Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2354) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we have not had a chance to really study the implications of the gentleman's amendment.

First of all, we would like to extend our sympathy to the gentleman, his constituents, and to many Members of Congress and those affected by the devastation and, in many cases, loss of life, loss of income and livelihood. But we are not quite sure what $1 million in and $1 million out means, and we need a little more time to further investigate.

Would the gentleman be willing to work with us to accomplish this objective without moving ahead on the amendment? Would you be willing to work with the committee, the ranking member and yours truly?

Yes.

We are highly sympathetic to working with the gentleman and look forward to working with him to address this crisis and what he is talking about, future crises and devastation.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I thank the gentlemen.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

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

I continue to reserve my point of order.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I share in the gentleman's support for smart investments in our Nation's water resources infrastructure and in the good work of the Army Corps of Engineers. I well understand on the committee the economic benefits of spending money on these needs. At the same time, we cannot ignore the importance of addressing our Nation's deficit problem and the other priorities of the bill, namely national defense and scientific innovation.

The underlying bill balances these important goals, in part, by reducing the construction account from the fiscal year 2011 enacted level but not by nearly as much as that account was reduced in the President's own fiscal year 2012 budget request. With this level of funding, we are working to reduce the deficit, funding our national defense needs, supporting scientific innovation, and at the same time allowing the Corps to continue progress on the most critical water resources investments.

We must preserve the careful balance that this bill strikes. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I would like to assert my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read.

The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment basically for the same reasons I did for his earlier amendment. We worked hard to preserve a careful balance that our bill strikes, but I appreciate his effort. We recognize his commitment to this type of work; and when we have a better allocation in the future, maybe we will be able to be of more assistance.

I continue to reserve my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

I appreciate the gentleman from Florida yielding.

I appreciate Mr. Rivera's passion for the Everglades restoration, and that of the entire Florida delegation, which continues to move forward in this bill. The committee dedicated 8 percent of the entire Corps construction budget to the Everglades, making it one of the three largest allocations in title I.

So I say to the gentleman that we will continue to work with the Florida delegation on this important issue, knowing how committed they are to it. And when we have additional resources, we hope to be able to consider them.

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

I am very sympathetic to those that have been devastated by floods in Missouri and in other States across the Nation. It's a very personal thing for many Members of Congress who look to their congressional districts and see the loss of life, and livelihoods, and jobs, and devastation to family farms and to small towns.

One of the things we did in our bill of course, and I am sure the gentleman would recognize this, we came up with a billion dollars of emergency aid, which hopefully will be of assistance. I know he doesn't speak of that in this amendment. But certainly all Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, are committed to help those whose lives have been unalterably changed because of the devastation.

My concern with his amendment is that the Corps has said this construction funding is necessary to avoid jeopardy under the Endangered Species Act. If the river system jeopardizes species, it could have great effect on the operations of the river. So speaking to my earlier point, we want to be helpful, but we also look to the Corps for some direction on this point. As a consequence, I oppose his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Unfortunately and reluctantly, I must oppose the gentleman from Louisiana's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's concern for sufficiently maintaining our waterways as necessary to realizing the national economic benefits of efficient cargo transportation.

Representing, as I do, part of New Jersey, which is highly dependent on the Port of New York and New Jersey, I am well aware that navigation and money for navigation and dredging is absolutely essential, and I am highly sympathetic to the gentleman from Louisiana for all of the historical things that have impacted Louisiana's economy and so many people down there.

In fact, a major factor in developing the recommendation for the Army Corps of Engineers' budget this year was to focus proportionately more funds on the projects and activities that contribute most to the economy and job creation, including dredging and other navigation improvements.

The underlying bill does not include, as we are aware, any congressional earmarks. Oftentimes these issues were dealt with through the earmark process. Rather, our bill provides the Army Corps of Engineers the flexibility to allocate programmatic funds to those navigation and flood control projects that it deems most critical, and we have the ability as individual Members of Congress to help the Corps focus on what we feel is most critical for their attention.

The Corps is required to report to Congress in our bill, within 45 days of enactment, on which projects were deemed most critical and why. Navigation needs are not the only important issues addressed in our bill, however. Increased funding for this programmatic line even further would

upset the careful balance of priorities that I have spoken of earlier, including national defense, which is a major component of why we even have a Department of Energy, and nuclear safety, energy innovation and, of course, the great work of the Army Corps, the water resources needs.

So, therefore, reluctantly I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Again, our bill strikes a balance between funding for many competing national priorities in this bill that this amendment would undo.

I do, and we do, support the important work of the Army Corps of Engineers but not at the expense of those national priorities--national defense, scientific research, good things in the Department of Energy. And may I say our mark is considerably more generous for these purposes than the President's mark; so do give us a little bit of credit.

This amendment would cut into the fossil energy research program, an account nearly $200 million below the 2010 budget mark. Fossil energy, I think as we're all aware of, produces nearly 70 percent of our Nation's electricity, and we must continue to invest to ensure that we use our fossil resources efficiently and clearly.

This bill, again, strikes a careful balance between these priorities, and I oppose the amendment and will insist on my point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order, and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, while I strongly support the gentleman from Connecticut's overall intent, I must regretfully oppose his amendment.

I share my colleague's concern for sufficiently maintaining our waterways. These waterways contribute significantly to our national economy by providing a means of cost-effective cargo transportation. In recognition of the economic benefits of navigation generally and maintenance dredging specifically, the bill before us provides funds above the President's budget request for navigation needs--$191 million in total and $99 million specifically for the operation and maintenance activities. This funding represents a 12 percent increase over the President's own budget for navigation.

I also agree with the gentleman from Connecticut's idea that if the Federal Government levies a tax for a specific purpose, the revenue should be used for that purpose. Unfortunately, the only way to do that at this point would be to make substantial reductions in other priorities in our bill.

The gentleman's amendment would avoid those difficult decisions by simply not offsetting the additional spending, but our debt crisis makes that,

too, an untenable option. For these reasons, even though I am very much in support of what he is trying to achieve, which is things for navigation, keeping America open for business, I must oppose his amendment, and I will insist on my point of order.

I would be happy to yield to the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order under Section 3(j)(3) of House Resolution 5, 112th Congress, which states: ``It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general appropriations bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments proposing an equal or greater decrease in such budget authority pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.''

The amendment proposes a net increase in budget authority in the bill in violation of such section.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Texas' amendment.

The amendment of the gentleman from Texas will allow the Corps to use the A-76 process at its discretion. It will not require that anything in particular be contracted out.

I agree with the gentleman that, particularly during this time of necessary budget-cutting, we should allow the agencies to evaluate all options and to choose the most cost-effective manner of delivering a product or service. The language to be struck is a carryover provision from several years ago when there was, perhaps, too much of an emphasis placed on the A-76 process. We are not in the same situation as several years ago, as we know, so the provision is unnecessarily restrictive. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield for a moment?

I would be happy to work with the chairman, but I would note, we are on page 3 of the bill and would hope that as we proceed today and into the future, that we have advance notice of amendments. So I would direct my comment in this case to the gentleman from Iowa and those who may be thinking about offering additional amendments. But I would be happy to work with the chairman on this issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do not know if a point or order will be insisted upon, I do not know if it will be prevailed upon, but I would want to make a comment relative to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I agree with everything that Mr. Tierney has said--and more--during committee and during the general debate on this floor. I mentioned that in the 2009 report card on America's infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated an investment shortfall of $2.2 trillion that is necessary to bring our Nation's infrastructure up to good condition.

Additionally, the engineering society gave our Nation's dams, levees and inland waterways grades of D or D minus.

I want to use my time because we have had a lot of discussion--and I have joined in that discussion--about the inadequate allocation that the subcommittee has been given.

I would also point out that there is another failure, and that is the budget request itself. And the subcommittee has taken note of that on page 13 of their report by stating that the budget request by the President represents a level of investment, as with previous budget requests, that is not reflective of the Corps' importance to the national economy, jobs, or our international competitiveness. And further, the committee urges the administration to take into account while developing a special request the extraordinary economic benefits of the projects historically funded in the Corps accounts, which, again, jibes with exactly the points that the gentleman from Massachusetts has said.

So I am in agreement with the gentleman. This is woefully inadequate. The administration bears a blame here as well. But I also must add my voice to the chairman's and respectfully oppose the amendment simply because we are in a very tight situation with this bill and we prefer that the amendment not be adopted, despite the relevance of it and the correctness of the gentleman's position from Massachusetts.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would join in the chairman's remarks, and emphasize the word ``reluctantly,'' because I do understand the devastation that has been suffered. I would emphasize for the record that the chairman recognized the tragedies that have occurred, and had an amendment in committee to have a billion dollars set aside.

Earlier in the process, we had essentially about a billion dollars also transferred from the Energy and Water appropriation bill to the Homeland Security bill for various similar purposes. There is no denying the emergency. But as I have said on more than one occasion during the debate of this issue, it is time we as an institution have the intestinal fortitude to understand we have natural disasters. We have people who have lost their lives. We have people who are suffering and have lost property. We need, in a deliberate, thoughtful fashion, to set those moneys aside as opposed to, if you would, moving moneys from accounts to take care of these emergencies.

So I do understand also looking ahead that the ultimate cost of the tragedy the gentleman's constituents and others have suffered is probably going to exceed the moneys that have been set aside in this bill, and do hope, again, institutionally, that we address that problem. So I understand the motive, agree with the principle that is espoused, but again would have to reluctantly join in opposition to the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and would join in his remarks.

I appreciate the position of the gentleman. As, again, I have pointed out in the past, if we look at the need that the gentleman so eloquently stated, it is overwhelming. Currently for the top 59 ports in the U.S., the Corps is only able to maintain authorized depths within the middle of the channel 33 percent of the time.

I might also add, though, that the chairman noted that the actual moneys contained in this bill, inadequate as they are, are more than the President of the United States asked for. So I do want to remind my colleagues about that fact. It doesn't solve our problem, but there were also points that administrations, past and present, they have got to wake up and recognize we've got to make an investment.

I also do believe at this point in time that there is a purpose for the moneys the committee has set aside as far as fossil research. We do need to learn how to use carbon fuels more cleanly. We have to learn how to use them more efficiently, as we also look for a broader mix of energy policy in this country.

So, very reluctantly, I would have to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I agree with every word he has said about the need in this country.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, we do not have a copy of the gentleman's amendment.

I regret that the gentleman did not share it with us earlier.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding and would join in his objection to the amendment that is offered. I happen to believe that we have climate change. Others will debate that, and I would set aside that debate for the moment and simply recognize the obvious, and that is we have had significant variations in weather patterns in the United States of America. We have had horrific flooding in the Midwest during this past year, and that flooding has huge impacts on the reservoirs that are managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. I think it is not correct public policy to not proceed with the study as to how climate and weather patterns affect those very important Corps projects and appreciate the chairman rising in objection.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and just want to make one observation.

The gentleman is absolutely correct as far as the maintenance fund. After fiscal year 2012, there will be $6.928 billion in the fund. Today there is $5.474 billion in the fund. That discrepancy is $1.454 billion. Apparently, it will make the deficit look a bit better, but at $1 trillion, who are we fooling? Certainly no one in the United States of America. The chairman of the committee rightfully pointed out that it is unfair to those who are paying the tax, it is unfair to those companies who want to make a fair profit, as well as to those who might be able to work, if we could resolve this problem.

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

The gentleman's amendment would strike section 102 of the bill, a provision that prohibits the use of the Circular A-76 privatization process and high-performing organization process for the Army Corps of Engineers. This is a debate that we have had before. This provision enjoys support from both sides of the aisle, and has been included in this bill every year since fiscal year 2008. This provision was originally included to stop an effort to privatize the operation, maintenance and repair of locks and dams.

The importance of locks and dams to our Nation's economy cannot be understated, and any failure to ensure that the Nation's waterways remain safe and navigable would cripple the economy. These operators and mechanics make vital decisions affecting the lives, liberty and property of private persons, thus rendering the workload inappropriate for contractor performance. Further, no reasonable argument has been made that the locks and dams are overstaffed. Additionally, the Corps undertook a privatization study for their IT personnel in 2004. After an expensive 3-year study, the results came back as an in-house win.

In general, the circular is profoundly flawed. Both the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Defense Inspector General have reported that agencies are constantly unable to demonstrate that A-76 studies result in savings and that agencies fail to consider the significant costs of conducting such studies. There is nothing wrong with attempts to look for efficiencies in the Federal workforce--that certainly is clear--but when describing A-76 processes, I think of a phrase often uttered by other colleagues: ``That dog won't hunt.''

We need to stop wasting millions of dollars on these expensive competitions that time and again show government employees are a less expensive alternative, and I would urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. Without this amendment, the bill would result in increased implementation costs to both the Federal and State resource agencies, as well as to the regulated community, increase delays in the implementation of important public works projects and protracted litigation on the disparity between existing Federal regulations and the two court decisions.

Clearly, the Army Corps of Engineers cannot exceed its congressional authority. But it's certainly necessary that the law and regulations be clarified, given the Supreme Court decision. There is a purpose to the Clean Water Act. It is to protect the Nation's waterways. And all of the environmental and economic benefits these aquatic ecosystems provide are at risk if some elements are protected and others are not.

We certainly need to make sure that the definitions are predictable and manageable. The definition of waters protected by the Clean Water Act should be clear, understandable, well-supported, and transparent to the public. I am concerned if the language currently in the bill is not removed that that will not be the case. It is certainly needed to promote consistency between the Clean Water Act and agricultural wetland programs. We need the identification of waters covered by the Clean Water Act and the Food Security Act. And operational elements of implementing programs should reflect consistent, predictable, and straightforward decision guidelines. We ought to be precise on exemptions as well.

My further concern is that the provision now contained in the bill does not apply simply to the coming fiscal year; it applies to any subsequent energy and water development act, ensuring uncertainty continues indefinitely.

So I am in strong support of the gentleman's amendment and would be willing to yield time to him.

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

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

I would like to thank my colleague from Florida for the time, as well as to thank the majority members of the Rules Committee for a fair rule that will enable a wide variety of floor amendments to be brought forward.

I do rise in opposition to the underlying bill unless there are major changes made, which I hope a majority of the House successfully achieves in doing under this fair open rule.

The current political debate in Washington is dominated by the question of Federal spending. And I think it's a question that we need to revisit under each appropriations bill. We need to cut wasteful spending. We should eliminate programs that don't work, eliminate corporate giveaways, look at the cost of tax subsidies that cost billions of dollars to Americans but fail to create jobs, and really serve to enrich special interests.

We also need to make sure that we don't lose sight, in our drive to reduce the deficit, that we impact investments that are creative and help our economy and reduce deficits over time. Just as a successful business making cuts in a recession would make the cuts intelligently and wouldn't cut essential investments on capital resources, Congress shouldn't slash domestic investments that create jobs while also at the same time continuing to give handouts to multibillion dollar corporations.

Given the approach to budgeting this year in this body, it seems like the majority isn't basing their decisions on cold arithmetic that's needed to balance a budget. Rather, there seems to be a different equation in play, an approach driven by ideology and special interest lobbying, not by a real concern for deficit reduction. With this appropriations bill, I think what we are seeing is more of the same.

How else can we explain a budget that ends Medicare while preserving tax subsidies for Big Oil, tax subsidies for corporate jets, and continues wasteful defense programs, in fact actually increases the defense budget when we know that we have more defense than we can afford in this country? Why is wasteful spending prioritized over health care for our seniors, the education of our children, and investments under this bill that keep our air and water supply clean and healthy, reducing health care costs in the long run?

Now, again, when we talk about these appropriations bills it's not a debate over whether we should cut the deficit. I think Republicans and Democrats agree that we need to cut the deficit. It's a debate about how we restore fiscal discipline that has been abandoned over the last decade. Let's have that debate here in the U.S. House. And I am glad that this rule allows us do it under this bill. And I hope we are able to make some major changes to this bill.

Unfortunately, the Energy and Water bill as presented before the House under this rule exemplifies a reckless and ideological approach to the budget.

This bill actually increases funding levels, increases deficit funding levels for fossil fuel research and development, oil and gas research, increases Federal spending on these programs, while cutting investments in clean energy research. In the past, Republicans have claimed that they were for an ``all of the above'' approach to energy policy, looking at optimizing exploitation of fossil fuels and also investing in new energy research, but instead of ``all of the above,'' this bill represents an ``oil above all'' approach to national energy policy. It's simply not a serious response to America's need for cleaner, more affordable domestic energy.

At a time when we all agree we're confronting a fiscal crisis, how can we ask American taxpayers to foot the bill for ExxonMobil's R&D? That's exactly what we do under this bill. It's one of a series of subsidies for Big Oil that the majority has chosen to protect at a time that they're also demanding Americans see funding cut for schools and for seniors. Instead of increasing wasteful spending which benefits only the fossil fuel industry, we should invest in the American clean energy innovation that will benefit our national security, our environment, and our economy.

This legislation cuts total funding for the Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 42 percent compared to 2010, at the same time increasing subsidies to oil and gas. These cuts will mean less innovation, dirtier energy and fewer clean energy jobs. In my home State of Colorado alone, over 5,000 jobs have been spun off of research that was conducted at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the lab gives an estimated $714 million annual boost to our State's economy. It's that kind of research that is devastated under this bill. Through this open amendment process, I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support efforts to restore that funding.

These labs, like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the basic Federal research, are incubators for the private sector. The investments don't go to bloated bureaucracies or government bureaucrats in Washington. They go to the actual hiring of experts and innovators that will spin off their ideas to entrepreneurs to bring to the marketplace, a model for private sector job growth that's critical for our Nation's economy and critical for our national security in meeting our own energy needs domestically.

The Department of Energy's investments in clean energy are the first step in a job create domino effect. As of August 2010, as an example, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory had 329 contracts with Colorado companies totaling $414 million, including $75.3 million in the most recent fiscal year. NREL had cooperative research and development agreements with 23 Colorado companies, and NREL supports interactions with companies from across the Nation. That's just one example of the many research initiatives and public-private partnerships that this bill as written would call into jeopardy.

And while again calling into jeopardy much of this fundamental research that has private sector applications, we're again increasing subsidies to the fossil fuel industry's research. There is a $141 million or 81 percent cut to weatherization initiatives that help insulate the homes of low-income, elderly and disabled individuals in this bill, while continuing and increasing subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.

Another dangerous cut in this bill is cutting funding to the Advanced Research Projects Agency, ARPA-E, by 44 percent compared to the current year. ARPA-E has strongly had bipartisan support for years and helps fund innovation in the economy based on a proven successful model we've had in defense for many years called DARPA. It funds path-breaking ideas that are unlikely to get funding anywhere else at an early stage. This creative model is crafted after DARPA, which has led to things ranging from cell phones to the creation of the Internet itself, and it has tremendous implications for America to meet its renewable energy needs.

The bill before us is not smart, and it's not sensible. It's simply not a fiscally responsible bill that meets our Nation's future energy needs and cuts our deficit. I urge my colleagues to improve this bill through amendments during this open amendment process and, if it's in anything close to its current form, to oppose the final bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

It is my honor to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a former colleague of mine on the Rules Committee, Ms. Matsui.

I have no additional speakers and would inquire of the gentleman from Florida if he has any remaining speakers.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, again, while we appreciate the open amendment process, will need an open amendment process to correct because it's so highly flawed in its current form.

It serves as the majority's vehicle for a whole series of anti- environment, anti-public interest riders. These riders undercut the Clean Water Act, putting at risk public health and increasing economic burdens on local communities.

The bill prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from applying anti- pollution protections to many rivers, streams and wetlands that supply drinking water and prevent flooding. Over 100 million Americans get their drinking water from public supplies provided in whole or in part from waters that are at risk of losing Clean Water Act safeguards under this bill as written.

Furthermore, the committee report language that accompanies the bill contains even more explicit policy directives, including the mandate that what was to be an independent advisory board on the safety of shale gas drilling be dominated by industry representatives, which would be a prime example of the fox guarding the chicken coop.

Unconventional shale gas has been expanding into new areas at a breakneck pace and has been accompanied by growing health and pollution problems experienced by residents and communities when the drilling is taking place in close proximity to where families are living. Its growth is outpacing current safeguards and exemptions already give the industry too much isolation from public safety assurances.

I have grave concerns that the committee felt the need to interfere in a balanced and truly independent technology advisory panel with the aim of silencing public voices in favor of representing the industry above all other legitimate stakeholders. In fact, the advisory panel is already heavily tipped in industry's favor, and the language shows us exactly whose side this legislation is on--entrenched industries and polluters, not the public interest.

The annual Energy and Water appropriations bill is important funding legislation. Historically, it has been broadly bipartisan, and it shouldn't be a playground for special interest handouts. Yet under this majority, that's what this bill has become that we are considering today.

The bill in its current form undermines our energy future, undermines our national security and subsidizes an energy industry that has given us record gas prices, fracking health hazards and dirtier air. It attempts to drive a supertanker-sized loophole through the laws that keep our clean water safe.

This bill should be focused on investing in innovation to strengthen our country and our national security and our energy future, not focused on wasteful spending to special interests supporting entrenched industries and harmful cuts to their clean competitors.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

I urge my colleagues to come forth and try to improve this bill under the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Only 3 percent of the water on this planet is freshwater, but that's the water that we depend upon for drinking, for agriculture, and for much of our fishing and wildlife habitat.

If my amendment to strike section 109 of this bill is not accepted, critical headwater and wetlands, which ensure the quality and the quantity of our freshwater supply, will be lost--lost to the dumping of sewage, to toxic mining materials, and to unregulated in-fill for residential, commercial and industrial development.

Over the past decade, Mr. Chairman, two Supreme Court rulings have caused confusion about which waters and wetlands should receive protection under the Clean Water Act. As a result, important fish, wildlife, flood protection, and filtering waters now lack clear protection under the law, and businesses and regulators face uncertainty and delay as to which waters should fall under Federal protection.

The Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency developed draft guidance this spring to clearly show which waters should be protected, and this guidance does provide clear and predictable guidelines in accordance with the Court's direction, but this bill prohibits that guidance from moving forward this year and every subsequent year. The Supreme Court did remove some waters from Federal protection, but it left a great deal of confusion over which waters and wetlands should be protected. The EPA and the Corps of Engineers are using an open, public process to develop the guidance. Published in May and open for comment through July, the public, businesses and States have over 3 months to let the Federal agency know their views. All comments will be considered and made publicly available.

It is important to understand what the guidance does not do. This new guidance doesn't change any existing agricultural exemptions. All clean water exemptions for normal agricultural, forestry and ranching practices continue to apply. The guidance also clearly describes waters that are not regulated under the act, including isolated wetlands, artificially irrigated areas, stock watering ponds, construction- related ponds, swimming pools, and washes and gullies.

Failing to update the guidance, which is what this bill would do unless my amendment passes, is not only bad for the environment, but it's also bad for business.

American businesses need to know when the Federal Government has authority and when it doesn't. Without updated guidance, developers have little certainty regarding permits. This uncertainty could subject them to civil and criminal penalties, and surely will cost them extra money.

Some also claim that Federal regulation is unnecessary because States will protect the same waters under their authority. But State authority to regulate waters of the United States derives directly from Federal law. When Federal law is unclear, State authority based on that law is also unclear. States are still required to implement the law, but they need clarity to be consistent and to avoid lawsuits. Some States may adequately protect clean waters on their own, but not all do. The Corps and the EPA must be able to protect water quality irrespective of whether individual States do.

Sixteen different sportsmen's groups oppose the prohibition in this group, as

do over 100 conservation groups. When wetlands are destroyed and streams are polluted, sportsmen are often the first to be directly impacted. The economic benefits of hunting and fishing contribute more than $65 billion to the economy, breathing life into rural communities and supporting millions of jobs across the country.

But these benefits are in jeopardy with this bill. Since 2001, safeguards for headwater streams and critical wetlands have steadily eroded. Wetlands and tributaries that provide clean water for iconic systems like the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes that recharge aquifers, help retain floodwaters, and provide important fish and wildlife habitat are now endangered. These economic and environmental benefits will be lost without updated guidance and rules.

If this bill language stands, some critical waters will be subject to sewage dumping, to mining contaminants, and to industrial pollution. Some will be filled in for development. Bear in mind, much of the fresh water we depend upon is under the ground, but contiguous to rivers and streams that our fiscal health and the health of our economy is dependent upon.

That's why I urge a vote for my amendment to strike section 109.

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

Mr. Chairman, I've explained what this amendment does. I believe that it is critically important to protect the headwaters and the wetlands of America.

Two Supreme Court rulings cast considerable doubt on what is to be considered navigable water. Clearly, some waters that may have been protected in the past are not now protected, but there is a great deal of confusion as to which waters do need to be protected. That's why more than 100 environmental groups, and more than 16 major sportsmen's groups have urged adoption of this amendment, which strikes section 109 because section 109 precludes the Corps of Engineers and EPA from issuing regulations that would clarify what waters do fall under Federal protection.

The original idea was that you would define waters that are contiguous, that you can see on the surface, that you can navigate across from one State into another as falling under Federal protection. The problem is that there are a lot of waters that part of the year may run under the ground but are still contiguous and supply water to navigable streams and to rivers that are absolutely important to our economy and to our environment.

So which of those waters should EPA and the Corps of Engineers regulate? During part of the year, the water flows under the surface, but it's still there; it's still important. If we don't enable our Federal agencies to clarify which waters are to be protected, many wetlands will be filled in, many habitats will be destroyed, many streams that run alongside mines will be filled with toxic material that will then subsequently run into rivers and water supplies that people need for their drinking water.

Some bodies of water will be filled in with sewage. Some wetlands will be filled in for industrial, commercial and residential development. Some of that doesn't need to be protected, but much of it does. And all of it needs to be clarified. There's no way we can clarify what can be used and what needs to be protected unless the Corps of Engineers and EPA are allowed to go forward with regulations and guidance that they issued this spring.

Now, there's still comments coming in. They're still listening to all the parties involved. But once they issue these regulations, private interests will know what can be developed and what can't; mining firms, farms will all know what water is under the jurisdiction of the Corps and what water isn't.

I believe that was the intent of the Supreme Court. Two very important decisions, SWANCC and Rapanos, certainly said some waters are not under Federal jurisdiction, but they clearly left open a vast amount of room for the Federal Government to then clarify which waters are under Federal protection.

So this legislation--and not only does it apply to this fiscal year, it applies to all subsequent years--this legislation is going to cast enormous doubt. It's going to generate millions of dollars of lawsuits all over the country. That's why I oppose it, Mr. Chairman. I don't think it's in our economic interest or in our environmental interest for us not to clarify by allowing the normal guidance process to go forward.

I know that there is concern on the part of some farmers and miners and businesses, but the fact is the right thing to do is to move forward and strike section 109 of this bill.

I thank my very good friend, the ranking member of Energy and Water Appropriations.

Let me first address the points that were made by my very good friend from Montana.

First of all, there was a suggestion that there was sewerage dumped into the Potomac River. I think that's pretty much a quote. That's not accurate, I would say to my very good friend. It was not sewerage. It was clean, filtered silt that came from a drinking water reservoir that was put into the Potomac without any threat to the quality of the water or the habitat. The Corps of Engineers understood that. They don't now put it there. But I don't think it's quite accurate to describe it in the way that it was.

With regard to the Supreme Court ruling, even Justice Scalia made it clear that waters that are adjacent to navigable waters should be federally regulated and protected. So the statement that was offered in the debate is not entirely accurate.

I would also mention that EPA does have an office in Montana. And, in fact, the people who were adversely affected by the oil pipeline of late that put a considerable amount of oil into the Yellowstone River, they are saying that EPA was wonderful, tremendously helpful to them. That's what EPA wants to be now, not only to individual communities adversely affected, but to the businesses, to the mining interests, to the farming interests that need clarification on what waters are appropriately under Federal jurisdiction.

I thank the gentleman from Washington.

I am not going to belabor this, but I do think for the record we should clarify. Some of what the gentleman said is accurate except for the material. This was not sewerage. This was filtered silt that came from a drinking water reservoir at Dalecarlia that is operated by the Corps of Engineers. They did put it into the Potomac, after verifying that it would not jeopardize the health of the fish or any of the vegetation. And they did seek an exemption. They lost. And now that silt is put in a landfill.

There is no question that the Clean Water Act is responsible for the health, such as it is, of the Potomac River. There was a time when you could almost strike a match and light the Potomac River on fire, there was so much pollution in it.

They did that.

Bill Ruckelshaus.

Yes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Frelinghuysen and his staff for their efforts to be inclusive and transparent in drafting this legislation. The chairman has ensured that the Energy and Water Subcommittee continues its tradition of bipartisanship and, within the constraints of the allocation, he has done wonderful work. While I hope that we can modify some elements of the bill, I would observe that our differences are marginal and our agreement is fundamental. Also, I would like to join the chairman in thanking the other members of the subcommittee and also all of our staff for their exceptionally good and dedicated work.

As the chairman mentioned, the allocation for Energy and Water is more than $1 billion below fiscal year 2011. This allocation has necessitated severe cuts to crucial programs. While I appreciate the chairman's considerable efforts and recognize difficult choices must be made to address the Nation's serious financial situation, this bill starkly illustrates the shortsighted nature of the spending cap set by the House budget. The allocation for Energy and Water is simply insufficient to meet the challenges posed by the economic downturn and to guarantee our national security.

Importantly, the chairman continues efforts to improve program and project management at all of the agencies under the bill's jurisdiction. He has honed provisions carried in the past and instituted others aimed at increased oversight. To point out one example, the bill includes a requirement that the Department of Energy complete independent cost estimates at major milestones for projects with a total cost in excess of $100 million. A recent review of the department's cleanup-related construction projects by the Army Corps of Engineers paints a bleak picture of the management system for such projects and casts doubt on recent reforms intended to remove the department off the Government Accountability Office's list for high risk, a list that the department has been on for the last 21 years running. I am pleased the chairman has included a number of reporting requirements and statutory limitations that will contribute to increased transparency and improved management, and I strongly support his actions.

The science account, critical to the competitiveness of our Nation, is essentially the same as in 2011, not an insignificant achievement in light of the challenge the allocation provided. The bill also provides funds for the continuation of a promising new program called ARPA-E, which can drive innovations to support our scientific competitiveness. While ARPA-E has shown some promise as a new organizational model, I am troubled that the same vigor that led to its creation has been largely absent when it comes to addressing the systemic management and communication problems in other existing applied programs.

I support and appreciate the inclusion of emergency funding to respond to the historic flooding in the Mississippi and Missouri River basins. Communities devastated by natural disasters deserve our full support. I am, however, disappointed that the bill offsets this funding by withdrawing critical investment dollars from economic infrastructure in the United States. I would note that this is the second time this year that the committee has transferred funds between bills, the first time from Energy and Water Development to Homeland Security, and now from Transportation to Energy and Water. We need to reconsider this practice and not strip investments in one area to pay for emergency needs in another.

I disagree with the notion that all funding for domestic emergency response should be offset immediately from domestic investment. In every year except two since 1997, the Congress has recognized the need for emergency funds to respond to the impacts of natural disasters on the Nation's water resource infrastructure. Since 2001, the Congress has provided more than $24 billion to the Corps for this purpose. While I grant that this figure is inflated by the enormous cost of reconstructing New Orleans and the surrounding areas, perhaps New Orleans would not have flooded in 2005 had we invested in critical infrastructure in the prior years.

As we debate the long-term trajectory of taxes and spending, we cannot forgo actions necessary for the security and safety of our citizens. Yes, we must make difficult choices that will impact the future of this Nation, but we cannot allow those decisions to fall on the backs of those who have already suffered. Our country has provided billions in infrastructure funding on an emergency basis for dams, schools and roads in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet we don't have the fortitude to acknowledge that it costs money to protect our citizens at home. We must stop disinvesting in the United States economy. In its 2009 report card on America's infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated an investment of $2.2 trillion is necessary to bring our Nation's infrastructure up to a good condition. Moving forward, we must have the strength to budget for emergencies on an annual basis. We know they happen every year, and it is time to begin to responsibly budget for them.

I appreciate the chairman increasing Corps funding by $195 million above the President's woefully inadequate request, ensuring that some ongoing projects will not be terminated.

Even with this additional funding, the bill provides $677 million less than it did in 2010.

Our ports, harbors, navigational channels and locks continue to provide the foundation for long-term economic growth. At this funding level, we are not close to addressing the dredging backlog that plagues waterborne commerce in the United States.

Currently, for the top 59 ports in the United States, the Corps is only able to maintain authorized steps within the middle of the channel 33 percent of the time. Every day, this costs companies that rely on these ports money and serves as a major impediment to expanding their workforce. This is merely one of the reasons why in 2009 the American Society of Civil Engineers gave our Nation's dams, levees and inland waterways grades of D or D minus.

Renewable energy programs in this bill are reduced. We can debate whether our dependency on imported oil and other carbon fuels is an environmental problem or an economic problem. Either way, it is clearly a national security problem. We must expand the mix of our energy supply, and we must use the energy supply we have more efficiently, and we must also transport it more effectively. We have to make an investment to do that, and I do not believe that the allocation allows for the support necessary.

I would note that the bill adds two hubs to the Department of Energy while cutting both the Science and Renewable Energy accounts that fund them, giving the Department a total of five. This organizational model has not yet been proven, and I have serious reservations about starting two new hubs in light of the cuts to the underlying accounts.

Nonproliferation accounts are reduced significantly, and while I appreciate the chairman's efforts to preserve some of the most critical activities, the bill reduces our ability to counter the most serious threat confronting our national security and that is the threat of nuclear terrorism.

The bill cuts the defense nuclear nonproliferation account by more than $460 million from the request. This comes on top of more than $360 million cut from the request that was provided in final fiscal year bill 2011. These cuts reduce our ability to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the world, delaying the removal of bomb-grade uranium, and limiting our capacity to detect illegal and illicit trafficking of nuclear materials.

And, finally, I am troubled that the bill includes a misguided prohibition on funds to develop, adopt, implement, administer or enforce a change or supplement to rules related to the Clean Water Act regulatory guidelines. This provision applies not only to this fiscal year but to any subsequent energy and water act. We should be taking actions that address legitimate concerns while providing some clarity and certainty to the regulatory process, not prolonging the confusion, as this provision ensures.

In closing, I am truly appreciative that we are again doing the work of

this committee, and I commend Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Dicks for their efforts to this end. And as I said at the beginning of my remarks, Chairman Frelinghuysen has done a superb job. While marginal differences exist, our agreement on the overall bill is fundamental.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member on the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair and the members of the committee and the exceptional staff that we have for their good work.

I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.