Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Marc Scarbrough of Woodbridge, Va., for his participation in the People to People World Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C.

People to People offers young leaders the opportunity to grow educationally while exposing them to new cultures. Founded in 1956 under the auspices of the Eisenhower Administration, People to People has continuously enjoyed Presidential support for its mission of instilling our nation's next generation of leaders with the international experience they will need to succeed in an increasingly global society and economy.

Marc's acceptance to the program is no small accomplishment. Academically selective, the program is built for the brightest students in the nation. From June 30-July 6, Marc participated in numerous educational activities in the Washington, D.C., area, all of which were focused on leadership development. Marc and his fellow participants gained access to areas of American government rarely seen at such a young age, and that experience will serve him well in his studies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Marc Scarbrough and wishing him continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Joshua Layog of Montclair, Virginia, for his participation in the People to People World Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C.

People to People offers young leaders the opportunity to grow educationally while exposing them to new cultures. Founded in 1956 under the auspices of the Eisenhower Administration, People to People has continuously enjoyed Presidential support for its mission of instilling our nation's next generation of leaders with the international experience they will need to succeed in an increasingly global society and economy.

Joshua's acceptance to the program is no small accomplishment. Academically selective, the program is built for the brightest students in the nation. From June 20-24, Joshua participated in numerous educational activities in the Washington, D.C., area, all of which were focused on leadership development. Joshua and his fellow participants gained access to areas of American government rarely seen at such a young age, and that experience will serve him well in his studies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Joshua Layog and wishing him continued success in the future.

Madam Speaker, we are 2 short weeks away from defaulting on American debt, which would devastate our economy and plunge this country, if not the global economy, into a steep recession. We are engaged in three overseas wars as part of the broader struggle to defeat terrorism. Century-old autocracies are crumbling in the Middle East. Extreme drought is destroying farmers' livelihoods across the Southeast, Texas, and Oklahoma, while floods of biblical proportions inundate the upper Midwest. Unprecedented tornadoes have killed hundreds of people in Missouri, Alabama, and Virginia, while the melting of glaciers and polar ice continues to accelerate. Meanwhile, our economy stagnates for lack of any new congressional action to expedite growth.

In response to these existential threats at home and once-in-a- lifetime opportunities for democracy abroad, the Republican leadership has brought to the floor a bill to repeal a nonexistent ban on incandescent light bulbs passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican President, President Bush. That's right, light bulbs. Connoisseurs of Internet hearsay are aware that Tea Party conspiracy theorists think President Obama is trying to outlaw the incandescent light bulb even though President Bush signed that law into enactment. Cooler heads, such as representatives of every major light bulb manufacturer in America, from Philips to Johnson Controls, actually support the light bulb efficiency standards because they provide a competitive advantage for American manufacturers relative to their Chinese competitors, who produce shoddy, light-inefficient bulbs. Who

knew that the Tea Party contained so many Manchurian sympathizers who have hidden their proto-internationalist agenda beneath the folds of the Don't Tread on Me flag?

As we have heard, those who would repeal the light bulb efficiency standards believe we are ``taxed enough already.'' Apparently the lowest Federal tax burden in 60 years has left these zealots with extra disposable income, and they want to spend it on inefficient light bulbs. In fact, repeal of the light bulb standards would give Americans the liberty to spend $85 extra per year on light bulbs to produce no additional light. It's hard to understand how ideologues in this House can suggest imposing $85 per year on their constituents in order to buy light bulbs which consume more electricity than necessary.

Those who are baffled by Republican support for this anachronistic incandescent bulb tax may want to refer to the legislative record of the House over the last 7 months. The Republican Party has deviated so far from its historic support for conservation that it now supports legislation that would allow air and water pollution with impunity. The new Republican Caucus supports legislation like the BULB Act, which we dealt with last night, and retrogresses to the time of Thomas Edison and the invention of the light bulb. These Republicans sound like flat earthers, and they must really mean it when they call themselves originalists.

This entire situation would be humorous but for the gravity of the threat our Nation faces, from climate change to the debt puzzle, or the opportunities that we will forgo in the Middle East because this House is distracted by a paranoid attack on light bulbs.

Mr. Speaker, 27 weeks the Republicans have been in charge of this House, and they have not brought a single jobs bill to the floor.

Instead, House leadership has set its eyes on dogmatically asserting its goals of repealing health care reform and dismantling even the most basic of environmental regulations. Republicans have brought us so far down the path of mass deregulation that even the most basic safeguards are under threat.

They have brought forth insipid legislation to repeal bulb efficiency standards and are still fighting against essential clean water regulation.

The reality is that both of these efforts will kill jobs and hurt innovation, but the Republicans seem perfectly comfortable in sticking to the rhetoric of anti-regulation regardless of whom it harms.

We have gone so far down this path that the anti-tax dogma of the House majority is now bringing debt ceiling negotiations to a terrible, terrible brink of catastrophe. They would rather preserve tax breaks for their corporate jet and oil companies than compromise on a plan that will benefit the middle class of America by better distributing that tax burden.

It's wrong. Let's come to the table.

Mr. Chair, for the last seven months this nation's economy has stagnated while the Republican majority has passed a litany of bills repealing environmental standards on behalf of oil and coal companies. Today we have another anti-environment bill before the House, predictably mis-named, in the finest Orwellian tradition, the ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act.'' This bill is a case study in irony: After seven months of blaming economic malaise on regulatory ``uncertainty,'' this bill would eliminate predictable and consistent national clean water standards in favor of an uncertain state-based patchwork of regulations. This bill would be more appropriately titled the ``Consistency is the Hobgoblin of Small Minds Act,'' because its elimination of any regulatory certainty flies in the face of seven months of Republican rhetoric. On the other hand, as an assault on the environment which benefits Republican campaign donors, it is utterly consistent with the majority's modus operandi.

The majority claims to support an ``all of the above'' energy strategy, and that is accurate if we accept the Republican premise that coal and oil constitute the totality of America's energy portfolio. After passing countless bills to repeal clean air and water regulations for oil companies, this bill is focused on repealing clean water standards for the coal and mining industry. My colleagues who are not from Virginia, West Virginia, or Kentucky may not be familiar with the ravages of mountaintop removal, and if they aren't I would encourage them to look at a satellite photo of our region before they vote for this bill. Following Bush Administration abrogation of its responsibility to administer the Clean Water Act, destruction of the Southern Appalachian mountains has accelerated. For example, Wise County, Virginia has had 25 percent of its land area obliterated by mountaintop removal: According to the Nature Conservancy, Southwest Virginia is one of the two most biodiverse regions in America, along with Hawaii. Mountaintop removal is eliminating that region's biodiversity very efficiently. What used to be extraordinarily productive mountains in my state now resemble a moonscape of man-made plateaus and valleys filled in with rubble.

The purpose of this bill is to prevent Clean Water Act regulation of those ``valley fills'' which mining companies use to dispose of former mountains. Valley fills should be a clear violation of the Clean Water Act, and under the Obama Administration the EPA and Army Corps have finally begun to comply with the law and regulate them. This legislation would block that federal regulation which is necessary to protect life and property in Southwest Virginia and other parts of Appalachia.

This legislation would have other negative consequences beyond destroying one of America's greatest and most threatened regions. It is written in such a broad manner that it could allow unregulated destruction of intermittent and ephemeral streams, lakes and prairie potholes, and subterranean waters such as those that are common in places like Virginia's Shenandoah Valley. I strongly encourage my colleagues to reject this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I failed

to note the irony of the legislation before us today. After 7 months of ranting and raving about the lack of regulatory certainty which causes economic stagnation, the Republican majority is now attempting to pass a bill which would replace a clear, predictable, national clean water standard with an utterly unpredictable patchwork of State standards. Chaos does not federalism make, nor is one State's ability to sully a downstream State's waters consistent with the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.

This legislation, with the Orwellian title the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act, would endanger watersheds all across America, including the precious Chesapeake Bay in our region here in the National Capital Region. As my colleagues are aware, the bay watershed encompasses six States and the District of Columbia.

Logically, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other agencies work in tandem with States throughout the watershed to reduce pollution entering the bay. Since watersheds do not correspond easily to State lines, this kind of interagency cooperation is essential and efficient to restore America's largest estuary.

H.R. 2018 would unravel that partnership, balkanizing water policy and undermining bay restoration. I have drafted a simple amendment, Mr. Chairman, to exempt watersheds like the Chesapeake Bay from this bill by limiting the bill's jurisdiction to watersheds which do not receive Federal aid for watershed restoration and related activities. This amendment would allow critical efforts, such as the restoration of the bay, Long Island Sound, the Great Lakes, Puget Sound, Gulf of Mexico, San Francisco Bay, and other great waters to continue. It would acknowledge the undeniable fact that water does not stop when it reaches the State line.

This amendment is important because these great waters are an integral part of our American heritage. The Chesapeake Bay was where John Smith arrived and founded Jamestown. The first colonial exploration of Virginia, also by John Smith, used the bay to explore the rivers of Virginia and Maryland. The Chesapeake is home to the French blockade of the British Navy, which enabled George Washington to have victory at Yorktown and a successful conclusion to the Revolutionary War.

For 200 years the Chesapeake Bay was one of America's most productive fisheries, fueling the growth of coastal communities such as Alexandria, Norfolk, and Baltimore, as well as an indigenous fleet of boats such as the skipjacks, deadrises, and bugeyes.

Unfortunately, development and overfishing wiped out many of the fisheries that were once so productive. When John Smith arrived in the bay, his crew had neglected to bring fishing line, but they were able to pull fish out of the bay by scooping them out of the water. Smith wrote that the oysters on the bay floor lay thick as stones and were so prolific that these filter feeders cleaned the entire volume of the bay daily. The shad runs up the James, Rappahannock, and Potomac Rivers were so immense that colonial observers noted it would have been possible to walk all the way from the James from Richmond to Manchester on the backs of fish without ever touching water.

These fish were so large and powerful that, when caught, they actually shook the first Manchester Bridge on its piers. Of course, the bay is part of a much larger watershed now that is as historic ecologically as the bay is itself.

To restore this great water body, many Federal agencies have been working in partnership with States, localities, and landowners. As written, H.R. 2018 would rupture that partnership, effectively giving any one State veto authority over the region's restoration efforts. My simple amendment would protect our ability to keep working together as a region to restore the bay.

This regional effort was first started at the Federal level by a Republican, my old friend, Republican U.S. Senator Charles ``Mac'' Mathias of Maryland. To the extent we are making progress today, it's a result of the partnership between Virginia, whose general assembly is investing over $100 million annually in private land conservation, a Republican-led initiative that was expanded under a Democratic Governor. Let us not turn our backs on this 30-year partnership.

I ask for your support for this commonsense amendment to continue the improvements to America's largest and most historic estuary, as well as our Nation's other great waters.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me say to my friend who is managing on the majority side, I spent 14 years in local government. We don't consider the Federal involvement in cleaning up the bay an undue burden. We actually consider it a partnership that has paid off big time, and we need more of it.

Support the Connolly Amendment to H.R. 2018

Protect these Great Waters: Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay,

Long Island Sound, South Florida/Everglades, Mississippi

River Basin, San Francisco Bay, Gulf of Mexico, Lake

Champlain, Puget Sound, Casco Bay (ME), New Hampshire

Estuaries, Massachusetts Bays, Buzzards Bay, Narragansett

Bay, Peconic Estuary, New York/NJ Harbor, Bernegat Bay,

Delaware Inland Bays, Maryland Coastal Bays, Southeast Coast,

Albermarle-Pamlico Sound, Indian River Lagoon, Gulf Coast,

Charlotte Harbor, Sarasota Bay, Tampa Bay, Mobile Bay,

Bataraia-Terrebonne Estuary, Galveston Bay, Coastal Bend Bay,

West Coast, Lower Columbia River, Tillamook Bay, Morro Bay

Dear Colleague, many of us have worked in collaboration

with partners at the state and local level to protect great

waters like the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Everglades, Lake

Champlain, Long Island Sound, San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound,

Mississippi Basin, and the Gulf of Mexico.

I have drafted a simple amendment to exempt these

watersheds and others that receive federal restoration

funding from H.R. 2018. This amendment would allow critical

efforts such as restoration to continue in acknowledgement of

the undeniable fact that water does not stop when it reaches

a state line. A more complete list of watersheds that would

be protected by this amendment can be found at the end of

this letter.

This amendment is important because these great waters are

an integral part of our American heritage. The Chesapeake

Bay, for example, was where John Smith arrived and founded

Jamestown. The first colonial exploration of Virginia, also

by John Smith, used the Bay to explore the rivers of Virginia

and Maryland. The Chesapeake is home to the French blockade

of the British Navy, which enabled George Washington's

victory at Yorktown and a successful conclusion to the

Revolutionary War. For two hundred years the Chesapeake was

one of America's most productive fisheries, fueling the

growth of coastal communities such as Alexandria, Norfolk,

and Baltimore, as well as an indigenous fleet of boats such

as the Skipjacks, Deadrises, and Bugeyes.

Unfortunately, development and overfishing wiped out many

of the fisheries that were once so productive. When John

Smith arrived in the Bay, his crew had neglected to bring

fishing line, but they were able to pull fish out of the Bay

by scooping them out of the water with frying pans. Smith

wrote that the oysters on the Bay floor ``lay thick as

stones'' and were so prolific that these filter

feeders cleaned the whole volume of the Bay daily. The shad

runs up the James, Rappahannock, and Potomac were so immense

that colonial observers noted it would have been possible to

walk across the James from Richmond to Manchester on the

backs of fish without ever touching water. These fish were so

large and powerful that, when caught, they shook the first

Manchester Bridge on its moorings. Of course, the Bay is part

of a much larger watershed that is as historic and

ecologically valuable as the Bay itself.

To restore this great water body many federal agencies have

been working in partnership with states, localities, and land

owners. As written, H.R. 2018 would rupture that partnership,

effectively giving any one state veto authority over the

region's Bay restoration efforts. This important amendment

would protect our ability to keep working together as a

region to restore the Bay and other great waters across

America.

Please support this amendment and contact

[email protected] (3-3122) with any questions.

Sincerely,

Gerald E. Connolly,

11th District, Virginia.

Watersheds and States that would be protected from H.R.

2018:

Great Lakes--NY, PA, OH, IL, IN, MN, WI, MI

Chesapeake Bay--NY, PA, MD, DE, VA, WV

Long Island Sound--CT, NY, RI

South Florida/Everglades--FL

Mississippi River Basin--MN, ND, SD, WY, CO, NM, TX, OK,

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, the Republican Energy and Water Appropriations Act would take American energy policy back to the 19th century. It slashes funding for solar, advanced vehicles, building efficiency, biomass, home weatherization, advanced energy research, and loan guarantees for renewable energy. Incredibly, as gas prices remain high the Republicans gut funding for fuel efficient automobiles. These cuts would be devastating for domestic manufacturers of renewable energy and energy efficiency technology, as well as our domestic auto industry. Consider the magnitude of these cuts:

$97 million cut in solar funding, helping Chinese solar manufacturers at the expense of American producers;

$46 million cut in fuel efficient vehicles, hurting consumers at the pump while putting American auto producers at a competitive disadvantage;

$61 million cut in building efficiency, which will expose consumers to rising electricity prices;

$33 million cut in biomass research, crippling a critical domestic industry which supports the timber industry and diversifies our electric generation portfolio;

$141 million cut in home weatherization funding, an 81 percent cut in a program which saves consumers money by reducing their electric bills;

$80 million cut for Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA- E), a 44 percent cut in critical clean energy research;

$1 billion cut in High Speed Rail money, punishing commuters in congested regions like the Washington-Boston corridor;

$43 million cut in science research, hurting American competitiveness.

In addition to attacking domestic manufacturing, clean energy production, and efficiency programs, the Republicans have inserted policy riders to advance a radical anti-environmental agenda at the expense of Americans' public health. Their rider would block the Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency from implementing the Clean Water Act in accordance with guidance from those agencies. Following a decade of regulatory uncertainty following a Supreme Court decision, the Obama administration issued guidance to help landowners comply with the Clean Water Act. This guidance replaced a confusing patchwork of lower level court decisions and produced the regulatory certainty that Republicans claim to support. This rider demonstrates that the Republicans are not actually interested in regulatory ``certainty;'' they are simply opposed to any and all environmental and public health regulations. Since they know they can't win a public debate about these public health standards, they are trying to sneak in a rider to an appropriations bill to block the regulations.

American entrepreneurs developed the solar panel and more sophisticated wind turbines, yet China and Germany are far ahead of American wind and solar production. The Obama administration requested funding increases for renewable energy so America can compete and produce clean energy generation domestically, but the Republican budget would actually slash clean energy funding.

Just as the American auto industry is recovering as a result of the Obama Administration's intervention, this Republican appropriations bill would gut advanced vehicle and vehicle efficiency funding. We need to produce more efficient vehicles and advanced hybrid vehicles here in America. The American auto industry declined in the 1970s and 1980s as foreign competitors produced more efficient, technologically advanced vehicles. We cannot afford to give up market share again by surrendering to foreign auto producers.

This Republican appropriations bill is not an isolated attack on American clean energy production and industrial competitiveness. The same Republicans have already passed legislation in the House-- thankfully not the Senate--to repeal the Clean Air Act and block vehicle efficiency standards in the future. Never in the history of American politics has one of our great political parties been so blind to opportunities of the future and determined to repeat failures of the past.

We have a real opportunity to boost American manufacturing of clean energy and advanced vehicles. Just as a result of the Recovery Act we went from producing 2 percent to 40 percent of advanced batteries. We cannot allow this Republican appropriations bill to reverse that progress and cripple American industrial competitiveness.

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

Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations Act is an assault on any rational, scientific basis for public policy. It would decimate American manufacturing, impoverish American consumers, and allow polluters to sully our water with impunity. At a time when the American economy is stuck in neutral, while China and Germany are accelerating their production of clean energy and advanced vehicles, this bill would take America back to the 19th century standards of unbridled industrial predation without public oversight or regulation.

Mr. Peters of Michigan and I drafted a simple amendment to fix one, among many, problems in this bill. Mr. Peters has been a leader of efforts to restore our auto industry, and I appreciate his cosponsorship of this amendment. It would simply restore some of the funding cut from the Vehicle Technologies program with a funding offset providing by eliminating an increase in corporate welfare for the fossil fuel industry. This amendment would maintain the same level of funding as was provided in this fiscal year's Energy and Water appropriations bill.

The Vehicle Technologies program is a critical part of our efforts to revive American manufacturing and the automobile industry. It is a job generator. Five years ago, our auto industry was on its deathbed, with two major manufacturers facing bankruptcy. Fortunately, President Obama intervened and provided temporary assistance both to General Motors and Chrysler, most of which has already been repaid. Today, these domestic manufacturers are growing again, with positive domestic economic benefits for auto dealers and parts suppliers all across America. Unfortunately, this Energy and Water appropriations bill would reverse this progress by gutting important vehicle research funding.

The Vehicle Technologies program is a success story in boosting domestic manufacturing of cleaner cars that save consumers money at the pump. It is reducing the cost of advanced lithium ion batteries, which are in all hybrid vehicles on the road in America. This program has helped deploy 48 battery manufacturing projects all across the United States with the goal of reducing hybrid vehicle engine costs by 35 percent. Hybrid vehicles are an important part of our domestic manufacturing base and provide direct quality of life benefits in suburban regions with high levels of smog pollution, such as here in the Nation's capital. The Advanced Vehicle Technologies program also is helping to deploy electric vehicles, including the new Chevy Volt.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, this program has accelerated deployment of hybrid-electric diesel buses, improving transit service and air quality in communities throughout the country like my own in Fairfax County, Virginia.

We cannot allow a hemorrhaging of technology and manufacturing jobs to foreign competition while unemployment grows in America. The Republicans seem to believe that corporate welfare for oil companies will help the economy, but we tried that during the previous administration and it did not work. We need to focus on rebuilding the technologies of the future right here in America, and the Vehicle Technologies Program is a part of that effort.

I ask for favorable consideration of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Connolly of Virginia

Amendment No. 50: Page 24, line 18, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $92,000,000)''.

Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $46,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to our friend from Texas who spoke just a few minutes ago, talking about Medicaid. It is true that entitlement programs need to be reformed. It's also true that costs need to be reined in. That's what affordable health care reform actually did.

The answer certainly does not lie in the Republican budget passed earlier this year on a party-line vote, which would dismantle Medicare as we know it, turning it into a voucher system, the Ryan plan, and would turn Medicaid into a block grant program which would further impoverish our States at a delicate moment of their recovery.

We need reform in entitlement programs, but the Republican budget, Mr. Speaker, is not the answer. It is the death knell for a program that covers a third of all Americans' health care.

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

First, I want to thank Chairman Young, Ranking Member Dicks, and their staffs for coordinating with my office on this amendment and for their work to address operational energy challenges faced by DOD.

According to the Department of Defense, operational energy represented 74 percent of the military's energy costs in 2010; and despite a 9 percent reduction in energy use, costs increased by 19.7 percent. Air conditioning alone for American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan cost $20 million each year. Last year's bill to heat, cool, and light 539,000 DOD buildings represented at least $4 billion in direct costs to taxpayers.

More than 3,000 American warfighters and contractors have been killed in the line of duty while moving or defending fuel convoys. We cannot continue sacrificing American lives as a result of failing to improve energy use by our military.

Included in the bill is a targeted investment of $82 million for Marine Corps expeditionary energy equipment to prevent our marines from carrying more than 13 million pounds of gear and will help taxpayers avoid nearly $40 billion in annual energy-related costs.

Thank you, Chairman Young and Ranking Member Dicks, for including this funding in the bill. This bipartisan amendment would complement that investment in operational energy by increasing funding for the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, known as SERDP, from 56.4 to 66.4 million, which matches both the President's budget request and the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act recently passed on a strong bipartisan vote.

I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and Mr. Bartlett of Maryland and Mr. Hinchey of New York. As members of the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees, respectively, they have been leaders in the efforts to improve our energy security. And I appreciate the bipartisan support of this amendment.

Unfortunately, without the funding that this amendment would provide, the Pentagon would be forced to delay or cancel several strategic environmental programs. For example, this funding would support the joint sensitive technology and munitions program which develops alternatives to TNT. These alternatives are less toxic and have lower cleanup costs. The amendment also supports sustainable wastewater treatment technology for forward-operating bases in combat zones. The purpose of this program is not to protect the environment near the bases but to reduce water and fuel consumption associated with waste treatment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will also help our military adapt to climate change. In Virginia, the Norfolk Naval Base is located at sea level. We are largely witnessing rising water levels already in the Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic Ocean. This amendment simply provides funding equivalent to that which was authorized already by the House Armed Services Committee and by the full House and recommended by the President.

I do not believe we should risk delaying or canceling these critical defense programs, and I ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Hinchey, and Mrs. Capps, who were unable to arrange flight schedules to get back here for this consideration.

Mr. Blumenauer's amendment would increase funding for the Environmental Security Technology Certification program by $15 million to match the authorization of the National Defense Authorization Act passed by the House earlier this spring.

According to the Department, facilities energy represented at least $4 billion in direct costs to the taxpayer in fiscal year 2010. The Department is paying to heat, cool, light, and operate 539,000 buildings and structures that hold 2.2 billion square feet.

The Environmental Security Technology Certification program is focused on finding ways to decrease energy demand, develop smart distribution systems, and increase the use of alternative and renewable energy at U.S. military installations.

ESTCP was established in 1995 to promote the deployment of proven innovative technologies to field or production use. The program demonstrations collect cost and performance data for new technologies to help these new technologies overcome the barriers to development. The goals are to identify the most promising new technologies to help DOD improve its environmental remediation, such as unexploded ordnance, cleanup, energy performance, and cost savings.

ESTCP funds projects in five program areas: energy and water; environmental restoration; munitions response; resource conservation and climate change; and weapons systems and platforms. The program uses an energy test bed concept that is focused on finding ways to decrease energy demand, develop smart distribution systems, and increase the use of alternative and renewable energy at military installations worldwide. These projects include energy-efficient lighting, heating, and air conditioning such as daylight harvesting, personalized dimming, combustion control systems, and high-performance cooling technology.

ESTCP is funding initiatives that will make advancements in building control and retrofits such as the advanced building energy management systems and the Zero Energy Housing, which generate 100 percent of their power requirements through on-site renewable and demand reductions.

Another project, the LED street lighting system, will deliver 50 percent energy reductions over existing street light systems at DOD facilities around the United States.

An additional $15 million above the President's budget request will help address the immense challenge our military's facilities' energy requirements represent. The HASC has authorized ESTCP at $45 million, which includes a $15 million increase; and in doing so the authorizers created account number 82A for that purpose.

I appreciate Mr. Blumenauer's work on energy security issues, including this amendment; and I ask for its favorable consideration.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Connolly of Virginia

Amendment No. 93: Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Page 31, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

I thank my colleague.

Madam Chairman, the legislation before us would repeal pollution standards for ships and oil rigs located offshore anywhere in America. It appears to be based on the belief that as a general principle, air does not move. This legislation endangers air quality from Alaska to Virginia while offering another token of appreciation to the oil companies that were so generous in creating a new majority in the 112th Congress.

The premise of this bill is that pollution generated offshore doesn't matter because it will not affect any humans onshore or humans working offshore. And I know that those of us who represent littoral States are most reassured by our colleagues from Colorado, Kentucky, and Nebraska in reassuring us that we won't negatively be affected by this legislation.

Based on the content of this bill, apparently the majority believes that individuals employed on offshore oil rigs and ship servicing rigs do not breathe while they're working offshore. This bill would deregulate ongoing oil drilling in Alaska and prospective oil drilling off the coast of Virginia and all other coastal States. The majority is attempting to pass yet another bill to sacrifice the health and economic livelihoods of American citizens to pad the pocketbooks of Big Oil.

This legislation, which presupposes that air does not move, is as dangerous as the previous Republican oil bills which denied the existence of global warming and enacted wholesale repeals of the few safety and environmental safeguards that still protect coastal communities from oil drilling.

We keep hearing from across the aisle that this legislation will create 50,000 jobs. My friends, don't be misinformed. The study they referred to is a Shell Oil-funded study that simply estimates how many jobs could be created, all things being equal, like no pollution regulation, by offshore oil drilling in Alaska. Today's debate is not about whether to drill; it's about whether we will allow a massive increase in pollution when we do it. It is a false choice, and I urge my colleagues in the House to reject it.

Mr. Speaker, while it is imperative that we reduce the Federal deficit, balancing the budget on the backs of our Nation's disadvantaged children and senior citizens is neither responsible nor equitable. I believe in an America that protects the young and the elderly.

But the Republican budget attacks the important safeguards for children and the disadvantaged, replacing Medicaid with vastly limited monetary grants to the States, forcing them to either reduce benefits to lower-income families or reduce the number of eligible families. Currently, 34 million children receive health care through Medicaid. From 1997 to 2009, the percentage of children without health insurance as a result dropped from 13.9 percent to 8.2. The Republican budget's attacks on Medicaid will imperil the health insurance for 24,100 children and reduce benefits for 6,100 seniors in my district, the 11th District of Virginia.

Unfortunately, the Republican attacks on our seniors don't end with Medicaid. Imagine a world where half of all seniors lack health insurance. Imagine a world where the rising costs of health care threaten retirees' ability to afford essential medicine their doctor prescribed. Imagine a world where more than one out of every three seniors lives in poverty and the choice for the day is between food and their drugs. This isn't a dystopian nightmare--it was the United States in 1965 before we passed Medicare. Seniors suffering from arthritis, hypertension, coronary disease, cancer, glaucoma, and any number of ailments lacked coverage and far too often fell into financial distress.

But thanks to Medicare, we changed all of that, providing guaranteed health insurance coverage to our Nation's seniors. As a result, the senior poverty rate decreased by 75 percent.

But our retirees once again face that nightmare scenario as the Republican budget plan for fiscal year 2012 seeks to eliminate Medicare for everyone 54 years and younger and force future retirees into finding insurance in the private market--the private market which could choose not to offer them coverage at all. Many seniors will be forced to pay more for health insurance; many seniors won't find any coverage.

Under the Republicans' plan for Medicare, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, retirees in 2022 will pay $6,400 more per year than they otherwise would under the traditional Medicare coverage.

In addition, the Republican budget reopens the Medicare part D prescription drug coverage gap, or the doughnut hole, which will cost seniors thousands of dollars each year for prescription medication. Prescription drugs can be expensive, and many of the medications seniors take are long term. People take medication daily to control their arthritis pain, lower their cholesterol, and reduce the risk of stroke. These lifesaving medications come at a price.

The implementation of Medicare part D in 2005 left many seniors with a gap in coverage, the doughnut hole. This gap, the initial coverage within it, and the catastrophic coverage amount cost many seniors thousands of dollars a year. I was proud to vote to eliminate that doughnut hole in 2009 with the health care reform bill. Unfortunately, just 2 years later, the Republican attack on Medicare reinstates the doughnut hole, once again threatening seniors with thousands of dollars in medication costs.

Mr. Speaker, I know our constituents want the Congress to get our fiscal house in order, and they're right. But Americans don't want us to eviscerate Medicare and attack retiree health insurance as part of that process.

I recently held a telephone town hall meeting and I conducted a poll. Seventeen hundred people participated in that poll. Seventy-three percent said do not gut Medicare.

True fiscal responsibility requires a firm commitment and shared sacrifice. It involves long-term focus to rein in and reduce spending in a responsible, sustained manner. Real fiscal discipline requires us to look at every area of the budget, including revenues, savings, efficiencies, and cuts where

necessary. Ultimately, the budget represents our Nation's priorities. Reducing deficits is a significant priority, and as my constituents in the 11th District of Virginia have made clear, protecting seniors and their Medicare is equally significant.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to object to the majority Franking Commission's exercise in blatant and transparent censorship on a Medicare mailing I and other colleagues of mine wish to send to our constituents.

I'm not allowed to call it the ``Ryan budget'' even though the Republicans called it the Ryan budget, because, of course, it has become unpopular. I'm not allowed to refer to changing Medicare to a voucher system even though Mr. Ryan himself referred to it as a voucher system. I must now call it a ``premium support system.''

These changes, among many others, are censorship at its worst. When we don't like something, when it's not going well for us on the majority side, we suppress it. This censorship would make former Soviet censors blush at the breathtaking nature and sweeping scope of the suppression of free expression, of free ideas here in the Nation's Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the honorees of the Fairfax County Federation of Citizens' Association Awards Banquet.

The Fairfax County Federation of Citizens' Associations is a coalition of civic and homeowners associations from throughout Fairfax County. Through the Federation, individual communities can join with other associations to ensure that their voices are heard and that their communities stay strong. Each year, the Federation honors a select few individuals for extraordinary contributions to the community that have resulted in tangible improvements in our neighborhoods, schools, businesses and local government. This is the 61st Annual Awards Banquet, and this year's honorees have each dedicated years of service to the residents and communities of Fairfax County.

It is my pleasure to recognize the following individuals for their service to the community:

2010 Citizen of the Year: Mollie Morrison-Loeffler for her efforts in the revitalization of Parklawn and the surrounding communities in the Mason District.

2010 Citation of Merit: Dr. Charles Dane for his long history of public and community service, especially in the area of public education

2010 Special Gratitude Award: Anthony H. Griffin for his visionary leadership which has resulted in Fairfax County being named ``one of the best managed jurisdictions in America''

2010 Special Gratitude Award: William D. Lecos for his innovative approach in the areas of public-private partnerships and promotion of economic competitiveness and sustainability

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking these individuals and in congratulating them on being honored by the Fairfax County Federation of Citizens' Associations. Civic engagement defines a community, and it is thanks to these individuals that Fairfax County residents enjoy such an excellent quality of life. The contributions and leadership of these honorees have been a great benefit to our community and truly merit our highest praise.