Levee Vegetation Review Act of 2013

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill, H.R. 2609, the fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water Appropriations Act.

Having this bill on the floor this week is another example of how we, as a body, our Congress, has its priorities wrong. It's why Congress has an approval rating of 12 percent.

Rather than fixing our broken immigration system and replacing it with one that works for our country, rather than doing something about the fact that student loan rates just doubled for students that are incurring new loans, here we are sacrificing our renewable energy future while simultaneously increasing spending for new and unneeded nuclear weapons far above even the sequestration level of funding.

It's no wonder this institution has the disapproval rating that it does.

This legislation is fundamentally flawed. It underfunds programs that not only grow our Nation's clean energy sources but also create jobs, promote emerging technologies, and maintain critical infrastructure. Yet, while making these cuts, it increases weapons activities by $97.7 million above the 2013 enacted levels. Here we have a bill that prioritizes unnecessary weapons and defense programs at the expense of our Nation's innovation and international competitiveness.

The underlying bill slashes program funding for a valuable program called the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E. Yesterday, in our Rules Committee, both the ranking member and the subcommittee chair agreed that they were fans of this critical program; yet it cuts funding by $215 million below last year's funding level. ARPA-E was modeled after DARPA, the Department of Defense's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which has led to so many great, innovative technologies that improve our security as a country. In its few short years of existence, ARPA-E has funded 285 projects in 33 States that promise to transform the energy future for our country.

ARPA-E's rigorous program design and competitive project selection process show that our taxpayer dollars are being used wisely, and the program has paid off. Since 2009, at least 17 ARPA-E programs have leveraged the government's small initial investment of approximately $70 million into what is typically $500,000, $1 million, or up to $2 million in private sector capital.

I was a founder of several startup companies before I came to Congress, and I understand the value of risk-taking and the role the government has in promoting innovation in basic technology. I represent a district with two major research universities that receive a combined Federal research investment of about $700 million. Many of these basic technologies which we as a country invest in lead to the jobs and the companies and the consumer technologies of the future. And what could be more critical than putting our Nation on a path to sustainable energy development?

Just this last February, I met with an ARPA-E project team from my district. Within the first year of receiving ARPA-E funding, this University of Colorado project team has demonstrated important energy yield improvements and cost-reducing potential in solar photovoltaic power systems. That's an example of an ARPA-E project that will help boost our economic well-being as a country and lead to our energy independence and national security far more than a few more unneeded nuclear missiles.

My colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that this program is essential to protecting our energy future; and that's why this program, ARPA-E, has been lauded by Democrats and Republicans alike, as it was in our Rules Committee yesterday evening.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also disproportionately cuts from science and clean energy programs while bolstering wasteful spending for fossil fuel subsidies, continuing to have our country subsidize oil and gas, to subsidizing nuclear weapons, while making cuts in our energy future. By maintaining these fossil fuel subsidies while cutting clean energy research, we're prioritizing fossil fuels over innovative technologies that actually hold the key to our clean, sustainable energy independence.

While I appreciate that this bill has some decreases to the amount of Federal subsidies going to the fossil fuel accounts compared to last year--and I think it's high time that we end these subsidies to one of America's most profitable industries--the report language from the committee seems to be searching for a reason to spend our precious taxpayer dollars at a time of sequestration and at a time of deficits. How can we spend more on fossil fuels when we should be spending less?

In addition, this bill needlessly increases the funding for weapons activities and defense programs at a time when we're winding down our involvement in two wars that have been very costly in lives and dollars in this last decade. That's why I'm offering an amendment with Representative Quigley that would reduce the B61 Life Extension Program back to the agency's request level, which would save $23.7 million in taxpayer dollars and reduce the deficit. This bill actually increases funding by over $20 million for these ongoing missile programs in an era where Americans should expect our government to be more transparent about how this money is invested.

While some of these missiles represent a strategic commitment we have to our NATO allies, there have been growing concerns raised by the Air Force's own Blue Ribbon Review Panel about the effectiveness and security vulnerabilities of the B61. That's why the price for this program has continued to rise dramatically and confidence in the missile program has dropped. In fact, some of our NATO allies, like Germany, have actually called for the B61s to be removed from their borders.

Again, given our fiscal constraints, it's a time of choices. It's not to have it all, but I think we need to ensure that taxpayer money is not wasted on programs that fail to sufficiently protect our national security and that in fact some of our allies don't even support.

Another unneeded increase in this funding bill, throwing more government money after more government money, is for the W76 Life Extension Program. The current bill requests $248 million--$13 million more than the administration requested--because of a fear of a lack of nuclear deterrence capability if we reduce our stockpile below the levels required in the New START Treaty. To put that in perspective, the START Treaty requires us to have no more than 1,550 nuclear weapons. Isn't that enough, Mr. Speaker? How many times can we completely obliterate not only our enemies but the entire world with 1,500 weapons?

Even this lower stockpile of nuclear weapons is, frankly, a relic of our foreign policy during the Cold War and can be drastically reduced. Unfortunately, this bill increased it. In fact, the Arms Control Association identified over $39 billion in savings to the taxpayer if it reduced our nuclear weapons stockpile to 1,000 nuclear weapons--more than enough to deter any threat to the United States, more than enough to obliterate humanity from the planet. We can save $39 billion by going down to 1,000 nuclear weapons.

These are some of the many reasons why I oppose the underlying bill. I'm very supportive of this rule coming forward from our committee that will allow for a full and open debate. I hope that many of these ideas that I have presented, as well as other ideas from Members on both sides of the aisle, will prevail so the end work product of this House is something that Democrats and Republicans can join together in supporting--something that no longer sacrifices our renewable energy future for yet more and more nuclear weapons today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I was going to comment to the gentleman that the committee work product, the bill before us, is a highly flawed bill. I certainly hope that the open process and the will of the House will significantly alter and improve upon this bill. We will find that out in the days ahead.

It is my honor, Mr. Speaker, to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a former colleague on the Rules Committee (Ms. Matsui).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

To further address the student loan issue, this body did pass a bill to prevent the increase in the student loan rates that just occurred. However, that bill--a very similar bill--failed in the Senate. So the Kline bill failed in the Senate. So, too, a Democratic bill to provide a 2-year extension of the student loan rates also failed in the Senate.

So at this point, the victims of all this are students in our country who are going back to school and will be forced to borrow at twice the rate--6.8 percent--if Congress can't get its act together. And that's why if we defeat the previous question, I'll offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2574, the Keeping Student Loans Affordable Act, sponsored by Representative George Miller, Representative Ruben Hinojosa, myself, and several others, which would undue the recent doubling of student loan interest rates.

It's that simple. While we work towards a market-oriented solution along the parameters President Obama has spelled out, making sure we have the protections in place like caps for students everywhere, we need to at least make sure that students returning to school this fall are not borrowing at a rate twice the rate of last year.

To discuss this bill, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), my colleague on the Education and Workforce Committee.

Again, to respond to that, the bill that the House passed failed in the United States Senate. So, too, did a 2-year delay in keeping the student loan rates low; that has failed in the Senate. So we can simply say, oh, we're just not going to do anything and let student loan rates double, or we can take it upon ourselves in this body to try to find a new way. That's what the Democrats and Ranking Member Miller have put forward, a way to say, look, we couldn't agree on 2 years, we couldn't agree on a long-term solution. Let's give us a 1-year window where the kids coming back to school in a month aren't going to be borrowing at twice the rate that they were last year.

We have the chief sponsor of the bill here to speak about it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

I thank the gentleman. I just know that there have been less speakers on the other side, and I was hoping that we might be able to use some of the ``all kinds of time'' in a bipartisan way.

The gentleman from Texas was not accurate in saying that the House bill awaits action in the Senate. It had a vote in the Senate; it did not pass. So, too, a 2-year extension did not reach the cloture vote.

So, again, here we are. We can either start blaming each other--the folks on the other side of the building--or we can actually do something and get to work to keep student loan rates low for America's college students.

And of course Democrats are open to tying something into market-based rates; President Obama even proposed such. So, if that's what the gentleman wants to do, let's engage in a discussion about that. In the meantime, let's pass a 1-year extension so the rates don't double-- which they already did 2 weeks ago--when the kids come back to school in the fall.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a leader on this issue and a colleague of mine on the Education and the Workforce Committee.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

We're not aware of any at this time. There might be one more coming, but if they're not here, I'm prepared to close.

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

Again, we wonder why this body has an approval rating of 12 percent. Instead of tackling issues that Americans want us to tackle--like finally fixing our broken immigration system, which, by the way, a bill received more than two-thirds support in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans. It's hard to get two-thirds of anybody to agree on anything, and yet 70 percent of Americans support comprehensive immigration reform, two-thirds of the United States Senate. Let's bring that bill up and pass it.

Student loans? Sure, we can cast blame on the Senate. We can cast blame on whomever we feel like. But the fact is American families are borrowing at 6.8 percent instead of 3.4 percent--now, this fall, student loans. So we can either just say, okay, it's not our fault, we passed something, let's go home, or we can actually try to reach a solution.

If we can defeat the previous question today, we can bring Representative Miller's bill right to the floor to allow a 1-year window for Congress to work this out and keep the student loan rate at 3.4 percent and prevent our next generation of college kids from having their backs broken under the weight of high-interest student loans.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to this bill--again, not the bill that America wants us to be discussing; instead, a bill that cuts our renewable energy future, puts even more money into nuclear weapons--I can't support this committee report on the energy and water spending bill. I hope that through this process the will of the House changes this bill dramatically. If not, then we're simply making the wrong decisions for our energy future.

The bill slashes critical funding that would create jobs, grow our economy, lead to energy security, and increase our competitiveness. At the same time, the bill adds spending to increase our nuclear weapons stockpiles.

How can we expect to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists if we cut the nuclear nonproliferation activities by $600 million under this bill?

While the bill increases funding for our weapons programs and continues funding for fossil fuel subsidies, it guts many of our renewable energy programs, like ARPA-E, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and investing in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

This bill threatens to increase our reliance on foreign oil, reduce job growth, increase pollution, and damage the health of American families. If we don't act to reverse this legislation's deep cuts to science programs and energy research, the United States will have many, many missiles armed with nuclear warheads, but we will fall behind our global competitors who are investing heavily in renewable and next- generation energy technologies.

I strongly urge that we defeat the previous question. I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 288 provides for an open rule for consideration of H.R. 2609, making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for fiscal year 2014.

This rule contains the tradition reinstated by the Republican majority in the last Congress that appropriations bills should come to the floor in a manner that allows every Member of the House, both Republican and Democrat, to amend those bills and to have their voices heard.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill, making appropriations for the Department of Energy and the United States Corps of Engineers. The bill provides for $30.4 billion for these agencies, which is $2.9 billion below fiscal year '13 enacted and $4.1 billion below the President's request, at a time of fiscal constraint, when government, like our constituents, must make tough choices on where to smartly spend the money the American taxpayers have trusted it to oversee.

The bill provides critical funding for our energy needs, making $450 million available for advanced coal, natural gas, oil and fossil fuel technologies. Moreover, the bill provides $5.5 billion for environmental cleanup activities, funds to safely clean sites contaminated by nuclear weapons production.

The underlying bill before us has been carefully crafted by the Appropriations Committee under the leadership of Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, Subcommittee Chairman Frelinghuysen, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Kaptur.

Funding for energy programs is cut by $1.4 billion, while simultaneously prioritizing funds to advance our goal of an all-of-the- above solution to energy independence.

Further, the House continues its commitment to achieve a long-term storage facility for nuclear waste, providing support activities in support of the opening of Yucca Mountain, a solution long overdue.

The House energy and water bill furthers this majority's commitment to spending taxpayer money wisely, cutting waste and inefficiencies wherever they may be.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I do feel obligated to point out that the object under discussion currently is the rule that will allow us to debate the energy and water appropriations bill. The rule is an open rule. If the gentleman has disagreements with the language in the underlying bill, it's an open rule. He's free to bring those amendments to the floor, have a full and fair debate, both sides, one opposed, one in support; and the will of

the House will prevail. That is the way it should be under an open rule.

Let me just state that I have, for the record, amendments that I will be placing before the House. I hope they're accepted, but I will accept the underlying bill even in the absence of those amendments. And I hope the gentleman from Colorado will approach it in a similar spirit.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to respond to something that was said in the initial opening by the minority. The student loan bill passed this House over a month ago. It has been sitting in the Senate for the entire month of June. The problem with student loans could have been addressed by the other body. It could have been addressed prior to the July 1 deadline, which was a deadline, after all, that the Democrats had set when they were in the majority.

So to say that the House has not done its work is in fact not correct. The House has done its work. We await the other body to act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.

Again, if I recall correctly, the bill that the gentleman from Texas just referenced has only Democratic sponsors. It is not a bipartisan bill.

The other body, completely controlled by Democrats in the majority, has within its power to pass a bill, conference with the Republican- passed bill

here in the House, and work out the problem. They have failed to do so.

The House has done its work. The House-passed bill was received in the Senate on the 3rd of June. It has been there for over a month. The other body certainly has within its power to act.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, just a bit of a history lesson.

In 2007, Democratically-controlled House, Democratically-controlled Senate passed the student loan rates. They built into the law an expiration date of last July. Last July, a 1-year extension was passed. This year, the Republican House passed a responsible extension. The Senate, the other body, needs to do its work. When they do, we're here to talk.

I now wish to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from the other side as to whether or not they have additional speakers?

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

I cannot recall a place in the Constitution where it says the House passes a bill, the Senate can't pass it, so the House comes back and tries to find a better bill that maybe the Senate will now take up. Boy, I wish that had happened on that health care stuff back in 2009 and 2010. We would have a lot better world today.

But the fact of the matter is, the House has passed the student loan bill and the Senate has the obligation to act. The deadline of July 1 was, in fact, provided to us by a funding cliff that the Democrats enacted back in 2007 when they started this process.

The deadline was self-imposed by a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and a Democratic majority in the Senate. Democrats in the other body are fully aware of that deadline, we are fully aware of that deadline, and they were the ones that let it lapse. The House had done its work. They were fully capable of passing something and sending it back to us so that it could either be passed or adjusted prior to the July 4 recess.

In regards to the legislation we are currently considering, we do continue the Republican commitment to maintaining an open and transparent nature to the appropriations process. This rule balances our commitment to energy independence and national security with good stewardship of taxpayer money.

I want to, again, commend Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey, Chairman Frelinghuysen, and Ranking Member Kaptur for working together to craft a bill that balances our spending priorities with our concerns over the deficit and our climbing national debt.

At this point, I ask for an ``aye'' on the previous question and an ``aye'' on the underlying resolution.

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As we debate this rule, it has now been a little over a week since interest rates on loans for millions of the neediest college students doubled thanks to Republican obstructionism. With that doubling, those who can afford it least will continue to be burdened under a mountain of debt with no end in sight. Because Congress has not acted in a responsible way, this rate increase will cost borrowers an additional $1,000 per student per loan.

The doubling of interest rates did not have to happen. Rather than making it more affordable for students and families to pay for college, House Republicans decided to pass a bill that would make college more expensive.

The bill was dead on arrival in the Senate. It was dead on arrival in the Senate because it was worse for students than the doubling of the interest rates, and it left the students without an option other than the doubling of the interest rates. That's why we must act today. We must defeat the previous question so that we can deliberate this and get a solution until we can work on a long-term, bipartisan agreement on this one.

The Republican plan that passed the House was totally irresponsible. It was simply not a smart solution. It has been advertised by my friends on the other side as a long-term fix, but we all know the truth. The Republican bill adds more debt onto the students, even more than doubling the interest rates.

The Republican bill also puts students in a yearly-adjustable student loan, which will result in great unpredictability and soaring loan costs to the students and to their families. And the insistence from the GOP that the students pay down the national debt is outrageous and offensive.

The student loan program is a program that the Federal Government makes $50 billion off the back of the students, and the Republicans' response is that the students should pay higher interest rates so they can pay down the national deficit. The student loan program itself is paying down the national deficit because of the profit the Federal Government makes. It's time to stop that and make student loans affordable for students and for their families.

This Congress simply has not done right by students. They are forcing these students to continue to graduate with an increasing mountain of debt while, at the same time, they lament that students are graduating with increased debt.

That's what the Republicans offered. That's why, as my colleague from Colorado said, it was dead on arrival when it went to the Senate. It was dead on a bipartisan basis when it went to the Senate.

The time has come now to defeat the previous question so that we can bring the 1-year fix to make sure that students are protected from the doubling of the interest rate that is now occurring because of the inaction by the Republicans in the House of Representatives.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, my district of Sacramento is one of the leading clean energy economies in the country. The sharp cuts to clean energy initiatives in this bill are deeply troubling. It will no doubt hurt American innovation and American jobs, particularly as other nations continue to invest in clean energy technologies. It is also not reflective of an all-of-the-above energy strategy that our Nation desperately needs.

At the same time, this bill addresses some of the important flood protection priorities for my district. Sacramento is the most at-risk metropolitan area for major flooding, as it lies at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers. We have a great deal at risk. As the home of the State capital and half a million people, a major flood event in Sacramento would have economic damages of up to $40 billion.

I am pleased that this bill includes nearly $70 million in funding for Sacramento's flood protection priorities, including more than $66 million to continue construction on the Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project. In addition, this bill includes report language, which I requested, expressing concern with the Corps' current levee vegetation policy. Sacramento is ground zero for the impact of the Corps' vegetation policy. Instead of a one-size-fits-all solution, the Corps should consider regional variances and local input, as called for under bipartisan legislation I introduce in H.R. 399, the Levee Vegetation Review Act.

The bill also includes report language that I also requested expressing concern with the Corps' decision to end its section 104 crediting policy, which has halted flood protection projects from moving forward, particularly one in west Sacramento.

Mr. Speaker, moving forward, we must also be cognizant that there are other much-needed public safety projects that remain unfunded and unbuilt due to a lack of a WRDA bill. We urgently need to improve America's crumbling levee infrastructure. In Sacramento, my constituents have taxed themselves twice and $350 million of construction work is well under way for the Natomas Levee Improvement Project, all while awaiting congressional authorization for over 2 years after receiving a chief's report from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Mr. Speaker, on May 15 the Senate passed a robust WRDA bill with clear bipartisan support of 83-14. It is my sincere hope that the House will soon follow suit. We cannot wait until the next disaster takes lives and wrecks our economy. This is a bipartisan issue that must be addressed immediately in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2574, entitled Keeping Student Loans Affordable Act of 2013, legislation that would extend and fully pay for an additional year of the 3.4 percent interest rate on subsidized Federal direct Stafford loans.

Given that millions of students and families are struggling to afford the skyrocketing cost of a college education, it's shocking to me that this Congress allowed interest rates to double on July 1. I'm afraid that this Republican-majority Congress is making college more expensive for millions of students. With student debt surpassing $3 trillion, another increase of $1,000 of debt would be damaging to millions of student already struggling to afford basic expenses like rent and food.

The student loan debt crisis is crushing the dreams and aspirations of students and college graduates. High levels of debt are creating obstacles for young people who hope to start a family, purchase a home, and save for retirement. At this rate, they cannot accomplish those standard goals that every American should be able to achieve.

In my view, student loan debt sets our country backward, not forward. Without Congress' swift action, more than 7 million low- and moderate- income students working towards a college degree will have to pay an additional $1,000 for each loan that they borrow.

The Keep Student Loans Affordable Act of 2013 will secure low interest rates for an additional year as Congress works on a long-term and sustainable approach for the Federal student loan program that works for both students and taxpayers.

Importantly, this bill will help ensure that college remains within reach for students who rely on Federal loans to pay for their education. In stark contrast, the GOP student loan plan is irresponsible and puts students in a yearly-adjustable student loan, which will result in great unpredictability and skyrocketing costs. What's more, the GOP bills add more debt onto students, even more than the doubling of the interest rates.

In a globally competitive economy, an education is clearly a necessity. This Congress should be helping students afford a college education, not saddling them with student loan debt.

As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do what is right and pass H.R. 2574 to reverse the student loan rate increase.