman very much.

With that concurrence on the other side, I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the amendment.

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

I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and ranking member for the courtesies extended to me.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will protect funds provided for science under title 3 of the Department of Energy's energy programs. This amendment addresses the need to increase programs that educate minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, known as STEM, as well as the need to train teachers and scientists in advanced scientific and technical practices.

Let me, first of all, say I consider this a jobs bill. I'm excited when we talk about jobs here on the floor of the House and recognize that America has changed. As a former member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and a member of the Aviation subcommittee and Space subcommittee dealing with NASA's commitment and mission in human exploration, I believe that America's future is not only today but in front of her and focused on science and technology. The importance of developing a highly skilled technical workforce is crucial.

Over the last 50 years there have been major changes in the United States in terms of both the economy and the population. Now let me be very clear. I'm a member of the Manufacturing Caucus, and I believe that we should restore manufacturing in this country. We are so well placed to be multitasked, boosting our manufacturing and then, as well, moving forward to processing and analyzing information. In this information-driven economy, it is important that we recognize that our valuable assets are human resources. Therefore, in order to compete successfully in the global economy, the U.S. needs citizens who are literate in terms of science and mathematics, and a STEM workforce that is well educated and well trained.

I believe my amendment focuses on that very program and focus. By investing in the scientific advancement of our workforce and our youth, we are investing in our future, we're investing in job creation, and we're investing in greater job opportunities for Americans. It is important to note that under this legislation, workforce development for teachers in science has taken a hit. But I believe what we should do is make sure that we emphasize that those resources be kept in and at some point add to those resources. And the reason I say that is, workforce development programs for teachers and scientists provide funding to graduate fellowship programs that help train the Nation's top scientists, a crucial, crucial effort.

The United States faces a critical shortage of highly qualified mathematics and science teachers. We will need an additional 283,000 teachers in secondary schools setting up by 2015 to meet the needs of our Nation's students. This qualified teacher shortage is particularly pronounced in low-income districts. So in order to move forward, let us protect the scientific aspect of the work of this government.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, about 30 percent of fourth-graders and 20 percent of eighth-graders cannot perform basic mathematical computation. So I have long recognized the need to improve the participation performance of America's students in science, technology, engineering, and math. I worked with one of our corporate leaders to ensure that private funding was given to one of our inner city school districts to establish a program without comparison in its excellence focusing on science, technology, engineering, and math.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I thank the gentleman very much. And as I conclude with that generous offer, let me mention in 2006 only 4.5 percent of college graduates in the United States received a diploma in engineering compared to 25 percent in South Korea and 33 percent in China.

So let me close, Mr. Chairman, by saying that we have had programs that have been very effective, such as the Harmony Science Academy in Houston, that devotes an impressive amount of time and resources educating the city's youth, minority youth in math and science and even doing research in cancer.

Finally, I want to thank Dr. Reagan Flowers, who has implemented a dynamic program on STEM technology in the Houston area and a national program. I would like to congratulate Mae Jemison, one of our astronauts, the first African American woman to go into space, who likewise has an outstanding program, and the Ron McNair Program, one of our astronauts who lost his life sacrificing for the American people, challenging us and challenging our capacity. His program run by his family is another excellent program.

In conclusion, from Ben Franklin to NASA to Silicon Valley, the success of the competitiveness of America has always depended on the knowledge and skills in the STEM field. This amendment will help us focus on expanding that for all Americans.

I thank the gentleman for his generosity.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2354, the Energy and Water Appropriations Development Bill. My amendment will protect funds provided for science under Title III of the Department of Energy's Energy Programs. This amendment addresses the need to increase programs that educate minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, as well as the need to train teachers and scientists in advanced scientific and technical practices.

As a former Member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, I recognize the importance of developing a highly skilled technical workforce. Over the last 50 years, there have been major changes in the United States in terms of both the economy and the population. The economic base has built upon the base of manufacturing of durable goods and added the processing and analyzing of information. In the 21st century we can manufacture goods and expand information technology--both create jobs. In this information-driven economy, the most valuable assets are human resources. Therefore, in order to compete successfully in the global economy, the U.S. needs citizens who are literate in terms of science and mathematics, and a STEM workforce that is well educated and well trained (Friedman 2005, National Academy of Sciences 2005, Pearson 2005). Consequently, we cannot--literally or figuratively--afford to squander its human resources; it is imperative that we develop and nurture the talent of all its citizens.

The jobs of tomorrow will require workers who possess strong advanced science, engineering and math backgrounds. Other countries are training and educating their citizens in these areas and we must do the same. By investing in the scientific advancement of our workforce and our youth, we are investing in our future . . . we are investing in job creation . . . we are investing in greater job opportunities for Americans. This investment is the only way to address the increasing knowledge gap between our Nation's workforce and those of our international counterparts. We must invest in our citizens. My amendment will ensure the funds that have been made available will be utilized for that purpose.

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

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

My amendment would ensure the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not move forward with the license renewal process for the Diablo Canyon power plant, located in my congressional district, until advanced seismic studies are completed and independently reviewed.

Over the last several months, I've called for a short pause in the relicensing effort currently under way at this nuclear power plant until a myriad of seismic questions at the facility are answered. Further studies are needed to demonstrate if the plant's design and operations can withstand an earthquake and other potential threats, including a previously undetected fault line, the Shoreline Fault, which runs within a few hundred yards of the plant. Even PG&E, the plant's operator, has acknowledged the validity of these concerns.

Earlier this year, the utility acceded to my request and asked the NRC to delay the finance issuance of the plant's license renewal while it completes recommended advanced seismic studies of the area. The NRC agreed to review those findings before making a final decision. PG&E also asked the California Public Utilities Commission to suspend proceedings associated with license renewal for Diablo Canyon until the studies are submitted to the NRC.

But, Mr. Chairman, PG&E and the NRC are only talking about delaying the final decision. The relicensing process is still going forward, despite the fact that virtually all of the decisions that would be made about the relicensing of the plant would be affected by what the seismic studies tell us. The cart is clearly being put before the horse here, and we need to rectify this.

My constituents deserve answers to questions regarding the ability of the plant to withstand an earthquake and nuclear accident at the same time and how long the plant would be self-sustaining in the event of such damage. It is particularly pertinent given that in March the NRC confirmed that Diablo Canyon is one of two nuclear power plants in the highest risk seismic areas in the country.

I am, to put it lightly, concerned that the NRC has not taken this seismic risk seriously enough. For example, it has failed to support the recommendations from a 2008 California Energy Commission report clearly delineating that more information is needed to determine the true seismic risk at Diablo Canyon. And just yesterday, an NRC task force review of the Japanese reactor meltdowns determined that our reactors are not sufficiently prepared to respond to catastrophic events or even simple power outages, like the one that triggered the Fukushima meltdown.

The NRC should quickly move to adopt the recommendations of this report as well as the full complement of lessons that can be learned from this disaster, and it should do it before moving forward on issuing new operating licenses to PG&E to run Diablo Canyon long into the future.

Finally, it is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that there is no hurry to relicense Diablo Canyon. The current operating licenses run to 2024 and 2025. Surely that's more than enough time to adequately investigate seismic concerns in a thoughtful and transparent manner.

To be clear, I'm not calling for Diablo Canyon to be shut down or for the plant to be denied new operating licenses. What I am doing with this amendment is asking that the relicensing process be paused, briefly, until comprehensive, independent analyses of the seismic issues are completed and that they be considered as part of the relicensing process.

Diablo Canyon provides over 3 million people in California with affordable electricity. It provides many jobs in my district. It's an important element of the tax base of San Luis Obispo County; but this is an issue about safety, and we all agree that safety must be everyone's number one concern here.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that would ensure that this is the case.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

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

It is my hope that we can simply all agree to this amendment. It would simply bar the NRC from issuing a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the license renewal of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the NRC does not move forward with the relicensing effort currently underway at Diablo Canyon until advanced, peer-reviewed seismic studies of the area are completed and the findings are shared with the NRC. These advanced seismic studies are needed because the USGS--U.S. Geological Survey--announced in 2008 the discovery of a previously undetected fault line, the Shoreline Fault, which runs within a few hundred yards of Diablo Canyon.

The NRC also recently confirmed that Diablo Canyon is one of two nuclear power plants in the highest risk seismic areas in the country. Without these studies, we cannot say for certain whether an earthquake along the Shoreline Fault or others nearby would result in a severe nuclear accident.

It's important to note, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment only affects the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. It will not shut down the power plant, nor will it stop the relicensing effort or even prevent PG&E, the plant's operator, from gaining new operating licensings to run Diablo Canyon in the future. Instead, it would simply ensure the NRC gets answers to the unstudied and unresolved seismic questions before it issues the draft environmental report.

My amendment is also consistent with PG&E's own request that the NRC delay the final issuance of the plant's license renewal until its seismic research in the area is completed. The NRC has also made it clear it will review those findings before making a decision on whether to grant renewed operating licenses for the plant to PG&E.

Moreover, last month, PG&E asked the California Public Utilities Commission to suspend proceedings associated with license renewal funding for Diablo Canyon until its advanced seismic studies are finished and the findings have been submitted to the NRC. Unfortunately, however, work on the relicensing effort continues, even though the seismic studies have not been completed and won't be for several years and even though the outcome of these studies could very well affect every operation at the plant.

Mr. Chairman, we need answers about the seismic risks at Diablo Canyon and what steps are needed to address them and prepare for any disaster, and we need them before the relicensing process moves forward. So I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this straightforward amendment, to ensure an evaluation of the risks that the offshore faults pose to Diablo Canyon.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.