Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the West Caldwell Volunteer Fire Department of West Caldwell, Essex County, New Jersey for the celebration of its 100th Anniversary this year.

Although the Borough of West Caldwell received its charter in 1904, it was not until August 5, 1912 that the pressing need for organized protection against fire prompted the incorporation of a fire department. With the help of an appointed committee, the department soon legitimized, purchasing fire equipment and property for a firehouse, on which the first WCVFD firehouse was built. Additional investments in horse drawn wagons, a 700 foot fire house, and sounding fire alarms further improved the efficiency of the department.

Beginning in 1917 the Borough motorized the department, continuing to purchase automobile fire apparatuses throughout the 1950's and 1960's in response to the demands of industry, business, and an increasing population.

Despite the fact that the department's first initial firehouse no longer stands, in 1968 the West Caldwell Borough constructed a new firehouse. This firehouse, located on 6 Fairfield Avenue, is home to the present day headquarters of the department.

Today, the West Caldwell Volunteer Fire Department clearly maintains its initial principles of teamwork and commitment. Under current Chief James Alvine, the department consists of approximately 60 dedicated individuals who work together to save lives on a daily basis.

It is evident that the West Caldwell Volunteer Fire Department exhibits the unity and teamwork required of the fire service. The merits of courage, pride, and passion that permeate the department serve as a testament to its long withstanding success.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the West Caldwell Volunteer Fire Department of West Caldwell, Essex County, New Jersey, for the achievement of its 100th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor The Congregation of White Meadow Temple of Rockaway Township, Morris County, New Jersey for the celebration of its 60th Anniversary this year.

Initially a popular vacation spot for Jews from New York City and Newark in the 1940s, White Meadow Temple was founded in 1952 as a result of an increasing suburban Jewish population in Rockaway Township. Worship quickly commenced, beginning in 1953. In the years spanning 1955 and 1989, Rabbi Jacob Weitman served as the temple's spiritual leader, overseeing an era blossoming in both membership and dedication.

In 1964 the temple's building at 153 White Meadow Road underwent major renovations to accommodate for an increasing membership. Nearly 20 years later, White Meadow Temple renovated again in 1985, this time building a new sanctuary, two kitchens and additional Hebrew school classrooms.

Strengthening the foundation that Rabbi Weitman and the succeeding Rabbi Ralph Dalin laid, today, White Meadow Temple maintains its Jewish vision and principles while also expanding its involvement in the community. The conservative temple takes pride in its reputation and as a warm, active and egalitarian congregation.

In addition to services, which occur on Shabbat, weekday evenings, and Sunday

mornings, the congregation also partakes in the Synagogue's educational and social endeavors. Encouraging participating of younger generations on a spiritual level, the Temple also holds a Junior Congregation and Tot Shabbat services. Ranging from a Nursery School and Kindergarten to Youth groups, Senior Group, and a Women's league, White Meadow Temple offers everyone a chance to get involved and find their niche both in and out of the Jewish community.

After 60 years of passionate leadership, White Meadow Temple is currently overseen by President Marc Levine and services are lead by Rabbi Benjamin Adler. May that clear commitment and involvement of the congregation in the community uphold the mission of the White Meadow Temple and continue to inspire future generations!

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating The White Meadow Temple of Rockaway Township, Morris County, New Jersey, on reaching their 60th Anniversary.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to mark the 11th anniversary of the vicious attack on America. I appreciate the leadership scheduling a memorial service on the steps of the Capitol this morning, but more needs to be said as I fear time and events have dulled our memory. It was 11 years ago that our Nation changed forever as violent international extremists struck in the streets of Lower Manhattan and in the fields of Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon.

When that day was over and as we learned more about that tragedy and, yes, of the murderous attacks and the loss of nearly 3,000 Americans, including 700 New Jerseyans, who are from my home State, we witnessed neighbors and friends consoling one another, and we watched as Americans from all walks of life stood united--side by side--waving the Stars and Stripes and lighting candles to honor those lost or missing.

Today, this afternoon, I must remind our fellow Americans that we are still a Nation at war, largely because of those events. We remember those who lost their lives on that fateful day, but we also remember the sacrifices of those who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan to make sure that those responsible for those attacks pay that ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize New Jersey's proud agricultural tradition and the contribution of farms located in our 11th Congressional District.

The prospering agricultural industry of today's New Jersey is the continuation of many years of farming dating back to colonial settlement in the sixteenth century. Primarily a rural society, struggling settlers developed small family farms to stave off starvation. Soon local farms not only became an important source of fruits, vegetables, and grain, but also for raw materials used for the prospering textile industry. Easy access to cotton, wool, and other farm products fueled the Industrial Revolution in New Jersey. Agriculture became not only a very profitable industry on its own, but also fed secondary manufacturing and merchant businesses.

Every day, farmers across the state raise animals, harvest vegetables, pick fruit, and participate in the 400 year old tradition that built New Jersey into an economic powerhouse.

Today, New Jersey agriculture constitutes an $82 billion industry that provides a strong backbone for New Jersey's economy. It also benefits surrounding businesses with the growing popularity of agrotourism. This extremely successful business model involves enticing people from near and far to visit, learn about everyday farm-life, and participate in activities such pumpkin, wine tasting, hay rides, petting zoos, or horseback riding. This not only brings customers from the surrounding tri-state area to appreciate what New Jersey has to offer, but also fosters a greater public understanding of commercial farming. New Jersey's large agricultural sector provides employment, not only for farm workers, but also for those in construction for irrigation and drainage projects. This multibillion dollar industry supports New Jersey, providing jobs and raw materials, drawing in customers, and serving as its own lucrative business.

New Jersey truly is the Garden State, as our motto says. Having a strong agricultural industry not only provides a great deal of economic benefits to New Jersey, but also contributes to a rich social tapestry. There are over 790,000 acres of lands across the state devoted to farmland. This has been celebrated as an extremely environmentally friendly use of land that preserves both a smaller carbon footprint and the beautiful greenery characteristic of New Jersey. In a world where food insecurity remains one of the most difficult problems for mankind to combat, thriving agriculture reduces the acuteness of this issue and diminishes our dependence on food imports. This land also provides access to fresh, locally grown foods, giving residents in the area healthier meal options. The agricultural industry is unparalleled in its contributions to New Jersey society, providing jobs, tourism, environmental protection, food security, raw materials for manufacturing, and so much more.

Standing as a shining example of New Jersey's proud agricultural tradition is Wightman's Farms, located in Harding Township, Morris County. Celebrating their 90th Anniversary this year, Wightman's Farms has worked continuously to expand what began as a farm into the prospering business it is today. The farm is one of over 8,000 other family owned and operated farms in New Jersey that support their local and state economy. Currently managed by the third generation of Wightmans, the integration of tradition and innovation has certainly helped Wightman's Farms not only last the test of time, but develop into a flourishing business enjoyed by customers near and far.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in recognizing New Jersey's agricultural tradition and the contributions of 11th District farmers.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This amendment would basically prohibit funds from being used to administer the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test. This amendment would negatively impact both the education and recruiting communities.

This test is administered free of charge on a voluntary basis. It's on a voluntary basis to high school and college students as part of a comprehensive Career Exploration Program. This program integrates student aptitudes and interests to help them explore postsecondary opportunities, including college, technical schools, and civilian as well as military careers.

As education resources grow together, many schools rely on this free test to provide a valuable career exploration experience. And we, as a Nation, benefit from this test. Through this amendment, the gentleman would effectively prohibit high schools from offering this test, which would be unfortunate, and we are strongly opposed to the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

We support the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. On behalf of the Appropriations Committee, we appreciate his work.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, respectfully, I think this is an appropriate time to remind our colleagues that under the Constitution, national defense is the top priority of the House and Senate. Article I, section 8 gives Congress specific authority to declare war, raise and support armies, provide for a navy, establish the rules for the operation of American military forces.

It was in this context that, under Chairman Young, our subcommittee carefully reviewed, over many months, the President's budget and Secretary Panetta's new strategic guidance for the Defense Department. Frankly, we found the administration's approach lacking in many respects. In several key areas, the subcommittee was concerned that the level of risk tolerated by the Armed Forces was unacceptable. We've talked a lot about that on the floor over the last couple of days.

As the Constitution requires, we made adjustments, which is our duty and obligation. Yet even within the allocation that is $3.1 billion higher than our President's request, our subcommittee could have done more for our national security and for our troops, with more resources.

I want our colleagues to know that our subcommittee clearly recognizes the size and nature of the Nation's deficit and debt. That's why we found areas and programs for reduction that were possible without adversely impacting the warfighter or any efforts towards modernization and readiness.

Exercising our mandate to adhere to sound budgeting, we reclaimed funding for programs that were terminated or restructured since the budget was released by the President. We achieved savings from favorable contract pricing adjustments and schedule delays. We cut unjustified cost increases or funding requested ahead of need. We took recisions and surplus from prior years.

Even with these steps to stretch our defense dollars, there remains capability gaps:

In the Navy, we've heard a lot about that over the last couple of days. Our fleet needs more ships. They've got more responsibilities in the Asia Pacific;

The Air Force tactical fighters are aging rapidly. They've had a lot of activity in Iraq and Afghanistan;

The Army is struggling to modernize its ground combat inventory;

The Marines need their version of the F-35, the Joint Strike Fighter;

We need to be prepared to respond to every future crisis. Who knows where that may be.

Syria is engulfed in a civil war. North Korea is unpredictable. Russia wants to reclaim its former glory. China is on the fast track to a stronger military. Iran is working night and day to acquire nuclear weapons. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups continue to plot and plan.

Obviously, the future is challenging, to say the least; and we do our troops and our citizens a disservice if we do not prepare for the next crisis. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us includes funding for critical national security needs and provides the necessary resources to continue the Nation's vital military efforts abroad.

The Department of Defense has already sustained significant budget reductions. Cuts to the military have accounted for over half the deficit reduction efforts achieved so far, nearly $500 billion, even though national defense accounts for only 20 percent of the entire Federal budget, which is sharply reduced from the 40 percent or more before and during Vietnam.

These are real cuts, not simply reductions to planned future spending. But given the military's urgent needs, their vital role in maintaining global stability, and this House's responsibility to protect America and Americans, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman and welcome the opportunity to engage with him.

The committee is aware of the Department's research into directed-energy capabilities and shares the gentleman from Rhode Island's interest in ensuring that our warfighters have the capabilities they need to operate in the complex environments of the future.

I would assure the gentleman that the committee will continue to make every effort to ensure that the Department of Defense is adequately and effectively resourced to meet the challenges of the future, including the transformational technologies such as directed energy.

We appreciate the gentleman's view. And I will assure him that we'll look forward to working with him and the ranking member, Mr. Dicks, to make sure that our warfighters can realize the benefits of our Nation's research and development investments, including directed energy.

Will the gentleman yield?

We're very pleased to accept your amendment.

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

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

The rule states in pertinent part:

``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, and for his leadership, and that of Mr. Dicks, as well.

In preparation for this debate, the subcommittee held a lengthy series of hearings examining such varied issues as our operations in Afghanistan, the so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific region, Army modernization, Navy shipbuilding, Marine end strength, and the Air Force restructuring proposals.

Most of these issues relate, as the chairman has said, to mitigating risk in the Defense budget in what is called the ``new strategic guidance'' from the Department of Defense. It's what I would characterize as protecting our gains in the Middle East and elsewhere, as well as preparing for future and current threats, such as China's growing military capacity, instability in the Korean peninsula, civil war in Syria, Iran's pledge to close the Strait of Hormuz, and others.

As you'll hear during this debate, the committee weighed in with its own options. As the chairman said, we pause the Air Force restructuring decisions. In light of the tyranny of distance that characterizes the Asia-Pacific region,

we bolster the Navy's shipbuilding accounts and add back in a Virginia- class submarine and a Burke-class destroyer.

Our goal here, and throughout the bill, was to provide the resources to support our warfighters now and in the future whenever the next crisis arises. We clearly recognized the Nation's debt and deficit, and found areas in programs where reductions were possible without adversely impacting our Armed Forces and modernization readiness efforts.

Exercising our mandate to adhere to sound budgeting, we reclaimed funding for programs terminated or restructured since the budget was released. We've achieved savings for favorable contract price adjustments, such as multiyear procurements of complicated weapons systems. We cut unjustified cost increases or funding requested ahead of need. We also took recisions from surplus from prior year funds. Frankly, it is important that we find savings without harming readiness or increasing the risks incurred by our warfighters.

Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us includes funding for critical national security needs and provides the necessary resources to continue the Nation's vital military efforts abroad. In addition, the bill provides essential funding for health and quality-of-life programs for our men and women in uniform--all volunteers--and their families.

I want to thank Chairman Young, Ranking Member Dicks, Chairman Rogers, and all the Members of the subcommittee for their work, and the excellent staff we have, and our past leadership and our continued leadership from Congressman Jerry Lewis of California. We were all able to work together in a bipartisan manner to ensure that our men and women in uniform--all volunteers--and their families have the support they need. The years ahead will be challenging, but our defense bill will meet those needs.

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

Mr. Chairman, we're pleased to accept the gentlemen from Texas and California's amendment. We know what happens to those who suffer from traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress syndrome.

I yield to the ranking member.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

We're pleased to accept the gentleman from Minnesota's amendment, and we salute him for his advocacy.

I could tell you from a personal visit from a soldier who lost his sight, Tim Fallon from Long Valley, New Jersey, who came into my office to advocate, that these are dollars well spent. We need to spend more on these types of investments because too many soldiers are coming home with, I think, things that could be potentially benefited from this type of investment in terms of having the potential.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of the time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to the arbitrary reductions to the Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide appropriations account.

The Operations and Maintenance appropriations account funding, as Mr. Young stated a few minutes ago, is critical to the readiness, safety, and quality of life for our brave men and women who volunteer to serve each and every day. Cutting this account would hurt our readiness, and that is something we cannot do at this point in time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I want to thank the gentlewoman for bringing this issue to our attention. I have no objection to it. I accept it. I think its assessment would be valuable to be made.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Joint IED Defeat fund recognizes the fact that we're still a nation at war. The young men and women who come back from war--and God forbid, some come back having paid the ultimate sacrifice, but many come back with unbelievable wounds, double amputees, loss of different limbs. This joint IED task force has done a lot to minimize that possibility.

The committee did recognize, and as the gentlewoman mentions, we did reduce spending in this fund by $70 million. But we're a nation at war. They still have a critical mission. It's important that the work that they continue to do to defeat sometimes the simplest IEDs and sometimes the most complex IEDs continue. It's an investment that we need to make to make sure that, as we finish our job in Afghanistan, that we do our level best to protect our troops, those that are volunteering there, and to bring them back home in one piece.

So we oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, from the Clerk's reading, we've reached the limitations portion of the bill, and we would encourage Members having amendments for us to consider in that arena, or portion, this would be the appropriate time for them to come forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentlemen for their comments, and we share in their support of a strong organic industrial base and a strong, ready military.

We are pleased to work closely with members of the army depot and arsenal delegation throughout the conference proceedings to ensure their concerns are fully addressed and the necessary adjustments to depot and arsenal funding are made.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. I'm the first to admit that defense should not be immune to reasonable, analytically-based reductions, which are what we've already done over the past few years.

Just 2 years ago, when Congress considered the fiscal year 2011 defense budget, the Department was planning on a fiscal year 2013 budget of roughly $562 billion. Their actual request for 2013, however, was only $516 billion, $46 billion less.

In fact, in the past two fiscal years, our committee has produced a defense budget which totaled $39 billion below the request.

My point is that we have cut defense, but we have done so reasonably and without impacting readiness or threatening the Department's ability to protect our Nation and our allies. This fiscal year 2013 budget is the first we've seen in which there are identifiable and significant risks associated with the budget decisions we've made.

We've talked about that a lot today, about our pivot towards the Asia Pacific, the growing capability of China, things on the North Korean peninsula, for example, in cutting ships and in reducing the required Navy ship fleet size, in retiring large numbers of aircraft, some of which have been delivered, and in significantly underfunding facility maintenance and modernization. We have tried to mitigate these as best we could within our given allocation. Speaking of our allocation, it is essentially in line with both the Ryan budget as well as with the Defense authorization bill, both of which passed the House.

Finally, in just the CBO's most recent analysis of the Department's future-years' defense program, they determined that the Department's plans will cost $123 billion more than they projected over the next 5 years. National security, of course, should never be subjected to partisan politics. Instead, we should show our support for our brave men and women, who have sacrificed so much and who continue to do so on our behalf.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we would like a copy of the amendment, please.

I reserve a point of order until we have had a chance to look it over.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, normally the committee is given the courtesy of seeing amendments that come to the floor. This is the third time today, I believe, the gentleman from Massachusetts has shown a lack of courtesy in letting the committee have copies of his amendments.

Let me say, as a Nation, we still believe in a nuclear deterrent. The last time I checked, there was bipartisan support for that. Both Mr. Visclosky and I serve on the Energy and Water Subcommittee, and part of our jurisdiction is to make sure that the President of the United States, our Commander in Chief, verifies that we have nuclear capabilities. The last time I checked, the administration was conducting what we call a Nuclear Posture Review relative to what our position should be in negotiations with other nuclear powers in terms of the type of weapons that are so critical to the nuclear triad.

So, with all due respect to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who referred to a lot of what we said as the

fantasy land of our bill, it would be good, actually, for the Members of Congress to have some facts from the Nuclear Posture Review before we consider something here which might put our Nation at risk.

I strongly oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Morris County Library located in the Township of Whippany, Morris County, New Jersey who are celebrating their 90th anniversary.

The staff of the Morris County Library (MCL), through their dedicated hard work, has made the library a vibrant source of pride and activity for the local community. Following the passage of a bill in 1921 by the New Jersey Legislature to establish county libraries, the Morris County Library was formed in 1921 by a public vote. With over 10,000 books catalogued and a new book car to help their books reach the public, the library opened its doors in Morristown in 1922 to serve Morris County.

The MCL continued to grow in its early years and by 1927 established a children's book section, which by the end of the year, saw every book in circulation checked out. The MCL also opened its resources to the local community with donations of books to the State Hospital at Morris Plains, Civilian Conservation Corps and the Morris County Jail. The MCL played a significant role in our nation's defense during World War II by becoming a federal depository for government publications, as well as boasting a large collection of books on U.S. defense.

The MCL grew with the times, instituting an automated book catalog and circulation system in 1970 and a completely computerized catalog in 1987. This growth meant that a new building was required to contain the resources and accommodate the future growth of this Morris County institution. An architectural plan for a new library was unveiled in 1991 and by 2001 the new Morris County Library building in Whippany was dedicated. The new library contained group study rooms and public meeting rooms which instantly received high demand from the public. Their computer rooms also were capable of hosting training courses on a wide variety of subjects.

Today, the Morris County Library serves 487,000 people with their collection of over 247,000 books and sees 521,000 borrows per year. In 2011 alone, their reference desk answered 63,815 questions, several for my office! The meeting rooms of the library have also seen significant use hosting thousands of meetings a year. The MCL continues to partner with community organizations such as the AARP, Carol G. Simon Cancer Center and the U.S. Veteran's Administration. The MCL has seen a number of awards during its history, including the NJ Library Association Swartzburg Preservation Award and Librarian of the Year from the New York Times.

The significant resources held in the library and these community partnerships would not be possible if not for the commitment shown by the staff of the Library. Their work on behalf of literacy and their community has made the Morris County Library a vital institution in Morris County and New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the staff of the Morris County Library as they celebrate their 90th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 5325, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia for bringing these concerns to my attention.

I agree that we must assure that Federal agencies and regulations are not contributing to unnecessary delays that harm economic development and job creation, especially at a time of economic distress and high employment.

I pledge our committee pledges to work with the gentleman and others who have seen an overreaching regulatory process negatively affect job prospects in their districts to address these problems.

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

I assure the gentlemen from Pennsylvania that I share their concern with the funding of the inland system and the solvency of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. This is why you see extensive report language on the Olmsted Locks and Dam and the cost overruns at that project, as well as language on the trust fund itself. As the gentlemen are aware, any changes to address the solvency of the trust fund are most appropriately discussed within the authorizing committees. I know they're aware of the situation and are evaluating various options.

I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the ranking member for the purpose of a colloquy.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

Madam Chair, I take exception to any claim that our bill unnecessarily increases spending. There is one reason that this bill is $188 million above fiscal year 2000: it's defense, national security. Many Members may not realize it, but nearly one- third of our bill supports critical national security needs, including nuclear weapons. That is actually the origin of why we have a Department of Energy today: it's the Atomic Energy Act.

Only two subcommittees received increases in fiscal year 2013, the Energy and Water bill and the Defense bill, because those increases are needed to support national security. There are no other reasons.

The defense portion of this bill is almost $300 million more than last year, an increase which directly supports our nuclear weapons and national security. Even with those security increases, our bill is still less than one-third of 1 percent above last year's bill. That means the rest of the bill is cut deeply.

It means that spending for our nondefense accounts is cut by 800 million below last year's levels. Even with the increase for defense spending, our bill is still below 2009 levels, actually quite close to 2008 levels. So I'll not accept any criticism that our bill in any way is not reflective of this body's work to reduce spending. The House's commitment to cut spending, Federal spending, was fully engaged in in a bipartisan way by the Energy and Water Subcommittee.

The gentleman's amendment would cut the bill simply because of the increases we provided for defense spending. To be clear, the amendment is a cut to national security. That's the point I'll make very clear to any Member who has questions on whether to vote for this amendment.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' to protect defense spending, and I also add a postscript. Our bill, historically, has done things for a lot of States. And Arizona has benefited from the Central Arizona Water Project. It may not have happened during Mr. Flake's tenure as a Member of Congress, but in a bipartisan way we've looked after the needs his constituents and Arizonans.

We are reducing spending. And even as we reduce spending, we have obligations to look at other needs across the country in the energy sector as well as the water sector, which is why I relate the Arizona Central Arizona Project.

So we're cutting spending. We're reducing spending. We're keeping our commitment to the American taxpayers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition.

The gentleman highlights some very difficult issues that deserve our attention, and I especially share my colleague's concern about gasoline prices, and that's why the committee has focused on trying to reduce gas prices in the future.

However, the areas of antitrust determinations, compliance, and enforcement that he mentions, quite honestly, are within the purview of the authorizing committee. We are aware of them. We're acutely aware of them. We understand where he's coming from.

Point of Order

Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the amendment.

I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The amendment imposes additional duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

I rise to oppose the amendment. There is valuable, cutting-edge research in the Department of Energy that enables future generations of vehicle technologies to proceed, technologies that are too far in the future for American private sectors to support, but that will keep future generations of manufacturing and jobs here in the United States and have the consequence of lowering what Americans have to pay for gasoline at the pump.

This amendment--and we're all supporting cutting wasteful spending-- would virtually eliminate this important piece of our comprehensive approach; and, therefore, I strongly oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman from Arizona's amendment. While we may have our differences--and not all of his amendments that he has proposed have passed--he has been congenial and a class act and I'd like to thank him. I would like to thank him also for his continued efforts, which have been recognized on the other side too, to fight wasteful Federal spending.

We agree, I think most of us, that our government should not be funding the deployment of proven technologies. For that reason, our committee and our bill has significantly ramped back the wind energy program to 25 percent below fiscal year 2012 and focused the remaining funds on unproven technologies not yet in the market, like far offshore wind. If there are small cases where the Department is carrying out activities not appropriate for the Federal Government, they should be eliminated.

So I salute the gentleman, and I am pleased to support his efforts. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I suspect, Madam Chair, that the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, and I are going to use this opportunity to thank a whole host of people who have allowed us to bring this bill to the floor and, we hope, to a very successful conclusion.

First of all, to Chairman Rogers from Kentucky and his working partner, Congressman Norm Dicks, on behalf of the committee, we want to thank you for giving us full support, bipartisan support, and giving us the flexibility to have a number of hearings to do a comprehensive approach through that hearing process and your insistence, both of you, on what we call regular order, the ability of the Appropriations Committee to work in a bipartisan way. I shouldn't comment on the House in general, but in terms of our committee, there's been a good bipartisan working relationship. So you've laid the foundation for Mr. Visclosky and me to sort of proceed in regular order, and we're grateful.

I'd also like to thank the Members for their cooperation in terms of amendments. I think we started maybe last year with 103 amendments. A lot of

amendments were drawn into a unanimous consent situation, so we've been able to reduce the amendments, and Members have come to the floor, spoken on an expeditious basis and, I think, performed admirably, and I think they have made our bill better and more comprehensive.

I'd also like to thank those who are on the floor, particularly our committee staff, Rob Blair, our clerk, who's to my left, Joe Levin, Loraine Heckenberg, Angie Giancarlo, Perry Yates, and Trevor Higgins.

On the minority, I'd like to thank Taunja Berquam. I'd also like to thank my personal staff, Nancy Fox and Katie Hazlett, and Mr. Visclosky's personal staff, Joe DeVooght.

And of course, Madam Chair, there are a whole host of people who make the floor work on the appropriations side. Some of them would not like to be publicly recognized. But let me say, in our heart, we hold them dear because we're able to get our bill to the floor, make sure that our amendments all meet the letter of the law and the Constitution, the Parliamentarian having vetted all those amendments. So we're highly appreciative of that.

And I certainly would be happy to yield to my ranking member if he cares to--I'm sure he would--make some remarks.

Reclaiming my time, I want to also note this is the last Energy and Water bill that Mr. Dicks will be participating in. And I say on behalf of our committee that we've always known that you're fully engaged in every subcommittee where you are so prominent, and we want to thank you for that.

Let me say, too, that we're pleased we've built in our bill some common ground for energy policy across our Nation. Most importantly, as I said in my remarks, the national security segment: what we need to do to make sure that our nuclear stockpile is reliable, that we proceed with cleanups, things that we do relative to naval reactors and the next generation of nuclear ballistic submarines, and the comprehensive energy policy that's directed not only towards research into the future but trying to minimize rising gas prices, which have affected every American pocketbook.

Lastly, we've done it with a lot less money. We're actually, in some cases, close to the 2008 level, somewhere between 2008 and 2009. And while some people may like to damn us, we've done our best to cut spending and reflect the real economy out there, the fact that people are paying too much in the way of taxes, we have too much debt and such a large deficit. We've done our part.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for yielding, and I rise in support of the Homeland Security appropriations bill.

Our Nation lives with the memory of September 11, 2001, each and every day. We can never take back the events of that day or the thousands of lives, including 700 from New Jersey, that were lost.

Like Mr. King, I would like to highlight that this legislation includes critical funding for investments in first responder grants. The bill includes $1.7 billion for the Department's State and local grant program, which include the Homeland Security Grant program, or what we call UASI, Urban Area Security Initiative, both of which have been greatly benefiting New Jersey and the New York metropolitan area for the last 10 years. The bill also includes $650 million in firefighter grants and $350 million for emergency management performance grants.

It's important to note that this bill again includes, due to the leadership of the chairman, language to improve accountability and transparency to ensure the taxpayers' dollars are well spent.

Lastly, I think all of us would like to recognize how much we depend on the hard work and dedication and tireless work of so many homeland security professionals, emergency squads, fire and police that do the job and some of whom have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, let me reassure my colleague that I share his concern for fixing the infrastructure that was damaged in last year's flood events. In fact, we provided, through our committee, $1.7 billion in additional funding to the Corps of Engineers last year for that very purpose.

The bill before us now already funds the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies account at the President's request of $30 million.

In addition, the motion would increase funding for the U.S.-Israeli cooperative agreement to 50 percent above last year's level. This is a completely unwarranted increase, considering our bill already maintains funding for this very important program at last year's level, even while we've cut so many programs in our bill to stay within the budget.

Mr. Speaker, we put together a strong bipartisan bill which supports a comprehensive energy policy. It maintains a strong national defense, and it maintains the fact that we keep America competitive and keep America open for business.

In that regard, Mr. Speaker, in case there is any question, if Members care about the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Project, this bill is your best option. It is $158 million above the President's request, and more than $120 million above the Senate. If you want higher funding levels for these important projects, you must vote for our bill.

Mr. Speaker, again, our bill is a commitment to national security, reduced spending, and keeping America open for business.

I urge Members to vote against the motion to recommit and vote for final passage of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 5325, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The amendment offered by our colleague would cut nuclear energy research and development activities by 70 percent. It would all but eliminate this very critical program to our Nation.

Our bill provides the same funding level as last year, funding that is a critical part of our support for a balanced energy portfolio, protecting American manufacturing, and reducing reliance on foreign energy sources.

Nuclear power generates 20 percent of our Nation's electricity. It will continue to play a large role in the future, as our constituents look for reliable, inexpensive, and clean energy.

America invented nuclear power, but now other nations are mimicking our companies' designs and building them entirely within their own borders. We must drive the next generation of reactors, and that's what this program does, in addition to improving the reliability of our current nuclear fleet.

Through simulations, cooperation with the industry, and advanced research, the program develops next-generation reactors, such as small modular reactors and high-temperature gas designs, that are inherently safe and have even more substantial safety margins than today's reactors.

These new types of reactors can be wholly built here at home by American companies, by American workers. The gentleman's amendment would halt these efforts, lose the innovation and manufacturing edge overseas, and risk hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. I therefore oppose this amendment and urge the Members to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

My colleague's amendment would increase funding for ARPA-E to levels beyond what the program needs.

Our bill provides $200 million for ARPA-E because of its focus on energy security, American manufacturing and competitiveness and research to address gas prices; but we have continuing concerns that this program must not intervene where private capital markets are already acting. It must not fund work redundant with other programs at the Department of Energy.

ARPA-E is only 3 years old and is still proving itself. Given how we must spend tax dollars wisely, it would simply not be prudent to give this young program its highest funding level ever. This amendment would, unfortunately, do just that; therefore, I oppose it for that and for many other reasons.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Our bill funds a truly all-of-the-above research approach for addressing future high gas prices by reducing oil imports, developing fuel alternatives, and reducing what Americans pay at the pump.

The amendment would eliminate, as we've heard, $25 million in our bill for an oil shale research program, an important component of our comprehensive approach. The United States has an estimate of 2 trillion barrels of resources in oil shale deposits. For some perspective, that's more than 10 times larger than the United States' estimated proven and unproven oil reserves, and roughly as large as the entire world's proven oil reserves.

But shale oil resources have been barely tapped worldwide because substantial environmental and technological hurdles prevent their extraction, and the fluctuating world oil prices prevent the sustained research needed to bring this resource to market.

Our bill provides $25 million for an oil shale research program to develop the technologies that can make our vast reserves competitive and environmentally sustainable for decades or centuries. If successful, the program could change the game completely. It could prevent future high gas prices and substantially reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

For these and many other reasons, I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, but I do appreciate my colleague's advocacy for removing uranium tailing at the former uranium ore processing facility in his congressional district, Moab, Utah, to protect the Colorado River and downstream water users.

There has been, as I'm sure he'd admit, tremendous progress at this site, where work was accelerated with an influx of $100 million from the stimulus bill, or the Recovery Act.

Our bill, for the record, fully funds the President's request for nondefense environmental cleanup. It provides $198 million to sustain ongoing cleanup projects. While this is a reduction from fiscal year 2012, it is a reasonable one considering the need to reduce overall Federal spending in our bill. Within that amount, the amount of funding for the Moab project, which my colleague is particularly concerned about, is sustained at $31 million, the same amount as in fiscal year 2012.

This amendment increases funding over the request and over last year's level for Moab. While many sites like Moab are struggling to reduce cleanup work following the Recovery Act, we simply cannot maintain these highly elevated funding levels. As an offset, this amendment proposes to take resources from important national security activities. It unacceptably strikes funding for priority investments in our nuclear security enterprise which is both urgent and long overdue. Thus, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on his amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak very briefly to associate my remarks with Mr. Dicks, Dr. Hastings, and Mr. Shimkus. I want to thank them for bringing this amendment forward to increase funding for license for Yucca.

This is a bipartisan effort. And it's not only bipartisan; the nexus is also support from authorizers and appropriators. So I'm highly appreciative of their initiative. I think it ought to be supported by all Members. I think we ought to move forward and send a message: we need to get Yucca open. This is a way to reclaim the $15 billion that's been put into that effort by keeping the license process open and above board.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. Though less than last year's level, the $2.3 billion provided for defense nuclear nonproliferation already shows very strong support of our committee for nonproliferation.

Our bill fully funds the core nonproliferation programs to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in 4 years. In fact, it goes further and provides an additional $28 million above the request for the international programs under what's called the Global Threat Reduction Initiative.

While I appreciate our colleague's support for these activities, there's simply no reason to provide even more funding. The international activities have been clearly laid out in the 4-year plan, which peaked in 2011. These activities are supposed to ramp down as we accomplish more and more projects abroad. The President's budget reflects that planned ramp-down.

This additional funding would just likely sit there unexpended. The National Nuclear Security Agency already has considerable problems getting other countries to follow through with agreements. The Government Accountability Office has confirmed that half of all the funding we provide each year is not spent. To use the words I heard a few minutes ago: the money is sitting there.

This additional funding is simply not needed, and I ask the Members to reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

We have no objection to the amendment. We think it's a good way to enact it. It's a commonsense approach, and we have no objection.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Assuring funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is the most critical national security issue in our Energy and Water bill. The Secretary of Energy must certify to the President that our nuclear stockpile is reliable. It's absolutely essential that these funds be put in the bill and kept in the bill.

With years of level funding, we have put off for too long the type of investments that are needed to sustain our nuclear capability as our stockpile ages. That's why the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review concluded that additional funding was essential to ensure that our infrastructure is adequately maintained and that our warheads receive the refurbishments they need to remain reliable and effective. There has also been strong bipartisan support for carrying out the recommended increases in modernization funding.

This amendment unacceptably strikes funding for these priority investments, which are both urgent and long overdue. I strongly urge my colleagues to make defense a priority and to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, respectfully, a mention was made of congressional earmarks. There are no congressional earmarks in the Energy and Water bill. This is a Presidential priority, but this is not a congressional earmark.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 5325 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 667, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chair or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees for the purpose of debate; amendments printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, 10, 17, and 18; an amendment by Mrs. Blackburn regarding an across-the-board reduction; an amendment by Mrs. Blackburn regarding section 1705 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; an amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia limiting funds for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy; an amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia regarding Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy awards with expected Technology Readiness Levels; an amendment by Mr. Chabot regarding funding levels in title IV of the bill; an amendment by Mr. Cleaver limiting funds relating to the Missouri River Ecosystem Restoration Plan; an amendment by Mr. Cravaack regarding the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; an amendment by Mr. DeFazio regarding section 9.104(d) of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Denham regarding section 10011(b) of Public Law 111 11; an amendment by Mr. Engel limiting funds for new light duty vehicles, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding an across-the-board reduction; an amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Wind Powering America initiative; an amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Batteries and Electric Drive Technology program; an amendment by Mr. Flores limiting funds to enforce section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; an amendment by Mr. Fortenberry regarding funding levels for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; an amendment by Mr. Fortenberry limiting funds for the proposed rule ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies''; an amendment by Mr. Frelinghuysen regarding funding levels; amendments en bloc by Mr. Frelinghuysen consisting of amendments specified in this order not earlier disposed of; an amendment by Mr. Gardner regarding energy management requirements under the National Energy Conservation Policy Act; an amendment by Mr. Gohmert regarding Department of Energy construction, purchase, or lease in the District of Columbia; an amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas regarding funding for Corps of Engineers Operation and maintenance; two amendments by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas regarding funding levels for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; an amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas regarding funding levels for Corps of Engineers Construction; an amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas limiting funds for Department of Energy; Energy Programs; Science an amendment by Mr. Jordan limiting funds for title 17 loan guarantees; an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code; an amendment by Mr. Kucinich regarding section 1703 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; an amendment by Mr. Landry limiting funds relating to mitigation methodology, referred to as the ``Modified Charleston Method''; an amendment by Mr. Landry regarding section 801 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; an amendment by Mr. Luetkemeyer limiting funds for the study conducted pursuant to section 5018(a)(1) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007; an amendment by Mr. Luetkemeyer limiting funds for the study authorized in section 108 of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009; an amendment by Mr. Lujan regarding funding levels for Defense Environmental Cleanup; an amendment by Mrs. Lummis regarding uranium; an amendment by Mr. McIntyre limiting funds to plan for termination of periodic nourishment for water resource development projects; an amendment by Mr. Mulvaney regarding an across-the-board reduction; an amendment by Mr. Pearce regarding funding levels for Defense Environmental Cleanup; an amendment by Mr. Polis regarding funding levels for Weapons Activities, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Reed regarding funding levels for Non- Defense Environmental Cleanup; an amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher limiting funds for the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center; an amendment by Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California regarding funding levels for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, which shall be debatable

for 20 minutes; an amendment by Mr. Schock regarding a prohibition on the planting of row crops; an amendment by Mr. Schweikert regarding title 10, Code of Federal Regulations; an amendment by Mr. Stearns regarding funding levels for Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy; an amendment by Mr. Stearns limiting funds to subordinate interest in any loan guarantee; an amendment by Mr. Stearns limiting funds for purchase of light duty vehicles; and an amendment by Mr. Tipton limiting funds to conduct surveys; and further that each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, or by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Congressional Record or a designee, shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, and shall not be subject to amendment except that the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations (or their respective designees) each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and further that except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and further that an amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

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

No, I rise in support of the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and recognize his advocacy for nonproliferation.

I share my colleague's concerns about the National Nuclear Security Administration's management of the MOX fuel fabrication facility project. The latest Department of Energy report indicates that the MOX facility could take months, if not years, to complete and will exceed the current baseline cost by as much as $1.4 billion due to continued construction problems and creeping scope. So I'm pleased to support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition reluctantly.

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

The bill before the committee provides a total of $4.9 billion for defense environmental cleanup activities at the Department of Energy. This funding sustains thousands of cleanup jobs, and I thank my colleague for his deep concern about supporting these programs and meeting our cleanup commitments.

Our bill makes several difficult choices to achieve our deficit- reduction goals, providing the necessary increases for our nuclear security programs while making targeted reductions to activities which can be deferred.

This amendment seeks to partially reverse that priority setting that we put in place. It targets vital nuclear security programs and shifts funds to non-security environmental cleanup that should be ramped back. The cleanup programs received an infusion of $6 billion from the Recovery Act--AKA, the stimulus--accelerating the scope of work and pace of cleanup at those sites. And while I would like to express my support for the cleanup, we cannot sustain that stimulus-level funding that we had so in the past.

The funding for Los Alamos--which my colleague is particularly concerned about, is extremely knowledgeable about, and is very, very concerned about--will actually increase by 45 percent, or $30 million, over last year's level. The 1.7 reduction to defense cleanup is a reasonable one in our bill.

Recently, we've been informed by the Department of Energy that the Department of Energy may miss a number of its cleanup milestones because they had been relying on receiving large funding increases year after year, an assumption that was overly optimistic in any budget environment. We cannot continue to shovel in funding to make

up for poor planning. Instead, the Department needs to work constructively with its stakeholders to establish reasonable and sustainable plans for remediating these sites, which will still take another 20 to 30 years.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I want to thank my colleague from New Mexico, as I did Mr. Pearce, for his continued advocacy for the cleanup at Los Alamos. The committee is well aware of the increasing vulnerability of above-ground radioactive waste being stored at Los Alamos, and share the Members' concerns. As a result, our bill strongly supports accelerating the cleanup efforts there, providing a total of $215 million for cleanup at the site.

The bill increases funding $30 million, or 45 percent above the Fiscal Year 2012 level. That makes the increase for Los Alamos the largest site expenditure increase across all the cleanups in our bill. But understandably, of course, you'd like more.

We look forward to working with the Member to see what we could do to be of additional assistance.

I would be happy to yield to the ranking member for any comments he would make.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Our bill fully funds the request for non-defense environmental cleanup at $198 million. I know my colleagues from New York State--Mr. Reed and Mr. Higgins--are particularly concerned about the West Valley site in New York, and we respect their views and that they know their districts and their State well.

But this bill provides the full amount requested for the project in the President's budget. While below last year's

level, it's a reasonable reduction given the need to reduce overall Federal spending in our bill. But this amendment proposes to increase funding 18 percent over the amount of our request. This would be an unbalanced approach considering the reduction to other sites in the bill, and there are many sites in different congressional districts, a number of which have much higher hazard activities taking place. And that is not to minimize what's happening at this site.

We've prepared--in a bipartisan way--a balanced bill, one that prioritizes available funding to address the highest risk activities first while ensuring progress at lower risk sites, that that progress continues, albeit at a smaller pace. We simply cannot sustain the high levels of spending at every location and must make the hard choices to extend time lines where the risks are lower.

As an offset, the amendment would eliminate the salaries of approximately 100 employees who are engaged in carrying out vital security activities, as well as the salaries of up to another 100 employees who are carrying out a variety of, I think, critically important energy and science programs at the Department of Energy.

I know their heart is in the right place. I know that they want to do more things to clean up the site in their home State, but I reluctantly oppose their amendment for the reasons that I've outlined.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 56, line 24, be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

I move to strike the last word.

I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. It would put in jeopardy thousands of jobs in our energy sector. The types of projects it would jeopardize are entirely different than Solyndra. If the Member wants to reduce the risk of losing taxpayers' dollars, he should look towards the 1705 program, which has already lost over half a billion dollars to risky loans.

This may be a convenient attempt to paint some of these potential loan guarantees with a Solyndra brush, but it just doesn't wash. The companies requesting these loan guarantees are not startups with shaky financial records, but neither are they large enough to have enough capital to fully pay for such massive projects. The loan guarantees help them leverage their capital in a reasonable manner to ensure that the benefits of these technologies can be shared by millions of Americans.

I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

We are prepared to accept her amendment.

I rise to seek time in opposition, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Our bill already cuts $1 billion from the President's request. We're below 2009 levels. While difficult trade-offs had to be made, the bill, in its current form, balances our needs. We prioritize funding for essential activities and cut out new spending on poorly performing programs. Yet the gentlelady's amendment proposes an across- the-board cut on every one of these programs.

With all due respect, and she's extremely knowledgeable, that's not the way that Governor Christie does it in New Jersey. He takes a look at each program, considers its merit, considers whether it's a proper investment in infrastructure, whether it will promote jobs.

And yet unlike, perhaps, the State budget, we're responsible for nuclear security, for our nuclear stockpile, national security needs.

This is not the way to approach budget cutting. I urge the committee and the House to reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

We are prepared to accept your amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would risk our nuclear security activities in order to add unnecessary funding to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

Our bill preserves the funding for that account's highest priorities and those accounts that help advance American manufacturing and that help our companies compete globally and address soaring gas prices. Additional funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is unwarranted, especially when it comes at the expense of national security. So I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the gentlewoman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am pleased to support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.

Yes, I do.

I rise to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.

As I've said many times, I, too, am concerned about sufficiently maintaining our waterways. These waterways contribute significantly to our national economy by providing a means of cost-efficient cargo transportation. To this end, our bill funds the operations and maintenance account at $2.5 billion, an increase of $109 million above the President's budget request and $95 million above fiscal year 2012.

I would remind the gentlewoman that under the earmark ban, the final bill cannot include funding to a specific project in an amount above the President's budget request.

Instead of increasing funding for specific projects, our bill includes additional funding for categories of ongoing projects-- including an additional $189 million for navigation dredging--with final project-specification allocations to be made by the administration. The project my colleague is interested in would be eligible to compete for this additional funding.

As an offset, this amendment strikes funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile and its supporting infrastructure. Ensuring adequate funding to maintain our nuclear weapons is my highest priority for our bill. The increases provided in this bill for nuclear security have received strong bipartisan support.

This amendment unacceptably strikes funding for both of these priority investments, which are both urgent and overdue. I strongly urge my colleagues to make defense a priority and vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the amendment.

The amendment proposes to increase an appropriation not authorized by law, and therefore is in violation of clause 2(a) of rule XXI.

Although the original account funding for the Corps of Engineers-- Civil--Department of Army--Operations and Maintenance is unauthorized, it was permitted to remain in the bill pursuant to the provisions of the rule that provided for the consideration of this bill. When an unauthorized appropriation is permitted to remain in a general appropriations bill, an amendment merely changing that amount is in order, but the rules of the House apply a ``merely perfecting standard'' to the items permitted to remain and do not allow the insertion of a new paragraph--not part of the original text permitted to remain--to increase a figure permitted to remain.

I would further say the account contains funding for projects not entirely authorized.

The amendment cannot be construed as merely perfecting, and therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Chair rule the amendment out of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly share some of my colleague's concerns. We should not be sending Department of Energy funding overseas if it doesn't benefit our citizens or it undermines our own competitiveness. But we cannot assume that all international cooperation is objectionable. The research the gentleman's amendment would eliminate is both a proper role for Federal funds and directly benefits America.

Let me first point out these research centers are not a donation to China. They are funded in equal parts by China and the United States. They actually support three consortia centered at West Virginia University, the University of Michigan, and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in his own home State. They fund research at seven American national laboratories, five American universities, and 40 American companies, institutes, and other organizations. There's nothing nutty about that, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly share the concerns that we keep intellectual property and manufacturing here at home. To address

these concerns, these research centers signed agreements to protect American intellectual property while allowing us to take advantage of new joint discoveries. Eliminating these centers altogether would harm American researchers, American scientists, American innovation, and American job creation.

I oppose his amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the request for a recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) be withdrawn, to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.

Will the gentleman yield?

We're prepared to accept your amendment again.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the amendment. I commend the gentleman for his investigations and his conclusion.

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

I share the gentlewoman's support for smart investments in our Nation's water resources infrastructure. I well understand the economic benefits of spending money on these needs.

I would remind the gentlewoman, under the earmark ban, the final bill cannot include funding to a specific project in an amount above the President's budget request. Instead, the bill includes additional funds for categories of projects with final project-specific allocations to be made by the administration. As an offset, this amendment strikes the funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile and its supporting infrastructure.

For that reason alone, I oppose the bill, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, our bill already cuts nearly $1 billion from the President's request. We're below 2009 levels. We're actually pretty close to 2008 levels. And the last time I checked, we're in the year 2012.

Spending levels for non-security-related accounts are brought down by more than $800 million from last year's level. And while difficult trade-offs had to be made to get to that level, our bill did the hard work to balance our highest priorities and serve the Nation's most pressing needs. Unfortunately, the amendment proposes an across-the- board cut on many programs, not all programs as the gentleman from South Carolina states, but on many programs that actually serve pressing needs.

Our bill cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy by 24 percent but preserves programs that can address gas prices and help keep manufacturing jobs here at home. That's the focus of the bill: lower gas prices of the future; keep jobs here at home. This amendment would jeopardize those objectives.

Our bill funds fossil energy research that ensures a secure domestic supply of electric and lower gas prices in the future. The amendment indiscriminately cuts many of the activities, many programs.

Our bill funds science research, which is a key component of keeping America competitive. The amendment would do harm to that program. The amendment even cuts funds to the operation of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, severely curtailing our government's ability to respond to real emergencies.

These are not acceptable cuts, and I strongly oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman from Alabama yield?

I think we're prepared to accept your amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment.

Madam Chair, I share the gentlelady's concern on the Department's continued off-budget use of its uranium transfer authority to circumvent the appropriations process and avoid congressional oversight. Congressional oversight is essential in order to make sure there are adequate protections in place to protect our domestic uranium mining and conversion industry. However, this amendment is too broad an approach for what is, by most estimates, a very complex issue.

There are several uses for the many uranium transfer authorities given to the Secretary of Energy that support ongoing national security activities, and there is still a great deal of ambiguity of whether this language in this amendment would prohibit funding for a depleted uranium tails transfer that will keep the Paducah plant in Kentucky operating for another year. That deal would sustain, and there may be a question in terms of how many jobs are here, but our estimates say it will sustain 2,000 jobs in fiscal year 2013 and provide the needed uranium fuel to produce tritium to supply our nuclear weapons stockpile.

I hope we can work together--the gentlelady and I, and members of the authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee on Energy and Water--to find a solution that addresses all of these and other concerns.

I urge my colleagues reluctantly to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment by the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman's amendment enhances our national security by giving the Federal Government alternatives to imported petroleum fuels. Gas prices this year are at record highs, and the Nation imports nearly half of its oil. Our bill takes a comprehensive approach to once and for all reduce gas prices and our reliance on imported oil.

Unfortunately, by declaring some fuel options to be off-limits, off- limits to Federal fleets, section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 limits our ability to reduce our Nation's dependence on oil imports.

By undoing that law, the amendment puts all the alternatives back on the table so the Nation can begin developing and using fuels that are made with resources right here in the United States. Energy self- sufficiency is a national security issue, and this amendment takes a step in the right direction by adding to the comprehensive approach in our bill. I support the gentleman's amendment, and I am prepared to accept it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would like to move to strike the last word and yield some additional time to the gentleman, another 5 minutes, if he is so inclined.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I in turn yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 4 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 6, 2012, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in

which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 5325, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

I do appreciate the passion of both of these gentlemen for coastal restoration. I know it's a high priority for his district and his State. Of course, the focus is Louisiana, and they have suffered greatly.

The bill before us includes $10 million to continue studies, engineering, and design work on various components of their program in Louisiana. That is more than 9 percent of the entire investigations account dedicated to continuing work on coastal restoration in Louisiana.

The committee has had to make some tough choices in this bill, though. While overall funding for the Corps of Engineers has increased slightly above the President's request, unfortunately, it is reduced by 4 percent from fiscal year 2012. The construction account, specifically, is also slightly above the President's budget request, but that is still a reduction of almost 13 percent from fiscal year 2012.

The Corps has numerous projects already under construction that were not included in the President's budget and so are unlikely to be funded in fiscal year 2013. While construction funding is trending downward, I believe it is most prudent to prioritize funding for ongoing projects so they can be completed, actually completed, and the Federal Government can realize the public safety, economic and other benefits from previous spending rather than starting new projects.

Given this particular project as currently authorized approaches $2 million and likely will continue to grow in costs, it would not be prudent to begin another new major new project while we have so many existing commitments.

For these reasons, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman, my colleague from New Jersey, is trying to show support for the Army Corps of Engineers' construction program. He's been a longtime advocate for projects important to his district, and I commend him for that.

And I agree with him in his desire to invest more in water resources infrastructure. There have been numerous flood control needs, for instance, across the entire country, including our home State of New Jersey. Experience has shown us that it's cheaper to try to prevent flood damages than trying to recover from them.

Although I believe the underlying bill that we've put together--Mr. Visclosky and I--struck a careful balance among all priorities in the bill, including national security and innovation, I do not have any objection to his amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me commend the gentleman from Iowa for his strong advocacy and passion for his district and his State and his constituents. First and foremost, he's very, very concerned about a critical issue.

We all know that there are significant water resource needs across our country, and we're doing our best in our bill to address them responsibly. The clarification I would like to be make is that the amendment simply adjusts overall account numbers. It does not direct funding to any specific project.

I would advise, respectfully, the gentleman and any other colleagues thinking of offering similar amendments--and we understand why people do; because they have a passion--that under the earmark ban, the final bill will not include funding towards specific projects in an amount above the President's budget request.

Instead of listing specific projects, our bill includes additional funding for categories of ongoing projects, primarily navigation and flood control. Final project-specific allocations will be made by the administration following the enactment of our bill.

With that clarification in mind, I'm pleased to support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Let me assure the gentleman that we are very sympathetic to his concern for fixing the infrastructure that was damaged in last year's flood event. In fact, we provided $1.7 billion to the Corps of Engineers for that exact purpose.

The issue the gentleman raises, however, is something that all Members need to be aware of: based on the definitions in last year's amendments to the Budget Control Act, disaster relief funds may only be used in locations declared major disasters under the Stafford Act.

For some agencies, like FEMA, that may make sense. But for the Corps of Engineers, there are times when that definition is too restrictive. We all need to be aware of the potential consequences of forcing regular appropriations to the account for these disaster-related damages that happen to be in the wrong location according to the Budget Control Act.

That notwithstanding, the gentleman's amendment would try to address some of these needs, and I'm pleased to support his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, but certainly understand it and share the passion of the gentleman for reducing Federal spending, and our bill does plenty of that. As we went through the process, we did exactly that.

This amendment would cut administrative expenses across the entire bill. Over many months and public hearings, our committee, in a bipartisan way, has already considered each administrative account separately and has made specific cuts while maintaining oversight to prevent wasteful spending. We've done our job. The gentleman's amendment cuts all administrative accounts indiscriminately without regard to where funds are needed and where cuts are possible.

We understand where he is going, but the committee has done its work. Therefore, I must strongly oppose his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time. I continue to reserve my point of order, though.

Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that 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 new budget authority in the bill.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

I rise to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I appreciate my colleague's passion for solar energy. She has been a tireless supporter of American innovation in this energy and technological area. I also have the pleasure of serving with her on the Defense Appropriations Committee, and she's been an innovator and promoter of responsible energy policy with the Department of Defense as well.

But within tight budgets, we need to focus funding on our highest priorities, which is what we've done in our Energy and Water bill. To make room for our national security and infrastructure responsibility, our bill cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy by $428 million and reprioritizes funds within the program to support American manufacturing and address rising gas prices. The focus is on jobs, the economy, and American manufacturing.

Our bill also preserves $155 million for solar energy research that continues to advance American manufacturing and helps our companies compete globally. While I support activities that help American manufacturers compete, we cannot afford to add unnecessary funds to solar energy by cutting other important priorities.

Indeed, the amendment would cut departmental administration, a cut that we all know simply cannot be sustained in the final appropriation without jeopardizing the Department of Energy's ability to run and oversee their operation. They have enough management problems now. Reducing that management amount would make it difficult for them to run and oversee the problems that they really need to oversee.

So this amendment uses money we simply do not have. It has perhaps the

effect of crippling management by the Department. We need to live within our means. And I, regretfully, oppose the gentlewoman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise very reluctantly to oppose the amendment. I do recognize the passion of the Members of Congress from Illinois and South Dakota who have spoken, and I may say repeatedly spoken and advocated to me over the last couple of months on behalf of the high-energy physics program and national laboratories in their congressional districts and, in fact, all relevant national laboratories that play a critical role in maintaining our Nation's scientific leadership and competitiveness. So I recognize their advocacy, I appreciate it, and I certainly will be working with them to do whatever we can to be of assistance.

We tried our very best in our bill to help those and all of the Department's remarkable national laboratories, but our constraints did not afford us the luxury of bringing more money to the table in many cases. Many labs wanted money, and these are remarkable labs, and they are deserving as well.

We did what we could for high-energy physics by shifting $16 million into project engineering and design for the Long Baseline neutrino experiment. This allows the Department to move quickly in choosing a path forward for the program.

We also ensured that the Homestake mine, which is a remarkable mine and a remarkable structure and a national asset, has sufficient minimal funding to operate while that path forward is yet to be determined.

If more funding were available, we certainly would have brought more resources to bear. Unfortunately, the amendment finds resources by cutting a program--and we discussed this earlier--that has already been reduced by $428 million. That's a 24 percent reduction from fiscal year 2012 and a 40 percent reduction below 2010.

I recognize--the committee recognizes--the importance of these programs, and I promise we'll work with our colleagues as we move forward in the appropriations process to be supportive and helpful, but I must reluctantly oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment, which would eliminate the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy.

This year, the committee continued fulfilling its responsibility to reduce government spending by eliminating ineffective and wasteful programs. Our bill cuts EERE by $428 million. That's a 24 percent cut below fiscal year 2012, nearly 40 percent below 2010, and well below the 2000 level. Our bill slashes programs that are ineffective and cuts activities that improperly intervene in private markets.

The committee will continue its work to reduce spending and to keep the government out of private enterprise where private enterprise could make those substantial investments themselves.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise to strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. His amendment would put at risk our nuclear security activities, the things we're doing to modernize our nuclear stockpile, the type of investments we're making there that help protect our country. And we would be adding money to programs that, quite honestly, don't need the money. He referenced some of those programs.

The Weatherization Program has hundreds of millions of dollars in unspent money. Some of it's been obligated; some of it has not been obligated. But sitting in that program and in the State programs he referred to is a lot of Federal money from the stimulus and other prior appropriations that remains unspent. So it's not a question of not having enough money. They just haven't spent it down.

Our bill provides enough funding, new funding, that when combined with the unspent funds, our bill will fully fund each State at the fiscal year 2010 level. That's enough money for the States. More funding is unnecessary.

This amendment has unnecessary funding, adds unnecessary funding, and it cuts our security, our national security, things we need to do for our nuclear stockpile, and I strongly oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise to oppose the gentleman from Utah's amendment.

Our bill works hard to cut Federal spending. We're on his side. We want to reduce spending. Our committee has gone through the budget for the Department of Energy. We've taken a look at it, and we've prioritized. In fact, we've already said in other debates on other amendments that we've cut this EERE, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, by $428 million. That's 40 percent below the fiscal year 2011 level. With the remaining funds, we re-prioritize to invest in our Nation's most pressing needs, one of which is in doing more research to help American manufacturers compete and survive.

Let me restate: We do not increase this account. We re-prioritize to address our Nation's most pressing needs. In this case, the challenge is to keep our American manufacturers competitive and to keep jobs here. Our bill does that. Therefore, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment.

The amendment will reduce fossil fuel energy by $50 million. And let's start by noting that fossil fuels produce most of our Nation's energy, nearly 70 percent of our electricity and nearly all of our transportation fuels.

But I do appreciate the gentlewoman's passion for electric vehicles. In fact, our bill already funds research in that area at above the fiscal year 2012 level as part of our focus on programs that address future gas prices. Therefore, I do oppose her amendment. I understand her views and her passion, but I strongly oppose it.

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

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, briefly I rise to oppose the amendment.

I share my colleague's concerns that we should not be funding activities that the private sector should do on its own. That's why our bill cuts 24 percent out of this account, only preserving appropriate Federal activities that are too risky for the private sector to take on alone. The amendment goes too far, undercuts our ability to address gas prices, and therefore I must oppose it.

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

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.