Floor Statements

I object.

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

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

I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I am pleased to support your amendment.

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

I insist on my point of order.

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

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

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

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

I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

I yield to the ranking member.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

We accept the amendment as well.

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

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

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

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

I am happy to yield to the ranking member.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

First of all, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee again for her steadfastness in trying to reduce spending.

Our committee had the lowest--our spending level went back to 2006. One of the benefits of serving on the committee and one of the reasons I traditionally oppose across-the-board cuts, 1 percent, 5 percent, 3 percent, is when you serve on the committee and you've already made substantial reductions, you do it in a careful and thoughtful manner. And when you're dealing with issues that relate to the nuclear stockpile, the reliability of that stockpile, the responsibility for taking care of nuclear waste and meeting consent decrees and court orders and you're dealing with lives and property that relate to issues of flooding and things that affect lives and property literally, billions of dollars of commerce that we heard about earlier this afternoon from those who represent Missouri and the Mississippi, really the bedrock of, I think, 44 percent of our Nation's economy, making these types of cuts, while it may feel good, without having the benefit of what we have the benefit of, which is debate and input from some of the Nation's greatest experts as well as obviously people from the administration, there is no way that I would support this reduction.

I would be pleased to yield to the ranking member.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The amendment eliminates, as we know, international cooperative programs at the Department of Energy that focus on developing innovative energy technologies.

I appreciate and share the gentleman's concerns that activities that simply fund energy projects--like installing windmills--in other nations are not an appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. There is nothing in this program that funds windmills, with all due respect. This is especially true when we must rein in spending and eliminate waste all around. But this is a good example of when a scalpel is needed to save the worthwhile programs instead of a blunt instrument that eliminates the entire program.

The gentleman is correct that this program includes several small activities that the United States should not bankroll. However, many of the large activities in this program not only engender good will in countries like China, India, and Brazil--and Kazakhstan, which has been a tremendous ally in the war on terror--but they also increase economic activities abroad.

The energy sectors in China and India are increasing by leaps and bounds. In just the last 10 years, China's energy consumption has more than doubled. China and India and other nations' energy sectors represent an enormous economic opportunity for whoever will develop and supply energy technologies used in these rapidly growing countries. Cooperative programs eliminated by this amendment help the U.S. industry and researchers gain access to these booming markets. These programs don't cost much, but they leverage much more in international contacts and economic opportunities. For this reason and many others, I oppose the amendment.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

The gentleman from Ohio is correct. As the committee states in the report accompanying H.R. 2354, we believe solid oxide fuel cell systems have the potential to substantially increase the efficiency of clean coal power generation systems, to create new opportunities for the efficient use of natural gas, and to contribute significantly to the development of alternative fuel vehicles.

I want to assure the gentleman from Ohio of my agreement with the economic, environmental, and energy security benefits of this technology and that I will work to maintain this already reduced funding level as the Energy and Water Development appropriations bill moves forward.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment of the gentleman from Texas. I am pleased to do so.

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

Let me thank the gentleman for his amendment and tell him that I'm pleased to accept it. I know that you included the fact that you wouldn't have to tell the ranking of the important purpose of your amendment. I also share those same sentiments. We don't want to degrade the purposes for the harbor maintenance fund from the express purposes now. There are too many priorities that are out there. We don't need to expand them.

I'm very pleased to lend my support.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I do.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. But may I say I have always found him to be very thoughtful and considerate, and I know that he is extremely knowledgeable about this and is committed to the whole issue of taking a look at these types of loan guarantees.

When we put together our bill, we had several guiding principles, and chief among them was to get the Federal Government out of the private sector's way. You should understand that.

The loan guarantee program is at the heart of that debate, and our bill begins to ramp down this temporary program while including funding to help new technologies so that the private sector could take them over. The gentleman's amendment, however, appears to dictate which technology should receive funding through this program and which should not.

Mr. Chairman, responsible private sector entities have sunk literally hundreds of millions of dollars into their applications; and this amendment would, I think, potentially cut off those applicants, despite their investments in good faith efforts. And even more importantly, however, the amendment would determine which technologies win and which would lose. I don't think in our committee or in this Congress we should be determining the winners and losers. We should let the market decide.

So I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

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

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

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

The amendment requires a new determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

As I said earlier, respectfully, I still think this amendment, as with the previous one, is an issue where we are determining winners and losers, and I believe the market should decide.

Let me say, the committee is strongly supportive of the whole issue of development of small, modular nuclear reactors, and it is amazing how much interest there is out there. There is incredible ingenuity that is going into it.

We do have support for nuclear loan guarantees. I think there is $11 billion in unused funds and $6 billion for fossil fuels. We have money available for the development of these types of technologies which hopefully you will find to be reassuring.

But for reasons I said earlier, without repeating myself again, I oppose your amendment at this time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

I agree with the gentleman about the importance of projects that develop new, extraordinarily beneficial technologies that would never be developed without Federal investment. It is critical that we maintain a national investment in activities at the Department of Energy that protect our country's security and competitiveness.

The Building Technologies Program at the Department of Energy has played a significant role in developing technologies that are too risky for the private sector to invest in alone and that will substantially reduce energy costs for American homes and businesses. The government's role in energy should not extend to commercializing new technologies. It is the role of the private sector to deploy them.

However, without many of the projects that develop these new technologies, it would be too risky for private companies to invest. I want to thank the gentleman for his deep commitment to advancing American technology and innovation, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on this important issue.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the members of the Pequannock Township First Aid and Rescue Squad located in Morris County, New Jersey as they celebrate the organization's 60th anniversary.

Founded in 1951, the original members of the squad were concerned with providing ambulance services to the people of Pequannock. The squad was established as a not-for-profit corporation and was built upon the commitment of selfless volunteers who have dedicated countless hours to training and protecting their community. Their membership has grown over the years, and with an ever expanding community, the time came for the squad's headquarters to grow as well.

With only a basic four walled building to house their two ambulances, members had to remove the vehicles in order to hold meetings. In 1968, they expanded the building to include a meeting room, kitchen and bathrooms. A second expansion came in 2002, with the addition of a new garage and second story. With a final renovation of the original structure in 2008, the squad was now equipped to better train their members and prepare them for aiding the community.

In addition to handling the many emergency calls, the squad also provides standby coverage at various sporting events and fundraisers, and works with other township organizations in educating the public through CPR/First Aid training and an anti-drunk driving program.

It is important to honor the select few in our communities who give of their time to help others. The past and present members of the Pequannock Township First Aid and Rescue Squad have provided an irreplaceable service to their community; one that I am sure will continue to grow for many more years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Pequannock Township First Aid and Rescue Squad on the celebration of their 60th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Land Conservancy of New Jersey, located in Morris County, New Jersey, in celebration of thirty years of successful land preservation.

The Land Conservancy of New Jersey was founded on July 30, 1981 by Russell W. Meyers, with the goal to preserve land and water resources, conserve open space, inspire and empower individuals and communities and to protect natural land and environment. The Conservancy has worked with 58 municipalities in 11 counties, impacting over half of New Jersey's counties, and benefiting millions of residents throughout the state. The Conservancy has established an Aresty Mapping Center to produce professional, computer generated maps used throughout the state to target open space lands for preservation.

Concerned with preserving open space and protecting New Jersey's drinking water and other natural resources, the Conservancy helped to pass the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act and the Highlands Stewardship Act in 2004.

The Conservancy has won several awards over the past 30 years, including the Take Pride in America National Award, given by the U.S. Department of the Interior in 2005. This award recognizes volunteer projects for youth organizations, corporations, and public/private partnerships among other categories.

In 2010 alone, the organization completed 27 projects and preserved over 1,364 acres of land. The Conservancy's devoted staff has worked closely with state and local government officials and agencies to make these projects possible.

This year their goal has been to preserve another 25 properties and 1,500 additional acres.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Land Conservancy of New Jersey for its 30 years of dedicated work on behalf of the great state of New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 2354, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman from Montana is a valued member of the Energy and Water subcommittee. His amendment will provide a reasonable amount of funding to continue work on the fossil energy Risk Based Data Management System. By more efficiently tracking and disseminating information, the system will help ensure that the environment is protected while reducing costs for industry, benefits for which I hope all sides can agree.

I support the gentleman's amendment and urge Members to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois and agree that the Consumer Building Energy Consumption Survey is an important resource for the building sector. The bill provides an increase of $10 million for the Energy Information Administration; and if funding is available, I expect that an update of the consumer building survey would be funded.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Your amendment would shift an additional $39 million within Fossil Energy Research and Development to program direction. I recognize the important role that the Fossil Energy Research and Development program plays in securing our energy future, especially when 70 percent of our energy comes from fossil sources. And I certainly recognize your strong advocacy as a gentleman from West Virginia, and the important role in fossil fuel that your State plays, providing such for the Nation.

I also recognize the critical role scientists and their research at our national laboratories--including the one in your State, NETL--play in keeping our Nation in the lead in fossil energy technologies.

Our bill demonstrates this support by funding Fossil Energy Research and Development at $32 billion above the fiscal year 2011 level. The bill also, however, increases the transparency of these programs by moving research and development out of program direction and into research programs. With that change included in the bill, the Department of Energy still has the authority to fund laboratory personnel doing valuable work at the national labs. However, recognizing my colleague's concerns, we would be happy to work with the gentleman as we move toward conference to ensure that salaries and expenses for ongoing activities are fully funded while increasing the transparency of ongoing research.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Utah's amendment, but I salute his advocacy and passion for his purpose for being here this evening.

This amendment seeks to funnel off defense funding that is needed for the modernization of our nuclear infrastructure. With a nearly $500 million reduction to the request for weapons activities, this bill already takes opportunities to find savings with the account. Right now this bill provides for our defense requirements and is well balanced. Further reductions would unacceptably impact the ability to meet the goals of modernization and to support the nuclear security strategy set forth in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.

This bill takes a consistent approach to funding for environmental cleanup, providing a slightly lower but sustainable and stable funding stream to continue work at all the cleanup sites.

It is not responsible to increase this account above what was requested for these activities, particularly at the expense of an important national defense program.

I 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 demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for engaging this opportunity to call attention to the strong support this bill provides for the Office of Naval Reactors, which I am proud to say reflects bipartisan priorities.

I would like to join with my friends in support of this program. In doing so, we will be providing 100 percent clarification to this body and all agencies. The SSBN(X) development programs within Naval Reactors and the Department of Energy, along with associated programs directly related to the Ohio replacement program, are indeed fully funded to their requirement within this legislation.

These funds have been allocated for a specified purpose: the development of a nuclear reactor prototype and all associated programs.

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes. The level for Naval Reactors includes $121.3 million to develop a new reactor design for the Ohio replacement and $99.5 million to refuel a prototype reactor in upstate New York that is associated with the development of the Ohio replacement.

And Mr. Visclosky's as well.

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment, but I would like to recognize the strong advocacy of the two gentlemen from New York who just spoke--the gentleman from Buffalo as well as the gentleman from Corning.

Our bill provides $213 million for non-defense environmental cleanup, only $6 million below the request, to provide for the environmental cleanup of a number of small sites, including the West Valley Demonstration Project in New York, Brookhaven and the gaseous diffusion plant sites.

The total funding requirements of this account have come down as cleanup milestones have been accelerated ahead of schedule because of a large infusion of funding from the Recovery Act. This amendment goes beyond the base funding needs and attempts to sustain the higher rate of cleanup under the Recovery Act. Understandably, they'd like to continue that. We know that the levels of spending in the Recovery Act cannot be sustained. We must transition these sites to a lower, stable and more sustainable level as the Recovery Act work is completed and those dollars are less. Further, this amendment seeks to decrease funding for our national security activities.

This bill provides strong support for the nuclear security activities at the NNSA. It will take a skilled and talented workforce to successfully carry out these challenging and absolutely vital activities. Last year's lower level for the Office of Administration assumed that NNSA would use $20 million in existing prior year balances to help pay its personnel costs for the year. These balances are now used up, and funding must return to the base level requirements of $420 million. This cut would result in layoffs, which would make it jeopardize NNSA's ability to carry out its nuclear security responsibilities.

I urge my colleagues to join me and vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I yield back the balance of my time.

First of all, it has been a pleasure to work with you and to have the opportunity firsthand to see some of the remarkable things that have been occurring in your congressional district in Washington State in terms of cleanup and the enormity of these problems that you're trying to address.

Overall, we've seen some considerably poor planning for the Department of Energy's cleanup activities, including the very politically motivated termination of the Yucca Mountain project.

My colleague understands his constituents well and how these issues impact the overall plan to clean up Hanford's tank waste, which is considerable. I support and salute his leadership. As we move into conference, I will work with you. I promise to do that to achieve the appropriate balance between the waste treatment plant and the tank farms so that these projects are properly coordinated.

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

I want to salute my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for not only his career in science but, obviously, his focus as a Member of Congress on science and science research and so many areas.

In order to increase funding for science research, his amendment decreases funding for weapons activities. Our Nation's defense relies on a reliable and effective nuclear deterrent, and these capabilities cannot be allowed to deteriorate.

There is now a strong bipartisan consensus for the modernization of our nuclear stockpile. It is a critical national security priority and must be funded. With a reduction of nearly $500 million from the request, this bill has already made use of all available savings. Additional reductions would unacceptably impact our ability to support our Nation's nuclear security strategy.

Further, the amendment would use these reductions to increase funding for science research. I am a strong supporter of the science program, he knows that. It leads to the breakthroughs in innovations that will make our Nation's energy sector self-sufficient and keep America competitive as a world leader of cutting-edge science. This is why we worked so hard, the ranking and I, to sustain funding for this program. But within the realities of today's fiscal constraints, which we all know, we cannot simply afford to add more funding to science research, especially when it means risking crucial national defense activities.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from California, but I do recognize and agree with his view in terms of the economy but not the purpose for which he rises.

My colleague's amendment would eliminate methane hydrates research at the Department of Energy. This is a good example of a program that would not be otherwise funded by the private sector and has the potential to make a significant contribution to our Nation's energy needs.

Vast quantities of methane gas are stuck in frozen deposits deep at the bottom of the ocean and in the Arctic permafrost. Some of these deposits may evaporate over time and escape into the atmosphere. If we can understand how to use these resources rather than letting the methane float away into the air, we could tap a vast new natural gas resource and prevent large quantities of methane from entering the atmosphere.

The research for this is too risky for industry to do. The science is too difficult for there to be an economic return. That is a proper role of government, research the private sector cannot do that can substantially reduce our dependence on foreign imports while inventing new science and technology that puts America in the lead.

I, therefore, respectfully rise to oppose the amendment and urge other Members to do so as well.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

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

The Energy and Water bill makes available a very limited amount of funding for activities which are Federal responsibilities, activities such as basic science research and development. This is very early stage work which the private sector simply has no profit incentive to invest in. It funds cutting-edge research that will be the foundation of technology in future decades. This science research leads to the breakthroughs in innovation that will make our Nation's energy sector self-sufficient and keep America competitive as the world leader of science innovation.

This is why we work so hard to sustain funding for this program. Blindly cutting it will not only cut hundreds of more jobs around the country; it will put at risk our Nation's competitive edge in intellectual property and potentially set back our country's energy future.

I must oppose this amendment and ask other Members to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I oppose the amendment, but certainly I recognize Dr. Heck's leadership on this issue, and I know of what he speaks and how proud he is of his State and how determined he is relative to the Yucca Mountain project.

I just want you to know, having been to that site at one point in time and seeing the substantial investment there, of course, from many other people's perspective, including mine, that substantial investment at some point ought to be realized.

So, understandably, we appreciate and understand where you are coming from, and we respect your dedication to your own State's welfare.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise to oppose the amendment. This amendment attempts to secure additional funding for the State of Nevada. It also attempts to stipulate policies for research and development for the back end of the fuel cycle, which should properly be authorized before they are funded from this account.

This committee and Members, and many Members, have taken a strong position against the administration's Yucca Mountain policy that's well known.

The future of our nuclear waste policy, of course, deserves more consideration than this amendment and perhaps this evening would afford.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

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

I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill. Therefore, it 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 gives affirmative direction in effect.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

I rise to oppose the amendment.

My colleague's amendment would add funding to ARPA-E which receives $100 million in our bill. Our bill, which reduces funding to nearly the 2006 levels--may I repeat, 2006 levels--fulfills our top responsibility of reducing government spending while focusing funding on a small set of top priorities.

In addition to national defense and water infrastructure, our top priorities include research to keep Americans competitive in science, innovation and the development of intellectual property.

ARPA-E is a relatively new program--today we're discussing only its second regular fiscal year appropriation--that offers industry, university and laboratory grants for high-risk energy innovations. ARPA-E is getting positive early reviews for its strong management and ability to execute on its mission to drive innovation and keep American companies competitive.

However, I share many of my colleagues' concerns about this program. ARPA-E must not intervene where capital private markets are already acting, and it must not be redundant with other programs at the Department.

In fact, ARPA-E is still a young program, and it is prudent to provide a lower level of funding while it is still maturing as a program and demonstrating its ability to address congressional concerns, especially when the bill has so many important priorities competing for scarce funding. This prudent approach is especially warranted when the bill has so many important priorities competing.

While I support the goal of this new program, I cannot support any additional funding at this time. Further, this amendment makes an unrealistic cut to the Department's salaries and expenses. We cannot cut departmental oversight by 35 percent and expect the efficient use of taxpayer dollars and more oversight and more management responsibilities. For these reasons and many more, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise to oppose this amendment. I'm strongly in favor of a thriving domestic automotive industry, but I'm sure the gentleman knows I have also been critical of the slow pace with which the Department has implemented this program.

In the Homeland Security bill, we trimmed out $1.5 billion for this program, which has been sitting unused since 2009. We have put it toward flood assistance, where there was a true emergency purpose. But we left adequate funding to cover applications already in the pipeline. Cutting those off midstream would put at risk, I believe, thousands of jobs, and literally billions of dollars of private sector investment.

Understandably, I know where the gentleman is coming from, but I urge opposition to his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, if Dr. Broun is insistent, I must say that I want to thank him for his amendment and I am willing to accept it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and salute the gentleman for his knowledge. He serves on the authorizing committee, and we can't argue

against the statistics that he has proposed.

I should say for the record that our bill strongly supports our nuclear security strategy. It fully funds the 4-year effort to lock down nuclear materials around the world and increases funding for our other international security efforts, such as enforcing export controls and promoting nuclear safeguards.

With that, I am happy to yield to the ranking member.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I strongly support, Mr. Chairman, the Shimkus- Inslee amendment.

This administration's Yucca Mountain policy has been, at best, irresponsible with the taxpayers' time and treasure. Most Members in this room have voted many times in support of this project. For years, we supported it as the law of the land, and ensured that the scientific review process continued so we could understand how good the site was.

Despite more than the $15 billion already spent on the site or the more than $16 billion in potential fines that the taxpayer is facing because the administration has not fulfilled its responsibility to take spent fuel off the hands of so many utilities, this administration has persisted in a backroom political deal to shut down the project. Yet, despite the administration's best efforts to hide from the public the inconvenient facts, we now know that the science does support Yucca Mountain as a long-term geological repository. The NRC's review, which was virtually complete when the administration pulled the plug, apparently shows that the site can safely store the fuel for thousands and thousands of years if that is necessary.

Even in the face of this, the administration hasn't changed its position. We can only keep the pressure on and trust that good policy and good science will eventually overcome bad politics. We need to finish the Yucca Mountain license application so that we as a Nation can take into account all of the facts as we determine the future of nuclear energy in this country.

I want to thank the gentlemen, both Mr. Inslee and Mr. Shimkus-- members of the authorizing committee.

I had an opportunity, as an observer, to attend Mr. Shimkus' subcommittee. May I say I was impressed by how the gentleman from Illinois questioned the NRC commissioners, and particularly the chairman, on some of the very questions the gentleman from Illinois and other Members have raised.

I want to commend you for your vigor and for your astuteness and for coming to the floor with this very important amendment.

I would be happy to yield, unless he cares to have his own time, to the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana.

I thank the gentleman.

We're going to keep Yucca Mountain open, Mr. Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2354.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 2354, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

I move to strike the last word.

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

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

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

Yes.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I thank the gentlemen.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I continue to reserve my point of order.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

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

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

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

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

I move to strike the last word.

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

I continue to reserve my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

I appreciate the gentleman from Florida yielding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I move to strike the last word.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I withdraw my point of order.

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

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

I move to strike the last word.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

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

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

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

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would be happy to yield to the ranking member.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against this 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 Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairman, I must oppose the amendment as authorizing on an appropriations bill.

I share the gentleman's support for the Corps of Engineers' participation in beach replenishment projects that provide protection from coastal storms for individuals and businesses. Coming from a State with 137 miles of shoreline, I too understand the importance of these projects to local, regional, and our national economy.

The amendment offered, however, would add authorizing language to the Energy and Water bill; therefore, it is subject to a point of order.

So while I am sympathetic to the gentleman's intent, I must oppose the amendment and insist on my point of order.

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

Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order. The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because the amendment does not merely propose to transfer appropriations among objects in the bill but also proposes language other than amounts.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I would rise to oppose the amendment.

I would like to take my own time to respond in a more formal manner. I would be happy to yield to you perhaps at the end of my remarks.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise to oppose the amendment. The amendment that has been rewritten somewhat would reduce funding for salaries and expenses in order to increase funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy activities at the Department of Energy. Within this year's extraordinarily tight budget constraints, the bill cannot fund programs that overlap improperly with the private sector, for one; or that do not have pressing needs for additional appropriations.

In other words, Madam Chair, I can't support reducing funds for an account, especially for accounts and administrative purposes that oversee Department activities. We need more oversight in the Department of Energy. So I reluctantly oppose the amendment.

As I promised, I said I would yield to the gentlewoman.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Our Energy and Water bill is already $1 billion below last year's fiscal amount and $2.8 billion below fiscal year 2010. As a matter of fact, our entire mark is reaching the 2006 level. So the committee has done its homework. We've made deep cuts. I think the committee understands we're about to go off a fiscal cliff in our country, but the cuts that we've made were developed after a lot of hearings, a lot of discussion, a lot of thought.

The bill recommended by our committee recognizes that the Federal Government has gotten too large--and in many ways philosophically I agree with a lot of what the gentleman from California says, that we're too involved with the private sector, sometimes picking winners and losers and different technologies where the market should be choosing. But the committee is also mindful that there are appropriate roles that the government should take because sometimes the private sector can't or will not take those risks.

The cuts proposed in this amendment would eliminate, as the ranking member said, or cut many worthwhile programs, put at risk, I think in many instances, our country's competitive intellectual advantage, and put in doubt perhaps the ability of the private sector to make some substantial investments. And those investments lead to jobs, jobs that we badly need.

So for that and many other reasons, I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The gentleman's amendment would increase funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy accounts and reduce funding for Fossil Energy Research and Development and nuclear energy research. This would increase money for a program that already receives sufficient funds and hamper efforts to further technologies that produce most of our electricity.

Madam Chair, the gentleman asserted that fossil and nuclear energy are yesterday's sources of energy and that we're shortchanging tomorrow's energy sources. Well, in fact, nuclear energy produces 20 percent of our Nation's electricity, and even the State of Massachusetts depends on nuclear energy for about 10 percent of its energy. Fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, generate 70 percent of our Nation's electricity, and we will use these valuable energy sources for many generations. In fact, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts gets 80 percent of its electricity from fossil fuels.

I understand his desire to move us forward, but realistically, we'll be using fossil fuels for decades and nuclear energy perhaps for centuries. And we must ensure that we use those resources as efficiently and clearly as possible. Further, the amendment increases funding for that Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account, a program that has seen a record increase since 2007 and still has nearly $9 billion of unspent stimulus funds from 2009. Imagine that.

There's a proper role for core Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs, and our bill preserves funding for those activities while cutting out activities that are redundant with the private sector or that interfere improperly in market innovation.

But his amendment would add back unnecessary funding for administration proposals that are poorly planned and lack justification. For example, the administration proposes more than $200 million to deploy electric vehicle infrastructure. But after repeated requests, the department provided less than one page of explanation for this program. At best, this funding would be poorly used, and at worst, it will interfere with entrepreneurial innovations in infrastructure underway in the private sector.

The administration also proposes a new Race to the Green program, a State and city grant program. Again, after repeated requests for justification to the Department of Energy, this new $100 million proposal is accompanied by barely more than a paragraph of explanation.

When every tax dollar must be spent well, we can't throw money at poorly planned programs while cutting fossil energy and nuclear programs. I, therefore, oppose the amendment and urge all Members to do likewise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise to oppose the amendment.

The weatherization program was provided $5 billion by the stimulus bill in 2009. But the program has been slow to act, and approximately $1.4 billion will be unspent and available for use in fiscal year 2012.

Some States have spent all of their stimulus money, while others will have plenty left for fiscal year 2012. But the Department of Energy, by law, must spread any new funding evenly across all States.

The bill cuts this program by $141 million below the President's request. The language in the underlying bill gives the Secretary of Energy the flexibility to use limited appropriations provided in fiscal year 2012 to supplement States that have no stimulus funding. The bill does not allow--I would like to add that emphasis--the bill does not allow the Secretary to reallocate stimulus funds. All it does is allow the Secretary some flexibility in where he allocates it. There is $33 million left in the bill.

Let me say, we can't afford, in the Department of Energy, with this program, or any other program, to have business as usual in terms of weatherizations. And I would agree with the gentleman from Colorado that in many cases, the money hasn't been spent, and in some cases there have been questions as to how well it's been spent.

This waiver in our bill provides a solution allowing all States to continue this program under a tight federal budget and with direct oversight of our committee. The amendment that is suggested by the gentleman from Colorado would undo the solution by striking language providing this flexibility, causing job losses and program stoppages in many States where, in fact, in those States, these funds are obligated.

So, therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge other Members to do so as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

The gentleman from Virginia's amendment would increase funding for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and reduce funding for Fossil Energy Research and Development. This would result in an increase in a program that already receives sufficient funds and hamper efforts to further technologies that produce most of our electricity.

Let's be frank. Fossil fuels, such as coal and natural gas, generate 70 percent of our Nation's electricity, and we will use these valuable energy sources for many generations.

We must ensure that we use those resources, of course, as efficiently and cleanly as possible. Further, the amendment increases funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a program that has seen record increases since 2007, and still has nearly, if you can believe it, $9 billion of unspent stimulus funds from 2009.

There is a proper role for the core Energy Efficiency and Renewable programs, and the bill preserves funding for those activities while cutting out activities that are redundant with the private sector or that intervene improperly in market innovation.

The amendment would also add back unnecessary funding for administration proposals that are poorly planned and lack justification. That in and of itself is bad enough, and I oppose the amendment and urge others to do so as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I have mixed views as well.

Obviously, Israel is a strong ally, and were it not for Kazakhstan, we perhaps wouldn't be able to do some things militarily to support our troops that are both in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think that it bears close watching, but there is a perception that somehow we're giving China, India, Brazil, and other countries sort of an advantage. I view this program as a two-way street. It does provide a degree of access to American companies.

So I reluctantly oppose your amendment, but I can assure you that both of us feel very strongly that it bears watching. It has borne some fruit, so it's not money wasted, and it's not money given away to our competitors. At least that's my view of it.

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

The gentleman from North Carolina's amendment increases funding for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable account, a program that I said earlier has seen record increases since 2007 and still has $9 billion in unspent stimulus funds in its account from 2009 to spend. On that alone, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

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

I move to strike the last word.

I would like to associate my remarks with those of the ranking member.

This amendment would slash even more than we did in our committee, the Vehicle Technologies Program and this Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account. There is almost nothing left in the account now. Maybe the desire is to put this whole account out of business; but personally, I think that is unwise. We have made the tough choices. We have held our hearings. We have had the input. And I would ask Members to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Certainly let me salute the gentleman from Vermont. Certainly Vermonters are often characterized as being independent and self-sufficient and self-reliant. Of course I would have to note for the record that you are 72 percent relying on nuclear power in Vermont. There may be other forms of power, so you might just want to check on that, just for the record.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment because this amendment decreases funding for weapons activities by $491 million in order to increase, as we heard, the Energy Efficiency and Renewable account. Modernization of the nuclear complex is a critical national priority and must be funded, and that doesn't matter whether it's the Obama administration or the Bush administration. All of our administrations are working to make sure that we have a nuclear stockpile that is safe, reliable, and verifiable.

With years of stagnant funding, we have put off long enough the investments that are needed to sustain our nuclear capabilities into the future. The funding in our bill for weapons activities is both now, as a result, timely and urgent. When every tax dollar must be spent well, we cannot enact cuts that will risk our national security while throwing money at poorly planned programs that have large balances, which I mentioned earlier--$9 billion in the EERE account that's unspent of stimulus money.

So not so reluctantly, I rise in opposition to the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote accordingly.

I yield back the balance of my time.

This is from the EIA.

I assume it is verifiable. Twenty-two percent is hydro and 72 percent is nuclear. Nothing to be ashamed of.

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

Let me just say to the gentleman from Kansas, he said he would like us at least to go back to, in this particular account, to the 2008 level. Maybe there is some consolation: In our bill, we actually go back to 2007 in this account, and the bill is just, just beneath the overall allocation, in terms of the final product, is just beneath the 2006 level. You won't find too many bills on the appropriations docket that go back to that level, recognizing this is 2011. Our committee goes back to just below 2006 levels. So give us a little bit of credit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

In order to increase funding for this energy efficiency and renewable account, the gentleman's amendment again suggests we decrease funding for weapons activities.

As I said earlier the modernization of the nuclear complex is a critical national security priority and must be refunded. Reductions of this magnitude would be unacceptable and impact our ability and our nuclear security strategy.

These reductions in the nuclear account would be to increase funding for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs primarily in the area of weatherization in the State Energy Program. For your information, these two programs have $3.4 billion in unspent funds from the 2009 stimulus and a full $2.7 billion is expected to be available for use in fiscal year 2012.

They don't need any more money. The Department of Energy needs to get the money out of the door, and if they aren't capable, they need to make sure States that have received money get money out of the door. So I therefore oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman I rise in opposition to the amendment.

First of all, let me compliment my colleague and good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett). And, of course, I'm reluctant because he's done his homework and he's worked hard, and I believe, with him, that we need to reduce Federal spending. We've been going over a financial precipice.

But we on the Energy and Water Committee made a commitment. Of course, we were given a very low allocation, so we had to meet that. But we have cut Energy and Water back to approximately the 2006 level after multiple hearings. We have put into the bill more oversight. I believe we have made the tough choices. We've reviewed all accounts. We've put at the pinnacle, of course, our responsibility for national security, national defense, and the weapons program and the nuclear navy, the next class of Ohio ballistic submarines, and also made substantial investments in the Army Corps of Engineers.

I am reluctant to oppose this amendment, but I think we've made the tough choices. I urge Members to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I give him credit for pursuing it. I have already noted that the bill reduces funds for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy activities from that account because the government needs to live within its means and really because they don't need any additional funding.

This amendment increases that account despite, as I said earlier, $9 billion in unspent stimulus money. But perhaps the amendment illustrates how there is simply no room to increase funding for this provision, as the amendment makes an unrealistic cut to departmental administration to do so.

It's not responsible to cut administration and oversight, the very thing that both the ranking and I would suggest the Department of Energy needs more than anything. They need people to review their programs, provide accountability, meet the benchmarks we've set and the timetables we've set and report back to our committee.

So I oppose the amendment and urge others to do so as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise to speak in support of the gentleman from Georgia's amendment. He is so articulate and so convincing, we are willing to accept his amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

One of the convincing arguments you made, you made reference to the Department of Energy newsletter, a new program where maybe personal responsibility should be perhaps ahead of what they may suggest.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I oppose this amendment, but agree with the gentleman's concern about the use of the taxpayers' dollars. In this account, which we have been debating for perhaps an hour and a half, I don't think any program has probably had a larger cut than the solar program, perhaps for the very reasons that the gentleman raises. Solar technologies have been around for a long time. We have a fairly viable public sector, but I still think we do need within the Department of Energy people in the Department of Energy who can put together and provide some degree of expertise and advice to a variety of different entrepreneurs.

So I reluctantly oppose the amendment, but certainly know his heart is in the right place.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but let me thank him for his historical perspective of the department and of its initial responsibility and for his own deep knowledge, which he shared with many of us in the House, of its necessity in terms of space exploration.

The gentleman's amendment increases funding for the plutonium-238 production restart project, as it's called. To do so, funding for other valuable nuclear energy activities would have to be cut, including the advanced reactor concept research, fuel cycle development, and promising avenues like small modular reactors licensing and research.

The administration has proposed this new project for several years in order to increase domestic supplies of plutonium-238. The vast majority of this material, as Mr. Schiff has said, would be used by NASA for in- space power supplies, and only a small fraction would be used by the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, after the committee repeatedly expressed concerns since fiscal year 2010, the administration once again proposed in the 2012 budget request for the Department of Energy to share a full half of the project's financial cost. The administration has neither altered its stance nor addressed or even acknowledged the committee's concerns about this disproportionate sharing.

The funding plans in the budget request and the amendment simply don't make sense, particularly given the other critical priorities in this bill. As we have expressed for 2 years, the administration must develop a more sensible plan. Therefore, I oppose the amendment, and urge Members to do likewise.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will insist on my point of order but would first make a few comments.

The gentleman's amendment prescribes a path forward for the back end of the nuclear energy fuel cycle by directing the Department of Energy to develop a specific type of reprocessing plan and facility, the integral fast reactor.

Let me say I appreciate our colleague from California's passion for moving forward our Nation's strategy for handling spent nuclear fuel, and I want to thank him for the many times he approached me on this issue. I and many of my colleagues share the gentleman's concerns, and I have repeatedly pushed the administration to move forward at least one piece of the solution, which is the Yucca Mountain repository. There is, however, ongoing debate about the future of the back end of our Nation's fuel cycle.

There are many approaches, including open, closed and modified fuel cycles. Each of these approaches--some of which utilize reprocessing facilities--are far from straightforward and can be accomplished using a variety of competing technologies. While I appreciate my colleague's desire to move the Nation forward, we must carefully evaluate these highly technical issues to address the economic safety and nonproliferation impacts that accompany any fuel cycle option. The gentleman's amendment chooses one winning technology, and I believe it deserves more careful evaluation before moving forward.

Point of Order

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read. The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule XXI because of outlays 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 amendment but also to associate myself with the ranking member's comments on ARPA-E, which I'm supportive of. Of course our colleague's amendment would add funding to ARPA-E, which receives some $100 million in our bill; but the way he would do it would be virtually to eliminate funding for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program, I think causing excessive job losses. And I think the program makes major contributions.

Of course we can't forget that fossil fuels, coal, and natural gas generate about 70 percent of our Nation's electricity. ARPA-E may someday generate a much greater percentage than perhaps it potentially does today, but we're a long way from there. So I oppose the gentleman's amendment and certainly the source, using the Fossil Fuels account for this additional money, that he suggests.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, 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 9 o'clock and 24 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, July 12, 2011, 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 include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 2354, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring the fiscal year 2012 Energy and Water appropriations bill before the House this afternoon.

Before I begin my remarks, let me thank the full chairman, Mr. Rogers, as well as the ranking member, Mr. Dicks, for their support of a very open process and their support of me as well as the ranking member. I would particularly like to thank my ranking member, Congressman Pete Visclosky, for his dedication to our joint mission and our close working relationship. The bill is stronger for his input and knowledge.

I would also like to thank the committee staff, Rob Blair, the clerk; Joe Levin, Loraine Heckenberg, Angie Giancarlo, and Perry Yates. On the minority side, I would like to thank Taunja Berquam. I would also like to thank my personal staff, Nancy Fox and Kathleen Hazlett, and certainly recognize Mr. Visclosky's personal staff in the form of Joe DeVo.

Mr. Chairman, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill supports programs critical to our Nation's security, safety, and economic competitiveness. Mr. Chairman, for far too long Federal agencies have been assuming ever-increasing budgets, leading to programs with poor rationale and even less accountability. Those days are behind us now. This bill clearly shows that much greater fiscal discipline and a strong national defense and a strong economy can be achieved together.

The bill for fiscal year 2012 provides $30.6 billion, $1 billion below fiscal year 2011, and $5.9 billion below the President's request, bringing the total spending levels for our bill down to approaching the fiscal year 2006 level. An additional $1.03 billion is emergency offset funding which is provided to help recovery and repair efforts due to the severe floods we have seen in the Mississippi and Missouri River regions. These floods have resulted in immense devastation and loss of life and livelihoods. I commend the good work of the Army Corps, which is in the front lines, along with municipal, county, State, and other Federal first responders when tragedies like this occur.

Mr. Chairman, there are no congressional earmarks in this legislation. The highest national priorities are protected by supporting the Department of Energy's national defense programs

and by preserving activities that directly support American competitiveness, such as water infrastructure and basic science research.

The bill also supports critical national security programs by providing $10.6 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration, including $195.3 million above fiscal year 2011 for weapons activities to support the modernization of our nuclear stockpile.

The bill also supports urgent, ongoing efforts to secure vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide and the full request to design a reactor for the replacement of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine.

We've seen how catastrophic flooding can affect many lives locally and the economy nationally, and we know that yesterday's crisis could be anywhere tomorrow. This bill protects public safety and keeps America open for business by providing $4.7 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, $195 million above the President's request, and $89 million below fiscal year 2011. The bill makes funds available above the President's request for navigation and flood control, the activities most critical to public safety, jobs, and the economy, and gives the Corps 45 days to deliver and justify their spending plans.

This will give each project, whether in the President's budget or not, the opportunity to compete for these funds and ensure we understand how the Corps really develops its request.

Science research at the Department of Energy strengthens American competitiveness and enables true breakthroughs in the energy sector, and the bill preserves strong funding for this program at $4.8 billion, just $43 million below fiscal year 2011.

The committee continues to support nuclear energy, providing $8 million above the request for ongoing research in promising new programs such as small modular reactors, which it funds at the request level. By reducing funding where stimulus funds are still available or where the private sector is able to invest without Federal help, the bill reduces funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy to $1.3 billion, $491 million below fiscal year 2011.

The bill also upholds historic cleanup responsibilities by funding defense environmental cleanup at $4.9 billion, less than 1 percent below last year's programmatic level, and includes language to curb the department's use of bartering to evade congressional oversight.

Finally, this bill includes numerous steps across all accounts to ensure the administration follows the will of Congress. For example, it includes funding and restrictions enforcing that Yucca Mountain is the law of the land and cannot be stopped by executive action alone. Over the years, this House, in a bipartisan fashion, has been fighting this administration's disdain for sound science and the hard-earned tax dollars of our constituents that went into building that disposal site.

Now the Government Accountability Office has issued a report saying that there is no scientific reason for shutting down Yucca, and the administration has been forced to release its own review showing that the science actually supports Yucca. Even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's own Inspector General has released findings highly critical of the way the NRC chairman has withheld information regarding Yucca Mountain from the public and his fellow commissioners. This bill supports these findings by including $35 million to keep Yucca Mountain going and language to ensure that political appointees at the NRC can no longer inappropriately use their insider positions.

It also includes new reporting requirements so the administration must track, and show, that the investments we make in science and technology are effective uses of taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Chairman, I take seriously our responsibility to rein in Federal spending in fiscal year 2012. The bill is premised upon hard questions, and focused cuts where the answers didn't hold up to scrutiny. This is the sort of analysis that will get our fiscal house in order. This bill deserves our Members' support, and I look forward to an open and full process and discussion.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JY11.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JY11.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JY11.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JY11.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JY11.005

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latham).

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

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