Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.
Page 62, line 2, after the dollar amount insert ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WOODALL. I turned in a copy at the desk, and I regret that the ranking member didn't get one earlier.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My amendment moves to strike from the operation and maintenance account all dollars for global warming project planning.
I know the committee put a lot of effort into this particular section of the bill, plussing it up almost a million dollars over 2011 levels, up $52 million from the FY 2012 request.
I come from a county--my primary county, Mr. Chairman, depends entirely on a Corps water project for all of our drinking water, not to mention recreation and economic development, and on and on and on. So I'm very interesting in seeing the Corps succeed.
What I'm concerned about are those silos that are being created in government today, Mr. Chairman. This body in the early 1970s would have been talking about the calamity we are faced with, global cooling, and here we today with a special budget line item for global warming for the Corps of Engineers.
We have a great deal of global warming money going into our Department of the Interior, going into the Environmental Protection Agency. The Corps at its core is a construction agency, and certainly this account provides for operations and maintenance for anything that might come up along those lines. But rather than creating this silo to focus specifically on global warming issues, in these tough economic times when we have so many Corps projects that are so lacking in funding, my amendment would
strike this account in its entirety, $4.9 million, and transfer that money to a deficit reduction account.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
This attack on science, this attack on the need to learn more about the science of climate change, more about the impacts which this changing global environment is having upon our planet is just, once again, a direct attack upon the reality that the planet is warming, and in parts of the planet, the Arctic, sub-Saharan Africa, dangerously so.
So the role that science plays is a little bit like the role that Paul Revere played. The scientists are saying climate change is coming. It's intensifying. It can do great harm to our planet and to the security interests of our planet. [Page: H4808]
So this amendment basically strikes right at what it is that the rest of the world expects our country to be, which is the leader on science. And if we look at it in the totality of the energy part of this bill that we're considering today where they cut the funding for solar, for wind, for energy efficiency, for geothermal, for biomass, for plug-in hybrids, for all-electric vehicles, it's all part of a pattern where they slash the budgets for those programs that can help to deal with the impacts
of global warming.
By the way, this same bill increases the budget for oil, coal, and gas, that which is creating this global warming, the man-made gases that we know are dangerously warming the planet. So the green generation, the young people in our country, they look on at this debate, and they say, How can the Republicans cut wind and solar in the same budget that they are then going to defund the studies that basically help us to forecast, to deal with and to analyze the impact of global warming and climate
warming on our planet?
I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and would join in his objection to the amendment that is offered. I happen to believe that we have climate change. Others will debate that, and I would set aside that debate for the moment and simply recognize the obvious, and that is we have had significant variations in weather patterns in the United States of America. We have had horrific flooding in the Midwest during this past year, and that flooding has huge impacts on the reservoirs that
are managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. I think it is not correct public policy to not proceed with the study as to how climate and weather patterns affect those very important Corps projects and appreciate the chairman rising in objection.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Markey was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. DICKS. I held hearings when I was chairman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, brought in the Federal agencies, and every one of them testified that they could already see signs of the effects of climate change: one was a longer fire season; one was more drought; one was more variations in weather; and, most importantly, to the Corps of Engineers, that the seas are rising at a rate more rapidly than at any time in the last 3,000 years.
Now, this is serious stuff that affects the planet. I'm glad the gentleman who chaired the committee on this took time to be here.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
We've had 11 three- and four-star generals and admirals testify that we need a national intelligence assessment of the defense implications of global warming around the planet, and we have done that for the Pentagon. We have done that for the National Security Agency at their request. They believe it's real. They believe it has real implications for the defense of our country where we might have to project force.
The same thing is true domestically, however. The same thing is true in terms of how we have to protect our own people because of rising rivers, because of increased drought, because of the melting of the Arctic, because villages are falling into the ocean up in Alaska because of the melting tundra. These are things that affect us here in the United States today. And to say, no, we are going to defund all aspects of that is a mistake.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. There also is another aspect of this that some people don't recognize, and that is ocean acidification, which is upon us. A significant amount of carbon dioxide goes into the oceans. And that's why getting a handle on this and trying to control CO
2 emissions is so very important. And when it goes into the ocean, it has a negative effect on coral and it has a negative effect on oysters. It has a negative effect on anything in a shell. In fact, there is the phytoplankton which is one of the crucial elements for salmon, 60 percent of the food for salmon. If the acidity rate gets as high, the pH rate drops and the acidity goes up, those fish will be adversely affected.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
So this is science. This is undeniable. This is what the green generation keeps screaming at our generation, Are you going to do anything about it? Are you going to put a plan in place to deal with it? And what their budget today says is, no, we are slashing the wind budget, the solar budget, the plug-in hybrid budget, the all-electric vehicle budget, and the energy efficiency and conservation budget. We are slashing, slashing, slashing, slashing. And then, to put the cherry on top of the sundae,
they say, well, let's just eliminate the money that deals with the study of global warming climate science, because obviously it's not a problem. And in the same budget, they increase the funding for oil, gas, and coal.
Now, that is a budget looking in a rearview mirror at the technologies that are causing problems, including national security problems for us because of some importation of that oil, while not in fact depending upon our technological genius. And that's what young people in our country want. They want us to use the technology to be able to tell the Saudis and others that we don't need their oil any more than we need their sand.
But what we have here is not only a national security disaster but an environmental disaster which is looming in our country. And the Republicans continue to slash away at the science that helps us to protect them.
Mr. WOODALL. I appreciate the work you've done on this bill.
This appropriation, this $4.9 million isn't about doing the science. You won't see me down here attacking dollars for the science. But as the gentleman knows, this is about the maintenance and operation of Corps projects dedicated solely to global warming. If we were talking about the science, then let's talk about the engineers and the folks who are going to do that Corps research.
This isn't that. This is just like the bricks-and-mortar operations and maintenance that goes on in every Corps project in my district, and every other Corps project across the country, but just put in the global warming silo. And I'm concerned that the visceral reaction that even a discussion of operations and maintenance brings up demonstrates where silos of this kind do more harm than good.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
This item is a response to climate change at Army Corps projects, response to climate change. Are we going to be in denial that projects here in the United States aren't affected by climate change, that we are somehow immune to what's happening in the Arctic and the sub-Saharan deserts of Africa right now? No, we are not.
And so this amendment is just a continuation of this same attack that the whole bill is, in fact, aimed at achieving.
Mr. DICKS. What I worry about is how many of our people live on the coast of this country who could be directly impacted by rising sea levels. And the seas have gone up more rapidly in this last 50 years than it has in the last 3,000 years. Somebody's got to take this seriously. Obviously, there are some on the other side who are in denial. The gentleman said it quite correctly. They don't believe that this is real. It is real. [Page: H4809]
Mr. MARKEY. We just had a debate on the Everglades. The Everglades is a perfect example of where, over the next 20 to 50 years, climate change is going to have a profound impact on an entire State. And this amendment is just part of the denial, as is the evisceration, the annihilation of the wind, solar, and all-electric vehicle budget that is being cut out of this bill.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR.