[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 97 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4231-H4269]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2014
General Leave
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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 consideration of H.R. 2609,
and that I might include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 288 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2609.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1352
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2609) making appropriations for energy and water development and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Hultgren in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It is my honor to bring the fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water
Development bill before the membership of the House.
However, before I go through its highlights, I would like to thank my
ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, for her partnership on this bill and hard
work and friendship. It's been a real honor to work with you, and I
look forward to working with you to get through the entire process. I
would also like to thank all the members of our committee on both sides
of the aisle for putting this bill so quickly together and so
responsibly.
I would also like to recognize the hard work of Chairman Rogers and
Ranking Member Lowey to bring this bill, and several others before it,
to the floor under an open rule.
The bill for fiscal year 2014 totals $30.4 billion, $2.9 billion
below last year's levels and more than $4 billion below the President's
request.
The budget allocation we received this year made for some very
difficult decisions, but in our bipartisan tradition, we worked hard to
incorporate priorities and perspectives from both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, we placed the greatest priority on national defense,
our nuclear deterrent, also the critical work of the Army Corps of
Engineers and other activities on which the Federal Government must
take the lead. The reductions we had to make to the applied energy
research and development programs will shift more of their work to the
private sector.
The bill provides $7.6 billion, an increase of $98 million above the
fiscal year 2013 amount, to modernize the Nation's nuclear weapons
stockpile and its supporting infrastructure, excluding rescissions.
I would also like to note that the recommendation contains no funding
to
[[Page H4232]]
implement the President's recently announced plans in Berlin to reduce
the nuclear stockpile. No funding for such purposes will be available
until Congress has judged that these plans will fully support our
national defense.
The recommendations increase the Corps of Engineers by $50 million
above the President's request and redirects funds to ensure our
waterways and harbors keep America open for business and economically
competitive. These waterways and harbors handled foreign commerce
valued at more than $1.7 trillion last year alone. As in previous
fiscal years, the bill maintains the constitutional role of Congress in
the appropriations process by ensuring that all worthy Corps of
Engineers projects have a chance to compete for funding.
Basic science programs total $4.7 billion, just above last year's
post-sequestration levels.
Environmental cleanup programs to address the legacy of the Manhattan
Project and other contaminated sites are funded at $5.5 billion,
approximately $185 million above the post-sequester levels for fiscal
year 2013.
In order to find room for the bill's core priorities, applied energy
research and development had to be cut. The recommendation prioritizes
funding in this area for programs which truly support American
manufacturing jobs, stable energy prices, and diversity of energy
supplies.
Our bill includes $450 million for fossil energy technologies and
$650 million for nuclear energy activities. Both of these programs are
cut below the fiscal year 2013 post-sequester level.
The bill combines the electricity delivery program and the energy
efficiency and renewable energy program, and provides $983 million for
these activities, excluding rescissions. The recommendation orients
these programs to focus on electricity infrastructure resilience--to
include cybersecurity--and gasoline prices.
Finally, on Yucca Mountain, our recommendation includes $25 million
to sustain the program, along with similar language as last year's
prohibiting activities which keep that facility from being usable in
the future. It also includes support for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to get that Yucca license application finally finished. No
funding is included for requested activities to move past the Yucca
Mountain repository program. If and when Congress authorizes changes to
the program of record, the committee will consider funding for
alternatives.
Mr. Chairman, this bill recognizes our fiscal realities and makes the
tough decisions to ensure we get our spending under control without
sacrificing our most critical of Federal functions. I'm expecting a
vigorous and open debate during an open process over the coming days so
all can have a chance to contribute to this legislation.
Before I reserve the balance of my time, I want to thank those who
helped bring this bill on the floor. On the majority side: our clerk,
Rob Blair; Angie Giancarlo; Ben Hammond; Loraine Heckenberg; Perry
Yates; Adam Borrelli. On the minority side: Taunja Berquam. From our
personal offices, Ms. Kaptur's: Nathan Facey, her deputy chief of
staff; and Ryan Steyer. From my staff: Nancy Fox, my chief of staff;
and Katie Hazlett.
All of these individuals and others behind the scenes make this
process work, one that we can be proud of, and I think we have a bill
that, indeed, we can be proud of.
I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H4233]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY13.001
[[Page H4234]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY13.002
[[Page H4235]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY13.003
[[Page H4236]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY13.004
[[Page H4237]]
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate Chairman Frelinghuysen's able and collegial leadership
throughout this process and efforts to assemble a bill in an inclusive
manner in our subcommittee. I also want to say what a pleasure it was
to work with him, and I wish all subcommittees could work as
effectively.
I want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey for their
efforts to restore a semblance of regular order to this House in
consideration of our appropriations bills, and I want to thank all
members of our subcommittee for their thoughtful deliberation in
considering the best interests of our Nation as they relate to energy
and water development and, importantly, America's nuclear security.
I appreciate the dedication, hard work, and sound judgment of our
committee staff on both sides of the aisle. On the majority committee
staff side: Rob Blair, Ben Hammond, Loraine Heckenberg, Angie
Giancarlo, Perry Yates, and Adam Borrelli. And on the minority
committee staff side: Taunja Berquam; from the Chairman's personal
office, Katie Hazlett and Nancy Fox; and finally my staff, Ryan Steyer,
Nathan Facey, and Steve Fought.
{time} 1400
While Chairman Frelinghuysen's worthy efforts are to be commended in
the highest way, the allocation imposed on our subcommittee by the
Republican leaders of this House, and its Budget Committee, move
America backwards in a global economy where our Nation's future is at
stake.
The Budget Committee's directive to us reminds me of a seafaring
expression: ``If you don't know which way your ship is headed, you're
bound to run aground or die at sea.''
This bill runs America aground. It says to future generations, we'll
risk your lives floating lost at sea. It's simply inadequate to meet
the needs of our Nation.
America's budget deficit spiked because high unemployment, resulting
from Wall Street's abandon and over a decade of war, caused high
unemployment that reduced Federal revenues.
This bill will not embrace the future, nor create the necessary jobs
to reverse that trend and lift up America's working families. Our focus
has to be on the future, on creating jobs and opportunity, with every
single measure that comes before this House.
Foreign energy dependence is our Nation's chief strategic
vulnerability. This bill abandons America's quest for energy
independence, which has the potential to create millions of new jobs.
For every American life lost in pursuit of our Nation's national
security, now dependent on energy imports, I dedicate my work on this
bill today. And I also dedicate my work on the floor in memory of Judge
Francis ``Buddy'' Restivo, a World War II veteran who passed this
weekend, and just a phenomenal citizen of our country.
This bill not only guts funding for alternative energy research and
development, it officially heralds the Republican majority's embrace of
sequestration.
Sequestration is the most vivid symbol of congressional negligence.
With that one dreadful bill, the Republican majority manages not only
to turn its back on energy independence, but also to surrender its
congressional responsibility to manage the budget of our country
responsibly. The majority has waved the white flag.
This year, in the Lake Erie region, we are celebrating the heroics of
Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry, hero of the pivotal battle of Lake Erie
in the War of 1812. Oliver Hazard Perry's motto was ``Don't give up the
ship.''
The majority's motto is ``We just give up.'' We give up trying to
perform our constitutional responsibilities with respect to fiscal
affairs. We give up trying to create the much-needed jobs that will
restore our fiscal footing. We give up trying to help America break
free of its dependence on imported petroleum. We just give up. Let the
mindless sequester be the status quo.
It's no mystery why Congress' approval ratings have hit an all-time
low. This policy is running our economic ship of state aground when we
need full sail ahead.
The allocation for the energy and water bill is $30.4 billion, which
is $4.1 billion below the administration's request and $2.8 billion
below last year's level. There are further allocation cuts beyond even
sequestration levels, resulting in deep and severe reductions made to
important priorities within the bill.
The chairman worked to include resources for many Federal priorities,
including the Corps of Engineers, the Advanced Manufacturing Office,
nuclear safety and cleanup, and the bill also prioritizes some of the
nuclear security programs.
But funding these programs came at the expense of others so vital to
future energy systems for our Nation, including renewable energy, cut
by nearly 60 percent, and advanced energy research at ARPA-E, which
received an 81 percent reduction.
Shortchanging critical energy and infrastructure investments will
slow economic growth and job creation, hindering America's
competitiveness.
Let us look at the water accounts. We must continue to invest in
America. The scope of damage caused by natural disasters like Hurricane
Sandy have laid bare the inadequacies of our water infrastructure.
The Corps of Engineers budget currently has a backlog of authorized
projects in excess of $60 billion from coast to coast. But this bill
continues a steady decline in water resources infrastructure, reducing
the construction account by $304 million from 2013.
Communities across our country will continue to erode as they
experience, firsthand, this decreased investment. The risks illustrated
by the failure of flood control projects that the American people
endured in the wake of Katrina are not gone. Communities across our
country are in desperate need of investment, but this bill shortcuts
that.
Take St. Louis, Missouri, or Sacramento, California, where a levee
break could leave residents with as little as 20 minutes to flee before
the water gets 1 foot deep, are just two examples of major metropolitan
areas where the Corps must work harder and faster toward more
comprehensive protection.
What sense does cleaning up after natural disasters make when
preventive measures could prevent destruction and loss of life?
We should be doing more to build infrastructure and create jobs, not
less. Investments now will yield future benefits that will far outweigh
repayment costs. That is what the Hoover Dam was all about. That is
what our Mississippi River lock and dam system is all about. That is
what electrifying our Nation, rural and urban, was all about, great
visions for a great Nation, not Lilliputian surrender.
On future energy systems, this bill would slash funding for applied
energy research and development by more than half, even as foreign
competition doubles down to develop 21st century technology while
undermining our markets through illegal dumping and intellectual
property theft.
Renewable energy is a vital leg of future energy independence beyond
the fossil fuel age. It will achieve cost competitiveness, but the
question is, which countries will develop and own those technologies?
The United States has spent $2.3 trillion importing foreign petroleum
since 2003, representing thousands and thousands of dollars out of the
pockets of every hardworking American family. These are dollars
diverted not to much-needed American job creation but overseas,
assisting our competitors in developing their economies and their
energy futures. We are ceding millions of jobs and trillions in income
from this country to undemocratic kingdoms far from home.
Wake up, America. Wake up, Congress.
In 2012, every billion dollars of U.S. exports supported nearly 5,000
jobs here at home. But can you imagine what $2.3 trillion in our energy
trade deficit translates into lost jobs in America over the last 10
years?
It's a hemorrhage. Our Republic will not compete in this 21st century
and beyond if we further reduce investments in this area and cede our
energy future to other countries.
Predatory foreign competition in energy poses a real security threat
to our country. I view it as the chief security threat to our country.
I appreciate the chairman's commitment to ensure that technology
developed with taxpayer dollars benefits our Nation first.
[[Page H4238]]
The Department of Energy, however, must do more to ensure that
intellectual property supported by Federal dollars furthers the
interests of the United States economy. And I'm concerned with the
level of funding, but I appreciate the chairman's commitment to
American manufacturing in this bill.
Manufacturing remains one of the most important job drivers in our
economy, and there is little merit in using Federal dollars to foster
technological advances or breakthroughs for products that are not
ultimately made in America and manufactured domestically.
America must do more to reverse the trend of domestic firms shifting
production overseas because, to put it simply, domestic manufacturing
drives domestic innovation and jobs here in America.
Tragically, the science account critical to the competitiveness of
our Nation is reduced by 5 percent from 2012. And, with an 81 percent
reduction, 81 percent reduction in the new ARPA-E program, this bill
would effectively end the most advanced research our Nation can launch.
That is not a formula for success.
We are beginning to see the initial payment from the ARPA-E, which
advances high-potential, high-impact energy technology so advanced it
is too early for private sector investment. Return on investment from
our publicly-funded research and development ranges from 20 to 67
percent. It's a home run.
With this rate of return, Congress should be increasing our
investment in science. This bill moves us exactly in the opposite
direction.
Finally, I remain concerned this bill increases spending for nuclear
weapons upgrades at the expense of nuclear nonproliferation and
cleanup. I support the funding to maintain our nuclear arsenal at
acceptable levels, and I appreciate the efforts to improve program and
project management, including the reporting requirement on Life
Extension Programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration.
However, nonproliferation programs are on the front lines of our
defense. They are the most cost-effective way to achieve the urgent
goal of securing and reducing the amount of vulnerable bomb-grade
material. But this bill cuts these critical efforts by $559 million.
What sense does that make?
Further, I am concerned that the funding the bill includes for
environmental management activities is insufficient to meet the Federal
Government's legal obligations to clean up its defense nuclear waste.
In sum, this bill should achieve critical investments in our country.
It fails to do so. It should promote job creation. It fails to do so.
It should ensure national energy security and national security. It
fails to do so. It should protect and promote vital infrastructure. It
fails to do so. And it should advance American competitiveness, and it
fails to do so.
Unfortunately, Republicans on the Budget Committee continue to push
the outrageous notion that we can balance our budget through cuts to
non-defense discretionary spending, which accounts for only 17 percent
of Federal spending. In so doing, they harm America's future in a very
major way.
Again, I commend the chairman's effort, however the allocation for
this bill is insufficient and irresponsible and I cannot, in good
conscience, support it.
It is my firm hope that the committee will be provided a workable
path toward the fiscal 2014 appropriation bills, and I look forward to
the day we will return allocations to acceptable levels and to working
with the chairman to draft a bill worthy of support.
Let me, before reserving the balance of my time, read that quote
right up there above the Speaker's rostrum.
Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its
powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great
interests, and see whether we also, in our day and
generation, may not perform something worthy to be
remembered.
That is our charge in this bill, and this bill fails.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Lowey), our very able ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Well, I first want to thank the chair, and I appreciate
your important work on this bill. And I would like to thank the
chairman of the full committee, and the ranking member, for your
leadership and for your eloquent statement on this bill. It has been a
pleasure for me to work with you, and I thank you so very much.
I rise in strong opposition to this woefully inadequate bill. With an
allocation of $30.4 billion, $2.8 billion less than the FY 2013 enacted
level, when adjusted for Sandy reconstruction, and a little more than
$4 billion below the request, the consequences of following the
majority's budget are crystal clear: the erosion of America's high-tech
and scientific workforce, the loss of clean and renewable energy
breakthroughs to countries like China, the abandonment of communities
along our Nation's coastlines and waterways.
And with an 81 percent reduction in ARPA-E and a 60 percent, or $700
million, reduction to energy efficiency, renewable energy and energy
delivery and reliability programs compared to last year, this bill will
leave our scientific and technological workforce ill-equipped to tackle
the great challenges of our time. Such drastic cuts will force the
Federal Government to withdraw critical support for clean energy and
renewable investments on the cusp of their maturity.
{time} 1415
These funding levels will inflict great pain on the American people,
who will be left jobless with the exportation of America's clean energy
and innovation economy to China and other foreign competitors.
The consequence of allowing our competitors to gain ground is already
evident. Last month, China's newest supercomputer, which was built
almost entirely from Chinese parts, was deemed the fastest in the
world, clocking in about twice as fast as the best American machine. If
supercomputing is a measure of our scientific innovation, we are losing
badly.
This bill also dramatically underinvests by $300 million below last
year in our Nation's water resource infrastructure, leaving homes,
businesses, and communities vulnerable to damage from natural disasters
like Superstorm Sandy. This decrease would compound prior cuts in 2011,
2012, and 2013, totaling $769 million, of which $688 million was cut
from the Army Corps' construction account for projects we all know need
to be done. Over 300 projects were suspended between 2011 and 2012. Are
we going to abandon these projects forever? As a Member whose district
was affected by Hurricane Sandy, I can attest that prevention is
cheaper and smarter than paying for reconstruction later.
Additionally, decreasing investments in water infrastructure inhibits
construction job creation, and local businesses and individuals will
not reap the indirect economic benefits that encourages critical
investments in their communities.
It is my firm hope that the majority will recognize that this bill
does not provide a workable path forward and return to the spending
levels agreed to under the Budget Control Act. To do otherwise is to
purposely undermine efforts to support American job creation and
economic growth.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California, Representative Bera.
Mr. BERA of California. I rise today to applaud the committee for
addressing a critical issue not just to my own hometown but to our
Nation.
Most know Sacramento as the capital of the Golden State. What many
don't know is that the Sacramento region, which sits at the confluence
of the Sacramento and American Rivers, where they converge near the bay
delta, has the second highest flood risk in the United States. Only New
Orleans is at greater risk for flooding. And we know what happened in
Hurricane Katrina.
The Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project is vital to protecting the
region from disaster. We must continue
[[Page H4239]]
to fund these improvements to take pressure off our overburdened levees
and keep people who work and live in the region safe. A flood in
Sacramento would be devastating to the 1.4 million residents in our
metropolitan area. The flood risk could result in closures of
evacuation routes like Interstate 5 and Interstate 80, a shutdown of
our international airport, and destruction of homes and hospitals, not
to mention the irreversible tragic loss of life. Additionally, flooding
could result in billions of dollars in potential damage, and it could
take weeks or months to pump the water out of the region.
Another area of crucial importance that I hope this body will soon
address is the Sacramento-American River levee system. Many of the
levees in my area date from the 1870s, when farmers began building
nearly 1,100 miles of protection around the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta to control floodwaters and create farmland. Today, these levees
are in desperate need of critical repair to help prevent a catastrophic
disaster.
We all witnessed the devastation caused by Superstorm Sandy this past
November. However, unlike a slow-moving hurricane, a breach of the
levees could occur with little or no warning. In fact, Robert Bea,
professor of engineering at the University of California, Berkeley,
warns:
In terms of damage, deaths, and long-term costs, a rupture
in the delta levees would be far more destructive than what
happened in Hurricane Katrina. This is a ticking bomb.
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. BERA of California. In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
declared a state of emergency for California's levees. He signed an
executive order directing agencies to identify, evaluate, and repair
the levees. The citizens in Natomas levied themselves a tax; and
they've already paid, along with the State of California, for 35
percent of the work. But we now need this body to allocate the rest to
keep our region safe.
As the ranking member said, it is better to prevent a catastrophe
than wait for that tragic loss of life. Addressing vital projects like
the Sacramento-American River levees is crucial. It's what we should be
doing. It puts people to work. It is time for us to come together as a
body and get America working again and fund vital projects like the
Sacramento-American River levees.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California, Representative Janice Hahn.
Ms. HAHN. I'm disappointed that, once again, we're shortchanging
American ports, businesses, and consumers by failing to fully utilize
the receipts and surplus of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund on our
ports.
When our ports aren't well maintained, when we fail to support their
infrastructure and their dredging, we threaten more than $3 trillion of
economic output and over 13 million jobs. American consumers face
higher costs and American businesses have a harder time competing
globally.
Decades ago, Congress created a tax on the value of the goods
imported through our ports to ensure that no American port would suffer
underdredging. Yet, for years, Congress has failed to fully use the
receipts of this tax on keeping our ports in good order. It has gotten
so bad that the American Association of Port Authorities estimates that
the full channel dimensions of our Nation's ports and harbors are
available less than 35 percent of the time. Ships are constantly forced
to light load or wait for high tide to enter U.S. harbors. Those
inefficiencies and added costs ripple all the way back to the wallets
of average Americans. I don't think it's right to make Americans pay
for a tax and pay again for our failure to use that tax that we
promised.
We may be increasing the amount of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
we are spending on ports in this bill, but it still $700 million less
than what our ports are owed. By the start of FY 2015, we will owe our
ports nearly $9 billion that should have gone to investments in our
ports that would create jobs and keep us globally competitive. We can't
wait anymore. We need to fully utilize the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund as soon as possible.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, may I ask if the ranking member, Ms.
Kaptur, is prepared to close.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, we have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, the Energy and Water Subcommittee is to be
commended for its efforts to present a more balanced and reasoned
approach to America's energy needs, particularly with respect to
numerous provisions that recognize coal's key role in our Nation's
energy supply. I strongly support, for example, provisions in the bill
that would block agency efforts to redefine fill and jurisdictional
waters of the United States--both of which would have severe
consequences for coal mining in my home state.
I am grateful to the Subcommittee for providing $450 million for
Fossil Energy Research and Development at the Department of Energy--a
figure that is $20 million above the President's request. That bump up
represents the realization that coal is and will continue to be a vital
part of America's energy portfolio throughout the foreseeable future.
It is particularly significant given the overall budgetary constraints
with which the Appropriations Committee is confronted and against the
backdrop of anti-coal political fervor that seems to have taken hold in
much of Washington these days.
As much as I welcome this additional funding, I feel it important to
make the case for even more funding for coal research and development.
Just this week, in testimony before the Committee on Natural Resources,
a representative for the Institute for Energy Research noted that coal
continues to be an abundant domestic energy resource; that it provides
more than 40 percent of energy production worldwide; and that other
nations--including China and Germany--are ramping up coal-fired
electricity generation. In fact, according to the Energy Information
Administration, coal use in China has grown by 40 percent over the last
decade.
However much the legions of wishful thinkers believe they can merely
fantasize coal away, coal is real, it is here, and its use is on the
rise globally.
Given that truth--one thing that coal supporters and coal opponents
ought to agree on is that we should continue pursuing every avenue to
find more and better ways to burn coal more cleanly and efficiently.
Through the fossil energy program, public-private partnerships have led
to huge improvements in the efficiency of coal power as well as
dramatic reductions in the environmental effects of burning coal.
I believe that effort ought to continue and that the United States
ought to continue leading that effort, but to do that we need to fund
research and development robustly and better position our Nation to
shape worldwide energy advances.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment who has
caused it to be printed in the designated place in the Congressional
Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2609
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for energy and water
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2014, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Corps of Engineers--civil
The following appropriations shall be expended under the
direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of
the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the
Department of the Army pertaining to river and harbor, flood
and storm damage reduction, shore protection, aquatic
ecosystem restoration, and related efforts.
investigations
For expenses necessary where authorized by law for the
collection and study of basic information pertaining to river
and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore
protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related needs;
for surveys and detailed studies, and plans and
specifications of proposed river and harbor, flood and storm
damage reduction, shore protection, and aquatic ecosystem
restoration, projects and related efforts prior to
construction; for restudy of authorized projects; and for
miscellaneous
[[Page H4240]]
investigations, and, when authorized by law, surveys and
detailed studies, and plans and specifications of projects
prior to construction, $90,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
construction
For expenses necessary for the construction of river and
harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection,
aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects
authorized by law; for conducting detailed studies, and plans
and specifications, of such projects (including those
involving participation by States, local governments, or
private groups) authorized or made eligible for selection by
law (but such detailed studies, and plans and specifications,
shall not constitute a commitment of the Government to
construction), $1,343,000,000, to remain available until
expended; of which such sums as are necessary to cover the
Federal share of construction costs for facilities under the
Dredged Material Disposal Facilities program shall be derived
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as authorized by
Public Law 104-303; and of which such sums as are necessary
to cover one-half of the costs of construction, replacement,
rehabilitation, and expansion of inland waterways projects
shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.
mississippi river and tributaries
For expenses necessary for flood damage reduction projects
and related efforts in the Mississippi River alluvial valley
below Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as authorized by law,
$249,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such sums as are necessary to cover the Federal share of
eligible operation and maintenance costs for inland harbors
shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
operation and maintenance
For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and
care of existing river and harbor, flood and storm damage
reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related
projects authorized by law; providing security for
infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, including
administrative buildings and laboratories; maintaining harbor
channels provided by a State, municipality, or other public
agency that serve essential navigation needs of general
commerce, where authorized by law; surveying and charting
northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters;
clearing and straightening channels; and removing
obstructions to navigation, $2,682,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which such sums as are necessary
to cover the Federal share of eligible operation and
maintenance costs for coastal harbors and channels, and for
inland harbors shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund; of which such sums as become available from the
special account for the Corps of Engineers established by the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 shall be derived
from that account for resource protection, research,
interpretation, and maintenance activities related to
resource protection in the areas at which outdoor recreation
is available; and of which such sums as become available from
fees collected under section 217 of Public Law 104-303 shall
be used to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of the
dredged material disposal facilities for which such fees have
been collected: Provided, That 1 percent of the total amount
of funds provided for each of the programs, projects or
activities funded under this heading shall not be allocated
to a field operating activity prior to the beginning of the
fourth quarter of the fiscal year and shall be available for
use by the Chief of Engineers to fund such emergency
activities as the Chief of Engineers determines to be
necessary and appropriate, and that the Chief of Engineers
shall allocate during the fourth quarter any remaining funds
which have not been used for emergency activities
proportionally in accordance with the amounts provided for
the programs, projects, or activities.
regulatory program
For expenses necessary for administration of laws
pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands,
$193,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015.
formerly utilized sites remedial action program
For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites
in the United States resulting from work performed as part of
the Nation's early atomic energy program, $104,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
flood control and coastal emergencies
For expenses necessary to prepare for flood, hurricane, and
other natural disasters and support emergency operations,
repairs, and other activities in response to such disasters
as authorized by law, $28,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
expenses
For expenses necessary for the supervision and general
administration of the civil works program in the headquarters
of the Corps of Engineers and the offices of the Division
Engineers; and for costs of management and operation of the
Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Institute for
Water Resources, the United States Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers Finance Center allocable to the civil works
program, $182,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2015, of which not to exceed $5,000 may be used for
official reception and representation purposes and only
during the current fiscal year: Provided, That no part of any
other appropriation provided in this title shall be available
to fund the civil works activities of the Office of the Chief
of Engineers or the civil works executive direction and
management activities of the division offices: Provided
further, That any Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
appropriation may be used to fund the supervision and general
administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other
activities in response to any flood, hurricane, or other
natural disaster.
office of the assistant secretary of the army for civil works
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works as authorized by 10 U.S.C. 3016(b)(3),
$5,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015.
administrative provision
The Revolving Fund, Corps of Engineers, shall be available
during the current fiscal year for purchase (not to exceed
100 for replacement only) and hire of passenger motor
vehicles for the civil works program.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 101. (a) None of the funds provided in this title
shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or
activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project,
or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this
Act;
(4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a
specific program, project, or activity by this Act;
(5) increases funds for any program, project, or activity
by more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
(6) reduces funds for any program, project, or activity by
more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less.
(b) Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any project or
activity authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control
Act of 1948, section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946,
section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954, section 107 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1960, section 103 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1962, section 111 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1968, section 1135 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986, section 206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996, or section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992.
(c) The Corps of Engineers shall submit reports on a
quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate detailing all the
funds reprogrammed between programs, projects, activities, or
categories of funding. The first quarterly report shall be
submitted not later than 60 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. In looking at our bill and looking at some of the
accounts, especially for the energy and water accounts and the general
provisions, there was an excellent article in this week's International
Herald Tribune. It talks about sound investments. I will read portions
of it very briefly here. It talks about how the rate of economic growth
in Germany is surpassing our own just now, and the unemployment rate as
a result has dropped to 5.3 percent, and falling further--much lower
than in the United States. It investigates why that is the case. It
talks quite a bit here about the German economy having made investments
whose future benefits will far outweigh repayment costs. This bill and
its accounts, essentially, should be doing that; but, unfortunately, it
cuts back on some of the most significant job growth.
The article goes on to say that the U.S. economy is still in
doldrums. And that's because many of the needed workers and machines
are now idle. If the country waits, it will need to bid them away from
other tasks. Also, because of the sluggish economy, the materials
required for the work are now relatively inexpensive. So this is really
the time to encourage investment in our economy to lift the entire
system.
The article goes on to talk about the fact that in Germany there had
been certain austerity backers, they call them, and it says:
Now austerity backers urge--preposterously--that
infrastructure repairs be postponed until government budgets
are in balance. But would they also tell an indebted family
to postpone fixing a leaky roof until it paid off all of its
debts? Not only would the repair grow more costly with the
delay, but the water damage would mount in the interim.
Families should pay off debts, yes, but not in ways that
actually increase their indebtedness in the longer term.
[[Page H4241]]
I found this article particularly instructive as we move amendments
to the floor and move this bill forward.
In the article it says:
Austerity advocates object that more deficit spending now
will burden grandchildren with crushing debt. That might be
true if the proposal were to build bigger houses and stage
more lavish parties with borrowed money.
But, in fact, the dollars were being invested in the nation in
projects that were creating opportunity and infrastructure that would
advance the worth of the nation in decades hence.
{time} 1430
So I think that we ought to think about this as we proceed title by
title in this bill and ask ourselves the question why it is that many
of the important accounts, such as the Corps of Engineers--and several
of our speakers today have referenced those--has been cut by $104
million compared to this year's enacted level and falls far short of
the investments that we need in one of the fundamentals in the country,
and that is in water systems.
Madam Chair, I will place this article in the Record from the
International Herald Tribune.
I also want to point out and place in the Record some of the severe
cutbacks in this bill with more specificity:
The Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, and Efficiency account is
$971 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $1.96 billion less
than the President's request;
The Department of Energy Office of Science is $223 million less than
2013's enacted level and $499.8 million less than the President's
request;
The Advanced Research Projects Agency is $215 million less than the
2013 enacted level and $329 million less than the President's request;
The funding for environmental cleanup is $243 million less than the
2013 enacted level and $133 million less than the President's request;
The Nuclear Nonproliferation account is $334 million less than the
2013 enacted level and $40 million less than the President's request;
In terms of the Army Corps of Engineers, it is $104 million less than
the 2013 enacted level;
In the water resources projects within the Department of the
Interior, there is a $104 million reduction less than the 2013 enacted
level and $85 million less than the President's request.
So when we think about the cumulative impact of it, it is just
extraordinary. And I will place this data in the Record as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[From the Global Edition of the New York Times, July 6-7, 2013]
When Debt Is a Sound Investment
(By Robert H. Frank)
I recently spent a week in Berlin, where the entire city
seemed under construction. In every direction, cranes and
other heavy equipment dominated the landscape. Although many
projects are in the private sector, innumerable others--
including bridge and highway repairs, new subway stations,
and other infrastructure work are financed by taxpayers.
But wait. Hasn't Germany been one of the most outspoken
advocates of fiscal austerity after the financial crisis?
Yes, and that's not a contradiction. Fiscally responsible
businesses routinely borrow to invest, and, until recently,
so did most governments.
Lately, however, fears about growing government debt have
caused wholesale cuts in U.S. public investment. The Germans,
of course, yield to no one in their distaste for
indebtedness. But they also understand the distinction
between consumption and investment. By borrowing, they have
made investments whose future benefits will far outweigh
repayment costs. There's nothing foolhardy about that.
The German experience suggests how Americans might move
past the stalled debate about economic stimulus policy. In
the aftermath of the financial crisis, the policy discussion
began with economists in broad agreement that unemployment
remained high because total spending was too low. Keynesian
stimulus proponents argued that temporary tax cuts and
additional government spending would bolster hiring.
Austerity advocates countered that additional government
spending would merely displace private spending and that
Americans already had too much debt in any event. And the
debate has languished there.
A preponderance of evidence suggests that Keynes was right.
But as the German experience illustrates, progress is
possible without settling that question. The Germans are
investing in infrastructure, not to provide short-term
economic stimulus, but because those investments promise high
returns. Yet their undeniable side effect has been to bolster
employment substantially in the short run.
Not all German public investments have met expectations.
Berlin's new consolidated airport, for example, has
experienced several delays and cost overruns, and parts of
the city's recently constructed central rail station will be
closed this autumn for major repairs. But private investment
projects undergo occasional setbacks, too, and no one argues
that businesses should stop investing on that account.
The Germans didn't become bogged down in a debate over
stimulus policy, and they didn't explicitly portray their
infrastructure push as stimulus. But that didn't hamper their
strategy's remarkable effectiveness at putting people to
work. The unemployment rate in Germany, at 5.3 percent and
falling, is now substantially lower than that in the United
States, where it ticked up to 7.6 percent in May and held
there in June. (By contrast, in March 2007, before the
financial crisis, the rate in Germany was 9.2 percent, about
five percentage points higher than what it had been in the
United States.)
A prudent investment is one whose future returns exceed its
costs--includIng interest costs, if the money is borrowed.
Opportunities meeting that standard abound in the
infrastructure domain. According to the American Society of
Civil Engineers, the United States has a backlog of about
$3.6 trillion in overdue infrastructure maintenance. No one
in Congress seriously proposes that the country just abandon
crumbling roads and bridges, and everyone agrees that the
repair cost will grow sharply the longer we wait.
The case for accelerated infrastructure investment becomes
more compelling with the U.S. economy still in the doldrums.
That is because many of the needed workers and machines are
now idle. If the country waits, it will need to bid them away
from other tasks. Also because of the sluggish economy, the
materials required for the work are now relatively
inexpensive. If the country waits, they will cost more. And
long-term interest rates for the money to pay for the work
continue to hover near record lows. They, too, will be higher
if the country waits.
Austerity advocates object that more deficit spending now
will burden grandchildren with crushing debt. That might be
true if the proposal were to build bigger houses and stage
more lavish parties with borrowed money--as Americans, in
fact, were doing in the first half of the past decade. But
the objection makes no sense when applied to long-overdue
infrastructure repairs. A failure to undertake that spending
will gratuitously burden the country's grandchildren.
In 2009, austerity proponents in the United States argued
against stimulus, predicting that the economy would recover
quickly and spontaneously. It didn't. Later, they said the
country tried stimulus and it didn't work. But in the face of
a projected $2 trillion shortfall in the spending needed for
full employment, Congress enacted a stimulus bill totaling
only $787 billion, spread over three years. And much of that
injection was offset by cuts in state and local government
spending.
Now austerity backers urge--preposterously--that
infrastructure repairs be postponed until government budgets
are in balance. But would they also tell an indebted family
to postpone fixing a leaky roof until it paid off all its
debts? Not only would the repair grow more costly with the
delay, but the water damage would mount in the interim.
Families should pay off debts, yes, but not in ways that
actually increase their indebtedness in the longer term.
Austerity advocates, who have been wrong at virtually every
turn, are unlikely to change their minds about stimulus
policy. But with continued slow growth in the outlook, it's
time to re-frame the debate. The best available option, by
far, is to rebuild tattered infrastructure at fire-sale
prices. If the austerity crowd disagrees, it should explain
why in plain English.
Highlights of 2014 Energy & Water Appropriations Act
2014 mark: $30.426 billion.
2014 budget request: $34.483 billion.
2013 enacted (including Sandy reconstruction): $36.744
billion.
2013 enacted (excluding Sandy reconstruction): $33.240
billion.
The 2014 Energy & Water Appropriations Act would provide:
$982.6 million for Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability,
and Efficiency (not including a $157 million rescission to
2013 funding), which is $971 million less than the 2013
enacted level and $1.96 billion less than the President's
request for the same activities.
$4.653 billion for the Department of Energy Office of
Science, which is $223 million less than the 2013 enacted
level and $499.8 million less than the President's request.
$50 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--
Energy (ARPA--E), which is $215 million less than the 2013
enacted level and $329 million less than the President's
request.
$5.5 billion for environmental cleanup activities, which is
$243 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $133
million less than the President's request.
$7.675 billion for Weapons Activities (not including a $142
million rescission), which is $97.7 million more than the
2013 enacted level and $193.4 million less than the
President's request.
$2.1 billion for Nuclear Nonproliferation (not including a
$20 million rescission), which is $334 million less than the
2013 enacted level and $40 million less than the
[[Page H4242]]
President's request. The House bill also includes $245
million in activities previously appropriated within the
weapons account, as requested by the Administration.
$1.109 billion for Naval Reactors, which is $29 million
more than the 2013 enacted level and $137.1 million less than
the President's request.
$4.876 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers (not
including a $200 million rescission), which is $104 million
less than the 2013 enacted level and $50 million more than
the President's request.
$965 million for water resources projects within the
Department of Interior, which is $104 million less than the
2013 enacted level and $85 million less than the President's
request.
Sequestration Impact on Energy & Water Accounts
This bill fails to address the sequester, ensuring it will
harm our ability to meet energy and water needs next year, on
top of the following impacts that are already taking hold.
Forgone hiring by Department of Energy of 300 full-time
employees; reduced contractor labor by estimated 1,200
employee-years through furloughs, layoffs, and hiring
deferrals; furlough of approximately 60 employee-years
affecting approximately 3,600 contractor employees; and
layoff or voluntary separation of more than 300 contractor
employees.
Severe cuts to renewable energy and efficiency research,
including $16 million from advanced vehicle technologies, $14
million from solar energy, $10 million from biofuels, $5
million from wind, $3 million from hydropower, $3 million
from weatherization assistance, and $5 million from
electrical grid modernization.
Cuts to Office of Science delaying or cancelling laboratory
construction, maintenance, and upgrades; and reducing math,
computing, physics, atmospheric, and cytogenics research at
labs and universities around the country.
Cuts to Environmental Management resulting in furloughs,
terminated activity and forgone work at Hanford Site (WA),
Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge Reservation (TN),
Savannah River Site (GA), and Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(NM).
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chair, I rise to commend the Committee on
Appropriations for its leadership in resolving the nuclear waste issue.
This is certainly a very crucial issue for all Americans.
Last year, I would remind us that the House voted 326-81 in favor of
the Shimkus amendment to increase the bill's funding for Yucca Mountain
license review. This year, the committee has once again reflected the
will of the House not just by funding the license review, but also
providing the Department of Energy the authority to transfer funds to
the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It's my understanding that
this provision gives both DOE and the NRC the flexibility to make sure
that the Yucca Mountain licensing case gets optimum resources, where
needed, to make real progress in meeting our Nation's need for a safe
repository to isolate our spent nuclear fuel and high-level defense
waste.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The gentleman from Michigan is correct: the
Department of Energy would have the flexibility to transfer funds, as
needed, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission either from funds
appropriated in our bill or from funds previously appropriated for this
purpose that remain unspent. This language would also allow the
Department of Energy to reprogram funds and subsequently transfer them
to the NRC for this purpose, if necessary, to ensure that no one could
claim that access to adequate funds is a barrier to completing the
review of the Yucca Mountain license application.
Mr. UPTON. Well, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. This approach
really does build on last year's momentum to get the job done.
Consumers and taxpayers have paid over $15 billion--that's ``b'' as
in ``big''--to find out whether Yucca Mountain would be a safe
repository for civilian spent nuclear fuel and defense nuclear waste.
They deserve an answer, yes, they do; and under this bill, they're
going to get one.
I commend all the members of the Appropriations Committee for this.
And I would urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this appropriation bill
for FY 2014 so that we can make additional resources available to
perform the critical work.
I yield again to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would
also like to recognize his leadership on this issue as the chairman of
the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He has worked hard with his
colleagues to ensure that the will of the people is heard. The
administration must apply the law that Congress already enacted and get
this job done.
We look forward to working with the gentleman to get this
appropriation enacted and to get this license wrapped up at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
Mr. UPTON. I just want to say again, I want to compliment you and
your staff. This has been a major issue for us for a good number of
years, something that needs to get done. I look forward to continuing
that strong relationship as we look to the future.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, the dispatch with which the committee
has moved forward made it not possible for me to offer the amendment
that I was going to offer formally, but I just intend to deal with the
issue very briefly for the committee and look forward to trying to work
with the committee going forward.
Six years ago, in section 2032 of WRDA 2007, Congress directed the
President to issue a report describing the vulnerability of the United
States to damage from flooding. In addition to examining the risk to
public health and property, Congress instructed the President to
undertake an assessment of existing programs to address flooding, the
effectiveness of those programs, and recommendations about how to
improve them. Unfortunately, despite almost daily reminders that we see
about flooding in the news, this report has yet to be written.
The President has requested funding for this study in its annual
budget requests for the Corps of Engineers. The fiscal year 2014 budget
calls this study a ``high priority evaluation of the Nation's
vulnerability to inland and coastal flooding and of the effectiveness,
efficiency, and accountability of existing programs and strategies.'' I
agree. And the amendment that I would have offered would seek to
provide funding for the Corps to finally undertake the study.
The need is clear. Flooding is America's most common natural
disaster. From 2002 to 2011, total flood insurance claims averaged more
than $2.9 billion a year. Last month, a new FEMA report indicated that
rising sea levels and increasingly severe weather are expected to
increase the areas of the United States at risk by 45 percent by the
end of this century.
The Federal Government, led by FEMA and the Corps of Engineers, plays
a significant role in flood damage reduction and emergency response.
Reducing flood damage is one of the core missions of the Corps. It
builds levees, floodwalls, shore protection projects, and restores
natural floodplains. However, our current understanding of the actions
necessary to reduce vulnerability to flooding and, therefore, reduce
the amount that we spend to respond to flooding is lacking.
If we could do this report, it would be very helpful. The Corps of
Engineers spent $1.5 billion annually on flood control activities for
the last decade, and Congress has provided over $26 billion in
additional supplemental appropriations responding to flooding and other
natural disasters over the same period.
Despite massive expenditures on flood control, flood damages have
increased at alarming rates. Long-term average flood damages are more
than double what they were earlier this century. Obviously, we're not
doing everything right.
The cost of this study would only be $1 million. The Investigations
program is being funded at $90 million. In order to reduce government
spending, we need to know how much money we are continuing to throw at
projects that may or may not help.
I would hope that we could work with the committee to make sure that
we have the best information available before the Corps commits to even
more projects. I would hope that we could work to make sure that this
comes to
[[Page H4243]]
pass. It will make the job of the committee easier and will make a
difference for Americans across the country.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 102. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to award or modify any contract that commits
funds beyond the amounts appropriated for that program,
project, or activity that remain unobligated, except that
such amounts may include any funds that have been made
available through reprogramming pursuant to section 101.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. The rapidity with which this process is moving, we
might be dealing with the Transportation rather than the Energy and
Water appropriations; therefore, my amendment apparently passed without
an opportunity to present it.
We just heard our colleague from Oregon speak to the issue of
flooding. I represent 200 miles of the Sacramento River, yet this bill
ignores the need for this Congress to protect human life. This bill
spends $7.67 billion on nuclear weapons and cuts the money for levee
protection.
Human life is at risk in my district, and yet this bill ignores the
reality of flooding. When a flood occurs in my district, it's not in
the summertime; it is not warm water. It is very, very cold water and
thousands of lives are at risk. Yet the majority cannot seem to find
the money necessary to protect human life, but plenty of money for
nuclear weapons. Is this the priority, $7.6 billion for nuclear weapons
and not enough money to protect the lives of the citizens of this
Nation from real danger, real floods? It's really going to happen,
gentlemen and ladies of the majority.
The Corps of Engineers' budget is decimated, and for the last 3 years
we have not been able to get one new project even though human life is
at risk. Is that the priority? Apparently, human life is not.
Projects in my district: the Hamilton project for the last 3 years
has been in the President's budget, yet no New START prohibitions place
us in a dangerous situation in my district. Apparently, we need more
nuclear weapons but not more levees. Is that the majority's position?
$7.6 billion for nuclear weapons, and not enough for a $15 million
project to protect the citizens of Hamilton City. You should be ashamed
that that's your priority.
This particular appropriation bill is an abomination. It is a
disgrace. It is a representation of the wrong priorities. But yet
that's what you want to do. I suppose if this had not been a railroad
and you weren't moving things so fast, I would have had an amendment
opportunity to simply say that New START vital to the life and well-
being of citizens in this Nation should be in this bill, but I didn't
have a chance to do that because of the railroad you're operating here.
Run it as you will, but at the end of the day there will be human
life at stake, at risk, and, quite likely--quite likely--floods in the
200 miles of the Sacramento River and its tributary that I represent.
This is wrongheaded. This is wrong. Your priorities could not be
worse. You should be ashamed that this is the priority you put. Levees
will not be built. Human life will be at risk. But, presumably, that's
what you want.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. I wonder, for those that don't come from your part of the
country, Congressman Garamendi, talk about what it's like to face that
possibility of nonrepair of the facilities that you are discussing.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their comments
through the Chair.
Mr. GARAMENDI. I would be happy to address my comments through the
Chair.
Madam Chair, the priorities that are in this bill are dead wrong.
Natomas in Sacramento, 20-foot potential water in the wintertime, with
the water temperature somewhere in the 40 to 50 degree range, perhaps
human life can last 10 minutes--maybe--but that's the priority.
Hamilton City, the same situation. Yuba City, Marysville, the same
situation. A winter storm in California and a levee break is deadly.
This is not New Orleans, where you can stay in the water for a few
hours. This is cold water temperature. And yet, Madam Chair, the
majority's position is to build more nuclear weapons and not to build
levees.
{time} 1445
When the flood occurs, and it will, what will happen? Could we not
take $100 million out of the nuclear weapons account and put it into
the levees account in the Army Corps of Engineers? Apparently not.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of the Energy and
Water appropriations bill on the floor, which I think appropriately
reflects the need to spend taxpayer dollars responsibly in light of our
current budgetary problems.
Total funding in this bill represents a decrease of $2.9 billion
below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and $700 million below the
post-sequester level. While funding is reduced, this bill still
provides critical resources for important projects and programs that
ensure our Nation continues to have access to affordable, reliable, and
clean water and energy.
The bill also provides much-needed funding for our country's flood
control projects that are constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
My own district, California's 42nd District, is home to the Santa Ana
River Mainstem project, which is one of the largest Corps projects west
of the Mississippi River. I am pleased that the Corps and the Energy
and Water Subcommittee continue to recognize the project's importance
to providing adequate flood protection to the southern California
region.
Additionally, in southern California, we recently lost 2,200
megawatts of power generation with the permanent shutdown of the San
Onofre nuclear power plant. A significant generation shutdown of this
nature creates tremendous uncertainty for ratepayers through our
region.
Of course, energy production challenges are by no means exclusive to
southern California. That is exactly why the energy programs funded in
this bill are necessary. I am particularly pleased that our
subcommittee has funded energy programs by taking an all-of-the-above
approach that includes renewable, nuclear, and fossil fuels.
Americans rightfully expect affordable access to clean, affordable,
and reliable energy and water. As a member of the Energy and Water
Subcommittee, I believe we have done our best to meet those
expectations with this bill, and I encourage all of my colleagues to
support the bill.
In closing, I just want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Frelinghuysen,
as well as Chairman Rogers, for their leadership and crafting a good,
responsible bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I would just like to raise an issue here with
the amount of money in this bill that we are appropriating for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers construction account. I have heard several of
my colleagues here speak earlier on individual projects in their
districts that affect their constituencies, and I am totally in
agreement with that on both sides of the aisle.
But I do want to acknowledge the priority that should be recognized
in this bill, and that is recognizing the impacts of these large
coastal storms. I happen to represent the port of Boston and the
community south of Boston along the south shore; a beautiful area that
has a great number of towns with great history there. While they were
not affected to the degree that New York and New Jersey were during
Hurricane Sandy--Superstorm Sandy--a lot of their infrastructure was
damaged
[[Page H4244]]
to the point of near collapse. So there is a great need for seawall
reconstruction. They withstood that impact. They did the job that they
were intended to do at the time that they were constructed. But I feel
that this bill in its current form continues to undermine the ability
of the Army Corps of Engineers to keep pace with the needed maintenance
and reconstruction of our infrastructure.
I just want to call to mind the whole initiative here and what our
priorities should be. We are, in many cases across the country, the
beneficiaries of people who came before us and made the necessary
investments in infrastructure. They saw the need, and we today, and up
to today, have enjoyed a competitive advantage against some of our
international neighbors because our infrastructure is there.
There is a definite increase in the number of these catastrophic
storms. It seems like in my area we have 100-year storms every 3 or 4
years now. There is definitely something going on with climate change
and the intensity of these storms.
It seems appropriate that we try to recognize the need here. I notice
we are putting an awful lot of money into fossil fuel research and not
nearly enough money to recognize the impact that climate change has
already had on a lot of our coastal areas. We should be reinvesting in
that infrastructure so that we are not faced with the total collapse
that we saw in New York and New Jersey with Superstorm Sandy.
I just would call on my colleagues across the aisle in a request for
bipartisanship and for recognizing the long-term interests of Americans
across the country, Democrats and Republicans, and making sure that we
use a commonsense approach in this bill. I think that we are off course
with respect to the defunding of the construction account for the Army
Corps of Engineers, not just for my district--I'm not saying that just
for the communities that I represent who do have considerable need
because of recent storms--I'm talking about all across the country. I'm
talking about Republican districts as well as Democratic districts.
We have a wonderful organization here in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. They do fantastic jobs. We get more than our money's worth.
We put $1 into the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and we get $5 back or
$7 back, depending on the project. I think it is just wise stewardship
to make sure they have the resources necessary to perform the
reconstruction in some cases and maintenance in other cases of the
seawalls along the east and west coast to make sure that we are indeed
prepared for these storms that are inevitably coming.
I have an amendment later on at the appropriate time in this bill
where I will be asking for additional money for the construction
account of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Chair, this is a fiscally responsible bill. It
cuts $2.9 billion below the fiscal year 2013 enacted level and it is
$4.1 billion below the President's request. That is an impressive
achievement working in this very difficult fiscal environment that we
are in today.
What I really find impressive about the bill and the work that's been
done by the subcommittee chairman and the chairman and the
Appropriations Committee is the fact that this bill sets some very good
priorities. In fact, there is $2 billion for navigation projects and
studies to advance American competitiveness in our ability to export,
which is critical for growth in the U.S. economy.
It includes $1 billion of appropriation from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund. This is a record level. This is $200 million more than what
we saw in fiscal year 2013, something that is absolutely critical,
because we know that our Federal ports, our harbors, are essential if
we are going to be able to ship goods overseas. Getting the dredging
funds is absolutely necessary because we lose economic efficiency. In
fact, on the Mississippi River, every time we lose a foot of draft it
is about $1 million per ship, per day, in lost economic activity.
If we are going to get this economy growing, create value, create
jobs, we have to export. To export, we have to have the waterways that
allow us to do that. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, nearly
1,000 Federal ports and harbors have not been adequately maintained due
to inadequate budgetary allocations over time.
This bill now takes a strong step forward to correct that. I want to
thank Chairman Rogers for this encouraging step forward for bringing
attention to the fact that America's infrastructure--its ports, its
locks, its dams, its inland waterways--are old and have not received
the appropriate investment and have often been ignored. It has cost us
time, it has cost us money, it has cost us economic growth, and it has
cost us jobs.
Clearly, if we are expanding these trade agreements, looking at the
Pacific with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, looking at a transatlantic
agreement, we have to have our ports, our harbors, our waterways
working at maximum efficiency if we are going to grow this economy.
Also, I want to compliment the chairman of the subcommittee and full
committee as well for including language from my colleague, Congressman
Rodney Alexander. This is language included in the bill requiring the
Department of Energy to report on its plans to address the backlog of
natural gas export applications, liquefied natural gas export
applications, and to encourage the timely completion of this approval
process.
Given the fact that so many of these applicants have been waiting for
well over a year to get a decision from the Department of Energy, it is
just unacceptable to have this kind of a backlog at a time when this is
going to help us expand trade, help improve our trade deficit, it will
help create jobs, it will help us with--actually, interestingly, help
stabilize the price of natural gas so we will see more drilling, and
help our energy security in the long-run.
So expediting this process, getting the Department of Energy to be
held to account on the backlog of these permits is critically important
because these companies have invested millions of dollars in this
permitting process. To be sitting in limbo is just simply unacceptable.
I am very, very happy that Congressman Alexander's language has been
included in this base bill, and I want to thank the chairman for doing
this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Chair, a few moments ago, I talked about
priorities; $7.6 billion plus for nuclear weapons.
We just heard the gentleman discuss the issue of locks and levees and
ports, projects in my district for the ports, for deepening the
channels, for rebuilding and expanding. The economic activity in this
Nation is not going to be funded.
Do we really need to spend an additional $7.6 billion-plus on nuclear
weapons when we have over 8,000 of them--Russia 7,000, China 250--do we
really need to spend the money there, or do we need to spend it on our
economic activity, as the gentleman just said?
There is not enough money in the Corps of Engineers' budget to
provide for all of the ports, all of the improvements that are needed,
so that our ports on the west coast, the east coast, gulf coast can be
competitive. Apparently, we have enough money.
Why don't we take some money out of this program and put it where it
will be immediately beneficial? It's a matter of priorities. Where your
money is is where your heart is. Okay. That's not where my heart is.
You talked about all-of-the-above energy. We ought to talk about all-
of-the-above energy. Yet, ARPA-E, where we create the new science, the
new technology, the new programs that will provide us with new energy
sources, improved energy sources, and the improvement of all energy
sources--gutted, gutted; an 87 percent reduction. The Office of
Science, where we do real research, where we really can do all-of-the-
above, whether it is coal or oil or renewables--gutted; a 73 percent
reduction.
[[Page H4245]]
Where are our priorities? Where are the priorities of the House of
Representatives? Is it to build more nuclear weapons that by the grace
of God we will never use--8,000 of them? Or is it to build a levee? Or
is it to make sure the researchers at our universities and laboratories
have the money that they need to really deal with the problem of the
future, which is climate change?
{time} 1500
It's about priorities.
Madam Chair, it's about priorities, and through you, of course, I ask
my colleagues: What are the priorities? They are listed very clearly in
your legislation.
Ms. KAPTUR. I would just like to reclaim a couple of seconds here and
place on the record that, as to the Army Corps of Engineers, the
gentleman is correct. If we look back to the years 2011 and 2012, the
bills terminated or suspended over 300 projects across this country.
That is not an insignificant number. That is a very significant number.
It's one of the reasons that we weren't able to put in New START,
because we've got so many other wounded and casualties standing in
line, waiting for assistance across the country, including the
communities you represent.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you.
I might just point out that, with sequestration this year, we took
$250 million out of the Corps of Engineers' budget, so we're building
on a lower base. This is going to be tragedy and tragic--but, Madam
Chair, these are our priorities. Oh, excuse me. These are not my
priorities. These are the majority's priorities.
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity
to come down and speak about a very important issue that I know is
important to you as well as to myself.
The Great Lakes are facing a crisis right now. The Great Lakes
Navigation System is a critical international waterway that extends
from the western part of Lake Superior. In fact, that point in the
western part of Lake Superior is further west than St. Louis,
Missouri--the Gateway to the West--and it extends all the way along the
Saint Lawrence Seaway to the Atlantic Ocean, which is a distance of
over 2,400 miles.
The U.S. portion of the system includes 140 harbors, 60 of which are
deemed as commercial and 80 as recreational and harbors of refuge, and
it includes over 600 miles of maintained navigation channels. The
system can handle 200 million tons of cargo that generate and sustain
nearly 130,000 good-paying jobs in the eight Great Lakes States, not to
mention what happens to our friends to the north and east and in the
Canadian provinces and how important that relationship is with the
trade that goes on. While the Army Corps of Engineers' national
Operations and Maintenance account has increased by 20 percent from
1995 through 2012, the annual budget for the Corps' maintenance of
harbors and navigation channels in the Great Lakes has remained
virtually unchanged during that same period.
We all know of the challenges we are facing as a Nation financially--
fiscally--but that, Madam Chair, does not seem right or fair to me, and
it certainly is not an acknowledgment of the importance of the Great
Lakes to our vital economy.
There are 18 million cubic yards of sediment right now clogging the
Great Lakes' ports and waterways, which has reduced the amount of cargo
shipped by over 500,000 tons over the course of the navigation season.
To put this number into context, I own a gravel pit. I have dump trucks
that go out and around. A normal-sized, standard dump truck is 10
yards. To put it in context, 18 million yards of sediment would be like
1.8 million dump truck loads of sediment that is out there right now.
In fiscal year '12, the Corps received $45 million for maintenance
dredging and $95 million for navigation structure maintenance in the
Great Lakes, but it's going to cost more than $200 million to restore
ports and waterways to what their designed depths and widths are. In
order to make up that shortfall, the State of Michigan recently
authorized over $20 million--State funds only--in emergency dredging
funds to ensure that commerce, tourism, and jobs remained available in
port cities, big and small.
I commend the State of Michigan. However, the Federal Government has
a constitutional requirement to maintain interstate commerce through
those ports in and among the States as well as internationally. The
funds that come from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are paid for as
a user fee of 0.125 percent on the value of cargo shipped. In the
previous year, that equated to $1.7 billion which was paid into the
fund, but only $804 million was used for the dredging and maintenance
of our harbors because the trust fund, frankly, has been raided over
the years to pay for other projects and unrelated projects sometimes.
I would like to thank my colleague for working towards a solution to
this problem by reprioritizing spending, which is really what this is
all about. We know that we have to reprioritize and reflect a $1
billion disbursement from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to the bill
and encourage funding in the future.
I know that there is some specific language. Madam Chair, had I been
able to have been down here, I would have offered an amendment that
would have clarified our making sure that $30 million that is put in
for small ports and subsistence ports would have been more clear. In
the meantime, we must act before the crisis in the Great Lakes grows
worse.
So I thank my friend from New Jersey for the work that he has done on
this bill. While I would prefer more clarity, I am satisfied with the
intent of the committee to help our ports, big and small.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan for
being a strong advocate for sufficiently maintaining his waterways and
the Nation's waterways. These ports and channels are very important,
not only to the Great Lakes' economy, but to our national economy, and
I want to commend him for his attention to the needs of his
constituents. He is extremely knowledgeable from a professional point
of view and certainly as a Member of Congress, who voted to the needs
of his constituents.
The committee has heard from many Members, including from those from
the Great Lakes, who are concerned that the administration's budget
processing has left small, remote, subsistence ports across the Nation
unable to continue to conduct business due to inadequate or oftentimes
nonexistent maintenance. These are what prompted the committee to
include a minimum of $30 million to be made available to such ports.
The Great Lakes' ports will certainly be eligible for this funding. I
believe our bill addresses his concerns to the greatest priority
possible in light of other priorities which he mentioned in our bill,
which are, obviously, balancing the Federal budget and controlling
spending.
I want to thank our colleague for bringing the concerns of the Great
Lakes' ports to our attention. We will do our level best to work with
the gentleman. We honor his request.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 103. None of the funds in this Act, or previous Acts,
making funds available for Energy and Water Development,
shall be used to award any continuing contract that commits
additional funding from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
unless or until such time that a long-term mechanism to
enhance revenues in this Fund sufficient to meet the cost-
sharing authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (Public Law 99-662) is enacted.
Sec. 104. Not later than 120 days after the date of the
Chief of Engineers Report on a water resource matter, the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) shall submit
the report to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating
committees of the Congress.
Sec. 105. During the fiscal year period covered by this
Act, the Secretary of the Army is authorized to implement
measures recommended in the efficacy study authorized
[[Page H4246]]
under section 3061 of the Water Resources Development Act of
2007 (Public Law 110-114; 121 Stat. 1121) or in interim
reports, with such modifications or emergency measures as the
Secretary of the Army determines to be appropriate, to
prevent aquatic nuisance species from dispersing into the
Great Lakes by way of any hydrologic connection between the
Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Basin.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 10, line 21, after the period insert the following:
``Further, the Army Corps of Engineers, in coordination with
the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
the National Park Service, and the United States Geological
Survey, shall lead a multiagency effort to slow the spread of
Asian Carp in the Ohio River basin and tributaries by
providing high-level technical assistance, coordination, best
practices, and support to State and local government
strategies to slow, and eventually eliminate, the threat
posed by Asian Carp. To the maximum extent practicable, the
multiagency effort shall apply lessons learned and best
practices such as those developed under the Management and
Control Plan for Bighead, Black, Grass, and Silver Carps in
the United States, November 2007, and the Asian Carp Control
Strategic Framework.''.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, part of the district that I
represent is Lake Erie. I also have the Ohio River Watershed. My
amendment would have allowed the Army Corps to combat the Asian carp in
the Ohio River.
There are over 30 States affected by Asian carp, and this invasive
fish is already throughout the Midwest. This is about protecting our
regional economy, the fishing industry, and the livelihoods of all of
us who rely on the water for our jobs.
This invasive species significantly alters the habitat. It crowds out
native fish, and it is also a threat to boaters. I've worked very
closely with Senator Toomey, with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission, as well as with legislators who represent that potentially
affected area, to both study and develop plans of action to deal with
this invasive species. This is what we understand:
Under just one measure, the Great Lakes fisheries generate U.S.
economic activity of approximately $7 billion annually, and our native
fish populations, like walleye, perch, and lake herring, would be
devastated by the Asian carp establishment, threatening this industry
and the livelihoods of all of those who depend on this ecosystem's
health.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to bring this
forward, and I hope, in the future, we can take a look at it.
Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I seek to identify my side with the
gentleman's remarks on the importance of the Asian carp issue to the
freshwater lakes of our country and certainly to Lake Erie. He and I
share that. The lake is neither Republican nor Democratic. It is the
largest fishery in the entire Great Lakes system, which contains 20
percent of the world's fresh surface water, and Lake Erie actually has
more fish than all of the other Great Lakes combined.
Honestly, this Asian carp threat is truly a nightmare for those
people and the multibillion-dollar industries--the maritime industry,
our fisheries, our tourism centers. I especially appreciate the
gentleman's desire to have a multiagency effort and more dispatch
within the executive branch to deal with the possibility of these fish,
these very destructive fish, coming in and destroying our perch, our
walleye--our native fish. It is a very, very worrisome invasive species
to our lakes.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. I want to thank you very much for your
comments. The gentlelady from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) is also very
aware of this.
I think all of us who represent the Great Lakes area understand the
danger that this fish is bringing into our Great Lakes and into the
fishing industry. It is unbelievable the amount of damage that's being
done, not only to the fishing industry, but also to boaters. For
anybody who has seen film, this is a fish that actually comes out of
the water and goes after boaters. It gets very easily aggravated. Now,
you don't have to have a motor on the boat--you can be paddling the
boat--and this fish will come out of the water and hit people. I have
seven grandchildren whom I take out with me from time to time. The
oldest one is 8 years old. These are small people. This fish is 70
pounds when it reaches its full maturity. It is a voracious eater. It
is going to totally take over the Great Lakes, and it will ruin our
fishing industry.
So I can't tell you how much I appreciate your comments and your
concern. Also, I know this is not a Republican or a Democratic issue.
This is an American issue that has to be looked into, and I thank you
very much for your comments.
Ms. KAPTUR. In reclaiming my time, I have the desire to work with the
gentleman in any way possible.
Literally, the gentleman is right. This fish is like a guided missile
except there are millions of them, and until you actually see it
happen, you don't believe it. It's like some kind of movie--``The
Twilight Zone''--except it's real. It came from the aquaculture
industry down in Mississippi, which had an accident, and they brought
these fish in to do the cleaning in the fish tanks. Yet, when the walls
were breached, they started swimming north in the Mississippi River,
and now they are about 30 miles from the Chicago harbor and through the
ship canal there. They are about 30 miles from there, but they're
coming up into the St. Joseph River in Indiana. They've caught some
there. We don't know about the Ohio River, but the Maumee River, which
I represent--the largest river that flows into the Great Lakes--is a
spawning area for walleye, for example, and this species is really a
predator, one that could wipe out our entire multibillion-dollar
fishing industry in the Great Lakes.
{time} 1515
There is no scientific solution at this point. So I hope the
administration is hearing us. I hope the Army Corps and the Department
of the Interior and others are hearing us. Our country needs a real
solution to prevent the spread of this predator into our freshwater
lakes, and it is an unsolved challenge for the Nation.
So I thank the gentleman so much for coming to the floor today. You
have my full support. I know the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
Frelinghuysen, will work with us in any way possible.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 106. As of the date of enactment of this Act and each
fiscal year hereafter, the Secretary of the Army may transfer
to the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Fish and Wildlife
Service may accept and expend, such funds as the Secretary
and the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service determine
to be necessary to mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps
of Engineers projects, except that in no event may the amount
of funds transferred pursuant to this section during any
fiscal year exceed the amount identified for such purpose in
the report accompanying the appropriations for that fiscal
year.
Sec. 107. None of the funds made available in this Act or
any other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water
Development may be used by the Corps of Engineers to develop,
adopt, implement, administer, or enforce any change to the
regulations and guidance in effect on October 1, 2012,
pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.), including the provisions of the rules dated November
13, 1986, and August 25, 1993, relating to such jurisdiction,
and the guidance documents dated January 15, 2003, and
December 2, 2008, relating to such jurisdiction.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Moran
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.
[[Page H4247]]
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 11, beginning on line 8, strike section 107.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairwoman, I just want to say Asian carp, is a very
troubling situation. In fact, we've got the snakeheads in this part of
the country that can walk on dry land from river to river and pond to
pond. Something's happening, and it's not good. But I'm glad that the
issue was raised.
Madam Chairwoman, I do have an amendment with our colleague, John
Dingell. The amendment simply strikes section 107 of this bill. The
reason for doing that is that section 107 would prevent the Corps of
Engineers from updating regulations and guidance defining what waters
and wetlands are subject to the Clean Water Act.
Even though everyone, including the building industry, agrees there's
confusion regarding what waters fall under Federal jurisdiction,
section 107 would deliberately continue this confusion. In fact, many
private commercial interests have gone on record in support of
clarifying the term ``waters of the United States,'' but that
clarification would be prohibited under section 107 of this bill.
Madam Chairwoman, there have been two Supreme Court cases on this
subject: Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County in 2001 and Rapanos
in 2006. Combined, these two rulings have created confusion and
uncertainty regarding the limits of the Federal jurisdiction under the
Clean Water Act. In layman's terms, the Court called into question the
Federal Government's jurisdiction the further away the water was from
where you could float a boat all year long. In both cases, though, a
majority of the Court could not agree on where Federal jurisdiction
should end. Intermittent streams and rivers that only flow seasonally,
are they under Federal jurisdiction? Sixty percent of all stream miles
in the lower 48 States fall into the category of intermittent or
ephemeral; in other words, they don't exist for some part of the year,
yet they receive 40 percent of all individual wastewater discharges.
Even more importantly, more than 117 million Americans get some of
their drinking water from these very streams that don't flow year
round. Section 107 of this bill, though, would ensure that these
sources of drinking water remain at increased risk of pollution. And
with rising temperatures, more severe droughts and climate change, the
protection of our waters and wetlands are a greater concern than ever.
That's why I mentioned the Asian carp and the snakeheads. Extreme
things are happening, but the most important thing that's happening is
that climate change is creating a very extreme threat to every
American, and we're seeing it in bodies of water across the country.
Before my colleague suggests that we shouldn't worry about climate
change, that the States have authority in the absence of Federal
authority, I should tell my friends that that argument doesn't hold
water in States that use the Federal definition to run their program.
Forty-eight States share common water bodies. Without Federal
jurisdiction, no State can tell an upstream State what to do unless we
have a baseline minimum Federal standard that all States must abide by.
Through a public comment process and appropriate congressional
oversight, we can allow the administration to finalize its guidance and
eventually move forward on a formal rulemaking process, or Congress
could define navigable water ourselves. But why would this Congress do
its job when it can complain about the administration not doing its
job?
Madam Chairwoman, 2 years ago, the Court and EPA issued a draft
guidance to provide additional clarity on this issue. They took public
comment on the draft for 90 days and received over 230,000 comments on
the guidance, comments that were overwhelmingly favorably. The draft
guidance provides a more predictable and consistent procedure for
identifying waters and wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act. It
focuses on protecting smaller waterways that keep downstream water safe
from upstream pollutants and on protecting adjacent wetlands that
filter pollution and store waters and help keep communities safe from
floods. The guidance also maintains all of the existing exemptions for
agricultural discharges and identifies specific types of water bodies
to which it does not apply, areas like artificial lakes and ponds and
many types of drainage and irrigation ditches.
It does not extend Federal protection to any waters not historically
protected under the Clean Water Act, and it's fully consistent with the
law and the decisions and instructions of the Supreme Court. So I think
we should let the administration go forward, provide greater clarity,
and we can only do that by striking section 107.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GIBBS. Madam Chairwoman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the
gentleman's amendment to strike section 107 of the Energy and Water
Development appropriations bill.
Section 107 prohibits the Corps of Engineers from developing,
adopting, implementing, administrating, or enforcing any change to the
Corps and EPA rules and guidance defining the waters of the United
States. This provision is aimed at the so-called ``guidance'' which the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers have
developed to expand the extent of waters covered by the Clean Water
Act. This so-called guidance goes far beyond merely clarifying the
scope of waters subject to the Clean Water Act programs. This guidance
has been sitting around for nearly 3 years and is acting as de facto
law.
By the agency's own admission, the guidance would substantially
change Federal policy with respect to which waters fall under the
jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and significantly increase the
scope of the Federal Government's power to regulate waters and land
associated with those waters.
The effect of the guidance will be to reverse the decisions by the
United States Supreme Court that recognized limits to the Federal
Government's regulatory authority and to undermine the longstanding
Federal-State partnership in the regulation of waters. This expansion
has resulted in confusion, permitting delays, and added costs and
burdens for communities, farmers, small businessmen, industries, and
other Americans.
The administration has issued this so-called ``guidance'' and has
refused to go to the rulemaking process, which violates the principles
of the Administrative Procedures Act, the APA, and the intent of
Congress when they enacted the law. The APA sets the standards for the
activities and rulemaking for all Federal regulatory agencies and is
designed to ensure those Federal agencies use open, uniform, and fair
procedures. The requirements of the APA are not mere formalities.
In unilaterally developing its guidance, the administration has
ignored calls from the State agencies and environmental groups, as well
as Members of Congress, including almost half the Members of the House
of Representatives, to proceed through the normal rulemaking procedures
and has avoided consulting with the States, which are the Federal
agency partners, in implementing the Clean Water Act.
This amendment condones the administration's willingness to ignore
the requirements of the APA and supports the administration's Federal
jurisdictional power grab under the Clean Water Act.
I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairwoman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairwoman, if you like confusion, keep the status
quo and oppose the amendment.
If you want to get clarity and you want to understand and you want to
get investment and progress and if you want to have people understand
what the law is, support the amendment.
[[Page H4248]]
The proposal that has been put forward by the Corps of Engineers is
clarity itself. It does not change the decision wrongly made by the
Supreme Court, no matter how much I might dislike that decision. What
it does is it allows people to know what the law is as set forth by the
Supreme Court. Foreclosing the Corps of Engineers from carrying out its
proper responsibilities under the law going back before 1899 is an act
of extraordinary unwisdom and stupidity. My colleagues on the other
side do not understand the issue. The simple fact of the matter is all
this does is to allow the Corps of Engineers to tell the people of the
United States what the law is with regard to what is navigable waters
that may be affected by pollution, ditching, draining, and doing other
things.
So when you vote to strike this section, you are not changing the
law; you are allowing the Corps of Engineers to set forth what the
rules happen to be, and you're allowing the Supreme Court to bring
clarity to the decisionmaking of the United States and seeing to it
that people may then go forward and invest and do the other things that
are necessary in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, which
again, I repeat, is not changed, not by the amendment which is offered
by my friend from Virginia.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by Mr. Moran of
Virginia because it brings clarity to a confused situation, and it
makes plain and apparent what the law is.
So if you want to get progress so that people will know how they're
going to invest in doing things that affect their property and the
waters of the United States, supporting the amendment is the way to do
it; and failing to support the amendment is to ensure that confusion
will continue to exist and that businesses, industry, and the
communities of the United States that need to act upon the waters to
see to it that they are protected and that they are preserved, you're
seeing to it by opposing the amendment that that cannot be done.
The Supreme Court was wrong in the decision which they made. I was
here on the floor when we agreed that the navigable waters are all of
the waters of the United States. The Supreme Court was either too
ignorant or too lazy to bother reading that particular debate, but the
legislative history of the law is clear. And I repeat, this does not
move us back to the old way, and it does not change the unfortunate
decision of the Supreme Court. What it does is it ensures that for the
first time since this kind of amendment was offered on the floor, that
we are able to finally begin to move forward to deal with the law as it
affects navigability, the Clean Water Act, and the other things which
are so important both to protecting our waters and to ensuring that
business and industry may invest with a clear understanding of what the
law is.
To oppose this amendment is to ensure that there will be more
litigation, which will cause more obfuscation and delay and more
difficulty in terms of achieving our purpose of having American
citizens be able to enjoy the water in accordance with the law as the
Corps of Engineers will set it out so that everyone will know what the
law is rather than the Congress stultifying the law and seeing to it
that we're incapable of having a clear pronouncement of what the law is
as made by the agency which has the responsibility to do so under the
law.
{time} 1530
I urge you to support the amendment. I urge you to strike section
107, and I urge you to get this country going forward on a very
important matter which is being thoroughly obfuscated by a lot of
people who know nothing about the matter. I urge adoption of the
amendment and the striking of the section.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Moran-Dingell amendment which
will protect not only the Clean Water Act but also the power and
integrity of the United States Congress.
When the Clean Water Act was passed, I stood on the floor of this
House and explained the intent of the Conference Report on the Clean
Water Act. I said, ``the conference bill defines the term `navigable
waters' broadly for water quality purposes. It means all `the waters of
the United States' in a geographical sense. It does not mean the
`navigable waters of the United States' in the narrow technical sense
we sometimes see in some laws.''
In 2006, the Supreme Court wrongly restricted the original
Congressional intent of the Federal government's authority under the
Clean Water Act. The Supreme Court completely ignored Congress' intent
to provide a broader definition of ``U.S. waters'' and instead upended
35 years of precedence simply because they refused to review the facts.
But the issue before us today is not whether or not you agree with
the Clean Water Act. The question is, simply: Is the Corps of Engineers
going to be able to tell people what the law is and how it is to be
interpreted by the Corps and how citizens will then have to behave?
Under the law, our amendment simply says the Corps may inform people
of what the law, as set forth in the Supreme Court's rulings, means. I
think that is something which is important in terms of seeing to it
that people may go forward with their planning, with economic
development and everything of that sort.
In light of the Supreme Court's misguided decision, the Army Corps of
Engineers is working on updated guidelines that will take into account
the decision of the Court and define what their new jurisdiction will
be under the Clean Water Act. This is not a massive expansion of power
by the Corps as some would have you believe. This is simply attempting
to comply with the Supreme Court's decision.
By preventing the Corps from spending any funds to implement these
new guidelines, this House would be casting a pall of uncertainty over
the country. If someone wants to build a home or new business near a
wetland or other body of water, do they need to consult with the Army
Corps of Engineers before doing so? The language in this bill would not
answer that question and would likely lead to more costs on that
homeowner or businessperson in legal and court fees. The language in
this bill would certainly lead to more court battles and create a
wonderful mess that would lead to lawyers making plenty of money.
To say anything else about this legislation is either to be misled or
to mislead. I would beg my colleagues to vote in favor of the
intelligent approach of seeing to it that we are going to allow people
to know what the law is and allow the Corps of Engineers to set out
what the law is for the benefit of business, industry, and people.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, Mr. Moran and I have had this discussion
six or seven times on this very amendment over the past few years; and,
once again, I rise to oppose it. Contrary to what the gentleman from
Michigan just said, I do understand the issue; and, frankly,
understanding it is why I am opposed to it.
In 2006, the Supreme Court determined that the EPA and the Corps of
Engineers did not have the authority to regulate nonnavigable waters
under the Clean Water Act. Now, you might disagree with that Supreme
Court decision. Tough luck. They made the decision, and we follow the
decisions of the Supreme Court.
In accordance with this decision, the term ``navigable waters'' has
long been the phrase used to limit Federal intrusion with regard to the
Clean Water Act's authority. Nonnavigable waters are currently
regulated by the States. Everybody who stands up and talks assumes that
if it is a nonnavigable water that nobody is regulating it. In fact,
the States are regulating those things.
However, last year the Corps of Engineers and the EPA issued guidance
that would expand the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act to
nonnavigable, intrastate waters, effectively resulting in a massive
expansion of the Federal Government's authority to increase the number
of waters subject to the water quality standards--including irrigation
canals, ponds, drainage ditches, and other things.
Deciding how water is used should be the responsibility of State and
local officials who are familiar with the people and local issues. If
all intrastate waters are regulated by the Federal Government, the
language could be broadly interpreted to include everything within a
State, including groundwater.
As a result, the reach of the Federal jurisdiction would be so broad
that it could significantly restrict landowners' ability to make
decisions about their own property and local government's ability to
plan for their own development.
[[Page H4249]]
The language in the bill protects the authority of the States to
prevent the Army Corps from expanding its regulations to include
intrastate bodies of water under the Clean Water Act for any reason
other than drinking water standards.
Clarity is needed on this issue, and the gentleman from Michigan
mentioned clarity. But I will tell you, clarity simply for clarity's
sake is not an answer. Death is a clarity. It's not necessarily the
outcome you want, though.
So doing this just so you have clarity in it is not the right
direction to go. Congress does need to provide that clarity, but not
the agencies through the regulatory process. The Supreme Court has
already determined that the Army Corps does not have the authority to
do what it is proposing, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose the
amendment offered by my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I hope to provide some clarity to this by
quoting directly from the guidance that the agency has given us. Now,
it's important to remember that this is guidance, not a rule. The Obama
administration, President Obama has repeatedly and proudly said that if
Congress won't act, he will. Last week he said he was going to stand up
and, through executive order, do all that he can to try to bring carbon
emissions under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and try to
restrict CO2 by executive order.
Here the Obama administration is doing what the law says it can't do,
and that is expand the jurisdiction of the EPA and the Army Corps by
guidance, not by using a rule. The law says they have to issue a rule,
get public input, have hearings. Here they simply got a bunch of their
lawyers together and issued guidance to their agencies around the
country. And to quote directly from the guidance, the Obama
administration directs:
The agencies to interpret waters in the region to be the watershed
boundary defined by the geographic area that drains to the nearest
downstream traditional navigable water or interstate water through a
single point of entry.
The geographic boundary, every stream, every rivulet, no matter how
vertical it is, the Supreme Court and the statute said the EPA is
limited to regulating navigable waters. The way this reads, literally,
the EPA and the Army Corps now, through this guidance, have the
authority to regulate every single stream of water that drains in the
geographic area, in the watershed boundary, that drains to the nearest
traditional navigable water.
That is an incredible expansion of Federal power. As the gentleman
from Idaho quite correctly said, this was done outside of the normal
rulemaking process because the Obama administration knew that the
public would overwhelmingly disapprove of this, that the Congress would
disapprove of this, that this goes beyond what the Supreme Court
intended, that this goes beyond what the law allows, so they did it
through the back door using lawyers and bureaucrats to write a 33-page
document that you literally have to go to the back end of to learn that
they are attempting to exercise jurisdiction over every stream of water
in the geographic area that drains to the nearest navigable waterway.
That's why Chairman Frelinghuysen and Chairman Rogers included this
language to cut off funding for the implementation of this rule,
because we've discovered that the Obama administration will do whatever
they want, regardless of the Constitution. They ignore subpoenas. They
ignore congressional hearings. They ignore letters from Congress. They
ignore everything except when you cut off the money. That's the only
way to make the Obama administration follow the law.
Vote against this amendment to ensure that the Obama administration
follows the law and that we protect private property rights and keep
the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers off of people's private
property across America. I urge Members to oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment. I have
been listening to the debate and thinking we're a great Nation because
we figured out how to build a nation. We had 13 Colonies. And then,
miraculously, somehow, through the Northwest Ordinance and other means,
we added more States and we figured out where their boundaries were.
Sadly, Michigan and Ohio had to fight a little war on a piece of
territory between us, but we even got that figured out. Then, golly,
you know, we sort of expanded. Even Alaska became a State. As we became
more adult as a Nation, we figured out where the watersheds were. We
even have maps for watersheds in our country. We've always been a
country that is a can-do Nation, not a can't-do Nation.
So I believe the amendment takes America in an important direction by
allowing the Corps the needed flexibility to deal with real confusion
that has reigned in the wake of two Supreme Court decisions and,
frankly, climate change. As water distribution changes around our
country, we are moving into a different era, if anybody cares to open
their eyes and look at what is happening across our country.
Without this amendment, the bill would result in increased
implementation costs to Federal and State resource agencies, as well as
to the regulated community, increased delays in the implementation of
important public works projects, and protracted litigation on the
disparity between existing Federal regulations and the two court
decisions.
Further, the current provision does not apply to just this year; it
applies to any subsequent energy and water development act, ensuring
the uncertainty continues indefinitely.
How is that good for anything? Why is can't do better than can do?
Let's provide clarity. Let's provide some certainty to the market. We
should be allowing the Corps to take actions that address the Supreme
Court's rulings, bringing clarity and certainty to the regulatory
process, not prolonging the confusion, further delay, further
uncertainty. How does that help anything, regardless of what region of
the country you live in? I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VALADAO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VALADAO. This amendment puts a lot of my district in jeopardy. My
district relies heavily on irrigation and canals and other types of
water projects. When you see a government agency, an unelected
government agency come in and take jurisdiction without any of us in
this body, 435 Members in this body who have a responsibility to
represent our constituents and make sure that their voices are heard,
when you take that power away and you give it to a bureaucracy in the
dark of night where there's not an opportunity to speak their minds and
have their voices heard, you set up a pretty bad precedent.
When you look at a constituency that feeds the country like we do in
California on my part of the valley, we do feed a good portion of the
country. We grow 350 different crops. We produce a lot of beef,
poultry, and pork. All of these different products go to feed the
Nation.
When you look at an idea like this which a lot of my constituents or
most of my constituents all oppose, we're setting up for a really bad
idea. So this should be presented and it should be talked about amongst
the 435, not one agency, not one President pushing an idea. So,
obviously, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment offered by
my friend from Virginia, and I do so for three reasons, and I believe
that the previous speakers on our side have listed these reasons, but I
wanted to just
[[Page H4250]]
drive these points. There are three of them.
Number one, it does cede a tremendous amount of power to the
executive branch. It is clear that this administration prefers to
bypass Congress every chance it gets and cede things to an unelected
bureaucracy. And in this case, this is a tremendous decision that the
bureaucracy would be making instead of the elected representatives in
the House and the Senate.
Mr. Culberson actually quoted part of it. He said that the agencies
will interpret in the regions such proximate other waters to be the
watershed boundary defined by the geographic area that drains to the
nearest downstream navigational or interstate water through a single
point of entry.
So in my district where we have the Savannah River and the St. Mary's
River, the Ogeechee River, the Altamaha River and the Ohoopee, it would
appear that the entire district, which I represent in coastal Georgia,
would come under this new permitting process if the bureaucrats and if
Mr. Moran had his way. I'm against that. If that's going to happen, let
the legislative branch debate it and then send it to the executive
branch.
Number two, if you do so, all you're going to do is have more
busybody bureaucrats in our lives interfering with job creation and
interfering with progress in general.
You know, my area of the Savannah River was authorized in the 1999
WRDA Act to dredge the river. It took 13 years for four Federal
agencies to sign off on the dredging even though we have been dredging
the Savannah River ever since Oglethorpe sailed up it in 1733; but it
took our government, four Federal agencies, 13 years to give us a
record of decision.
During that period of time, China started to build a port that is now
bigger than the Port of Savannah. They started from scratch to finish,
and here we are supposed to be competing in a world marketplace, but
that's the kind of permitting process and delays that the bureaucracies
cause us.
I would rather leave these waters under State jurisdiction than the
Federal Government.
Number three and finally, it's vague. It's totally vague. Anytime the
Federal bureaucrats with their unlimited bank accounts get involved in
rulemaking, they can run the clock. They can charge up the permitting,
the lawyer fees, do everything they want.
I will ask a question of my friend from Virginia. Can you tell me
what ``significant nexus to navigable waters'' means? Does anybody know
what that means? I can promise you, 435 people in this body would have
a different definition as to what a ``significant nexus to navigable
waters'' means.
We do not need this executive branch and this administration to have
more power. This is the crowd that brought you the IRS and the AP
scandals. This is the crowd that brought you Fast and Furious. Do you
really want them to have more power to interpret laws? I think not. I
fear they would use that kind of authority to reward their friends and
punish their enemies.
For these three reasons, Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
{time} 1545
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 108. Section 3(a)(6) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-676; 102 Stat. 4013)
is amended by striking ``$775,000,000'' each place it appears
and inserting ``$2,918,000,000''.
Sec. 109. (a) Section 1001(17)(A) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-114; 121 Stat. 1052)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``$125,270,000'' and inserting
``$152,510,000'';
(2) by striking ``$75,140,000'' and inserting
``$92,007,000''; and
(3) by striking ``$50,130,000'' and inserting
``$60,503,000''.
(b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect
as of November 8, 2007.
Sec. 110. The authorization under the heading ``Little
Calumet River Basin (Cady Marsh Ditch), Indiana'', in section
401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public
Law 99-662; 100 Stat. 4115), as modified by section 127 of
Public Law 109-103 (119 Stat. 2259), is further modified to
authorize completion of the project at a total cost of
$269,988,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $202,800,000
and an estimated non-Federal cost of $67,188,000.
Sec. 111. During fiscal year 2014, the limitation relating
to total project costs in section 902 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280) shall not apply with
respect to any project that receives funds made available by
this title.
Sec. 112. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water
Development for any fiscal year may be used by the Corps of
Engineers to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or
enforce any change to the regulations in effect on October 1,
2012, pertaining to the definitions of the terms ``fill
material'' or ``discharge of fill material'' for the purposes
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.).
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Moran
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, 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 13, beginning on line 1, strike section 112.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, my colleague, John Dingell and I have another
amendment that strikes, in this case, section 112 of this bill because
section 112 would prevent the Corps of Engineers from updating
regulationsdefining the terms ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill
material'' for the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
Presently, the Army Corps issues a section 404 permit if the ``fill
material'' discharged into a water body raises the bottom elevation of
that water body or converts an area to dry land.
When Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act, and that's why Mr.
Dingell is so concerned about this, the 404 permit process was supposed
to be used for certain construction projects, like bridges and roads,
where raising the bottom elevation of a water body or converting an
area into dry land was simply unavoidable.
But then, some clever attorneys in the George W. Bush administration
found a way to allow mining waste to be dumped into rivers and streams
without a rigorous environmental review process. They simply changed
the definition of what qualifies as ``fill material.''
Under a 2002 rule change, the Bush administration broadened that
definition to, and I'd put this in quotes, ``include rock, sand, soil,
clay, plastics, construction debris, wood chips, overburden from mining
or other excavation activities.''
Now, these guidelines are simply not well-suited for evaluating the
environmental effects of discharging hazardous waste, such as mining
refuse and similar materials, into a water body or wetland.
When Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act, and for the first 30
years of its passage, the law helped keep America's lakes, rivers and
streams safe from mining pollution, protected wildlife and drinking
water. But that's no longer the case today.
Perhaps it would come as no surprise to many that, in 2009, the
Supreme Court upheld this newer, broader definition of ``fill
material'' that was adopted by the executive branch in 2002. The Court
allowed this new definition to be used for a Kensington mining
operation near Lower Slate Lake in Alaska.
I want to point out this anecdotal example, although it's a very
important one. So the permit allowed the discharge of toxic wastewater
from a gold ore processing mill to go, untreated, directly into the
lake, despite the fact that the discharge violates EPA standards for
the mining industry. Today, all of Lower Slate Lake's fish and aquatic
life is gone, dead.
Now, Madam Chair, that's why we raise this amendment to strike
section 112, which would permanently preclude the Corps from
considering any regulatory changes to the current definition and permit
process. I would
[[Page H4251]]
note that, to much of the environmental community's frustration, the
Corps hasn't issued any regulations to change the definition of ``fill
material'' or ``discharge of fill material.''
You can go back to that language that came about as a result of that
clever change in 2002. You can find no effort by the Corps to change
it, and the Corps hasn't expressed any plans to do so. That's
disappointing.
But since there is no time limit on the provision in this
appropriations bill, it would not only block the current administration
but any future administration from considering any changes, even one
less sympathetic to the adverse health and environmental consequences
of discharging hazardous waste into our drinking water.
Madam Chair, this provision that's in this bill is intended to be a
preemptive strike against protecting our drinking water. We should not
be putting this kind of legislation onto an appropriations bill,
particularly when it has such adverse consequences to the future health
of our population. And that's why I would urge my colleagues to join me
in removing this section from this appropriations bill.I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Chair, I stand in opposition to the amendment
offered by my friend from Virginia, and I want to start out by
clarifying something that was said a minute ago, that this was done by
clever Bush administration lawyers. In fact, it was a rule proposed by
President Clinton. That would be Democrat President Clinton, a rule
proposed by Democrat President Clinton.
Now, there was a public comment period. It wasn't done in the dark of
the night, but it was done with public comments, and the rule was
changed in 2002, which is true that President Bush would have been the
President during that time period. But it was an ongoing and a slow and
deliberate process, and it was simply a commonsense need that was
something that I think was pro-business, which I understand is
offensive to some people.
But it also streamlines the bureaucracy and helps the private sector
create jobs. And all it simply did was get the Corps of Engineers and
the EPA to have the same definition of fill. That's not a radical
concept. That's common sense. And again, if we're going to compete in
the world marketplace, we should have common sense, even with
Washington bureaucrats.
Now, the definition includes materials that, when placed into the
waters of the U.S., have the effect of replacing or changing the bottom
elevation of any portion of that water. Therefore, it includes rock,
sand, soil, clay, plastics, construction debris, wood chips, and
overburden from mining.
These are regulated right now. They're not exempt from this. It
simply says that the EPA and the Corps of Engineers would use the same
definition. So I stand in opposition to this.
And I do not think that this is the purpose of the gentleman's
amendment, but I do worry that, as this administration seems to have an
open war going on on coal, is this perhaps part of it? Not necessarily
this amendment, but the thinking that two different agencies can now
get on a different sheet in terms of what a definition is and,
therefore, one agency can be more proactive in slowing up progress and
activities of which you don't approve.
There is an estimation that if this was to happen, 375,000 jobs in
the mining business could be jeopardized. Now, I understand, this
administration doesn't like mining, but for the rest of us who use the
products in the United States of America, this is something that is
significant and disturbing; 375,000 jobs in what we have called an
anemic recovery already.
So I believe that the responsible thing for us to do is to reject
this amendment and say that, if this definition does need to be
changed, let it not be done by bureaucrats, and let it not be done by
lawyers either, but let it be done by the elected representatives, both
Democrat and Republican, of the American people, and let 218 of us in
the House have a ``yes'' or a ``no'' vote, and then 51 in the Senate,
and then send it to the White House for signature, rather than have
unelected bureaucrats whom no one knows make these very important
significant legal decisions for us.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment offered by my good friend from Virginia. I urge them to
strike section 112.
There's no one in this Chamber that owns this world. We borrow it
from those who come behind us in the future, and we owe them a duty to
see to it that we return it in proper form.
The bill, as drafted, forbids the Federal Government from seeing to
it that all manner of defilement is not dumped into the navigable
waters of the United States. This is having an appalling consequence,
destroying waters, killing fish, polluting the water sources of our
communities and cities. But beyond that, it's doing something else.
A race of unscrupulous people are sawing the tops off our mountains
in the Appalachians and other places, and they're taking that spoil and
dropping it in river valleys and filling them up, the result of which
is that the water flowing through that valley becomes highly acidic,
and it produces severe danger, not just to fish and wildlife, but to
human beings. These are the waters of the United States that are being
defiled.
The amendment would at least afford a moderate level of authority to
the Federal Government, which has always been that authority of the
Federal Government, to protect one of the greatest treasures this
Nation has: its flowing waters.
My colleagues on the other side think that that is a question of
jobs. We're going to mine, and we should, but we should do it carefully
and wisely and well, with due attention to the future and to our
trusteeship of the world that we love.
We do not have the right to defile our waters. We have a duty to
protect this land and to see to it that it is returned to future
generations of Americans in as good a shape as we have found it, and
perhaps, if we can, in a better shape.
What they have done is to change the situation, where now almost
anything goes, and the result is a calamity for the future of the
United States.
Water is one of the next coming great shortages of this Nation. It's
something that is going to be very much missed by our future
generations because we have, by adopting this bill without this
amendment, defiled those waters, made them unsafe to drink and to
recreate in, made them unsafe for all kinds of purposes, including even
industrial use of those waters.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by my good
friend from Virginia. I urge you, my dear friends and colleagues, to
look to the future of the country whose custodians and trustees we are,
to see to it that we return this beautiful Nation of ours to the future
generations in the condition in which we found it and which is suitable
and fitting to the greatest Nation in the world.
We can have mining, we can have all of the other things we need, but
all we have to do, under the law, as it has been, is to do it wisely,
carefully, prudently and well, with due regard for the future.
This language in the bill stricken by the amendment offered by my
colleague from Virginia would defile those waters and defile the future
of this Nation.
I beg you, support the amendment. I beg you, strike the section. I
beg you, be good trustees of the future and of the great gifts that God
has given this Nation, and to strike section 112 so that we can
properly protect one of the great blessings that this Nation has, an
abundance of water, which the language of the bill, as now drawn, will
defile and destroy.
And people in the Appalachians will curse us for what we have done to
them by filling stream valleys with muck and corruption, by defiling
the waters and the rivers and the streams and the lakes of the United
States.
[[Page H4252]]
{time} 1600
This is not good custodianship. This is a disregard of the greatest
opportunity that we have, and that is to return to our future
generations this Nation in the shape in which they will want it to be
and we want it to be.
Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Moran-Dingell amendment that
gives this and future administrations the flexibility they need should
they decide to address the issue of ``fill material.''
While the Clean Water Act has been a success, we still have a long
way to go to fulfill the promise of the Act. According to the EPA, for
the first time in many years, the Nation's waters have actually started
to get dirtier. The response to this disturbing news should be a
renewal of the Nation's commitment to clean water. Unfortunately, the
previous administration charted a different course and worked to
dismantle the very tools that make the Clean Water Act work.
Through regulatory changes, the previous administration eliminated a
25-year-old ban on dumping mining and other industrial wastes into
streams and wetlands, and adopted policies abandoning the long-standing
national ``no net loss of wetlands'' goal. That administration also
proposed weakening the Clean Water Act's program that guides the
cleanup of polluted waters.
Congress made it clear that the Clean Water Act covers all of these
waters. I know this because I was there. In 1972, I spoke on the floor
of the House about Clean Water Act and stated for the legislative
history that that the bill covers all the waters of the United States.
What we in Congress said when the law was passed remains true today: in
order for the goal of clean water to be met, all waters must be
protected for water pollution to be eliminated at its sources.
We in the Congress knew in 1972, as we know now, that the purposes of
the Act--to restore and maintain the integrity of the country's
waters--could not be achieved if any of the nation's vital waters are
removed from the law's scope.
As a conservationist, hunter and avid sportsman, I see a pressing
need to protect and restore our Nation's waterways and wetlands. These
valuable systems support a diverse array of migratory birds, as well as
many other species of wildlife. These waters are also an integral part
of the landscape that serves mankind. Wetlands help prevent floods and
are natural filters, removing pollutants from drinking water.
I was proud to play a part in enacting the Clean Water Act. Prior to
that landmark legislation, rivers were catching on fire and fishermen
dubbed Lake Erie the Dead Sea. We have come too far to allow a roll-
back. I ask my colleagues to support both Moran-Dingell amendments.
Mr. GIBBS. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The gentleman from Ohio is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GIBBS. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment
to strike section 112 of the Energy and Water appropriations bill. The
current regulatory definition of the term ``fill material'' is
consistent with EPA and the Corps' longstanding practice and ensures
that necessary placement of excess rock and soil generated by
construction and development projects in waters in the United States
are regulated by the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
This current rule brings certainty and protects the environment.
Both the EPA and the Corps have stated they are considering revising
the definition of fill material. If unelected bureaucrats redefine this
important definition, it would have a significant impact on the ability
of all earth-moving industries, road and highway construction projects,
and private and commercial enterprises to obtain vital Clean Water Act
section 404 permits.
Changing the definition of fill material could result in the loss of
up to 375,000 high-paying mining jobs and further this administration's
assault on over 1 million jobs that are dependent on the economic
output generated by these operations. Congress should therefore reject
any attempts to add a new, inappropriately narrow definition of the
term ``fill material'' that will not only harm existing operations but
would also halt many new job-creating projects.
I urge all Members to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in support of Congressman Moran's amendment to
strike section 112 and to protect the fresh waters of our Nation for
future generations.
I note that many of those who have spoken in opposition to the Moran
amendment do not live in parts of the country that actually would be
affected by the burial of this material.
Section 112 would prohibit the Corps from amending its regulations to
change the definition of fill material and discharge of fill material
so that discharges of mine wastes and similar materials into the waters
of the United States would be regulated under the more environmentally
protective regulations and standards issued under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program in section 402 of
the Clean Water Act and administered by the States, along with EPA.
I don't know how many Members actually have had to deal with cleaning
up messes in their districts. But I didn't know that, once I became a
Member of Congress, how significant the work would be and what I would
have to do just in my region of the country to clean up the mess from
the past. Well, I've learned too much.
Maybe the districts of those who are standing up in opposition to Mr.
Moran's amendment have never had to do this. But let me tell you there
are dead freshwater lakes in Ohio that are very close, in fact, to the
gentleman who just spoke in opposition to Mr. Moran's amendment. There
are lakes that have been polluted and no one knows how to clean them
up. I have actually had the task of representing a river that is dead
with waste that's in the bottom of the river that washed out into
adjoining streams in the lake and all the scientists are trying to
figure out how to cap it, how to do this, how to do that with the PCBs
and everything else. There are Love Canals all across this country. We
have to change the way we live for the future generations of this
country.
How about trying to clean up beryllium that's moving in streams and
washing out and you see rising cancer rates? And why are cancer rates
in certain parts of the country more than in other parts of the
country? Well, it's the legacy of the past and the messes that aren't
cleaned up.
How about unexploded ordnance on the bottoms of streams and rivers
and lakes across this country? If you get the Department of Defense
charts on what exists in this country that needs to be cleaned up, the
defense cleanup costs that are necessary just across this Nation,
including in some of our freshwater lakes, is staggering.
If you don't know about the problems, I'm sorry that you don't. But I
don't see how adding mine waste to the rest of this mess is going to
make the future better than the past.
If you think about the population of the country, we had 146 million
people in the country 50, 60 years ago. Today, we have 310 million. By
2050, it's going to be 500 million. But do you know what's not going to
increase? The amount of water we have. The amount of fresh water is not
an infinite resource. It is absolutely finite. And it's used once and
maybe it drops down again in the rain. But nobody is going to give us
more water. It's either going to be snowfall or it's going to be rain,
and it's going to wash into our streams and rivers. There's not going
to be anymore. We're going to have five, six, seven times more people
than we had in the past.
Why would we risk burying more junk in our rivers, in our streams,
and throwing it out in these riverbeds around the country? If you
haven't faced the task of trying to clean it up, then you shouldn't
even be voting on this bill. The cost of past cleanups is enormous.
I wish I didn't have to deal with it in my region of the country. I
came here to make the parks better. I came here to build better
housing. I came here to create jobs. And I'm finding I have these
billion-dollar cleanup jobs for which we have no money, no money to
clean them up. Why would we add to the problem?
Under the current definition, such discharges are evaluated under the
Clean Water Act section 404(b)(1) guidelines, which are not well suited
for evaluating the environmental effects of discharging hazardous
wastes like mining refuse and similar materials into
[[Page H4253]]
jurisdictional wetlands and waters. Further, the current provision does
not apply to just this year. It applies to any subsequent energy and
water development act, precluding potential changes that may be
necessary to protect public health or the environment.
If you haven't seen babies that have tumors in their brains because
some company buried waste in parks that those children played in, then
somebody better wake up around here and change the way that we do
business in this country, because we cannot do this. We cannot continue
the bad practices of the past. We have to make life better for future
generations that will have more pressures on them simply because of the
population growth in this country.
I urge my colleagues to support the Moran amendment, and I commend
him for offering it on this bill today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. CAPITO. I rise today in opposition to the Moran amendment.
Basically, at a May Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee
hearing on water, I specifically asked the EPA's Acting Assistant
Administrator for Water, Nancy Stoner, what specific problems with the
current definition of fill material was prompting the agency and the
Corps to examine changing their current definition. Administrator
Stoner at that time did not identify any problem--this was just
recently, in May--with the current definition and instead told me there
were no active discussions with the Corps on revising the 2002
definition of fill material.
I do live in an area that this greatly affects. We've got a lot of
water in West Virginia, by God's good grace. Given that the EPA
official charged with overseeing water problems did not identify any
problems with the current definition of fill material in response to a
specific question from me, it is difficult for me to see why the EPA
and the Corps would attempt to change an established definition.
The current definition of fill material has been in place for over a
decade and provides a fair standard for protecting our water while
allowing for economic activity. The 2002 definition was the result of a
very lengthy rulemaking process that began under President Clinton's
administration and was finalized under the Bush administration.
A balance between our economy and the environment is absolutely
essential. A balance between protecting our environment and creating
jobs is essential. The current definition does just that.
The Federal Government must provide regulatory certainty to job
creators and not change definitions without adequate justification. If
the administrator had responded differently to the question that I
posed to her, I might not be standing here today with this type of
opposition. But, in my view, I think that we need to oppose this
amendment and keep the current definition of fill material. It's been
well researched, well used. It is in effect in the State of West
Virginia and is used quite a bit to continue our mining operations and
to continue to keep good, solid West Virginians working.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 113. As of the date of enactment of this Act and
thereafter, the Secretary of the Army shall not promulgate or
enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from
possessing a firearm, including an assembled or functional
firearm, at a water resources development project covered
under section 327.0 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations
(as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), if (1)
the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from
possessing the firearm; and (2) the possession of the firearm
is in compliance with the law of the State in which the water
resources development project is located.
Mr. LARSEN of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LARSEN of Connecticut. I want to commend the gentlelady from Ohio
and the gentleman from New Jersey for the debate, in general, that
we've witnessed on this floor. I think we can all agree in so many
respects that infrastructure is not a Republican or a Democratic issue.
It's an American issue.
I come here this afternoon to reason, which is a funny word here, I
guess, in Congress, but in fact is something that I think we need to do
more of. I come here disheartened to see this bill come to the floor
that is underinvesting in something that is as critical to the Nation
as flood protection. Amongst the many infrastructure issues, it's one
that imperils many districts, including my own. We have systems that
are 75 years old and have not been addressed in a way that they need to
be. All around us, whether it's in my district or anywhere across this
country, infrastructure problems abound, whether it's roads, whether
it's bridges, whether it's airports, whether it's deep harbors, whether
it's school systems, or whether it's levees. They are in need of
repair. They are in need of our investment as a Nation.
The great irony is that in these difficult economic times what we
need is to put the country back to work. What is required for the
country to go back to work is to improve the very infrastructure over
which our commerce grows and flows that provides our economy with the
kind of boost that it needs that puts our people back to work.
I have heard person after person on the other side get up and cite
China, talking about their vast development. How has China moved
forward, if not in developing its own infrastructure? Yet here in our
country the neglect continues.
Congress cannot continue to sleep while our infrastructure erodes
from underneath us. The levees between Hartford and East Hartford have
been cited in study after study as needing attention, and the local
municipalities have put in their own funding for it, but cannot
possibly match what the Federal Government has required. And this is
not just in my State and in my district, but all across this country.
A case in point can be made with Hurricane Sandy, where the
government spent $60 billion in disaster relief by funding projects,
which was the prudent thing to do. But we know that for every $1 spent
in preserving and making our districts safe by improving the
infrastructure, it's $4 saved in this country.
It's hard for people back in my district, and especially people who
gather at Augie and Ray's, a local stand in my district where they
serve hot dogs and hamburgers and coffee and breakfast in the morning,
to understand why it is that Congress can't get together and reason and
understand that by funding the infrastructure, not by cutting back on
the Army Corps, not by continuing to cut programs that will provide
funding for jobs, but by actually investing in Americans, instead of
sitting idly by and watching as other nations, especially our chief
competitors, invest in their own infrastructure, improve their own
security, while Congress sleeps and watches the slow erosion of what
was once the greatest system in the world--and still can be--if we come
together and reason and invest in our systems, invest in our people,
invest in our security, invest in the protection that will make sure
that the American people are safe, secure and, most importantly, back
to work.
{time} 1615
It's neither Democrat nor Republican. It's fundamentally American.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes.
I actually wanted to come down here in support of this bill, the
Energy and Water Development appropriations bill. I would like to
commend Chairman Frelinghuysen and the entire
[[Page H4254]]
subcommittee on developing a strong bill that balances the needs of our
Nation with fiscal responsibility.
This bill cuts spending by nearly $3 billion from FY13 enacted levels
while maintaining critical funding for navigation, infrastructure, and
our Nation's domestic energy needs.
One issue of particular importance to me and my home in southwest
Washington is the maintenance of our waterways and small ports.
Sediment buildup has essentially blocked commerce, leaving communities
in Wahkiakum County, Chinook, and Ilwaco without their largest and most
critical industries.
When one of these channels is blocked for communities in my district,
it's no different than if a town's main highway were completely blocked
or washed away. We need to treat the maintenance of our Nation's small
ports with the same level of urgency.
The underlying bill makes great strides to alleviate these challenges
by including $1 billion from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for Army
Corps dredging and no less than $30 million specifically for small
ports and waterways. While this will not completely fulfill all of our
Nation's needs, it certainly illustrates the chairman's dedication and
our dedication to our ports in towns and counties and States across the
country like my home in southwest Washington.
As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am proud to have
played a role in securing this funding. I strongly support the bill and
encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Chairman, it has been an honor to be
in this Chamber and listen to the debate that's going on.
My colleagues on the other side, their bill seeks to reduce the role
that the Environmental Protection Agency would play. I hear words and
phrases like ``an unelected body that makes decisions in the night for
no one to see or hear.'' But, Mr. Chairman, it is not an unelected
body. We have elections in our country, and we had a Presidential
election; and elections have consequences. The EPA is an arm of the
administration, an arm of a President who was elected with a commanding
victory this past November. And to hear that this is an unelected body
and work being done in the dead of night for no one else to know about
is just not the case.
I urge my colleagues on the other side--I was a prosecutor. We would
have a trial. I would pick a jury. We would put on evidence. I would
give a closing argument. The jury would deliberate, and then we would
all accept the verdict. We had the same thing for over a year. We had
Presidential debate after debate, TV ads that we were all tired of. Now
we have a President who was reelected and an agency that the President
is charged with administrating. And it really does disturb me, Mr.
Chairman, to think that these agencies shouldn't have any teeth or
enforcement to protect our children and the future.
But I also rise today to express my concern about the impact that
this Energy and Water appropriations bill will have on the important
work that our national laboratories are doing. We depend on our
national laboratories for the basic scientific research that keeps our
country safe and keeps us on the cutting edge of technology.
Our national labs are home to some of the greatest minds in the
country, and we all benefit greatly when we allow these great
researchers the freedom to do what they were trained to do and to
explore the scientific questions that they are passionate about.
I am fortunate that I am able to represent Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories, which are NNSA
laboratories and work on maintaining our nuclear stockpile, but also
are participating in research that will provide an all-of-the-above
energy solution for our future.
Right now, however, this bill reduces what the laboratories call
laboratory directed research and development. Laboratory directed
research and development, LDRD, allows the scientists at the laboratory
to work on their own experiments in addition to the work that they do
at the lab. Now, in the private sector, Google really was the first
company to innovate with this, they call it 20 percent time. One day
out of the week an employee at Google would be able to work 20 percent
of the work, 1 day, on their own projects for Google. Some of the
programs that we all use, like Gmail or Picasa or Google documents came
from Google's 20 percent time.
Well, the laboratory, their 20 percent time is actually, today, 8
percent time. It's LDRD. This is a way to recruit top talent and retain
its scientists with a promise of being able to do publishable work in
addition to their classified work. But this bill foolishly cuts LDRD
time from 8 percent to 4.5 percent. This will result in less
independent science research. It will hurt the ability of our
classified labs to recruit and retain top talent and will surely
deprive the Nation of scientific discoveries.
Additionally, I am concerned about the cuts to the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory's National Ignition Facility, also known as NIF.
Over the long term, NIF is a fundamental part of providing our Nation
with energy security. It also, in light of international treaties that
prevent us from conducting nuclear tests below or above ground, allows
us to use laser science to test and maintain our stockpile while also
participating in nonproliferation programs, which makes our stockpile
leaner and meaner.
America should be a leader in the area of fusion research. Russia,
China, and France have accelerated investments in their efforts to
compete in inertial confinement fusion, but they remain behind this
premier U.S. endeavor. Ceasing support for NIF would be ceding to those
countries or others American leadership in what could be the energy
industry of the future. Considering our national security threats and
limited domestic energy sources, this is no time to be cutting its
capabilities.
Unfortunately, jobs at NIF have already been cut and the capacity has
been curtailed because of reductions in fiscal year 2013 and the
sequester. The funding levels in this bill would make the situation
much worse.
We must ensure that the United States does not fall behind our
competitors and continues to build upon the investments already begun.
It is crucial that NIF gets the funding it needs to continue this
crucial work.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to carefully consider the damage
that these cuts would do at our national laboratories and consider the
value of preserving our country's leadership and our role in
maintaining our nuclear stockpile and investments in the future of our
country through laboratory directed research and development.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project
central utah project completion account
For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, $7,425,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $1,000,000 shall be deposited into the
Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for use
by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Commission. In addition, for necessary expenses incurred in
carrying out related responsibilities of the Secretary of the
Interior, $1,300,000, to remain available until September 30,
2015.
For fiscal year 2014, the Commission may use an amount not
to exceed $1,500,000 for administrative expenses.
Bureau of Reclamation
The following appropriations shall be expended to execute
authorized functions of the Bureau of Reclamation:
water and related resources
(including transfers of funds)
For management, development, and restoration of water and
related natural resources and for related activities,
including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of
reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling
related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and
related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with,
State and local governments, federally recognized Indian
tribes, and others, $812,744,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $28,000 shall be available for transfer to
the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $8,401,000 shall be
available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin
Development Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary
may be
[[Page H4255]]
advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund: Provided, That such
transfers may be increased or decreased within the overall
appropriation under this heading: Provided further, That of
the total appropriated, the amount for program activities
that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund or the Bureau of
Reclamation special fee account established by 16 U.S.C. 6806
shall be derived from that Fund or account: Provided further,
That funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395 are available
until expended for the purposes for which the funds were
contributed: Provided further, That funds advanced under 43
U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to this account and are
available until expended for the same purposes as the sums
appropriated under this heading: Provided further, That of
the amounts provided herein, funds may be used for high
priority projects which shall be carried out by the Youth
Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Noem
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 15, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
Page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $15,000,000)''.
Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from South Dakota is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chair, my amendment would ensure that we're placing a
higher priority on completing some ongoing rural water projects in the
Great Plains region and in the West.
My amendment takes $15 million from the Department of Energy's
administration budget and $15 million from the solar energy programs.
$25 million of this would go into the Bureau of Reclamation's Rural
Water Projects; the remaining $5 million would be left for deficit
reduction.
Mr. Chair, I recognize that we have limited funds to go around. This
is why we need to work so hard to make sure that our priorities are
addressed. It's why we make sure that we can agree that water should be
a priority, that drinking water for people that live in this country
should be a priority.
There are places in this country, especially in the rural areas, that
people are still waiting for a stable water supply. There are towns
that would like to grow, but they don't have enough water or basic
infrastructure to find new businesses and bring new families in.
They're waiting for the Federal Government to complete projects that
have already been authorized, that have already been started, and that
those communities have already invested in.
As we go through the appropriations process, I think supplying our
rural areas with water should be a top priority. I think it is
shocking; it's shocking that some of these authorized projects have
been waiting years to see the promised Federal dollars to complete the
projects. Many of these local communities have already funded their
share of the projects. Some of the administration's funding proposals
for these projects don't even keep up with inflation.
So as representatives, we absolutely need to be responsible with
taxpayer dollars. When the Federal Government makes a promise to
provide basic infrastructure, they need to follow through. This
amendment is just a small step in getting where we need to be.
It is common sense to make sure that something as basic as water
supply is available in all areas, urban and rural. I urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes'' on the amendment to ensure that these very essential
projects are on their way to completion.
I would like to thank the chairman and the committee for their hard
work on this bill. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak on
this amendment, and I would urge all of my colleagues to support this
amendment.
With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Representative
Noem's amendment.
I think that there is a worthy objective of providing freshwater to
all parts of our country. We talked about that earlier today. The
problem is her amendment takes funds from other accounts to try to move
some of those dollars to rural America.
Frankly, our fundamental problem is that this bill is $2.8 billion
under what was being expended in this fiscal year of 2013, and it's $4
billion under the administration request. So what she's essentially
doing is taking money from something else in order to move it to rural
areas of the country. I represent some of those. They're very worthy.
Some of them do receive funds through the Department of Agriculture.
Some smaller communities also have associations with the Environmental
Protection Agency. But to cut funds, to take money from the Renewable
Energy account--$15 million from there--and from other water-related
accounts and to cut departmental administration really is sort of
picking off very scarce bones. And I have to oppose the amendment on
that basis.
The Renewable Energy accounts, which are America's future--they're a
major part of our downpayment on the future--have been cut 60 percent.
You are withdrawing additional funds from those accounts to try to move
toward needed rural water needs. But, frankly, these accounts have been
severely cut, and the gentlelady's amendment harms them more. We simply
can't cut more from those accounts.
I support more funding for the rebuilding of America's urban water
systems, which are leaking all over this country. In fact, we just had
a collapse in my home community. For some reason, a major intersection
just imploded because the water systems underneath weren't properly
attended to. This is happening from coast to coast.
So our urban water systems are severely constricted. There are all
kinds of problems there. And in parts of rural America, obviously we
are still trying to extend lines, trying to clean water, trying not to
pollute water anymore in order to make sure that citizens who live
there and the livestock that is there has sufficient freshwater
resources.
So I identify with what you're trying to do, but not where you are
taking the funds from. Those dollars simply can't be cut any further.
So I have to oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me
in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment.
Perhaps we can work in other ways in the future, but the fundamental
problem is the bill has been cut $2.8 billion, and some of that is
coming from the dollars that would be available for rural water
programs.
So I strongly oppose the amendment, not because it isn't worthy, but
simply because she's raiding other accounts that are cut, literally, to
the bone.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Noem amendment.
{time} 1630
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and neighbor from
South Dakota for authoring and offering this amendment, which I support
and urge my colleagues to support. It really re-prioritizes the
spending and the good work that the Appropriations Committee has
already done just a few million dollars. It re-prioritizes it in a way
that recognizes the changing of our Nation in recent years because so
much of the policy and the appropriations of our Energy Department are
based on an old order that recognizes our country as having a scarcity
of natural resources for energy development.
That, Mr. Chairman, is no longer the case. We are now a Nation of
abundant energy resources, but we are still, especially in the West, a
Nation of scarce water resources, water resources that are important to
the development of many of our rural communities and our tribes and our
farms and ranches, water for drinking, water for industrial growth,
water for irrigation. So I think this re-prioritization of a few
million dollars is appropriate and recognizes how different our world
is.
With that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and yield back the
remainder of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
[[Page H4256]]
The Clerk read as follows:
central valley project restoration fund
For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, habitat
restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $53,288,000, to be
derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d),
3404(c)(3), and 3405(f) of Public Law 102-575, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau of
Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount
of the additional mitigation and restoration payments
authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available under this
heading may be used for the acquisition or leasing of water
for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed to
in-stream purposes by a court adopted decree or order.
california bay-delta restoration
(including transfers of funds)
For carrying out activities authorized by the Water Supply,
Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act, consistent
with plans to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior,
$30,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such amounts as may be necessary to carry out such activities
may be transferred to appropriate accounts of other
participating Federal agencies to carry out authorized
purposes: Provided, That funds appropriated herein may be
used for the Federal share of the costs of CALFED Program
management: Provided further, That CALFED implementation
shall be carried out in a balanced manner with clear
performance measures demonstrating concurrent progress in
achieving the goals and objectives of the Program.
policy and administration
For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and
related functions in the Office of the Commissioner, the
Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau
of Reclamation, to remain available until September 30, 2015,
$60,000,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be
nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That
no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be
available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and
administration expenses.
administrative provision
Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be
available for purchase of not to exceed five passenger motor
vehicles, which are for replacement only.
GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Sec. 201. (a) None of the funds provided in this title
shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or
activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted by this Act;
(4) restarts or resumes any program, project or activity
for which funds are not provided in this Act, unless prior
approval is received from the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate;
(5) transfers funds in excess of the following limits:
(A) 15 percent for any program, project or activity for
which $2,000,000 or more is available at the beginning of the
fiscal year; or
(B) $300,000 for any program, project or activity for which
less than $2,000,000 is available at the beginning of the
fiscal year;
(6) transfers more than $500,000 from either the Facilities
Operation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation category or the
Resources Management and Development category to any program,
project, or activity in the other category; or
(7) transfers, when necessary to discharge legal
obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation, more than
$5,000,000 to provide adequate funds for settled contractor
claims, increased contractor earnings due to accelerated
rates of operations, and real estate deficiency judgments.
(b) Subsection (a)(5) shall not apply to any transfer of
funds within the Facilities Operation, Maintenance, and
Rehabilitation category.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ``transfer''
means any movement of funds into or out of a program,
project, or activity.
(d) The Bureau of Reclamation shall submit reports on a
quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate detailing all the
funds reprogrammed between programs, projects, activities, or
categories of funding. The first quarterly report shall be
submitted not later than 60 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.
Sec. 202. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to determine the final
point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis
Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and
the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the
water quality standards of the State of California as
approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis
drainage waters.
(b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program
and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program
shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as
reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully
repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program-Alternative
Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP-Alternative Repayment Plan''
described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report,
Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley
Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future
obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or
providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the
San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit
beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal
reclamation law.
Sec. 203. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
until the pipeline reliability study required in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, is completed, and any
necessary changes are made to Technical Memorandum No. 8140-
CC-2004-1, the Bureau of Reclamation shall not deny approval,
funding, or assistance to any project, nor disqualify any
material from use, based, in whole or in part, on the
corrosion control used, if the corrosion control meets the
requirements of a published national or international
standard promulgated by the American Water Works Association
(``AWWA''), ASTM International, the American National
Standards Institute (``ANSI''), NACE International (``NACE'')
or the American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'').
The Bureau shall allow any project initiated during the study
to use any corrosion control meeting the above standards.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, and Efficiency
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for energy efficiency and
renewable energy activities, and electricity delivery and
energy reliability activities, in carrying out the purposes
of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101
et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any
real property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $982,637,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the amount
provided under this heading, $76,926,000 shall be available
until September 30, 2015, for program direction.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $9,518,000)''.
Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
Page 31, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $22,586,500)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, nuclear weapons production
played a pivotal role in our Nation's defense for decades, helping to
end the Second World War and to end the Cold War. Implementing these
programs resulted in a large volume of radioactive waste that the
Federal Government has a legal responsibility to clean up.
Today, there are indications that nuclear waste is leaking out of the
underground tanks at Hanford in my congressional district, with higher
levels of contamination now being detected in the surrounding soil.
The amendment that I offer, Mr. Chairman, would restore a portion of
the reduction for the Environmental Management program that would so
greatly impact the Richland Operations Office and help enable the
cleanup to move forward safely, efficiently, and in a timely manner.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would be happy to yield to the
subcommittee chairman.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I appreciate your longstanding commitment to
Hanford, and I support this amendment, which is aimed at strengthening
environmental management in the Richland Operations Office. EM is a
priority for the subcommittee. I look forward to returning to Hanford,
as I have in the past, to get a firsthand look at the latest challenges
and progress, and we know there are lots of challenges.
As you know, Representative Hastings, the Department of Energy has
not yet provided confirmation of probable tank leaks, a Record of
Decision on the potential for tank TRU waste, or a plan for the waste
treatment plant. This information will be required as Congress
completes the appropriations process for the Office of River
Protection.
[[Page H4257]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, thank
you for your support for this amendment and for your position on Yucca
Mountain in the underlying bill, which is the ultimate solution for
Hanford's high-level tank waste.
I would like to remind the chairman, I am meeting with Secretary
Moniz later this week, and I will reiterate the need for this
information that you have just outlined for WTP.
I also recognize the discrepancy in allocations between the House and
Senate bills.
I want to ask the gentleman: How do you anticipate that these
differences will be resolved, particularly as they pertain to EM, in
the event of a continuing resolution?
I yield to the chairman.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In the event of a continuing resolution, the
Department of Energy has the flexibility in determining funding levels
for individual programs and projects, including EM.
Mr. Hastings, I am pleased to support your amendment and I wish its
success.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I hope
we don't get to a CR, but thank you very much for that information.
At this time, I would like to yield to my colleague from southwest
Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler), the gentlelady from the
Appropriations Committee.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Hanford, as the gentleman mentioned, was the
reactor used for the Manhattan Project and was used to build the U.S.
nuclear arsenal during the Cold War.
I recently had an opportunity to tour Hanford with the gentleman and
so firmly believe in this amendment because this is a Federal
Government responsibility, this wasn't a choice by a local community.
The cleanup just is simply beyond the scope of the communities
involved. This matters to people in my district and up and down the
Columbia River, which is adjacent to your area.
I would urge my colleagues, this isn't somebody's pet project, this
isn't somebody's good idea. This is a responsibility. The gentleman
said ``a legal responsibility''--I would add to that a moral
responsibility--of the Federal Government to put this money here and
help aid the cleanup at Hanford.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentlelady for her remarks.
Again, I urge adoption of this amendment because this is a legal
obligation.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would say to Congressman Hastings that I
rise with sympathy toward the situation you face at Hanford, but must
oppose your amendment.
The amendment essentially would cut funding from energy efficiency
and renewable energy, specifically the weatherization program, which
affects dozens and dozens of communities across this country, many of
them very low income, as well as departmental administration, which has
already been cut to the bone, to move money to Hanford.
It is true that the communities that contributed to the Manhattan
Project cannot be left with the remnants of that war effort. We have a
moral obligation to clean up these sites. Without question, the bill is
inadequate to meet the commitments to States and local communities
faced with cleanup.
However, we cannot take those dollars out of the hides of elderly
people who might live in Newark, New Jersey, in the wintertime, or in
Portland, Oregon, or places where they can't afford their energy bills,
or we can't divert money from administration, which is already cut to
such a low level at the Department in order to move dollars to Hanford.
Hanford already receives over $2 billion a year--$2 billion. I wish
my community received $2 billion. I wish your communities received $2
billion a year.
Those dollars come from the River Protection program, over $1.2
billion, plus an additional $877 million, well over $2 billion a year.
That's more than most communities represented by Members here can even
imagine coming to their region of the country.
The defense waste cleanup in Ohio is extraordinary. We don't get $2
billion a year. So to say to senior citizens across this country we are
going to take it out of your weatherization program so you can't put
plastic around your windows in the wintertime and try to retrofit your
houses, or we are going to take it out of departmental administration
where we risk accounting for the funds properly for all of these
programs that the Department has to administer, including the cleanup,
some of these contracts that we've had problems with in that
Department, I simply can't support the manner in which the gentleman
and the gentlelady have identified where they are taking the money
from.
So while I agree with their intent, as I've said many times, the
allocation for this bill is $2.8 billion under last year and $4 billion
under the administration's request and is simply insufficient. We can't
keep picking the bones off the most needy parts of our country to try
to divert additional dollars to efforts at Hanford that are spending
well over $2 billion a year already.
I would ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reluctantly
oppose the gentleman's amendment. But in being fair and looking at all
the accounts, we simply can't keep picking from the bones of other
programs at the Department.
I ask my colleagues to vote against the Hastings amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment
at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $992,620,780)''.
Page 26, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $430,029,400)''.
Page 26, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $233,250,000)''.
Page 31, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,655,900,180)''.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I object.
Would the gentlewoman be able to identify the amendment which she is
proposing?
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I withdraw my objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The objection is withdrawn.
Without objection, the reading is dispensed with, and the gentlewoman
from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this
amendment to restore the significant cuts to the critical science and
energy research and development programs that were made in this bill,
including an 80 percent cut to ARPA-E and a 50 percent cut to the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. These programs, along
with the Department of Energy's Office of Science, are vital to our
national security, our economy, and our environment in the decades to
come.
It is really worth us thinking about the fact that we have seen how
government research can pay off when it comes to energy development.
DOE-supported research was key to the development of high-efficiency
gas turbines, for coal plants, nuclear reactors developed at Federal
labs, and the directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing practices
that have led to the shale gas boom today. But we should remember that
those achievements require decades of Federal investment, the
overwhelming majority of which was focused on fossil and nuclear
energy.
I continue to support research to make today's technologies cleaner
and more efficient, but I believe that it is
[[Page H4258]]
time for a level playing field. I introduce a real competition to our
markets. That is where the priorities set by Congress come into play.
We have to find the greatest value for our investment of the taxpayer
dollar. Today, it is the emerging energy technology sectors that can
most benefit from government support.
I have heard it said that this bill has been cut to the bone, and I
know that. It is important that DOE's Office of Science is actually the
largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the
country, and it 30 national scientific user facilities whose
applications go well beyond energy innovation.
{time} 1645
Our Nation's top researchers from industry, academia, and other
Federal agencies use these facilities to examine everything from new
materials, which will better meet our military's needs, to new
pharmaceuticals, which will better treat disease, to even examining the
fundamental building blocks of the universe. I believe that this
stewardship of unique scientific research, which includes the Nation's
major national user facilities, is another important role that I hope
the Department will continue to make one of its highest priorities.
It is no secret that Congress' inability to date to come to an
agreement on a sensible budget plan has led to some devastating cuts to
many of these important programs, with serious impacts on our Nation's
future. To restore these research funds, I certainly would not wish to
make these proposed cuts in my amendment which may slow down our
ability to meet the Nation's defense environmental cleanup obligations
this year. However, I believe that these research programs are the seed
corn of our future. Some things we know we have to wait to do, and
perhaps we can prolong that cleanup.
Yet, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely plead that we not cut this type of
money from the research we have going. Research is our Nation's future.
We cannot give up on our Nation's future, so I am hoping that we can
support this amendment and allow some of this research to go forward,
and I ask for support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. This amendment increases funding for science,
ARPA-E, and renewable energy, energy reliability and efficiency by a
total of $1.7 billion, using defense environmental cleanup as an
offset.
Defense environmental cleanup provides funding to clean up the legacy
of the Manhattan Project, as we discussed earlier, which is a huge task
that will take years to do. It will be a major expense and will take
significant resources. We heard part of the Washington State story, but
there is part of it in other parts of the country as well.
The Federal Government has an inherent responsibility to address this
legacy and to ensure that the materials created to build our nuclear
weapons stockpile do not endanger the public health and the
environment. There are also some other daunting technical challenges in
cleaning up this waste, and this amendment would, frankly, completely
gut those types of programs. It is doubtful that this level would even
sustain the basic operation and maintenance of the facilities, let
alone allow for any progress in the cleanup effort. The cleanup effort
needs to be sustained.
Our allocation has made, as I said earlier in the afternoon, for very
tough choices. We placed the highest priority on activities on which
the Federal Government must take the lead. While the applied energy and
advanced research programs are down substantially, admittedly, there is
a strong interest in advancing these areas of research, and the
responsibility for conducting that research can shift, in many ways, to
the private sector. Therefore, I strongly oppose the amendment, and I
urge other Members to do the same.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentlelady.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Thank you for your explanation. I
don't disagree with you, but I do feel that we cannot cut our research
and think that we will have a prosperous future.
So I would ask you to help me find a spot in which we, perhaps, can
use the dollars and postpone some of the cleanup. This is urgent and it
is needed, and I would ask you to agree to assist in our restoring some
of this research.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. In reclaiming my time, we know that the
gentlewoman's heart is in the right place. We know of your heartfelt
views. We would be happy to work with you to see what we can do to
assist in these other areas, but this environmental cleanup, in some
respects, is court-ordered besides there being, obviously, the
potential for human health to be adversely affected.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I, too, rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
I do appreciate the gentlelady's concerns, particularly about science
funding. However, Mr. Chairman, increasing funding for optional
programs, as valuable as they may be, cannot come at the expense of the
Federal Government's meeting its existing legal obligations to clean up
the waste created by our Nation's nuclear defense programs. I might
add, Mr. Chairman, that these were programs that won World War II and
that largely won the Cold War.
At Hanford, in my district, the Federal Government has 56 million
gallons of radioactive nuclear waste stored in 177 underground tanks.
Today, it appears likely that some of these tanks are leaking, and
higher levels of contamination have now been detected in the areas
surrounding one of the most recent leakers. In addition, there is also
a large quantity of radioactive waste at Hanford that was never put
into tanks. That, too, must be dealt with as well as the nuclear waste
at other sites across the country, like at the Savannah River, Oak
Ridge, and Idaho.
Again, it is nuclear waste that was created by programs of the
Federal Government for defense purposes. Cutting $1.7 billion from the
EM program would essentially halt most nuclear waste cleanup work, and
it would put the safety of our cleanup sites at risk and end any chance
of the Federal Government's meeting its existing legal cleanup
commitments to the States.
Mr. Chairman, let me be more specific about Hanford. I mentioned 56
million gallons of nuclear hazardous waste stored in 177 underground
tanks. Those tanks range in size from a half a million gallons to a
million gallons. Now, when you go out to the site, of course you can't
see the tanks because they're underground. All you see are gauges on
top that monitor what activity is going on in those tanks. If you want
to quantify how much 56 million gallons is, picture this: if one were
to put 56 million gallons here, it would take over 21 House Chambers to
fill 56 million gallons of waste. That's how much radioactive waste is
at Hanford, which needs to be cleaned up. It's the result of the
defense weapons program.
Now, the distinguished subcommittee chairman and I and others have
mentioned the legal obligation. In Washington State, that legal
obligation is called a tri-party agreement. It has set deadlines for
cleaning up Hanford, including the waste that I just mentioned. It's a
legal agreement between the Federal EPA, between the Federal Department
of Energy, and between the State Department of Ecology. It's a legal
agreement with time lines, and if you don't meet the agreements, of
course you're going to be sued. Every time there has been a threat to
be sued or there has been a disagreement on the time lines, the State
has always won.
So why would we want to defund this program and put all of that at
risk, which, of course, would cost a whole lot more money in the
future?
While I recognize the gentlelady and her passion for science
funding--and I, too, understand that as I have a national lab in my
district, for example--56 million gallons, or over 21 House Chambers,
of nuclear hazardous waste
[[Page H4259]]
needs to be cleaned up, and it's the responsibility of the Federal
Government. So I oppose the gentlelady's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAKANO. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment of my
colleague's, the gentlewoman from Texas.
It is vital we support our basic scientific research. As the ranking
member of the Science Committee, she carries great weight in these
matters, and I yield to the gentlelady.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I clearly understand the
explanation.
This amendment does not strike all of the funds. It strikes about a
third. I know the dangers of having all of the waste that needs to be
cleaned up, but I also think that it's important not to close the doors
on the future of this Nation while we do it. I really think that
research has been the element that has brought us here thus far and
that it is going to be research and innovation that carry us forward.
We cannot close the door on research while we talk about cleaning up
waste. We are only asking for a third of that money.
So I want to make another appeal that we not close the door on the
future of our Nation by shutting down our research.
Mr. TAKANO. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLEISCHMANN. To my colleagues in this great House, my name is
Chuck Fleischmann. I represent the Third District of Tennessee, which
has a great city. That city is Oak Ridge, the birthplace of the
Manhattan Project.
My colleagues, Oak Ridge has a great history. We won the Cold War
there, and we won World War II there, but this was a time that the
Federal Government in the manufacturing of nuclear weapons was not as
careful as it could have been. We didn't know. We had to win those
wars--and we did--but as a result of that legacy, we have a problem.
Doc Hastings, my colleague from Washington, talked about the problem
in Hanford--and there are 500 square miles in Hanford that need to be
cleaned up--but in my community in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, there are
populations of churches, schools, people all around in a highly
condensed area. We have there, across the DOE complex, a tremendous
legacy that needs to be cleaned up, and I want to talk about that
briefly.
We've got nuclear waste that needs to be cleaned up across the
complex, and that's being done. We also have a mercury problem. There
is an estimated 2 million pounds of mercury in the soil and in the
water. This is a real problem for American citizens. This is a Federal
obligation to clean this legacy up. There is no question about that.
Across this great Nation, whether it's in Oak Ridge, at the Savannah
River, in Hanford, or in Idaho, we have an obligation to the American
people to clean this up. We won World War II and we won the Cold War,
but we must do this. This waste is dangerous. It's expensive to clean
these things up. It's not a matter of ``if''; it's a matter of
``when.'' The longer we take to do this, we expose the people in these
communities all across America to the hazards of this nuclear waste.
So, Mr. Chairman, as an advocate for Oak Ridge and as an advocate for
environmental cleanup, we must get this done. We have decades' worth of
work to go. We have got to do this. As we honor Oak Ridge and other
communities with a great national park, which is coming forward and
which was voted for in this great House, we can never forget the legacy
that's left behind. Environmental cleanup is a must. It is a Federal
obligation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I appreciate the comments of my friends from
Tennessee and Washington.
In Colorado, in my district, we have two of those plants which are
World War II and Cold War legacy plants--Rocky Flats and the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal--so I appreciate the comments and the need to clean
these sites up. It is long overdue. I agree with you, and I look
forward to that.
The problem we have here, on the one hand, are substantial cuts to
the Energy Department's budget and, on the other hand, an increase to
this line item above and beyond the President's request. As I
understand it, the committee recommends to the House $345 million,
which is $23.5 million over the administration's request.
Although I agree completely with the need to clean up, the majority
party is requesting more than is needed at this point, and it is to the
detriment of the rest of the budget of the Energy Department.
Particularly, the one that I'm concerned about is renewable energy,
such as the National Renewable Energy Lab, and I will have an amendment
to that point coming up later.
So, to my friends, I agree with you that the cleanup needs to go
forward. It should be done at the full amount the President requested
and not at the $23 million more that has been suggested by the
committee.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1700
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. This debate is a perfect example of why this bill's
funding is so inadequate.
What is really being debated is whether we are going to trade off the
science of the future, which is so essential to America's
competitiveness in the global economy, to take care of necessary past
cleanup. Who can make that choice? They are both essential. Are we
going to sacrifice the future for the past? That's really what this
debate is about.
We know that this bill is $4 billion under the administration's
request and over $2 billion under what we spent in this fiscal year of
2013. So we really have an argument that nobody wins. If we fund the
past cleanup, we sacrifice the future. If we sacrifice the future, do
we really take care of all the past cleanup? We hardly do what's
necessary, even with current funding.
So I think it's a perfect example of where the sequestration process
is so counterproductive and moves America backwards. We have very
imperfect choices here and actually very dangerous choices that we're
being forced to make. I think the majority would be much better suited
to come back to us with a budget that allows us to do the job that the
Energy and Water Subcommittee is charged with doing.
We simply can't try to solve the problem internal to the resources
we've been given. It's an impossibility. So somebody is going to lose;
and I guarantee you in the past amendment that just came up, some of
the people that were the losers have no lobbies here in Washington. The
poorest people in our country, who are getting weatherization
assistance in order to stay a little bit warmer in the wintertime, they
just lost money. They've got no lobby here. They've got none of those
people from these various nuclear sites to come in here and lobby for
them. Yet they just lost out in a prior amendment.
They have a right to an existence in this country, but we are seeing
inside the strictures of this set of choices that we've been given that
somebody is always a loser. Actually, the country is a loser because of
sequestration and the fact that our subcommittee has been given a mark
so far below what is reasonable and frankly what we could do if we had
a budget that allowed us to move the country forward, rather than
create a can't-do Nation. We can't do science, we can't do cleanup
because of what we were handed by, what, a Budget Committee whose
members don't even appear on the floor to argue their positions during
this debate?
I feel sorry for our country, and I feel sorry for those who have to
come down here and take from one another during this debate and hurt
people across this country because our allocation is simply too
insufficient to meet the needs of the Nation.
So I want to thank the gentlelady for rising on this very important
point of
[[Page H4260]]
science of the future versus cleanup of the past, but we simply don't
have the funds in this bill to do both and it puts us in a very
destructive position for the interests of our Nation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Takano
Mr. TAKANO. 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 22, line 5, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $245,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $245,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the
fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water appropriations bill to increase
funding for the Department of Energy's advanced manufacturing program.
My amendment increases funding for the renewable energy, energy
reliability, and efficiency account by $245 million to meet the
President's budget request for advanced manufacturing.
If we are to remain competitive in the global marketplace, we must
fully invest in, develop, and commercialize the emerging technologies
that will create high-quality manufacturing jobs in the United States.
These investments are crucial to accelerate the advancement of ideas
and allow American manufacturers to continue to innovate and compete.
By matching the President's request, the Department of Energy will be
able to move forward with plans to develop interagency manufacturing
innovation institutes that will develop best practices and help
manufacturers meet common challenges. These institutes will enable
innovation, create a dependable talent pipeline, and improve the
overall business climate.
It requires a diverse array of partners if advanced manufacturing is
to accelerate and thrive in the United States. A Federal commitment to
these emerging and efficient technologies is the catalyst that will
help bring educators, workers, and businesses, as well as local and
State partners, to the table. Federal investments in advanced
manufacturing will help create more jobs, increase our competitiveness,
and allow the United States to continue to be a leader in advancing
energy-efficient technologies.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I
understand he may be offering some other amendments similarly related
later on the floor. Suffice it to say that my remarks here will also
pertain to those amendments.
This amendment would unacceptably strike funding for the National
Nuclear Security Administration's weapon activity by $245 million in
order to increase funding for renewable energy, energy reliability, and
efficiency activities. Ensuring funding to maintain our nuclear
stockpile is our highest priority in our Energy and Water development
bill. Historically, it always has been and will continue to be. We have
put off for too long the investments that are needed to ensure that we
maintain our nuclear weapons stockpile in the future.
Because of this historical underfunding, there's been strong
bipartisan support for increasing weapons activities. Our bill takes a
responsible approach to meeting those needs, reducing funding $193
million below the request for nonessential activities within the
weapons activities account that are not required to maintain the
nuclear weapons stockpile, but there are no further savings available.
A reduction of this magnitude would severely impact the National
Nuclear Security Administration's ability to ensure the continued
reliability of our weapons, something which the Secretary of Energy has
to do to our Commander in Chief each and every year.
I support the programs championed by my colleague. That's why we
worked hard to increase the advanced manufacturing program by $5
million over fiscal year 2013 within an account that is cut by $971
million.
I oppose the amendment and urge Members to do likewise, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Let me say to the gentleman from California that I am
sympathetic toward his efforts on the renewable energy activities at
the Department of Energy as they are critical for America's energy
future, and I'm torn as I listen to his arguments.
I just wanted to demonstrate a chart here that shows the relative
superiority of the United States in the nuclear weapons field, the
largest total inventory in the world, with Russia right behind. We have
a significant nuclear capacity, much greater than nations that follow:
France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, North Korea. The United
States has quite significant nuclear complexes, and we must maintain
them, and we must provide security for them.
I think that the President's negotiations with Russia provide us with
a very important opportunity to cut the systems and to do so in a
responsible way that continues our superiority and our security, while
bringing down the possibilities of reducing these weapons globally.
The gentleman's amendment would actually move funds--$335 million
from our weapons accounts--and move them to energy efficiency and
renewable energy, which is a move that I would like to support at a
future date--the sooner, the better. I appreciate him offering the
amendment.
Though I agree with his intent, as I've said many times before, the
allocation for this bill is simply insufficient, and we're robbing one
account to try to put funds in another account.
I must very reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment. I think
he's moving in the right direction, and I think that this helps our
Nation move in a more constructive direction for the future. We have a
responsibility on the nuclear security front. Hopefully, with ongoing
negotiations, we'll be able to make this move in the very near future.
I want to thank him for his leadership in moving the country forward
and showing us a new path. Let's hope that with the administration's
engagement, we can move to that path sooner rather than later.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. The NNSA's weapons activities program is the
core of the U.S. nuclear modernization efforts. Reductions of this
magnitude, the $245 million being proposed in this amendment, will
endanger the nuclear deterrent by delaying or canceling key warhead
life-extension programs and facilitate modernization programs. These
cuts will also cost taxpayers more in the future because the
modernization program that the Obama administration has requested must
be done and will only get more expensive with time.
President Obama committed to request robust funding for nuclear
modernization to win Senate ratification of his New START treaty
program. But unfortunately, to date, he's $1.6 billion behind in that
commitment for FY 12 through FY 14. Without these robust funding
levels, our ability to safely reduce the New START levels is in
question.
The President's 2010 nuclear posture review says:
These investments are essential to facilitating reductions
while sustaining deterrents under the New START and beyond.
With this tight budget, we must provide every dollar we can to
nuclear modernization efforts and prevent the draconian further
reductions required by this amendment.
NNSA is the only national security spending in this bill. Taking
money from NNSA to pay for renewable energy directly undermines our
national security to subsidize energy technologies that can't stand on
their own in the market.
[[Page H4261]]
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Perry
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $31,000,000)''.
Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $31,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, we've had a continuing debate about American
energy independence. One way for America to achieve real energy
independence is to utilize our own renewable and clean energy
resources.
Currently, there are over 800 dams across the Nation waiting to
generate power. The dams are already sitting there, sitting on our
Nation's rivers all across the country, waiting to generate power, just
waiting. From Sacramento to Savannah and right on the Susquehanna River
where I live, the power and the consistency of the water flow on these
rivers is truly impressive and, as I said, consistent.
The energy created from this immense water flow is something that
America should harness for the use of individual and commercial power.
In that vein, this amendment would increase the water power energy
program by $31 million. Again, this applies only to the water power
energy program.
The Water Power Program is a vitally important program to reducing
our dependence on Middle Eastern oil or fossil fuels for many folks on
the other side of aisle and the administration who seem desperately
opposed to it.
{time} 1715
It will allow us to become a more energy independent Nation and do so
in an environmentally sound manner. While you sleep, while you work,
while you drive, while you talk to your family and watch TV, the rivers
are flowing, the tides are moving in and out; power can be generated
without any more than that. It doesn't take us digging anything up,
dumping anything in, dredging anything up. It just happens.
The water power program is designed to develop water technologies and
address barriers to hydropower, barriers like the permitting process
that we currently undergo in this Nation which takes companies that
want to do this 10 years, minimum, 10 to 15 years to receive a permit.
Who invests in something that takes that long, that kind of money? The
problem is that increasingly no one does. So what's right under our
feet, what's going right past us in our homes, our towns, our rivers,
is not being utilized, and it's right there. Eight hundred dams
currently in this Nation could be generating power at this moment.
Hydropower is available in every region of the country and is
America's largest source of clean, renewable electricity. It accounts
for 67 percent of domestic renewable generation and 7 percent of total
electricity generation. And it creates good-paying jobs. I mean from
the bottom to the top, everyplace on the spectrum of job creation,
hydropower creates work for people. It's reliable, proven, and domestic
technology that can expand in environmentally responsible ways. It can
be put to work in rivers, harbors, and coastal areas to capture energy
from currents and tides. Harnessing this energy will create a truly
renewable and green source of energy.
I would like to thank the chairman and the committee for the work
they have done to bring this bill to the floor, and I ask all of my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to oppose the
gentleman from Pennsylvania's amendment. First of all, I want to salute
him for being a strong advocate for water power. I think those of us on
the committee are as well.
His amendment would increase, as we're aware, funding for energy
efficiency and renewable energy by $31 million using the Department's
administration account as an offset to restore the water power program
to the requested level. Our allocation, as I've said a number of times,
made for some really tough choices. Our bill cuts applied energy and
advanced research programs to allow more funding for inherently Federal
responsibilities.
While I support the program championed by my colleague, we can simply
not afford to increase energy reliable activities so significantly by
diverting funding from other essential activities within the Department
of Energy. One of the issues within the Department of Energy is they've
had management issues. They need money to better manage a lot of the
activities. They have a new Secretary of Energy. He needs the resources
to do it. If we keep tapping from this account, there will be no money
to pay for the management and operation and the accountability we
expect from the chief executive of this Department. Therefore, I
reluctantly oppose his amendment and urge Members to do likewise.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's well-
intentioned amendment and again reiterate that our budget is simply
insufficient in our subcommittee to meet all of the needs of the
country.
What the gentleman is proposing is to take an additional $31 million
out of the Department's administrative accounts and to shift them to
renewable energy systems relating to dams and small dam construction.
That is a very worthy objective. However, if you know anything about
the Department of Energy, one of the challenges we face in the
administrative accounts is getting them to manage their contracts in a
way that properly oversees taxpayer dollar expenditures. That
Department has had some of the worst cost overruns I have ever seen in
my career in Congress, on the nuclear side and on the nonnuclear side.
So when the gentleman wants to cut administrative costs, my worry is
that we will not have the kind of rigor that the chairman and I have
been trying to reinfuse in the Department to better manage the dollars
that we allow them to spend. And so I think the gentleman's amendment
runs a real risk of creating mismanagement there simply because they
don't have the personnel to do the job.
And so I think that your end purpose is a very, very worthy one. And,
frankly, we have some small dams in Ohio that would benefit from the
gentleman's amendment, but I have to come down on the side of rigor and
proper administration by the Department in all of their accounts, and
the amount of mismanagement and cost overruns in some of their programs
is into the billions.
The administrative accounts overall are only $187 million to manage a
Department that is over $30 billion worth of expenditures and all kinds
of contractors, all kinds of cleanup programs that stand on that thin
reed of $187 million for nationwide contract administration and
personnel administration.
So I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I understand
what he's trying to do, but we simply can't risk improper contract
management in that Department at this time. I urge opposition to the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by
[[Page H4262]]
the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,127,954,000)''.
Page 22, line 8, before the period, insert the following:
: Provided, That the amount made available under this heading
shall be allocated between programs, projects, and activities
previously funded under the heading ``Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy'' and programs, projects, and activities
previously funded under the heading ``Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability'' in the same proportion as such funds
were allocated between such accounts in fiscal year 2013 by
division F of Public Law 113-6
Ms. CASTOR of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to waive the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I object to waiving the reading, and
I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment that would restore funding for America's renewable energy,
energy efficiency, and energy conservation initiatives, restore it to
the very modest levels of the last year, 2013. These relate to the
Department of Energy's energy efficiency and renewable energy
initiatives, the Department's electricity delivery and energy
reliability initiatives as well.
The problem with the Republican bill is it slashes, it eviscerates
America's commitment to renewable energy and energy conservation. They
also have something that I characterize, maybe a term of art,
rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, because they take these
various accounts and squeeze them in a vise down into a single account;
and when you take it all together, it is a 57 percent reduction in
energy efficiency and renewable energy. This is outrageous. It is
shortsighted, and it is very poor public policy.
The Republican bill slashes clean energy initiatives that are
critical to the all-of-the-above energy strategy that I thought we all
agreed on is needed for U.S. energy independence, ranging from solar to
wind power and new technologies for more energy-efficient buildings and
advanced vehicles.
So I have to say, Mr. Chairman, if I hear any of my Republican
colleagues say they are for an all-of-the-above approach on energy
policy, this Energy and Water appropriations bill belies that. It
really pulls the curtain back on what the plan really is on the other
side of the aisle.
The administration has objected, and I agree with them. They write:
The Republican bill would leave U.S. competitiveness at
risk in new markets for clean energy industries such as
advanced vehicles, advanced manufacturing, energy efficiency
for homes and businesses, and domestic renewable energies
such as wind, solar, and biomass.
They do this at a time when they are content to leave huge taxpayer
subsidies going to the big oil companies, meanwhile slashing very
modest investments in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and energy
conservation.
Specifically, the impact of these cuts will reduce by 50 percent the
homes weatherized to help our neighbors back home reduce their energy
bills. And Ranking Member Kaptur was absolutely correct: those working
class neighbors back home do not have big lobbyists here in Washington,
D.C. This bill would also significantly delay research on next
generation technologies that save energy in our homes, our schools, our
hospitals, and businesses.
The Republican bill will hinder the development of cost-effective new
technologies and appliance standards that save Americans money by
increasing energy productivity. This bill spells a likely demise and
ends solar energy job training for students and military veterans at
261 community colleges. The Republican bill will slow efforts to
modernize and secure the electricity delivery grid and respond to
energy emergencies.
I ask simply that we return the funding levels to the very modest
levels of last year. The amendment also directs that funds be allocated
in the same proportion as they were in fiscal year 2013.
These clean energy initiatives are critical to achieving energy
independence, boosting our economy, creating jobs, and maintaining
global leadership. Ranking Member Kaptur was absolutely right during
this debate. She said we are sacrificing our future and not living up
to the standards of this great country because you're slashing the
investments that make this country go: investing in innovation and
technology.
I'm afraid that it really highlights the broader issue, and that is
the fact that the Republicans refuse to negotiate on the budget. They
passed the budget 100 days ago. The Democrats have appointed conferees.
I don't know what the holdup is, why my Republican colleagues are
afraid to negotiate on the budget. But in the meantime, here on this
amendment, we have an opportunity to stand up for jobs, for clean
energy and the future of our great Nation. I ask support of the Castor
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes a net
increase in budget authority in the bill. The amendment is not in order
under section 3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5, 113th Congress, which
states:
It shall not be in order to consider an amendment to a general
appropriation bill proposing a net increase in budget authority in the
bill unless considered en bloc with another amendment or amendments
proposing an equal or a greater decrease in such budget authority
pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.
The amendment proposes a net increase in the budget authority in the
bill in violation of such section. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
The gentlewoman is recognized.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I appreciate that there is a point of order
brought up, but I think there is a major point of order that faces this
House of Representatives, and that's the fact that the Democrats have
appointed conferees to negotiate the budget, and my Republican
colleagues appear to be afraid to come together and discuss the budget.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman will confine her remarks to the
point of order.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, at this time, I will insist upon a
vote on the point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from New Jersey makes a point of order that the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Florida violates section
3(d)(3) of House Resolution 5.
Section 3(d)(3) establishes a point of order against an amendment
proposing a net increase in budget authority in the pending bill.
As persuasively asserted by the gentleman from New Jersey, the
amendment proposes a net increase in the budget authority in the bill.
Therefore, the point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in
order.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to appeal the ruling of
the Chair.
{time} 1730
The Acting CHAIR. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair
stand as the judgment of the Committee?
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
had it.
So the decision of the Chair stands as the judgment of the Committee.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
In the item relating to ``Department of Energy--Energy
Programs--Renewable Energy,
[[Page H4263]]
Energy Reliability, and Efficiency'', after the first dollar
amount, insert ``(reduced by $9,826,370)''.
In the spending reduction account, after the dollar amount,
insert ``(increased by $9,826,370).''
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today cuts
significant amounts from a number of programs which I have
traditionally targeted for spending reductions.
Now, I commend my friends, the full committee chairman, Hal Rogers,
and the subcommittee chairman, also a good friend, Mr. Frelinghuysen,
for these cuts, and I congratulate them on such.
That being said, we're at a time of a real fiscal emergency. Congress
has allowed the sequester to happen, and we can see some of the effects
of the sequester in this underlying bill. I opposed the use of the
sequester from the get-go because I believe that governmentwide,
across-the-board cuts are not a wise way of cutting spending. I believe
that it's bad policy.
Instead of furloughing civilian DOD employees and cutting our
military, we ought to make targeted cuts where there's room to do so.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would do just that. It would trim just a
small additional 1 percent, or about $9.8 million, from programs
relating to renewable energy and energy efficiency, and put that amount
toward spending reduction.
The committee report for the underlying bill notes that funding for
these programs prioritizes reducing gas prices and supporting American
manufacturing. And absolutely, we must be doing those things. Yet,
these funds are focused on technologies which are still emerging, like
new vehicle technology, hydrogen and fuel cell technology, and bio-
energy.
Mr. Chairman, I'm not arguing that these technologies aren't worth
studying. What I'm suggesting is that we--and I'm not suggesting that
we completely defund them. I'm suggesting we make a mere 1 percent cut
towards the proposed spending level.
What I'm saying is that we make this small additional cut and work
towards getting our fiscal house in order before pouring scarce funding
into new, unproven technology.
I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word, and oppose the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The gentleman from Georgia's amendment would
further cut funding for renewable energy and energy reliability and
efficiency program by an additional 1 percent from the levels contained
in our bill.
The Energy and Water Development bill cuts levels by $2.9 billion
below last year's level, including $971 million from renewable energy
and energy-efficient activities. In just those accounts alone, that's
50 percent below fiscal year 2013, and 67 percent below the President's
request.
To that end, the funding the bill preserves is just as important as
the funding it cuts. Our bill focuses the vast majority of remaining
funds within this account on programs that can address high gas prices
and help American manufacturers compete in the global marketplace.
These programs can reduce American manufacturing costs, help companies
compete in that market, creating jobs here at home.
Reducing Federal spending is critical. That's why the bill reduces
funding for this account to half its current levels. But we also must
make strategic investments to address high gas prices and help America
compete.
The amendment would eliminate these important programs. I urge
Members to oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to the Broun amendment, and really
find it somewhat incredible that, in the bill that the majority brought
forward, the renewable energy accounts have been cut by over half, over
60 percent already. This gentleman proposes an amendment to cut it by
an additional 1 percent. And that equals $9,826,370 to an account that
has already just been drubbed.
Now, I want to say something here. Here's a chart that shows
America's trade deficit. And energy, imported energy, comprises the
largest account. We haven't had a balanced trade deficit since the
1970s, when the job hemorrhage started in this country. And it gets
worse every year.
America's future depends on innovation. We can't continue to live
like this. Every community you go to in this country, they say, will we
have to move somewhere because my child can't find a job?
Or gosh, I just had to get another job and I had my salary cut in
half.
It's pretty obvious what's been happening. The major category of
trade deficit is energy imports, energy, because we are not self-
sufficient in energy production in this country.
Part of the answer lies in new energy systems, systems that even NASA
has helped us to begin to invent, yes, in the solar field, yes, in new
hydrogen technologies like cryogenic hydrogen, yes, in natural gas.
Thank goodness, the Department invested in fossil fuel technologies.
That's where the fracking technologies came from. It came from thinking
about the future, not living in the past.
So the gentleman's cutting even further into the bone. We've already
cut to the bone, now you're sort of whacking the spine in half and
saying, well, let's cut some more there.
Well, either you live in the future or you live in the past. And I,
sadly, view the gentleman's amendment as a retreat to the past.
I want to live in an America that's a can-do nation, an America that
invents new technologies. And literally, the renewable technologies are
going to have to be there when the finite resources of carbon-based
fuels aren't there anymore, because they are finite. They're finite
globally.
And I stand here also today for every single soldier in our country
that's died in the line of duty trying to protect the sea lanes to
bring that stuff in here because they're trying to help America hold it
together while she isn't energy-independent here at home.
So these investments in the future are vital to the future, if one is
capable of thinking forward about what that future might look like.
I've seen a technology, sir, that can take a thin filament invented
by the best scientists this country has. They float it in a nitrogen
bath and, from point of generation of power to point of use it's 100
percent energy-efficient, unlike the current transmission technologies
that we have today, where we lose 25 to 80 percent of our power.
There has to be a majority in here, 218, that are capable of thinking
about living in the future and not just the past.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I think that he's trying to be a
good budgeteer, I guess, but in so doing, he cuts off the nose to spite
his face.
America deserves to have an energy future, and it won't happen with
amendments like this one.
So I oppose the gentleman's amendment, ask my colleagues to vote
``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting 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. Cohen
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 22, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
Mr. COHEN (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Tennessee?
Mr. LAMBORN. I object.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
[[Page H4264]]
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
Mr. COHEN (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent, again, that
we consider it as read. I think my friend from Colorado who shares my
birth date doesn't understand what is going on. He doesn't want to
listen to this. Nobody wants to listen to this.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COHEN. My amendment, which is worthy of being considered and
passed, but not necessarily to be heard, would re-appropriate $50
million from the Weapons Activities account to the Renewable Energy,
Energy Reliability, and Efficiency account, kind of a compromise about
what we've been hearing. It doesn't take too much from nuclear. It
gives some back to solar. It's a compromise where we work together.
In this bill, the Weapons Activities account, which had been funded
at $7.7 billion, that's more than $190 million over the President's
request, and over $95 million more than the account had in 2013. And to
offset this increase, which the committee voted, the committee decided
to do so by funding the Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and
Efficiency account at only $982 million, slashing that account by
almost 50 percent in this budget.
While ensuring the security of the United States is certainly very,
very important, the consequences of ignoring climate change trends and
data is resulting in a serious and ever-growing threat right here on
our own soil.
I know that the goal of everybody here in the House is energy
independence, and it's a paramount concern to all of us. However, in
order to achieve this goal, we must dedicate ourselves and our budget
to the serious business of securing that energy future.
Ensuring that our renewable energy research program is adequately
funded is one of the most effective and climate-neutral ways to achieve
this goal. For example, solar power is the most abundant energy
resource available to the planet, and demand for solar power in the
United States is at an all-time high.
As solar prices continue to fall, Americans are reassessing their
energy resources. Cutting funding to projects that make this clean
energy even more affordable is not prudent, and out of line with the
priorities of clean-energy minded Americans.
Renewable energy is secure and domestic, and energy-efficient
programs not only result in greater resource supplies but savings for
families and businesses alike.
According to the Alliance to Save Energy, the President's climate
plan to double domestic energy production by utilizing methods like
renewable energy could save the average family household more than
$1,000 every year on energy bills.
Investing in renewable energy will result in safer domestic energy,
job creation in the clean energy sector, and lower heating and cooling
bills across the country.
For these reasons and others, and in the best interest of our
Nation's energy security, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
amendment. I would ask you to spend money on finding research to see
ways we can come up with renewable energy and improve the savings, and
save about the future, save it and yet not cut too much from the
nuclear program, which we already have funded higher than the President
requested or last year.
I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, a compromise
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and
speak in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The gentleman's amendment, as he said, would
increase funding for this EERE account and by cutting weapons
activities in the NNSA administration and using that as an offset.
Our bill not only cuts the renewable energy and energy efficiency
accounts, it also cuts fossil energy by $84 million, 16 percent,
nuclear energy by 14 percent.
As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, our allocation made for some tough
choices. We've placed highest priority on activities in which the
Federal Government must take the lead. One of those, of course, the
most critical mass is assuring funding for national security. It's our
highest priority.
While I support the programs that he outlines, we should not divert
to programs from national security. Therefore, I oppose his amendment
and ask Members to do so as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1745
Mr. LAMBORN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LAMBORN. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I object to
where this money is being cut. The amendment would take another $50
million away from already low amounts for modernizing our nuclear
stockpile. The President agreed several years ago that he would
modernize our nuclear stockpile in order to secure ratification of the
New START Treaty. Under that treaty, both Russian and U.S. forces are
being reduced; but we have to modernize the force so that we maintain a
credible deterrent with the remaining weapons after the reductions take
place.
The President is not fully funding that obligation. That's troubling
enough. This committee has lowered what the President recommended to an
even lower level, and that's even more troubling. If we take this
amendment for a further reduction, we're really getting into serious
cuts.
The trouble with not modernizing our nuclear capability is that we
will no longer have an effective deterrent. These weapons degrade over
time. They lose their effectiveness and reliability. If we have allies
who can't depend on our nuclear deterrent, what are they going to want
to do? They're going to want to go out and start their own nuclear
programs. Countries like Korea and Japan are already talking about
that, by the way. Unless you want more nuclear proliferation in the
world, you want the U.S. to maintain a serious and credible deterrent
and have an effective nuclear arsenal.
So this amendment takes us in the wrong direction. It's not good
strategically for the United States. It's not a good savings of money,
and I would urge strong rejection of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. We've had these discussions. We've got enough money in
nuclear weapons to destroy the world thousands and thousands and
thousands of times. And I understand defense, but I also understand the
future. And the future is energy self-reliance. And that comes from the
Sun. It's not going to be taken out of the Earth. It's going to come
from the solar energy that God has given us to harness and use for
mankind.
So the amendment, in my opinion, is a sound amendment and budgetary
use. But even more so--and it's getting off the path--the reality is
the distinguished gentleman made his remarks and said there's nothing
more important than our Defense Department. I submit to you that we're
cutting $1.6 billion from the National Institutes of Health. That's my
defense department and your defense department and everybody else's
defense department. Because cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes,
Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and AIDS, that's the enemy that's going to
get each one of us. And we're cutting $1.6 from NIH, which is our
defense department.
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
[[Page H4265]]
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
In the item relating to ``Department of Energy--Energy
Programs--Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, and
Efficiency'', after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $4,751,000)''.
In the spending reduction account, after the dollar amount,
insert ``(increased by $4,751,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. This amendment would reduce the appropriations
that are suggested for the energy programs relating to renewable
energy, energy reliability, and efficiency by $4.751 million and
increase the spending reduction account by that same amount. It is
meant to eliminate the committee-recommended increase to funding for
facilities and infrastructure under this section of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, we must do everything that we can to rein in spending.
We're facing an economic emergency as a Nation. My friends,
particularly on the other side, seem to not face the fact that we're
headed for an economic meltdown if we don't stop this uncontrolled
spending that I believe is irresponsible.
My amendment is not a cut to funding, but to simply eliminate a
proposed increase, keeping the appropriated amount at the current level
we have right now today.
I believe this is a commonsense amendment, I urge my colleagues to
support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. Our
bill already cuts the National Renewable Energy Lab, or NREL, within
the Department of Energy. We cut it by $15 million below the
President's request. That's a 33 percent reduction. Quite honestly, I
don't think the facility could take any further reductions that
undermine this budget consolidation, which is something we've sought,
something which the Department of Energy has gone ahead with.
Therefore, I oppose the amendment, and urge others to do the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. I rise to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from
Georgia. This is a chart showing U.S. imports of oil since 1973, where
America is more vulnerable in every succeeding decade. We know that if
gas prices in this country go over $4 a gallon, we go into deep
recession.
We live at the edge every year, and we've seen what happens. So I
repeat what I've said in prior debates today: either you live in the
past or you attempt to live in the future and build a future.
I think that the gentleman's amendment, though it might be well
intentioned, is moving America backwards. We simply have to address the
fact that we are not energy independent as a country, and the renewable
energy accounts are part of that future. We must embrace it. We must
move our Nation away from complete dependence on foreign sources of
energy and stand on our own two feet here at home.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment, ask my colleagues to do the same,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Moran of Virginia.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Moran of Virginia.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Takano of California.
Amendment by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania.
First amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Moran
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 236, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 311]
AYES--177
Andrews
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--236
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
[[Page H4266]]
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--21
Barber
Bass
Campbell
Conyers
Franks (AZ)
Garcia
Gosar
Grijalva
Horsford
Hoyer
Hunter
Kirkpatrick
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pastor (AZ)
Polis
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Sinema
Young (FL)
{time} 1821
Messrs. BRADY of Texas, CULBERSON, ENYART, and DAVID SCOTT of Georgia
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. TITUS, Mr. ELLISON, Ms. SCHWARTZ, and Mr. SCHRADER changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Moran
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). The unfinished business is the
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 226, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 312]
AYES--188
Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Yarmuth
NOES--226
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--20
Barber
Camp
Campbell
Franks (AZ)
Garcia
Gosar
Horsford
Hoyer
Hunter
Kirkpatrick
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Polis
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Sinema
Young (FL)
{time} 1829
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 312, I was in conversation
with the chairman of the Armed Services Committee discussing matters
important to the Mississippi National Guard. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Takano
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Takano) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152,
noes 264, not voting 18, as follows:
[[Page H4267]]
[Roll No. 313]
AYES--152
Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Clarke
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Michaud
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Walz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--264
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--18
Barber
Campbell
Franks (AZ)
Garcia
Gosar
Horsford
Hoyer
Hunter
Kirkpatrick
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pastor (AZ)
Polis
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Sinema
Young (FL)
{time} 1836
Mr. CICILLINE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Perry
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 140,
noes 275, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 314]
AYES--140
Barletta
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Braley (IA)
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Connolly
Cooper
Cramer
Cuellar
Daines
Davis, Rodney
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Duckworth
Engel
Eshoo
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Gallego
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gohmert
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanna
Harris
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Huffman
Israel
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
Kuster
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luetkemeyer
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Marino
Markey
Massie
Matsui
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McNerney
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Pascrell
Perry
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Radel
Reichert
Rice (SC)
Roe (TN)
Rokita
Roskam
Rothfus
Ruppersberger
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Shuster
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Vargas
Vela
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (SC)
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOES--275
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barr
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Cantor
Capito
Cardenas
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Conyers
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Enyart
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holding
Holt
Honda
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lance
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham (NM)
[[Page H4268]]
Lummis
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pocan
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schwartz
Scott, Austin
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Titus
Turner
Valadao
Veasey
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Waters
Watt
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--19
Barber
Campbell
Franks (AZ)
Garcia
Gosar
Horsford
Hoyer
Hunter
Kirkpatrick
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
Negrete McLeod
Pastor (AZ)
Polis
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Sinema
Young (FL)
{time} 1843
Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Pelosi was allowed to speak out of order.)
Congratulating the Honorable Edward Markey
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I rise with the greatest respect,
admiration, and appreciation to congratulate the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has served nearly 4
decades in the House of Representatives.
Two weeks ago, in their wisdom, the people of Massachusetts elected
him to the United States Senate. I'm pleased to yield to the skillful
leader, this person of great vision, a legislative virtuoso, a person
who has served with great values. It is a bittersweet moment for me to
yield for the last time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlewoman very much.
Thirty-seven years ago, I stepped off a plane here, and it was my
first visit in my life to Washington, D.C. I had never been here
before, and I was sworn in as a Congressman on my first visit to this
city 37 years ago.
I am so proud to have been a Congressman here in this Chamber along
with all of you. For me, the House is democracy in action, all of us
declaring our love of country and our desire for a better future for
all of our constituents and for our Nation.
I am honored to have served here. I am blessed to have made so many
wonderful friends here. And I am humbled by the dedication of all of
you to this great Nation. As I have represented Massachusetts, so too
have each of you represented your States with your conscience.
I now go to serve in the Senate, but there is a big part of me that
will always be a man of the House after 37 years having served here in
this great body.
With that, for the last time, I say: Madam Chair, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 5-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Broun) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153,
noes 257, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 315]
AYES--153
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barr
Barton
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Camp
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Cotton
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lankford
Latta
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stockman
Stutzman
Thornberry
Tiberi
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IN)
NOES--257
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Becerra
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nunes
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Richmond
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
[[Page H4269]]
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--24
Barber
Beatty
Campbell
Castor (FL)
Duncan (TN)
Franks (AZ)
Garcia
Gosar
Horsford
Hoyer
Hunter
Kirkpatrick
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
Pastor (AZ)
Polis
Salmon
Schweikert
Sessions
Shimkus
Sinema
Young (FL)
{time} 1855
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Madam Chair, on rollcall No. 315 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Daines) having assumed the chair, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2609)
making appropriations for energy and water development and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________