Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, at the outset, let me say I share the desire to apply additional spending cuts to this continuing resolution. However, even though this measure cuts more Federal spending than any other bill in the history of our Nation, I recognize the President and the Senate will not support additional reductions. This is unfortunate because, like many of us in this House, I recognize that our Nation has compiled a public debt of $14 trillion and that our annual budget deficit will total $1.5 trillion into the foreseeable future--an unsustainable amount. Simply put, we are broke, and this bill is but a first step toward putting us on a much more sound fiscal path.

The 2012 appropriations package lies ahead, and we need to take another critical step to cut spending and to do it in a rational way to promote jobs and economic growth. The Energy and Water portion of this legislation totals $31.75 billion, a 10 percent cut from the President's budget request. Our approach was simple: Every program in our jurisdiction was scrutinized for savings while protecting national security and while providing appropriate support for job growth and a balanced energy supply.

Overall funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration is $697 million, a 7 percent increase from fiscal year 2010, the only significant increase in this section. This funding will ensure that our nuclear weapons remain reliable and that our programs to stop the spread of fissile material overseas stay strong. There is no more important mandate for the Department of Energy.

Funding for the Army Corps of Engineers is $4.9 billion, $48 million below the fiscal year 2011 request. Program dollars were concentrated where they should be--in the operation, maintenance and construction accounts--to ensure that the Corps had sufficient funding for its key missions.

Madam Speaker, these cuts are only the beginning. We need to do more, and I support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, we're debating the wrong resolution here today.

We should be debating a resolution that honors the continuing sacrifice, service, the courage and the steadfastness of our men and women in uniform--all volunteers--as they work to carry out their missions in the global war on terror. And their families back at home.

These warriors serve today in Afghanistan, and yes, in Iraq.

Both are active war zones where there are no ``front lines'' and every deployed servicemember lays his or her life on the line every day.

And they have made significant progress. General Petreaus told our Defense Subcommittee this morning that ``The momentum of the Taliban has been halted in much of the country and reversed in some important areas.''

The Afghan Security Forces are growing in number and capability.

And the day when we turn all operations over to the Afghans gets closer and closer.

None of this has been easy.

Progress has been made through hard fighting and considerable sacrifice of so many Americans and our allies.

There have been tough losses along the way. And there have been setbacks as well as successes.

But instead of debating a resolution that honors the sacrifice of our brave warfighters, we are considering a measure that seeks to ``turn off the lights and slam the door as we withdraw.''

Well, we've been down this road before.

Two decades ago we celebrated alongside our Afghan allies as the invading Russian military rolled back into the USSR in defeat.

And when the celebration ended, we walked away--we did not follow-up with the necessary investments in diplomacy and development assistance, turning our back on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Had we not done that in the early 1990s, we would have better secured our own country's future, as well as peace and stability in the region.

Instead of intensifying our humanitarian efforts to help the Afghans meet their postwar challenges, we simply walked away--leaving a destroyed country that lacked roads, schools, and any plan or hope for rebuilding.

Into this void marched the Taliban and al-Qaeda. My Colleagues, as they say, ``the rest is history'' for the Afghans and for all Americans:

Horrors perpetrated on Afghan men, women and children;

A curtain of oppression which denied half the population--women--any rights and dignity;

Closed schools. Destroyed cultural institutions and national treasures;

A modern-day Dark Ages;

Mr. Speaker, the resolution we debate today would have us repeat that sad and dangerous saga.

I urge defeat of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the Borough of Mountain Lakes, in Morris County, New Jersey, which is celebrating its 100th Anniversary in 2011.

From its inception, Mountain Lakes, a community in my congressional district, has promoted family life and interaction with nature.

In 1910, Mountain Lakes was just rural woodland owned by a handful of families. The following decade, however, changed Mountain Lakes forever. Developers urbanized the hills, woods, swamps and boulders of Mountain Lakes to create a neighborhood where families could enjoy the nature, recreation and simple pleasures of life. The plan also included two manmade lakes, to provide outdoor swimming and boating for the community. By late 1912, the railroad station was completed and with a train line to New York, growth and prosperity soon followed.

Unusual about this community is the nearly 500 homes that were built by one developer. Today, 454 of these homes remain standing, making them one of the largest collections of Craftsman-influenced houses in the United States.

Along with their respect for their architectural history, comes Mountain Lakes' appreciation for education. Its schools provide area students with the foundation they need for a successful future. Mountain Lakes High School is often ranked as a top school by New Jersey Monthly. The Lake Drive School for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing and the Craig School are two schools that offer education to students with special needs.

The developers' vision for this community has survived to the present. The natural and architectural character that was constructed in the early 20th century is still a key feature ``Lakers'' appreciate today. And, with its natural beauty, picturesque location and charm, Mountain Lakes still attracts residents who enjoy outdoor activities and community involvement.

Today, the grand gardens have been simplified, houses renovated, but still the essential character remains. The rustic suburb of Mountain Lakes has maintained its unique character and environment created in the two decades following its founding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Borough of Mountain Lakes as they celebrate their 100th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Hope House located in the Town of Dover, Morris County, New Jersey as it celebrates its 40th Anniversary.

Hope House, a not-for-profit, multi-service agency, established in 1971, is a Catholic Charity Agency in the Diocese of Patterson. This noteworthy organization serves clients mainly from Morris County, providing professionally based social services, especially for those who are oppressed, powerless, or otherwise disenfranchised. Hope House Social Service Agency advocates fair and just treatment for all individuals. Services are delivered without regard to race, gender, personal belief or circumstances.

Hope House provides numerous programs and clinical counseling for children, adolescents, and adults. They maintain a professional staff of mental health providers with diversified backgrounds. Hope House counselors are therapists, many of whom are board certified. Licensed clinical social workers and professional counselors are also on staff to provide individuals with the care and support they need.

Of the numerous programs Hope House provides, their HIV/AIDS Service extends into Sussex and Warren Counties. This service is a community based program designed to provide comprehensive and centralized AIDS specific services in a compassionate, caring, and confidential environment.

In addition to the excellent health and social services, Hope House also provides domestic home services to those in most need. For instance, the Chore Program assists low income seniors and younger, disabled adults with light household chores. This program enables individuals to maintain independence and may help prevent premature institutionalization. Much like the chore program is the Fix-It Program. This service offers minor home repairs to Morris County low income families, persons with disabilities and seniors.

The Hope House style is warm and welcoming, reflecting personal attention and sensitivity with a dedicated staff and many volunteers and supporters. It is a cherished resource in our community that enables individuals to seek support for a wide range of issues and receive the attention they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Hope House of Dover, New Jersey as they celebrate their 40th Anniversary.

I rise in support of this continuing resolution. It's a reasonable and a thoughtful path forward to avoid a potential government shutdown.

Madam Speaker, the American people have made two things perfectly clear: First, they want their government to stay up and running; and, secondly, they want us to cut spending. We need to do both.

Like many of us, I would have greatly preferred that the Senate act on H.R. 1, the 7-month continuing resolution that we debated for over 90 hours that included, indeed, the largest spending reductions in the history of any Congress.

Ten days ago, this committee and this House took the President's budget and cut it by over $100 billion, terminating dozens of government programs in the process. And in a city where President Reagan once said ``A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth,'' that's quite an accomplishment.

Madam Speaker, the resolution we have before us today is a simple stopgap measure to provide more time for negotiations to develop a funding bill for the rest of the current fiscal year. It's temporary and it must pass to keep the government open beyond Friday.

This bill contains $4 billion in savings including just under a billion from programs under the jurisdiction of my committee, Energy and Water Development. These savings are found purely from eliminating earmarks inserted by Congress in the fiscal year 2010 bill.

As with other spending reductions in this temporary bill, the committee has taken great pains to include only savings that both parties and both Chambers support. Both the House and Senate have sworn off earmarks for fiscal year 2011, so these reductions should not be controversial.

My colleagues, we must move this resolution. We need it to provide time to continue negotiations to complete the important work that should have been done by the last Congress--which passed no appropriations bills.

Madam Speaker, I repeat: The American people have made it clear. They want their government to stay open for business. They also want us to cut spending. Let's do it. Let's move ahead. This resolution needs to be passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address concerns that many of my colleagues have expressed to me regarding maintenance to the Lower Mississippi River deep draft navigation channel. As the Chairman of the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, I am well aware of the economic benefits provided by the Mississippi River system that connects approximately 30 States in our Nation's heartland with international markets. Accordingly, the Subcommittee works hard to ensure that the Lower Mississippi River deep draft navigation channel is maintained by the Corps to meet export and import trade and other domestic transportation needs.

As Congress considers the Continuing Resolution for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2011, I want to assure my colleagues that I have provided sufficient flexibility within the $2,361,000,000 in the operation and maintenance account for the Corps to maintain the

Lower Mississippi River deep draft navigation channel to adequately meet our transportation needs. It is our intent that the Corps recognizes the economic importance of navigation on the Lower Mississippi River when allocating these funds.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would like to associate my remarks with those who rise to oppose the amendment, basically because it's across the board. Right now we are affecting the Army Corps of Engineers in a way that will affect most of our major navigation around the country. Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio River. We need to get these projects moving. They are important to commerce, billions of dollars of commerce, suppliers, producers. And lastly, there is a national security aspect. We need to maintain the reliability of our nuclear stockpile. That's under the Department. There is nothing more important than the nuclear stockpile. Protecting that stockpile, making sure it's reliable, and that we meet the requirements of cleanups across the Nation. Across the board cuts would impact that in a big way.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I join with the ranking member in opposing this amendment. The current allocation for defense is already $14.8 billion below the fiscal year 2011 request, an almost 3 percent reduction; and of course our committee wants to help to address the Federal deficit, too, as do other committees. Further, arbitrary reductions, especially of this magnitude of over $23.5 billion, will basically bring the Department of Defense to a grinding halt, perhaps one beyond what is reasonable.

Specifically, the amendment would require reducing and canceling training for returning troops; canceling Navy training exercises; reducing Air Force flight training; delaying or canceling the maintenance of aircraft, ships or vehicles; delaying important safety and quality-of-life repairs to facilities and military barracks.

At a time of war, we should be showing support for our troops and not undercutting them, even though for good reasons, in order to lower the Federal deficit by making reductions of this amount.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I share the gentleman's concern over responsible spending and the need to address the Nation's deficit problem. That's why our continuing resolution before us reduces spending by historic proportions.

Where I differ from my colleague is whether there is a Federal interest in beach replenishment projects. Beach replenishment projects aren't just about dumping sand on shores so people can have fun. These projects provide States with protection from coastal storms for individuals and businesses, and these projects must meet the same standards of economic justification and cost benefit ratios as other levee projects and navigation projects.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), former chairman of the committee.

I yield 1 minute to the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), a fellow member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire about time.

I yield the remaining minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment attempts, using the appropriations bill before us, to enact significant legislative changes to a prior law. The law in question, enacted by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, establishes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as the issuer of licenses for liquefied natural gas terminals.

Notwithstanding the merits of the gentleman's concerns, and we can see the gentleman cares deeply about the issue and knows of the issue, this is not the appropriate place to modify such a law, as this amendment would attempt to do. Frankly, such a broad authorizing issue warrants a suitably more broad discussion.

We would be happy to work with the gentleman to facilitate that wider discussion at the appropriate time, on the appropriate bill, and through the appropriate committees of jurisdiction.

In this regard, I yield to my ranking member, Mr. Pastor of Arizona, for the time that he may wish to consume.

(Mr. PASTOR of Arizona asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I urge a ``no'' vote. This is a proposition that ought to be discussed by the authorizers. It should not be considered within the limits of this continuing resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I think the idea is we wanted to wrap this up without too much debate. I just felt in fairness that the gentleman deserved some extra time. I don't think we need to prolong this.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill, and therefore it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rules 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.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment would forbid funds for Yucca Mountain, but its most damaging effect is to stop the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from moving ahead with the Yucca Mountain license, application and review process.

Mr. Chairman, the House has overwhelmingly voted multiple times over the last several years to reject the administration's closure of Yucca. The gentleman's amendment would do nothing but support the administration's political manipulations and it will waste over $12 billion of ratepayers' money.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 15 seconds to my ranking member, Mr. Pastor.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against Mr. Heller's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment uses a heavy-handed approach in order to shut down important programs at the Department of Energy.

Fossil energy sources supply more than 80 percent of our Nation's total energy. Using these resources more efficiently and more cleanly and developing technologies that can access new domestic sources are extremely important when so much of our energy depends on fossil fuels.

This amendment would stop programs that do just that. For example, it would prevent work like the development of ultra-clean fuels.

There may be some areas of research in which the private sector does not need help, but there are other areas of research which are too risky for industry to take on.

I oppose the amendment.

I am pleased to yield to my ranking, Mr. Pastor, for any comments he may wish to make.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Morris Habitat for Humanity, Morris County, New Jersey, celebrating its 25th Anniversary this year.

The Morris Habitat for Humanity was established in 1985 and its presence in Morris County has been growing ever since. However, attaining the permission from Habitat International to start a Habitat for Humanity in one of New Jersey's wealthiest counties was no easy accomplishment. With the help of many individuals, including Millard Fuller, the founder of Habitat for Humanity International, and former President Jimmy Carter, the Morris County Chapter of Habitat for Humanity was founded. This organization has worked alongside 190 families building over 45 homes and preserving 42 houses in Morris County. Habitat for Humanity's achievements have not only spanned across the great state of New Jersey but all around the world having built 103 houses to date in other countries.

I had the good fortune of working with the Morris Habitat on ``The House that Congress Built'' and experienced firsthand the dedication of the volunteers and staff. The advancement of this inspirational organization is credited in large part to its volunteers. Over 45,000 people have given their time to help others achieve home ownership. Habitat for Humanity provides a vast number of opportunities to its volunteers. With the opening of the ReStore Outlet in Mine Hill, New Jersey, Morris Habitat has expanded its services by offering reusable and spare building materials to the public at discounted prices, making home improvements attainable for families.

The Morris Habitat for Humanity has continuously provided steadfast dedication to home ownership. The valuable support they have provided to those in need in Morris County and surrounding counties is remarkable.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Morris Habitat for Humanity as they celebrate 25 dedicated years of service.

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

Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order and I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations 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 reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

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

Yes, I do.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change the existing law and constitutes legislation in the 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 imposes additional duties. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, we support the gentlewoman's efforts to ensure that every taxpayer dollar is spent wisely and effectively. Our committee has always been focused on that.

Effective recruiting is critical to the military's ability to attract new qualified military men and women and maintain our all-volunteer force. The Department of Defense uses its sponsorship of NASCAR and other sporting events to create awareness of the different military services and the unique advantages and programs that come with serving our Nation.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, it's a great public-private partnership. NASCAR sponsorship has proven to be a very cost-effective recruiting tool, with some estimates stating that for every dollar the military puts in NASCAR sponsorship, it gets $4 in advertising through television, merchandise, and other outlets. We believe the dollars are well spent. Thus I oppose the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of the rule and the continuing resolution.

Mr. Speaker, we would not be in this position this afternoon if the leadership of the last Congress let the Appropriations Committee do its work last year, to act on the President's budget proposal when it came out, to debate our bills in full committee, to debate our bills on the floor. So that is why we are here today. It would have been great if last year's House leadership had actually listened to the American people.

We would not be in this situation if the President and the congressional leadership hadn't borrowed billions of dollars, mortgaging our future, to spend on multiple stimulus bills and bailouts that did little to create private-sector jobs and restore consumer confidence.

The Department of Energy alone had $39 billion in stimulus money, all, I might say, borrowed--$9 billion more than its entire budget. It was a recipe for waste, a scatter gun approach that raised many public expectations but in the end provided few achievements and fewer yet jobs. In many cases it created businesses in the energy sector that could not survive without more government funding. To me, it created false markets. As some described it, it was more money than some knew how to deal with.

For months, those dollars were not obligated, much less spent, hiring up people in the public and private sector that the White House and the House and Senate leadership knew would eventually be laid off. Some might call it a job Ponzi scheme, a blank check owed to our children.

So here we are this week to pick up the pieces, right-size the ship of state, stop spending money we don't have, and restore trust for the American people that has been badly broken.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, some suggested some time ago that we have to wait until 2012 or 2013 to make these decisions. We need to make these tough decisions now, to cut spending and to create a climate where the private sector can go hire workers.

The Energy and Water Development section of this bill totals $29.9 billion, an 11 percent reduction from fiscal year 2010. That's a tough decision. This level more truly represents what should be the top priorities of the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the other accounts funded under our subcommittee's purview.

Far from the ``meat axe'' approach that some have suggested we're taking in H.R. 1, our product is one of careful, thoughtful, line-by- line analysis. We have looked at which programs are must-haves, which have significant unobligated balances, and which are redundant. Above all, we've ensured that the core national security mandate of the Department is adequately funded. Frankly, other countries' nuclear stockpile programs aren't taking a time-out while we wrestle with our budget challenges. The stewardship of the nuclear stockpile is the foremost responsibility of the Department of Energy. In fact, weapons activities and naval reactors receive the only increases in our bill.

We do, however, make major reductions in the Department of Energy; major cuts. We eliminate all earmarks. That's close to $500 million, just in the Department of Energy. And we cut out programs like weatherization, with billions and billions of unspent stimulus money. In fact, the Department of Energy received close to $39 billion in stimulus money.

Finally, we've cut back on programs like biological and environmental research that are not core to the Department's historical responsibilities and focus. We do all of this so the Department of Energy can focus on what we need to do--to support the private sector in developing the next round of energy-related intellectual property and the jobs associated with it.

We need to do it. I support the CR. I think we ought to move on with it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Defense Subcommittee has spent much time over the past 2 years looking into the effects of the services--all the services--to reduce their dependence on fossil fuel. The Department of Defense, which consumes 93 percent of all the fuel consumed by the U.S. Government, has made significant strides in reducing its consumption, but the associated logistics of moving fuel for vehicles, aircraft, forward operating bases remain massive and costly. It has also been shown that for every 24 fuel convoys in Afghanistan, an American soldier is wounded or killed.

The Defense Subcommittee has made a conscious and dedicated effort to advance the Department's efforts, searching for better ways to reduce consumption and alleviate the costly and complicated logistics. This amendment, however, would unnecessarily erase that progress and further the Department's dependence on fossil fuels. For this, and many other reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 127, line 17, be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

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

Eliminating the $400 million Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund is ill-conceived and unwise. This fund provides funding for high-priority, large-scale infrastructure programs in support of the civil-military campaign in Afghanistan. These projects are critical to convincing the Afghan population to reject the insurgency and side with the Afghan Government. This in turn significantly reduces the threat to our troops and quickens the security transition process, which we all seek.

Not only is this funding a top priority of the Secretaries of State and Defense, it is also a top priority of General David Petraeus. This fund is so directly related to the safety and security of our troops that it needs to be preserved, and thus I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to my colleague from New Jersey's amendment.

The Iraqi Security Forces Fund is required to enable the Iraqi Security Forces to reach minimum essential capabilities. These capabilities will allow those forces to maintain internal security with police forces in the lead and defense forces in support while building foundational capabilities for the Iraqi military forces to provide external defense prior to U.S. forces' departure on 31 December 2011.

This is our Nation's commitment, our President's commitment, our Commander-in-Chief's commitment. It is a bipartisan commitment. It is more than just this majority's commitment to see the departure of our U.S. forces in that time frame.

This Iraqi Security Forces Fund funds the following five categories:

Equipment purchases and transportation of equipment, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, communications gear and spare parts;

Infrastructure projects such as construction and improvements of police stations, military bases, training centers, maintenance facilities, and border enforcement facilities, among other infrastructure;

Training and operations projects and programs such as training school and maintenance facilities, vehicles for training centers, and training of security forces;

Sustainment of security forces through maintenance programs, human resources, information management systems, support service, and medical services;

Other activities such as detainee operations, disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration.

These are essential to speed our departure from Afghanistan. So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on Mr. Holt's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is proposed 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 transfer between subcommittees.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

We are here to follow through on our pledge to right-size the government, and I appreciate my colleague's amendment for that reason. However, in addition to enacting historic reductions in spending in the CR, we are also committed to an unprecedented level of oversight to ensure that every dollar spent by the Federal Government is, indeed, well spent.

My colleague's amendment would virtually eliminate the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy, or ARPA-E, as we call it. This relatively new program is getting positive early results for its strong management, for its ability to execute, and for its focus on American competitiveness.

We certainly can and must debate which programs are the most worthy of taxpayers' dollars and which we should terminate, but the debate to end a potentially promising initiative to increase funds for another Federal program, as this amendment does, must be thoroughly considered in more than 5 or 10 minutes.

I and the committee would be happy to work with my colleague in the fiscal year 2012 process to ensure the proper and thorough oversight and evaluation of this program. However, I must regretfully oppose her amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment adds, as we know, $50 million for ARPA-E while cutting funding for the fossil energy program. The Energy and Water portion of this bill strikes a careful balance between national security, American competitiveness, and the grave responsibility of deficit reduction. As written, this bill provides sufficient funding to keep ARPA-E operational and active in fiscal year 2011 while we thoroughly evaluate the program and its future in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process.

ARPA-E has shown some promise in advancing our competitiveness; but in the light of the tough tradeoffs we've had to make in this bill--and indeed, they've been tough--I can't support further increased funding for ARPA-E before we've had a broader discussion of the new program.

Further, to achieve this bill's historic levels of spending reduction, the bill has struck a finely tuned balance of support across programs within the Department of Energy. The amendment would reduce funding for fossil energy research and development. The program cut by the amendment ensures not only that fossil energy which generates nearly 70 percent of the Nation's electricity is clean and efficient but that it uses technologies invented in America and creates jobs here at home. Yet, because reducing spending is our top priority, all programs must sacrifice, and the bill cuts fossil energy, research and development well below the 2010 mark and 21 percent below fiscal year 2008.

Further reductions to fossil energy can be damaging to the program's important goals and may lead to excessive job losses. For this reason and because further increases to ARPA-E are currently unwarranted, I oppose the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

The record is corrected, and you are absolutely right.

Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the gentleman from California's amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the continuing resolution before us enacts historic spending reductions but it does so by striking a careful balance between deficit reduction and other important goals.

I regret the gentleman's amendment goes far beyond the point of balance, and thus, I must oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, deficit reduction is the bill's top priority, and our bill already significantly reduces the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Account. As written, our bill cuts that account to 35 percent below current levels and 38 percent, or nearly $900 million, below the fiscal year 2000 budget request.

Our bill cuts the excess and provides only enough funding to continue past commitments, leaving little room left to cut.

While I support the intent of the gentleman's amendment, as it aims to reduce further spending, we must do so responsibly and with a careful balance among deficit reduction, jobs, and our Nation's energy security. The gentleman's amendment fails to maintain this balance and would, to my mind, create undue job losses which would be considerable and irreversibly damage this particular program.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, while the energy efficiency and renewable energy program supports research and development important to American competitiveness, the program has seen a 30 percent increase since the fiscal year 2008 and received $16.8 billion in stimulus funding in the Recovery Act. Now is therefore the right time to cut the fat and replace indiscriminate spending increases with smart prioritization and oversight.

Two programs within this account, Weatherization Assistance and the State Energy Program, do not focus on competitiveness and instead pass funding on to state and local governments. These two programs together have $4.7 billion in unspent Recovery Act funding and have encountered substantial management challenges in the last 2 years. And I may say, substantial.

The bill eliminates funding in fiscal year 2011 for weatherization and state energy programs whose unspent Recovery Act funding should sustain it through fiscal year 2011. In fact, at current implementation rates, which have been incredibly slow, unspent funding would last through 2012.

The amendment ignores these commonsense facts and the imperative to reduce spending by moving unneeded funding back into an already bloated program. I therefore, oppose the amendment and urge Members to do the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program supports technology, research, and development to keep America competitive and ensure our access to domestic energy sources. While these are critically important goals, so too is meeting our pledge to substantially reduce the Nation's deficit beginning this year.

Our bill cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy 35 percent below the current level and 38 percent, or $888 million, below the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request.

The bill limits funding for programs that are still supported by unspent Recovery Act dollars. It also eliminates earmarks and slims down research programs by more than $500 million while preserving core activities supporting American competitiveness in emerging energy industries.

After these cuts, there is simply no more fat to trim. Cutting the program would cost excessive job losses and defaults on past commitments. While I support the gentleman's efforts to further reduce spending, this amendment would go too far beyond the careful balance that we have crafted in this bill.

I and the committee fully intend to exert unprecedented oversight of this program. So as we move forward, I would be happy to work with the gentleman as we do; however, I must regret that I oppose his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.