Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 97 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 97 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H4269-H4308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2014

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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2609.
Will the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) kindly resume
the chair.

{time} 1900

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 further consideration of
the bill making appropriations for energy and water development and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for
other purposes, with Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) had
been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 22, line 9.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Swalwell of California

Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Chair, 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 $1,000,000)''.
Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

Mr. SWALWELL of California (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask
unanimous consent to waive reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my
amendment, which would transfer $1 million to the Department of
Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, or EERE,
from administrative funds.
I recently organized a letter, joined by almost 80 of my colleagues,
calling for robust and sustained funding for this crucial program.
EERE's research, development, and deployment programs focus on three
major fields: renewable electricity generation; sustainable
transportation; and energy-saving homes, buildings, and manufacturing.
This program plays a key role in advancing America's all-of-the-above
energy strategy, and we must set priorities and make smart, strategic
decisions about Federal funding. This is the only way to ensure that
this country is prepared for whatever changes the markets may
experience.
And I thank our ranking member for yielding me the time and allowing
me to speak about the amendment, and I appreciate her comments about
either you look backward or you look forward or you act forward when it
comes to how we get our energy supply. She has talked on the floor
today and articulated that our country right now faces a trade deficit,
and she's right.
Every month, by about $40 billion, we are importing more goods and
services than we are exporting. In many cases, that is because of the
crude oil that we have to import month after month after month because
we are not meeting our own energy needs. And the United States, at our
peak production, optimal peak production, we only have about 3 percent
of the world's crude oil. However, our country, our consumers, our
people, we consume about 22 percent of the world's crude oil.
There's a supply problem in this country. We need to not drill our
way out of this but invent our way out of this, innovate our way out of
this, and the EERE program allows us to do that.
Unfortunately, this bill consolidates the Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability and the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy within DOE and funds the combined programs at about
$983 million. The result is a cut to these programs of $971 million
below fiscal year 2013.
I am honored to serve as ranking member on the Science, Space and
Technology Subcommittee on Energy because I believe that the Federal
Government has a role to play in encouraging energy innovation in this
country. This bill does just the opposite by gutting the EERE program.
Instead of innovating our way out, rather than drilling our way out, we
are doing the opposite. We gut crucial EERE funds.
As Washington bickers, our competitors are pulling out all of the
stops to capitalize on the booming clean energy program. By cutting the
EERE program so drastically now, we all but ensure that the United
States will miss out on scientific discoveries that could change the
world and transform our economy.
With scientific research, nothing is guaranteed, and so we need to be
willing to take risks. Scientific progress, after all, has never been a
straight line. I come from the bay area, which includes Silicon Valley,
where risk-taking is critical to the region's economy. Taking risks
means sometimes you will not succeed, but scientific progress requires
us to continue to take risks and invest in the future. Only by taking
risks and charging forward, as our ranking member continues to
emphasize, can we ever hope to reach goals which today may seem out of
reach.
The United States should be leading the world in the search for
better, safer, more affordable energy. Instead, we have a bill before
us that makes unacceptable, shortsighted cuts to EERE. While my
amendment does not close the gap by any means, it is a signal to our
scientists and engineers that we support renewable energy.
An overreliance on a limited range of fuel technologies and finite
resources is shortsighted. Our strength lies in our ability to
transition to a new, cleaner, more sustainable and more innovative
source of energy. We must be competitive and not let ourselves get
behind, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H4270]]

The Acting Chair. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
This amendment offers, as he said, a $1 million gesture of support
for renewable energy, energy reliability and efficiency activities in
the Department of Energy. It would increase funding by $1 million using
the departmental administration as its offset.
While I support my colleague's good intention, what he calls his
signal gesture of support, we simply cannot afford to increase energy
efficiency and renewable energy by diverting funding from other
essential activities. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge others
to do so as well.
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, let me say that the gentleman's amendment
takes a step in the right direction. It is a modest step, but one that
signals a view towards the horizon that is ahead of us, and I rise in
support of his very responsible amendment that would make an investment
in our future and move to a more diversified energy portfolio. It does
nick an account, our administrative account, which is a bit troubling,
but it is not at the level that some of the prior amendments today did,
so I support the gentleman's amendment.
I thank him for all of the time he spent on the floor today waiting
his turn. Talk about a gentleman of the House, you surely are. So I
want to thank Congressman Swalwell for his leadership and for trying to
take a step toward the future in offering his amendment today. I urge
my colleagues to vote for the Swalwell amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. 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 California
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, 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 $731,600,000)''.
Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $362,329,000)''.
Page 23, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $450,000,000)''.
Page 23, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $115,753,000)''.
Page 60, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,543,929,000)''.

Mr. McCLINTOCK (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous
consent that the reading be dispensed with.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I applaud the committee's decision to
cut the failed Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program by half.
My amendment simply completes the very good work of the committee and
cuts it by the other half, along with similar subsidies that we provide
to nuclear and fossil fuel industries, saving an additional $1.5
billion.
If we're serious about an all-of-the-above energy policy, we have got
to stop using taxpayer money to pick winners and losers based on their
political connections and, instead, require every energy company to
compete on its own merits as decided by the customers it attracts by
offering better products at lower cost and by the investors it
attracts, as well.
For too long we've suffered from the conceit that politicians can
make better energy investments with taxpayer money than investors can
make with their own money. It is this conceit that has produced the
continuing spectacle of collapsing energy scandals epitomized by the
Solyndra fiasco. At least Solyndra was funded from a loan program in
which the public has a chance to get some of its money back when these
dubious schemes go bankrupt.
My amendment eliminates direct spending that funds research and
development and commercialization projects for politically favored
firms, money that taxpayers have no chance of recovering after it's
spent.
Let me emphasize that any breakthroughs financed with the research
and development money paid by the taxpayers under these programs does
not go into the public domain, where everyone can benefit. These
innovations, if there are any, are financed by taxpayers and yet are
owned, lock, stock, and barrel, by the private companies. This is a
gift of public funds, pure and simple.
My amendment protects taxpayers from being forced into paying the
research and development budgets of these companies. It gets government
out of the energy business and requires all energy companies and all
energy technologies to compete equally on their own merits and with
their own funds.
This amendment cuts all such subsidies.
About half go to fossil fuel and nuclear industries, which are
capable of doing very well on their own, and about half goes to the so-
called alternative energy technologies. We've been told for years, of
course, that's necessary to nurture these new and promising programs,
but they are not new and they are not promising. Photovoltaic cells,
for example, were invented in 1839; and in nearly 175 years of
technological research and innovation and billions of dollars of
taxpayer subsidies, we have not yet invented a more expensive way to
generate electricity, so we hide its true cost to consumers through
subsidies taken from their taxes.
Nor is there any earthly reason why taxpayers should be forced to
serve as the R&D program for General Motors or any other company or
technology. The actual research and development should be paid for by
the companies that will profit from these long-promised breakthroughs.
And if they're not willing to finance them with their own money, we
have no business forcing our constituents to finance them with theirs.
All we have accomplished with these programs is to take dollars that
would have naturally flowed into the most effective and promising
technologies and diverted them into those that are politically favored.
This misallocation of resources not only destroys jobs in productive
ventures, it ends up minimizing our energy potential instead of
maximizing it and destroying our wealth instead of creating it.
Let every energy technology rise or fall on its own merits. If the
technology is promising, it doesn't need our help; and if it isn't
promising, it doesn't deserve our help.
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. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The amendment would eliminate all renewable energy and energy
efficiency activities, fossil energy activities, and severely reduce
funding for nuclear energy in favor of deficit savings. And, of course,
the committee has done a lot; we have done a lot of cutting. We are way
below the 2008 level. I think we have made a commitment in our
committee to reduce spending and contribute to reducing the deficit.
Nuclear energy research does keep American innovation at the
forefront of the technology that we invented. I think we need to
continue that leadership.
Fossil energy, whether people like it or not, provides 82 percent of
our Nation's energy needs, and we need to find ways to refine and make
it even more productive.
Lastly, renewable energy addresses high gas prices and helps
America's manufacturers compete in the global marketplace. Maybe not
all of those activities are imperative, but renewable energy is part of
that equation,

[[Page H4271]]

and our bill supports diversity of energy supply. Therefore, I oppose
the amendment and urge Members to do likewise.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for raising
opposition to the amendment. I'm glad he gave me a few moments, Madam
Chair, to slow down a bit before I would comment on the amendment.

{time} 1915

The author of the amendment would probably want to take a few steps
more. To carry out the full intent of what he's proposing would be to
eliminate all subsidies for everything. Then where would we be?
I suppose if we're going to be consistent in this, if we were to
adopt this amendment, we ought to go to the oil and gas industry and
eliminate all of the subsidies that they have, which are tax breaks,
direct subsidies, by reducing their taxes to the tune of well over $10
billion a year. Probably not a bad idea. And then to go on, as the
chairman of the committee has suggested, to take on all of the other
subsidies.
Where would we be?
It's a long history of America, dating back, really, to the Founding
Fathers, in which Alexander Hamilton presented to the Congress, at the
request of George Washington, a plan on manufacturers in which was
stated a policy then and carried forward ever since that time, some
230-plus years, in which the Federal Government has been directly
involved in the development of the American industries.
For example, at that time, Alexander Hamilton suggested that the
Federal Government ought to support the development of roads, ports,
and canals, and, in fact, one not far from here received that
assistance, the Potomac Canal. And ports were built, eventually
lighthouses were put up, all of them to benefit commerce.
Abraham Lincoln subsidized, with the consent of Congress and the
Senate, the Transcontinental Railroad that has helped the gentleman's
State of California, and my State of California.
There's a long, long history of America in which the Federal
Government has directly, indirectly, subsidized the creation of
industry. We went to the Moon, but we created enormous numbers of
businesses as a direct result. And in the gentleman's pocket is an
iPhone or some other device that was directly subsidized by the Federal
Government.
Now, if you want to go back and simply forget about progress, then
carry out this amendment to its fullest extent. I don't think any of us
want to go there.
I'd ask for a ``no'' vote on the 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 rise in opposition to this amendment. And
I listened to the gentleman's arguments, and I just want to point
something out. The gentleman is saying that private industry will do
this in any case.
I have been very engaged in our part of the country with the local
companies and inventors that are trying to lead America into the
future. And what's interesting about the start of some of these new
technologies is, many of these inventors don't have the deep pockets of
huge multinational corporations.
And when smaller, high-tech companies start out, maybe these
inventors have 10, 20, 30 patents to their name, sometimes they launch
from a cooperative effort with a university base. They don't have the
funds to do the kind of basic research that's necessary to move their
technology forward. They need the help of entities like the Department
of Energy.
And so it just doesn't happen by magic that one moves a technology
forward. Most businesses don't have the interest or the funding to put
into this direct research, basic research. So, for example, with solar,
which is something our region of the country knows quite a bit about
because it spun off of the glass industry, just getting seven layers of
material to adhere takes incredible effort.
If you are a small inventor, if you are a smaller company, I defy you
to roll steel so thin, and then find adherents to go with it that will
hold electrical charges, and then to invent the electrical materials
that go through there.
And by golly, over the last 30 years, they have done it. They have
brought the cost of panels down to a competitive rate. Where we are now
is storage capacity, moving the electricity from those plates to
storage systems that will actually be more efficient, and then onto the
grid.
So please don't say that the work that they go through, the Americans
who really do invent our future, who often are blocked by the people
that sit in this Chamber and can't even imagine what they are up
against technologically, don't think that what they do doesn't matter.
And while they're doing this, what do they face, just in the solar
industry?
The Chinese dumping 2 million panels globally and pushing down the
price, a country that's a Communist country, whose economy is a Marxist
market system, a Leninist market system.
And we ask our individual inventors to compete with that, and we do
nothing to help them out?
By golly, I'd fight for these Americans any day of the year because I
know the next generation will be more independent than today's
generation because of what they are doing, and I will do anything in my
power to help them.
That is the role of the Government of the United States, to lift up
those who are trying to make this country free again and separate us
from those countries and those interests that don't share our political
values.
And so I want to be a champion for those who are out there fighting
for the future. And they're not all big multinationals who have these
deep pockets they can just reach into, but they're individual Americans
who are taking what they've learned in their company.
And they can't finance it alone. Banks won't necessarily do it
because the technology isn't fully developed. They need a partnership.
And we're the one partnership at the Federal level that can help lift
their technology and bring it forward. I'm proud of them.
And, sir, I oppose your amendment. I think it's a well-intentioned
amendment. But you know what?
It doesn't lead us forward, and it really doesn't help those
inventors and those companies around this country who are leading us
into the future.
I ask the membership to oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONNOLLY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONNOLLY. I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I think
that, in many ways, this amendment--and I give credit to its author--
encapsulates a debate that's going on, not only between the parties,
but in America.
It's premised on a narrative that is utterly ahistorical. It is a
false narrative. If it's worth doing, the private sector will do it.
That flies in the face of 237 years of this Republic's history.
George Washington understood that. He understood that there were
investments only the Federal Government could make, and he made them.
Thomas Jefferson, an advocate for small government, also understood
that. He subsidized the Rogers and Clark expedition that opened up the
West and created an enormous enterprise for science.
Mr. Garamendi mentioned the 37th Congress and Abraham Lincoln. In the
middle of the worst catastrophe this country's experienced, a civil
war, that Congress understood that we had to make investments as a
Federal Government if this country was going to prosper and grow, and
allowed the private sector to take up where we left off.
And that's why they invested in the Transcontinental Railroad. That's
why they created the Homestead Act. That's why they created the United
States Department of Agriculture. That's why they created the land
grant college/university system.
The idea that the private sector can do it, we don't need to do it--
well, the

[[Page H4272]]

Internet was 100 percent a Federal investment. It was called DARPANET,
and it stayed a Federal investment for 25 years, until the commercial
application was clear, and then it went private. Whatever we invested
in DARPANET was worth every penny in how it's transformed American
life.
GPS, entirely a Federal investment, not a private sector investment.
And it's the private sector that's understood the commercial
applicability.
That's the partnership that has characterized all of our history, not
some of it. And to substitute a false narrative for that involvement
will guarantee that the Chinese will clean our clock in the next
generation.
I sat here hours ago and listened to our Republican colleagues from
Washington and Tennessee say, without fear of understanding their own
contradiction, we need the Federal Government to clean up these nuclear
sites, not the private sector, the Federal Government.
This isn't just a bad amendment. This is about a profound
philosophical disagreement about the future role of the Federal
Government.
Investments have returns. Not all spending is the same, and we need
to be enhancing investments in this bill, not cutting them back, if we
want to hand over to the next generation a competitive America that
still helps provide a shining light upon a hill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. 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 California
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Peters of California

Mr. PETERS of California. Madam Chair, 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 $10,000,000)''.
Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

Mr. PETERS of California (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PETERS of California. Madam Chair, 2 years ago, on September 8,
2011, San Diego and much of southern California, Arizona, and parts of
Mexico suffered a huge electric power failure. This was the biggest
electric power failure in the history of California.
Millions of people were left without electricity when a 500-kilovolt
high-voltage transmission line from Arizona to California failed,
knocking a major nuclear power plant offline. The electricity outage
led to school and business closures, flight cancellations, suspended
water service, and dark traffic lights.
And when the power goes out, it's not just our lights that are
affected. In the heat without air-conditioning, we're putting the
health of our seniors and vulnerable populations at risk of health
failures. So the risks to public safety and health increase, and
economic disruptions can be hard to recover from.
We are putting greater load on our grid each day, and the grid faces
also threats to its cybersecurity. In addition, we've seen extreme
weather events wreak havoc on the grid. DOE is making great strides to
strengthen our grid and make it more resilient to all threats, and we
need to protect this critical infrastructure.
The Appropriations Committee has recommended $80 million for
electricity delivery and energy reliability, which is a cut of $32.49
million from FY '13 levels. My amendment would increase electric
delivery and energy reliability by $10 million, with an equal offset
reduction to the DOE's Departmental Administration account. This
increase will strengthen the electric grid and provide greater power
reliability for all Americans.
And the amendment would support the research and technology to
improve grid strength and reliability. These are more important
investments than this particular Departmental Administration account.
This is spending reduction in the long run. The cost of energy
outages are much greater than what we put in to modernizing and
strengthening the grid. Every dollar that we put towards making our
infrastructure more resilient yields $4 in future savings.
When power goes out, there are huge economic costs. Our modern world
can't function and perform business transactions without electricity,
and we need to ensure that the power's there. If it goes out, we need
to make sure that it gets back on quickly.
A better grid will save taxpayers money. A better, smarter, more
modern grid will lead to fewer outages, getting power back faster, and
savings in costs.
Madam Chair, I ask for the support of my colleagues, and 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. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose the gentleman's
amendment. The amendment would increase Renewable Energy, Energy
Reliability and Efficiency by $10 million using, once again, as others
have before him, the Departmental Administration account as an offset.
As I said earlier, our allocation did make for some tough choices.
One thing we know is that you can't operate a Department of Energy
unless you have staff doing oversight and doing the tough work of
reviewing contracts to make sure the money we give them is well spent.
So with all due respect, I have to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
We cannot divert more money from the essential department activities.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1930

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Peters).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PETERS of California. 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 California
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Perlmutter

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Chair, 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 $15,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $15,000,000)''.

Mr. PERLMUTTER (during the reading). Madam Chair, I move to dispense
with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Colorado?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. To the ranking member and the chairman of the
subcommittee, thank you for your work. H.R. 2609 appropriates $30.4
billion for fiscal year 2014 for the Energy Department and Federal
water projects, which is $4.1 billion below the President's request and
$6.3 billion, or 17 percent, below the enacted level for 2013.
The reductions in H.R. 2609 undermine America's strategic energy
investments and remove vital funding for laboratories such as the
National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden, Colorado. Facilities such as
NREL are leading proponents in energy research and innovation. The
clean energy market has grown exponentially from $1 billion a year to
$211 billion per year over the past decade. This number continues to
grow.
Congress should be funding facilities which help to bring next-
generation renewable technologies to market. These

[[Page H4273]]

technologies are not only helping local energy entrepreneurs but are
also helping business owners drive down energy costs.
The Energy Systems Integration Facility, otherwise known as ESIF,
located at the National Renewable Energy Lab, is a perfect example of
this kind of partnership. ESIF is the Nation's only facility to model
on a megawatt scale how clean energy technologies such as wind and
solar interact on the electrical grid with traditional energy sources
such as coal and natural gas. The facility is aimed at overcoming
generation transmission distribution and end-use challenges to support
a cleaner, affordable, and more secure U.S. energy mix, including
research into next-generation building technologies, microgrids, energy
storage batteries, and utility-scale renewable energy.
As the cost of clean energy technologies continues to come down,
seamless and efficient grid integration will help make these resources
and products even more affordable. Funding for programs like ESIF and
labs like the National Renewable Energy Lab is good for our utilities
and our consumers. It's good for our economy, and it's good for energy
security. Yet the majority continues to believe that cuts to our Energy
Department will provide us a brighter future. I say, No way.
Lastly, while I believe the funding in the entirety of this bill is
wholly inadequate, I cannot allow our energy investments to be reduced
to rubble. My amendment would transfer $15 million to the Office of
Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability and Efficiency, with an equal
offsetting reduction from the Production Support for the W76-(1) Life
Extension Program under the Weapons Activities account.
While I appreciate the committee's attempt to support the National
Renewable Energy Lab, the proposed funding of $31 million is $15
million below the budget request. Thus, my amendment seeks to fully
fund the Facilities and Infrastructure line item. The committee
recommends to the House we fund $345 million for Production Support,
which is an additional $23.5 million over the administration's request.
The administration sites a lower level of funding from fiscal year 2013
to 2014 due to the completion of a modern manufacturing floor process.
So what the committee has done is raise $23.5 million over the
President's request. I'm asking that that be backed up by $15 million
so that the National Renewable Energy Lab and EERE is increased by $15
million.
I ask for an ``aye'' vote on my amendment, and 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 rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. This
amendment would increase funding for Renewable Energy, Energy
Reliability and Efficiency activities of the Department of Energy by
$15 million using Weapons Activities within the Nuclear National
Nuclear Security Administration as an offset. While I and I think all
the committee members support the programs championed by my colleague,
we simply cannot afford to increase efficiency and renewable energy
activities by diverting funding from inherently Federal
responsibilities. The focus and primary responsibility of the
Department of Energy is indeed to make sure that we have a modern
nuclear weapons stockpile, even if we don't need to use it. It has to
be verified by the Secretary to the President. So this would divert
funds from that essential mission.
I oppose the amendment, urge Members to do likewise, and 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.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I am quite reluctant to shift funds from the
weapons accounts to other purposes within the Department. But I rise in
support of this gentleman's amendment. Congressman Perlmutter of
Colorado has made a reasonable proposal here. I agree with his interest
in advancing our work in renewable energy technologies.
In working with the Department, we also know the incredible cost
overruns that we see occur year after year after year in these nuclear
weapons accounts. I think that the gentleman's amendment is a modest
amendment. I think it signals movement in the proper direction for our
country.
It also says to those managing our nuclear weapons accounts that
we're paying attention to the fact that you probably wasted more money
and have not done oversight on your contracts more than almost any
other department in the Government of the United States.
The need for investment in new energy technologies is important to
the country. I think the gentleman has done something that I think
moves us down the road of new technology and takes a very modest amount
from the weapons accounts, and my own position generally supports the
administration's efforts not to touch the weapons accounts unless we do
so within the context of nuclear arms reduction negotiations. But the
amount of funds that you are transferring, I think, is very, very
reasonable, and therefore I wish to support you in your amendment, and
I would urge my colleagues to support the Perlmutter amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. 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 Colorado
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Connolly

Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam 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 $15,500,000)''.
Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $15,500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONNOLLY. I have wracked my brain to try to find a Democratic
amendment that the distinguished Republican manager could support, and
I know I have hit upon it. It's a low-impact amendment, modest in the
extreme, but with high payoff and gravy: a $3 million net savings,
according to the scoring.
As we've learned time and time again, Madam Chairman, from weather
disasters and other emergencies, having a reliable and resilient energy
structure is absolutely vital to national security, our economy, and to
the stability of the community. I appreciate the committee
acknowledging in its report the current strain being placed on our
aging power infrastructure and the need for more modern, efficient
systems. In fact, I and other members of the Sustainable Energy and
Environmental Caucus have been advocating for increased Federal
investments to meet those very needs for some time.
The Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Research and Development
account--a mouthful, I admit--which supports the very technologies that
will help modernize our power grid, unfortunately, is cut in this bill
by 50 percent. I'm offering, as I said, this simple, modest,
commonsense amendment I know will appeal to the Republican manager by
transferring a mere $15.5 million from the Nuclear Weapons Activity
Account, which received a $98 million increase above last year. This
also would reduce outlays actually by $3 million, according to the CBO.
One of the energy-efficient initiatives that has a proven track
record of improving power reliability, reducing electric costs, and
creating jobs is combined heat and power, for example. It provides
simultaneous production of electricity and heat from a single fuel
source such as natural gas, biomass, coal, or oil.
During conventional power generation, up to two-thirds of the energy
from the fuel used to generate power is lost as wasted heat. In
contrast, combined heat and power systems capture that thermal heat
that would otherwise be lost, making these systems twice as efficient.
Thanks to that onsite generation, there's less risk of

[[Page H4274]]

power disruption and improved efficiency.
We've already seen the success of such systems. When Superstorm Sandy
knocked out power to 8.5 million residents in the Northeast, including
the distinguished Republican manager's home State of New Jersey, those
facilities with combined heat and power systems had working electricity
and heat. South Oaks Hospital on Long Island, for example, which
includes a nursing home and an assisted living center, was able to
maintain power during the storm and its aftermath. Similarly, during
Katrina, Mississippi Baptist Medical Center was the only hospital in
the Jackson, Mississippi, area to remain 100 percent operational during
and after the hurricane.
Combined heat and power systems are currently used across the Nation
and generate 82 gigawatts of electricity. That's about 9 percent of the
total. That's the equivalent of 130 coal plants. Analysts say we can
double that figure; and with the lower price of natural gas and new
interest from the States that have suffered from natural disasters, the
timing is ripe. These investments not only lead to a more efficient use
of power but they also help create jobs. It's estimated that for each
gigawatt of combined heat and power capacity, we can expect more than
2,000 jobs to be created.
The Federal Government has supported deployment of combined heat and
power systems primarily in the manufacturing sector; but we need to
expand that success to commercial and residential settings, especially
after the experiences of Katrina and Sandy.
This is, as I said, a simple, commonsense amendment largely crafted
to try to help the Republican manager find a Democratic amendment he
can enthusiastically support.
With that, Madam Chairman, 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. Let me say it may be the relative lateness of the
hour, but I welcome the comity with which you put forward your
amendment.
May I just say for the record that having handled the Hurricane Sandy
supplemental, I can make you aware that our power was off in our very
modern part of northern New Jersey for the vast number of my
constituents for over 2\1/2\ weeks. Even despite the best minds in the
Nation, some of which still circle around the remains of Bell
Laboratories, we still didn't get it right. But having said that, I
appreciate your intent and your good humor.
Our primary focus has been national defense and nuclear security. I
don't think this is the time when we should be taking away from that
modernization project, which is important and something which has to be
certified in terms of being reliable to the President by the Secretary
of Energy.
So I oppose the amendment, and 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.
Ms. KAPTUR. I just want to briefly extend support to the Connolly
amendment for the same reason as in the prior amendment offered by Mr.
Perlmutter. And though I generally support nuclear security issues in
the context of arms reduction talks, this is a modest amendment. It is
a $15.5 million transfer from the weapons account, where we have seen
huge cost overruns.

{time} 1945

I think it's important to send a little smoke signal their way that
we're paying attention and to support the cause of renewable energy in
the Connolly amendment. I would urge my colleagues to support it and
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Madam 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 Virginia
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Tonko

Mr. TONKO. Madam 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 $145,000,000)''.
Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
Page 23, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $55,000,000)''.

Mr. TONKO (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TONKO. First, I would like to thank Representative Welch and
Representative Sablan for working with me on this amendment, and I
thank the gentlelady from Ohio for the opportunity to chair the
amendment in the House.
Madam Chair, this bill would be fine if we were still living in the
1950s, in a world where we had few energy limitations, no knowledge of
the fact that burning fossil fuels would alter the chemistry of our
atmosphere and the trajectory of our Earth's climate. We lived in a
world where energy was much more affordable and a world where the
United States was the dominant economic and manufacturing power. It was
also a time when there were two nuclear powers, and we believed that
nuclear weapons were a guarantee of security.
Well, it is not the 1950s, and this bill does not meet our present or
future needs. The overall funding level is too small, and the funding
distribution reflects the wrong priorities. Our amendment addresses
just two of the important programs that are grossly underfunded in this
bill: the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy
Program.
Energy is a significant part of families' budgets, and its cost is
especially burdensome for low-income families and the elderly who live
on fixed incomes. Burning fossil fuels generates emissions that are
leading us into a much warmer future and one with unstable, unusual
weather patterns. We cannot afford to reduce our support of energy
efficiency.
Our amendment provides additional funds in the Energy Efficiency
account to raise the funding for the State Energy Program from the $12
million in the bill to $50 million. In addition, it provides an
increase of $107 million for the Weatherization Assistance Program to
restore this program to $184 million, a level that will provide
benefits to homeowners across this country.
The Weatherization Assistance Program is the largest residential
efficiency program in the Nation. The sequestration and low allocation
for fiscal year 2013 have put this important program at risk in many of
our States.
The demand has not gone away. Individual consumers are still faced
with significant energy bills, and those who are elderly or disabled or
whose income is not sufficient to make investments in weatherization
themselves rely heavily on this program for assistance.
The amendment also restores funds for the State Energy Program. SEP
is a cost-shared program, a partnership between the Federal Government
and the States. The State Energy Program enables States to assist with
the development of energy efficiency and renewable energy projects,
such as improving the efficiency at our hospitals and our schools,
working with utilities and energy service companies to install clean
energy and energy efficiency projects, and supporting private sector
energy innovations through business incubators and job training.
Each dollar of SEP funding produces significant returns. A study by
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that every dollar of SEP
Federal funds are leveraged by $10.71 of State and private funds and
results in $7.22 in energy cost savings.
The modest investments we have made in these two programs have paid

[[Page H4275]]

for themselves many times over throughout the country. They have
produced benefits in the form of better insulated, more comfortable
homes, jobs, savings on energy bills, product improvements, and greater
energy security.
We continue to ignore problems, neglect our infrastructure, and
disinvest in our communities at our peril. These programs make a modest
but important contribution to job creation and energy security. I urge
you to support this amendment and keep the important work done through
these programs moving forward.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey may state his point
of order.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, the amendment proposes to amend
portions of the bill not yet read.
The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in
the bill.
The object being increased has first year outlays of $72,500,000. The
objects being decreased have decreased first year outlays of
$71,250,000, leading to a net outlay increase of $1,250,000.
I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the
bill--as argued by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations--
it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address portions of the bill
not yet read.
The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Takano

Mr. TAKANO. Madam 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 $20,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $20,000,000)''.

Mr. TAKANO (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I would ask that the reading
continue.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to the
fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water appropriations bill to increase
funding for the Vehicles Technologies Program. My amendment increases
funding for the Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, and Efficiency
account by $20 million to fully fund the Zero Emission Cargo Transport
grant program.
The Vehicle Technologies Program is an important asset in the effort
to decrease the impact of high gas prices on American drivers by
investing in technologies that make vehicles more fuel efficient and
less harmful to air quality. One critical piece of this program is the
Zero Emission Cargo Transport grant program that helps to incentivize
zero emission goods movement, especially in areas with high air
pollution and traffic congestion, such as my district in Riverside,
California, which is a logistics hub for southern California. I believe
these funds are better spent reducing our emissions, improving air
quality, and investing in energy-efficient technologies.
The bill does take from the National Nuclear Security
Administration's account, which is funded at $11 billion. The modest
reduction we're asking in that account to fully fund this program is an
investment we believe is wise. More efficient freight will save money,
create jobs, and make products cheaper. Cleaner air improves quality of
life and lowers the cost of health care.
If we pay for this today by decreasing spending on our bloated
nuclear weapons programs, we will see major savings down the road. This
is a smart investment, and I urge my colleagues to support my
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The gentleman from New
Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
As I said on other occasions, ensuring adequate funding for the
modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile is our highest priority
in our Energy and Water Development bill. This amendment unacceptably
strikes funding for these very critical national security investments,
and therefore I oppose the amendment and ask others to do as well.
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. Takano

Mr. TAKANO. 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 $40,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.

Mr. TAKANO (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent to dispense
with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
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 Weatherization Assistance
Program.
My amendment increases funding for the Renewable Energy, Energy
Reliability and Efficiency account by $40 million to ensure we provide
adequate weatherization assistance.
The Weatherization Assistance Program provides much-needed funding
that enables low-income families, homeowners with disabilities, and
seniors to permanently reduce their energy bills, making their homes
more energy efficient.
For 36 years, the Weatherization Assistance Program has provided
weatherization services to more than 7.3 million low-income households.
The energy conservation efforts promoted through this program have
helped our country reduce our dependence on foreign oil, while lowering
the cost of energy for families in need.
This program benefits households across the Nation, from my district
in Riverside, California, where temperatures can rise to over 100
degrees Fahrenheit in the summer, to the Northeast, where it is below
freezing in the winter.
The Weatherization Assistance Program has helped reduce the energy
bills for America's neediest families by hundreds of dollars, which can
be used to purchase more groceries, daily necessities, and child care.
The reduction in funding for nuclear weapons means that a larger
investment can be made in our Weatherization Assistance Program to help
American families reduce their energy costs. The underlying bill
provides more than $11 billion for the National Nuclear Security
Administration. I believe the modest reduction of $40 million to the
nuclear weapons account is money that is better spent on programs like
the Weatherization Assistance Program. It supports jobs, businesses,
homeowners, and reduces our energy dependence.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.

[[Page H4276]]

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. Again, our committee's priorities are well known.
The modernization of our nuclear stockpile is a national security
issue. We need to continue to make those investments.
I oppose the amendment and 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.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Nuclear Energy

(including transfer of funds)

For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for nuclear energy 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, and the purchase of not more than 10 buses and
2 ambulances, all for replacement only, $656,389,000, to
remain available until expended, of which such sums as may be
necessary shall be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund, to be
made available only to support the high-level waste
geological repository at Yucca Mountain: Provided, That of
the amount provided under this heading, $87,500,000 shall be
available until September 30, 2015, for program direction:
Provided further, That of the amount provided under this
heading, $5,000,000 shall be made available to affected units
of local government, as defined in section 2(31) of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10101(31)), to
support the Yucca Mountain high-level waste geological
repository, as authorized by such Act: Provided further, That
funds derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund may be transferred
to ``Independent Agencies--Nuclear Regulatory Commission--
Salaries and Expenses'' to support the Yucca Mountain high-
level waste geological repository license application.

amendment Offered by mr. heck of Nevada

Mr. HECK of Nevada. 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 20, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $25,000,000)''.
Page 26, line 12, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $25,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HECK of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, my amendment builds on the
committee's work in support of scientific research and development
within the Department of Energy.
More than 30 years have elapsed since Congress passed the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act, and over that same time, technology and scientific
knowledge have evolved significantly. However, Congress still clings to
outdated technology and policy prescriptions to address today's nuclear
waste issues.
The fact, Mr. Chair, is that sticking our country's highly
radioactive nuclear waste in a hole in the ground for perpetuity is a
21st century solution.

{time} 2000

Instead, we must encourage the use of 21st century technology to
address this issue.
My amendment redirects the $25 million designated for the Yucca
Mountain High-Level Waste Geological Repository into the High Energy
Physics program within the Department of Energy's Office of Science for
the development of a 21st century solution to this problem.
The High Energy Physics program is currently researching and
developing ways to use accelerator technology to reduce the toxicity of
nuclear waste, transforming it into a more stable, less hazardous form.
According to a report released by the Department of Energy, ``The
United States, which has traditionally led the world in the development
and application of accelerator technology, now lags behind other
Nations in many cases, and the gap is growing.'' The report concludes
that ``to achieve the potential of particle accelerators to address
national challenges will require a sustained focus on developing
transformative technological opportunities, accompanied by changes in
national programs and policy.''
Other countries have already made significant investments in the
research and development of accelerator technology that will help make
long-term storage facilities, like the facility supported in this bill,
obsolete. It is time that the United States begins to make up the
ground it is losing to the rest of the world when it comes to
accelerator technology and begin focusing on 21st century solutions to
deal with nuclear waste.
For Nevada, the site of Yucca Mountain and the State with one of the
highest unemployment rates in the country, this 21st century solution
has the potential to create countless new high-paying R&D jobs
utilizing existing regional technology capabilities. We cannot allow
our Nation to continue falling further behind other developed countries
in fully funding and implementing these types of projects--21st century
solutions that are critical to maintaining our Nation's economic and
technological superiority.
I urge my colleagues to embrace the future of nuclear waste disposal
and support my amendment to help create jobs and restore the United
States role as a leader in science and technology development, and 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 rise to oppose the gentleman from
Nevada's amendment.
First of all, while I appreciate the concerns that he has raised
about the Office of Science, just for the record, the Office of Science
has been funded at $32 million above the current post-sequester levels,
so they have plenty of money.
I rise, more importantly, on the second issue. This money comes from
$25 million that we've set aside to address Yucca Mountain where we, as
taxpayers, have put well over $12- to $15 billion of investment as a
repository for high-level nuclear waste. We understand the dynamics of
the State and resistance on the part of many there, but we also know
that if we are ever to recoup that investment in the future, since
consumers and taxpayers pay for that facility, that we are going to
need some money to reopen Yucca Mountain.
I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, urge others to do so as
well, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nevada is on to a
very, very important issue here: What are we going to do with spent
nuclear fuel? Our current light water reactors consume maybe 3 percent
of the energy in the nuclear fuel. You can reprocess it once and you
get another 3 percent, and so now you've got 93, 92 percent, or 94
percent, of the energy that you now consider as waste, in this case to
be permanently stored at Yucca Mountain.
We actually have a 20th century solution. We spent some $10- to $12
billion on it in the '60s, '70s, '80s, and in 1993 we put that solution
aside. We need to bring that solution back into place, and the
gentleman's amendment would further us in dealing with this issue of
spent nuclear fuel. It is not a waste; it is an extraordinary asset,
and it's one that we should be utilizing. In doing so, we can dispose
of it through multiple recyclings, all of which has been proved by the
United States, readily available today.
We need to take it out of the closet, put it back on the front
burner, and use the accelerator technologies in our reactors to
adequately dispose of these very dangerous wastes. In doing so, we can
not only dispose of the total longevity, we can take it from a couple
of hundred thousand years down to a couple of hundred years of
dangerous radioactive emissions.
We need to move on this. The gentleman's amendment allows us to do
that.

[[Page H4277]]

It solves a major problem that the entire world has. Spent nuclear fuel
is an international problem.
The United States Government in the 1960s recognized this as a
problem, set out to solve it, did solve it with what is known as the
integral fast reactor--integral fast reactor. That is the accelerator
reactor integral in that the reprocessing is a metallurgic process, not
an aqueous process that can only be used once. This can be used
multiple times, and in so doing eliminate much of the problem that we
have with spent nuclear fuels.
I urge an ``aye'' vote on this very, very important amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Nevada is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this amendment
as well, which would strike language from the bill that mandates more
wasteful spending on the defunct Yucca Mountain project and would
redirect the funding to the Office of Science High Energy Physics
program to support research in reducing nuclear waste.
The bill requires that DOE spend $25 million on activities at Yucca
Mountain, located less than 100 miles from one of the Nation's most
popular tourist destinations.
Now, let me remind you that the Department of Energy has already
wasted $15 billion on this project with nothing to show for it but a
big hole in the ground in the desert. In fact, had the Department of
Energy not terminated the Yucca project in 2010, we would be throwing
away at least another $67 billion with no guarantee that the project
would ever be completed or functional.
All of this, let me remind you again, despite findings by the GAO
that over the past 20 years the proposed site has suffered from gross
mismanagement, faulty science and research, and contract violations.
Even more troubling to the people of Nevada and those living along the
transportation route, questions about the safety and design of the site
and its impacts on the surrounding environment and populations have
never, never been satisfactorily addressed.

Yet, while cutting ARPA-E, which is vital to our competitiveness in
the global economy, stripping investments in energy efficiency, and
renewable energy development, this legislation mandates that millions
be squandered in an effort to restart a boondoggle that has been doomed
from the start.
Now, why, I ask you, are we throwing good money after bad ideas? We
should not be turning back the clock, we should be moving forward. So I
would say to my colleagues, please support this amendment. It will
eliminate economic waste and allow Congress instead to have a proper
discussion about how to dispose of the Nation's nuclear waste.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of Chairman
Frelinghuysen's opposition to the Heck amendment.
We have heard quite a bit of rhetoric on the floor the last 10
minutes about Yucca Mountain, and I understand my colleagues from
Nevada's opposition to a project in their State or their district that
was somewhat unilaterally sited there. I will accept that the process
by which Yucca Mountain was initially chosen was a political process
and was not done the way the original Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
said it should be done.
Having said that, we have collected about $30 billion over the last
30-some-odd years from ratepayers whose electricity is generated by
safe, efficient, clean nuclear power--$30 billion. We have spent
upwards of $20 billion drilling a tunnel in Yucca Mountain, studying
the geology, the hydrology, the environment. My understanding is that
the tunnel is completed.
In 2010, unilaterally, the Obama administration decided to shut the
project down. It is debatable whether they did that legally or not.
Having said that, the bill that's coming out of the Appropriations
Subcommittee, all it does is allocate money that has already been
collected to go ahead and finish the site review at Yucca Mountain to
determine whether it is, in fact, a safe place to store high-level
nuclear waste.
Now, keep in mind that we have over 100 operating nuclear reactors
around the country today, and the waste that they generated is stored
onsite--stored onsite. There's good security. Most of it is stored in
what are called ``wet pools.'' Almost everybody agrees that that's not
a long-term solution.
I think the Congress on a bipartisan basis can agree that we ought to
go ahead and finish the review of the Yucca Mountain site--$25 million
does it. It has also allocated some funding in the bill to help the
local government entities out there. Let's finally put this thing to
rest.
The gentleman's amendment is well intentioned, but we need a
centralized high-level repository. As of now, the most likely place is
at Yucca Mountain. We have spent billions--billions of dollars--on that
site. Let's spend another $25 million and finish the job.
I join Chairman Frelinghuysen in opposing the Heck amendment and hope
the House also does that.
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 reluctant opposition to the
amendment.
While I understand our colleague's position, our Nation has spent
upwards of $10- to $15 billion on Yucca Mountain as a repository.
When we first voted on Yucca Mountain many years ago, I opposed it.
Now our Nation has made this enormous investment and one does question
whether we know what we are doing and whether what we are left with is
a monument to wasted resources.
Admittedly, the court cases have not been finalized. The former
Secretary of Energy has stated many times that the administration would
follow any direction that resulted from ongoing litigation. The bill
provides funds should that eventuality occur.
At a minimum, we should learn if the licensing process can work. It
was not that many years ago that completing the licensing process was
the stated plan of the Department.
So again, I reluctantly oppose the amendment being offered tonight.
America has to reach a decision about what we do with spent nuclear
waste. I think this amendment takes us in the wrong direction at this
time.
We also respect the sensitivities of the people of Nevada. They have
a right to have their voices heard in this process. But as a country,
we have to recognize the amount of money that's been spent by taxpayers
from all of the States and the need that we have at these power plants
and facilities to process this material.
I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment in hopes that we
can reach agreement as a country on this important issue, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HECK of Nevada. 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 Nevada will
be postponed.

{time} 2015

Amendment Offered by Ms. Brownley of California

Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 25, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an important

[[Page H4278]]

amendment that would provide a $5 million increase in funding for the
Department of Energy Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup account.
My amendment is offset by reducing a small portion of funds for
nuclear energy research programs. I believe this offset is appropriate
because the contamination that must be cleaned up was directly caused
by past Department of Energy nuclear energy research programs.
In the past, inadequate safety protocols and lax environmental
standards resulted in severe soil and groundwater contamination at
sites across the Nation. The DOE Office of Environmental Management is
responsible for cleaning up 107 sites across the country whose areas
are equal to the combined area of Rhode Island and Delaware. A few of
these sites the DOE is responsible for cleaning up include: the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, of which we've spoken today;
the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in California, which is adjacent to
my district and to many of my constituents impacted by this facility;
the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York; and the Los Alamos
National Laboratory in New Mexico.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget requested $212 million for
environmental remediation and site cleanup. However, this bill provides
only $194 million for these environmental cleanup activities.
I understand that the Energy and Water Subcommittee was forced to
make difficult choices due to an inadequate budget allocation. However,
I believe that the cleanup of these sites should be a top priority. We
should not continue to fund new nuclear energy research while
communities across the country are told to wait for the cleanup of our
past mistakes.
For instance, the Energy Technology Engineering Center, which is part
of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, is highly contaminated due to a
partial nuclear meltdown of a sodium reactor in 1959. This partial
nuclear meltdown, which was covered up until 1989, contaminated the
soil and groundwater in the entire area and has resulted in cancer
clusters among nearby residents and my constituents. In fact, many of
those who worked at the facility or who lived nearby died due to
illnesses caused by the widespread nuclear fallout of the 1959
meltdown. Cleaning up the soil and groundwater contamination at Santa
Susana and at other sites across the country is our responsibility to
our constituents who suffer from the effects of these past mistakes.
My amendment simply increases this cleanup account by $5 million for
a total of $199 million, which is still below the $212 million
requested by the President.
I urge my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment to increase
funds for the Department of Energy Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup
account. As I conclude, I believe it is critically important that
Congress provide funding to clean up areas contaminated by past
Department of Energy activities and mistakes. I urge Members to support
my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The amendment proposes to amend portions of the bill not yet read.
The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in
the bill: Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup outlays at 65 percent, an
increase in outlays of $3,250,000; and nuclear energy outlays at 55
percent, a decrease in outlays of $2,750,000, resulting in a net
increase in outlays of $500,000.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair at this time.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard? If not, the
Chair will rule.
To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California proposes a net increase in the level of
outlays in the bill--as argued by the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Appropriations--it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address
portions of the bill not yet read.
The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Chair, I move to appeal the ruling of
the Chair.
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.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Fossil Energy Research and Development

For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy
research and development activities, under the authority of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (Public Law 95-91),
including the acquisition of interest, including defeasible
and equitable interests in any real property or any facility
or for plant or facility acquisition or expansion, and for
conducting inquiries, technological investigations and
research concerning the extraction, processing, use, and
disposal of mineral substances without objectionable social
and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 1602, and 1603),
$450,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That $115,753,000 shall be available until September 30,
2015, for program direction: Provided further, That for all
programs funded under Fossil Energy appropriations in this
Act or any other Act, the Secretary may vest fee title or
other property interests acquired under projects in any
entity, including the United States.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Butterfield

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 23, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $29,000,000)''.
Page 26, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $127,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $98,000,000)''.

Mr. BUTTERFIELD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask that the
amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
H.R. 2609 seems to decimate funding for the Advanced Research
Projects Agency-Energy programs.
In reading the bill, it appears that the bill cuts ARPA-E funding by
some $215 million--that's 81 percent--effectively terminating this
program. At the same time, the bill provides $98 million in additional
funds for nuclear weapons activities, and it even provides $29 million
beyond the President's budget request for fossil fuels energy and
research development. My amendment would shift that extra funding to
fund ARPA-E and continue important investments in innovation that keep
our Nation globally competitive.
ARPA-E is modeled after the successful Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, which helped develop global positioning systems and
stealth fighter technologies. Since 2009, ARPA-E has helped fund 275
innovative energy technology projects, and we are beginning to see the
positive benefits. ARPA-E projects have doubled energy density for
rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and have developed microbes to use
hydrogen and carbon dioxide to make liquid transportation fuel. The
many important innovations made possible by ARPA-E have resulted in
millions of dollars of economic activity in the private sector.
In my district in North Carolina, the Research Triangle Institute in
Durham has developed technologies to dramatically reduce the cost of
carbon capture to coal-fired power plants. This valuable technology
will increase our energy efficiency, reduce climate change, and create
jobs. RTI has also received funding to enhance economic and energy
security by converting biomass resources, such as leaves and corn
husks, into transportation fuel. They have developed some of these
fuels already and intend to test them at a local military facility in
the very near future.
Mr. Chairman, we can all agree that we must remain globally
competitive in energy industries to continue to create the jobs of the
future. ARPA-E provides critical funding for new technologies, which
will strengthen our

[[Page H4279]]

economy and lead us to energy sustainability. Eliminating the ARPA-E
program will harm our competitiveness and will cost jobs in emerging
energy industries, so I urge my colleagues tonight 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. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. His
amendment would increase funding for ARPA-E by $127 million, using
offsets from weapons activities and our Fossil Energy account.
While I support the ARPA-E program personally, we simply cannot
afford to divert funds from our highest priorities, which are the
nuclear weapons modernization program. The Fossil Energy account has
been cut already, and I don't think it should sustain any further cuts,
so 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 North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. 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 North
Carolina will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

For expenses necessary to carry out naval petroleum and oil
shale reserve activities, $14,909,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, unobligated funds remaining from prior
years shall be available for all naval petroleum and oil
shale reserve activities.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve

For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve
facility development and operations and program management
activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $189,400,000, to remain available
until expended.

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

For necessary expenses for Northeast Home Heating Oil
Reserve storage, operation, and management activities
pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C.
6201 et seq.), $8,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

Energy Information Administration

For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of
the Energy Information Administration, $100,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

Non-defense Environmental Cleanup

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for non-defense environmental
cleanup 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, $194,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Reed

Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 25, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $18,956,000)''.
Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $9,478,000)''.
Page 31, line 1, after the second dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $9,478,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment
involving the Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup programs for America.
What I seek to do with this amendment is to increase this line by $19
million. I recognize the hard work of the subcommittee and of the
subcommittee chairman in addressing the fiscal needs of our country and
in reducing the overall spending in this appropriations bill. In regard
to this line in particular, it is presently scheduled, as proposed, to
be reduced by $42 million. I recognize the fiscal crisis that we face
in America, but this amendment reestablishes $19 million to that line
because it is a wise investment.
It is a wise investment because of sites such as that in my district,
the West Valley Demonstration facility, which is dealing with the issue
of non-defense environmental waste cleanup. By reestablishing this $19
million, it has been reported to our office that, essentially, what we
will save in the long term is approximately $262 million over the next
5 years. That is because of the positive steps that these facilities
have made. With a significant reduction in spending, as proposed by the
subcommittee and under the proposed legislation, that positive progress
will cease, and what we will end up doing is making larger investments
over a longer period of time to recover and clean up this nuclear waste
that is at these facilities across America.
I would like to note, Mr. Chairman, that we have worked in a
bipartisan manner on this bill. My colleague from New York, Brian
Higgins, has helped our office, working hand in hand with us on this
effort--as well as with Mr. Matheson from Utah and Bill Johnson on our
side of the aisle--to try to come together and just make a wise,
commonsense investment while recognizing the fiscal difficulty that we
face across America.
I applaud our subcommittee chairman for the work that he has done in
regard to this bill, and I ask our subcommittee chairman to support
this amendment as well as for all fellow Members on both sides of the
aisle to stand with this amendment in a commonsense way in order to
save taxpayer dollars in the long term and, at the same time, get rid
of a true problem, which is this non-defense nuclear waste that is now
located at facilities across America. With that, I ask my colleagues to
support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HIGGINS. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
bipartisan amendment, which seeks to adequately fund the Non-Defense
Environmental Cleanup program. Our amendment ensures that nuclear
cleanup sites get the funding they need to protect communities,
including western New York, from radioactive contamination.
The West Valley Nuclear Waste Reprocessing plant, established in
response to a Federal call to reprocess spent nuclear fuel, has since
ceased operations, leaving behind more than 600,000 gallons of high-
level radioactive waste. To say this is a public safety and
environmental hazard is a massive understatement.

{time} 2030

We have already seen a leak develop into a plume of radioactive
groundwater. And if this radioactive waste makes its way into the Great
Lakes, the environmental and economic implications would be
devastating.
It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to not let funding
shortfalls delay further cleanup. For West Valley alone, further delays
would add an additional $30 million in maintenance costs per year. Like
paying a minimum on a credit card, not committing adequate funding only
delays progress and adds cost.
I am proud to join my friend and colleague, Congressman Tom Reed, on
this very important issue, and I urge bipartisan support for this
important amendment.
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 want to commend both gentlemen for offering this
amendment, and also Congresswoman Brownley for being down on the floor
on the same subject of nondefense cleanup.
As I can't speak for the chairman, I think that we share a concern
for cleaning up these sites. I think one of the problems with the
amendment is the offsets from departmental administration and the
office of the administrator. I think you're calling attention to a very
important unaddressed issue in our country. From coast to coast, we
have these sites that need to be cleaned up. I think the problem with
this amendment is where the money is being taken from, from our
standpoint, departmental administration. There have been other nicks to
that diminishing account as we've gone through

[[Page H4280]]

the bill today, and I truly have heard the concerns expressed by the
gentleman from New York that we are not adequately investing in
cleaning up contaminated sites not just in New York, but in California
and Ohio and other places around our country.
Without question, the chairman was given an inadequate allocation,
and the choices he made on levels of funding were for the most part
very thoughtful. I think it's fair to say that overall this bill is
truly inadequate in meeting the needs of the Nation. We talked about
that earlier today. And these accounts are among those that are
terribly underfunded.
We keep picking off the bones of this spine, and there aren't
sufficient funds to go around. So I'm very torn on the gentleman's
amendment, and I am quite concerned about cleaning up these sites. If
we could find other offsets, I would probably be very favorably
inclined; but I am very concerned about where the Members have
identified funding, and I am very constrained to support it because of
that.
But I do want to thank the gentlemen for offering their amendment,
and hopefully we can find a better solution working together in the
weeks ahead.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair would advise the Member that we have not
read to that point yet.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment
facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial
actions, and other activities of title II of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, and title X, subtitle A, of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992, $545,000,000, to be derived from the
Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund,
to remain available until expended.

Science

For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for science 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 facility
or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or
expansion, and purchase of not more than 25 passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only, including one law enforcement
vehicle, one ambulance, and one bus, $4,653,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That $174,862,000
shall be available until September 30, 2015, for program
direction.

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:

Page 26, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $158,309,900)''.
Page 60, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $158,309,900)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce funding
for basic energy science research by cutting 10 percent out of its $1.5
billion budget. It would apply those funds to the spending reduction
account.
Basic energy science is a worthy goal to explore fundamental
phenomena and create scientific knowledge to keep our technologies and
ideas on the global, leading edge. However, it is not the Federal
Government's function to act as a venture capitalist for science theory
research. I believe that this endeavor is instead best left to our
world-renowned universities and private institutions.
My amendment does not stop this research. It would simply put it on
balance with the reductions that have already been applied in the bill
to our present energy resources.
In this bill, general science is cut by only 5 percent, while
research on fossil fuels and nuclear energy is cut by 17 percent and 14
percent respectively.
We're in an economic emergency, Mr. Chairman. Our Nation is facing an
economic meltdown, and Federal dollars are very scarce. As we face this
huge budget deficit together, we've got to look at every option
available to meet the challenges of doing more with less.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and 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. I oppose the amendment of the gentleman from
Georgia.
His amendment would cut $158 million from the Office of Science
within the Department of Energy in favor of deficit savings. I should
say for the record we cut approximately $220 million from last year's
number. So we've substantially reduced this account.
Let me just say, too, that the basic science program within the
Department conducts research with a staggering potential for benefits
for our Nation. Cutting the program further, which is what he seeks,
threatens our long-term energy security, hurts American scientists and
industry, and I think to some extent blemishes our credibility as a
worldwide leader in basic science programs.
I therefore oppose this amendment, urge others 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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
I will say he has been very consistent today. But if we get off the
subject of this bill just for a second and we think about every single
chamber of commerce that talks to us, every single economic growth team
that exists around this country, what do they tell us? They tell us we
need to invest in STEM--science, technology, engineering, and math--
because America is falling behind.
In fact, in the immigration debate, what are they asking us for?
They're asking us for more visas to bring in people from other
countries who have all the requisite skills that we don't have, where
we can't provide enough scientists, enough engineers, enough
specialists to the marketplace for the companies that want to surge
ahead.
So for the gentleman to be suggesting that we reduce our science
accounts even more flies in the face of reality. The science account is
$223 million below this year's level and $500 million below the budget
request. Innovation is an area where we as a Nation should be leading,
and reducing investment in basic science risks world leadership. We are
already at the edge.
Investment from publicly funded research yields a 20 percent to 67
percent return. With that kind of return, we should be investing more
in science so that we produce the requisite talent that we need to meet
the needs of the future, not the past. We can't ride on past laurels.
We have to be producing the new knowledge, new innovation that can
produce answers for us, certainly in the fields of energy where America
is truly in deep deficit and having to import so many of the resources
that propel this economy forward.
I can't imagine why the gentleman is proposing this. But in the areas
of science, engineering, math, and technology, we have to measure up.
If you look at a nation like China, with billions of people producing
all those engineers, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to
understand that we better open our eyes to what we need to do here at
home. All you have to do is look at our negative energy accounts to
understand that we're falling behind and that these investments in
science are for the sake of the Nation and the future.
Daniel Webster's quote up there on the wall tells us to develop the
resources of our land and calls us forth to do something really great
in our time and generation. To not invest in science, to not invest in
the future really takes America backwards.
So I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, would urge my
colleagues to do so, 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 amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.

[[Page H4281]]

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 26, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $223,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $223,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my anxiousness is probably
perpetuated by the 6 hours that I've sat here waiting to offer this
amendment.
That said, over the Fourth of July holiday, when persons working with
me sent me the summary of the Rules Committee and I read that we were
taking $233 million out of science, I most immediately contacted people
working with me and asked if they would prepare an amendment that may
very well cause some of the membership to feel a remedy.
Let me say most immediately, Mr. Chairman, that Chairman
Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Kaptur, I have newfound appreciation
not just for them, but for all appropriators in working within the
framework that they have been given. And certainly my amendment does
not address either of them or their respective staffs who are deserving
of extraordinary commendations on both sides for having done the best
you can with what you have. I appreciate that.
Today, I offer a modest amendment that makes a profound statement
about our country's priorities.
Federally supported basic research at the Department of Energy has
helped to lead the development of lithium ion batteries, digital
recording technology, communications satellites, and water-purification
techniques, among other vital and incredible advances. I might add,
some of this work would not be done by the private sector. It may come
as a surprise to some to know that some of the research that led to
Google came out of the National Science Foundation.
Many of my Republican colleagues' insistence on cutting everything
except defense spending ignores the realities of our modern world.
China, South Korea, and Australia are but three examples that are
increasing their percentage of their GDP that's spent on research.
If we continue to cut, cut, cut, pretty soon we're going to cut
ourselves right out of the equation in innovation and technology. Yet
this bill provides $223 million, 5 percent less than the fiscal year
2013 enacted levels, and $500 million, 10 percent less than the
administration's request for basic scientific research.
The amendment that I'm offering restores basic science research to
the enacted levels, and it offsets this change with funds from the $7.7
billion appropriated for nuclear weapons, which is an increase of $98
million, 1 percent over the enacted level. The Congressional Budget
Office says that this amendment has zero impact on budget authority and
actually reduces 2014 outlays by $22 million.
Bombs will not end our dependence on foreign fossil fuel. Bombs don't
stop trains and underground pipelines from exploding around this
country. Bombs don't prevent oil from washing up on our beaches. And
bombs certainly won't put food on the tables of working poor Americans.

{time} 2045

Mr. Chairman, our country has real needs. Adequately funding basic
research is one of them. Basic research will help to ensure that our
country continues to be a world leader in research and development,
keeping jobs where they belong, here in America.
We can no longer afford to spend money on weapons programs that were
conceived in the Cold War era. We don't need more bombs. We need to
fund programs that will help move this Nation forward and spur economic
growth. Congress can and should do better.
I want to cite one specific in particular. The B61 life extension
program is a perfect example of misplaced Republican priorities. The
B61 is the oldest bomb in our nuclear arsenal--almost as old as I am.
The committee recommended $561 million, $23.7 million above the budget
request for the B61 program.
The Senate version assumes a cheaper adjustment, the ``triple alt,''
than this bill. That still extends the program for 10 years. That
assumption alone would save $191 million and almost restore research
funding to the enacted levels by itself.
Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to yield my time because I waited so
long, but I will 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. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but
let me salute the gentleman from Florida for his patience--I know he
has been in the Chamber at least 5 or 6 hours waiting for his mark in
this bill so he could get up--and also for the kind words, but most
especially those directed towards our staff, which, as you know, have
been dealing with an open rule, which is part of our process here, and
juggling quite a few amendments which continue to come over the transom
and will be coming over the transom all night. Indeed, I wanted to
thank you for that recognition.
I do oppose the amendment because it would increase funding for the
Office of Science, not because I don't support the Office of Science,
but it would hit our National Nuclear Security Administration's weapons
activity account. I do support the basic science programs championed by
our colleague. We worked hard in our committee to prioritize basic
science. As I said earlier, this bill actually increases the Office of
Science's budget by $32 million above the current post-sequester level,
but we still make national defense the first priority in our bill, and
so I oppose this amendment and urge others 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, first of all, I want to thank Congressman
Hastings for working with us and obviously participating in these
debates for the entire day today. He is such an able and well-
intentioned Member. His brilliance continues to inspire all of us on
many issues, including this one.
I wanted to just say that I agree with the gentleman's intent in
offering this amendment. And as I've said many times today, the
allocation we were given as a subcommittee is simply insufficient to
meet all of the needs that the Nation has certainly in this area of
science.
The gentleman is correct that there is a $223 million--which is not
insignificant--reduction from 2013 levels. So as we look to the future,
there is less emphasis on science. I agree with the gentleman's intent.
I wish we could restore all those dollars this evening.
I would also say that there's a constraint on us because we know that
the President very much wants to engage in nuclear weapons reduction
talks with other nations around the world, and I think it is important
that he be able to negotiate from a position of strength. That is one
of the reasons that the chairman and I are working so very hard to
allow him to achieve the ultimate objective of nuclear arms reduction.
So to take dollars from those accounts at this level really does create
a bit of a pressure for us that would cause me to oppose the
gentleman's amendment at this time. But I do so very reluctantly and
with full understanding of what he is trying to achieve, and I want to
thank him very much for waiting the entire day to offer this very, very
important amendment that I hope some day to be able to support.
I urge my colleagues to consider however they may wish to vote on
this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 Florida will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Foster

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.

[[Page H4282]]

The Clerk read as follows:

Page 26, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $500,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $500,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to present an amendment that
addresses an imbalance in our efforts to promote the long-term economic
and national security interests of the United States.
This amendment reverses the deep and harmful cuts to the Department
of Energy's Office of Science and balances this by a corresponding
reduction--amounting to 6 percent--in the nuclear weapons production
and life extension accounts.
The greatest long-term threat that our country faces on both the
military and economic fronts is the threat of losing our role as world
leaders in innovation in science and technology. Nothing is more
crucial to preserving that role than the fundamental and applied
scientific research, at both universities and national laboratories,
supported by the DOE Office of Science. This appropriations bill would
cut funding for the Office of Science by $500 million below the
President's request for the next fiscal year.
As a physicist who worked at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
for over 20 years and collaborated with universities and other national
labs all over the United States, I understand the productivity and the
potential of the Department of Energy's national lab system and the
wide range of basic scientific research that they support.
The Office of Science is responsible for supporting university-based
research, but it also supports basic research facilities that are too
big for any single company or university to develop.
The Chicago area that I represent is home to a number of scientific
centers, including Fermilab, Argonne National Laboratory, and
university-based centers. The economic impact of Argonne and Fermilab
in Illinois alone is estimated to be more than $1.3 billion annually,
and there are thousands of good-paying jobs that are supported by those
investments.
Our national labs are a critical research tool to academics and
industry alike. For example, Eli Lilly conducts nearly half of its drug
discovery research in conjunction with the Advanced Photon Source at
Argonne.
The Office of Science is also home to one of the Department's newest
ventures, the innovation hubs, which seek to discover and develop the
next generation of energy delivery. Programs like the Joint Center for
Energy Storage Research, headquartered at Argonne, and the Fuels from
Sunlight Hub, headquartered at the California Institute of Technology,
bring together multiple teams of researchers who are working to develop
energy advancements that have the potential to transform our energy
systems.
The Office of Science also invests in fusion, a safe, clean, and
sustainable energy source that has the scientific potential to provide
the United States with energy independence and a nearly limitless zero-
emissions energy supply.
Currently, the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory is building the
most powerful fusion facility of its type in the world. Through the
Office of Science's Biological and Environmental Research programs, we
have become world leaders in biofuels research. This research is laying
the foundation for a revolution in biofuel production that will help to
lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
Study after study has shown that there are few investments that
government can make that provide as high a return on investment as
scientific research and development. The cuts proposed by Republicans
in this underlying bill will have a wide-ranging impact, both to the
local economy in Illinois and to our national economy. And with wages
as a percentage of our economy at a record low, it is not time to
retreat and to stop investing in American innovation. We need to
maintain a competitive advantage now more than ever.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today because we must continue to invest in
American innovation and to fully fund the research and development
conducted through the DOE Office of Science.
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 rise to oppose the amendment, but
I do salute the gentleman for his work at the Fermilab, one of the
finest labs in the Nation. Obviously, we appreciate his knowledge, and
I would salute his contributions to science during his career before he
came here.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I oppose his amendment. A cut of this
magnitude to the weapons activities would seriously endanger our
ability to carry out the modernization work that I talked about
earlier, and so I oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. QUIGLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
Mr. FOSTER. I would actually like to respond a little bit about the
offset for this amendment. This amendment is offset by reducing the
$7.7 billion budget for the NNSA nuclear weapons account by $500
million. This is a 6.5 percent reduction.
I want to make it clear that the intent of this amendment is not to
reduce the large amount of high-quality research that goes on in NNSA-
supported programs; but a large fraction of the funding in this account
goes to production and future production facilities for weapons systems
that serve no clearly defined strategic purpose in today's geopolitics,
or they go to programs for which the cost estimates, the project
management, or both have come under repeated criticism when they come
under external independent review.
To take two examples, the underlying bill funds the B61 life
extension program at $23 million more than requested. This program has
ballooned in cost, from $4 billion 2 years ago to over $10 billion. A
recent independent cost estimate commissioned by the Pentagon called
even this estimate into question.
Another example is the overall size of the nuclear weapons stockpile.
We have, today, more than 5,000 nuclear weapons. Even if the United
States and Russia were to cut our arsenals by a factor of 10, our
countries would still have significantly more nuclear weapons than our
nearest competitors. The reason you spend money on nuclear deterrence
is to deter rational actors and to reassure our allies.
To those who oppose this 6 percent cut, I would ask: Is there any
example of a rational actor who would not be adequately deterred by a
stockpile of, for example, 1,000 deployed and deployable nuclear
weapons? Is there any one of our allies who would not consider our
ability to release, say, 10 percent of that arsenal in retaliation to
an attack on them to be a sufficient ability to respond? Yet we are
redesigning production facilities and spending money on them when the
strategic quantities required to be produced have not been established.
Earlier this year, the GAO added that NNSA was:

again included on GAO's high-risk list in recognition of
the potential for vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and
mismanagement in contract administration and management of
major projects.

And the cost remains uncertain. From the text of this very Energy and
Water Committee report accompanying this bill:

The committee notes that the full extent of the
consequences of the NNSA's project management problems,
especially at the largest of the NNSA's construction
projects, is still coming to light. As the administration
gains a more complete understanding of cost increases and
construction delays, it must take the lead to determine
whether a new long-term budget plan is needed to meet the
Nation's strategic objectives.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment of the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), and I rise belatedly to support
the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) as well.

[[Page H4283]]

Let me speak from the layman's perspective, although I served for a
number of years on the Science Committee and presently serve on
Homeland Security, which many of us know that when we deal with the
issues of national security, we're dealing with technology, we're
dealing with science. In essence, we secure this Nation by being
victors of science.
Let me use layman's terms. Let me use what children are studying in
their classrooms, maybe Alexander Bell, maybe they're studying Albert
Einstein, but maybe they are studying and admire the Nation's
astronauts.
For a number of years, I served, as I said, on the Science Committee
and the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, and I could see how
science permeated not only what we do here on Earth, but obviously
space science. It seems to me, although I appreciate the heavy lifting
of the chairman and the ranking member of this subcommittee on making
determinations and going forward, what is America if we cannot invest
in science?

{time} 2100

Science is the job creator of the 21st century and the centuries
beyond. Science provides jobs by creating new technology, new
discoveries, and I, frankly, believe that it is suffering--that we have
to subject America to the drastic cuts in science, the drastic cuts
that will result in less research in labs, less private research, less
teaching on science, and less growth and expansion on scientific
inventions and obviously productivity.
So I would hope that, as the gentleman from Illinois has explained,
it is a minute aspect of the funding source, and that we could balance
our weaponry needs with the idea of advancing science. That's what I
see these amendments as doing, both Mr. Hastings' and Mr. Foster's,
attempting to not allow America to take a back seat or a second-class
position on research and science.
It is clear that our best days are in front of us, and that America
has grown and advanced because we have allowed the genius of science to
be able to promote, not only our democracy, but our creativity and the
curers of diseases, and also the finding of technology and the creation
of invention that have made the quality of life better. That's what
science is; it is human, it is humanity.
And so I would ask my colleagues to consider the amendment.
I rise to support science. I think it is valuable, I think it is
important. And I think this is a difficult challenge for our committee,
for this committee, but I do think that, as we proceed, we need to find
a way to increase the funding for science, for us to be able to go
forward in the greatness of this Nation in many, many ways.
But science has been a way that America has proven her greatness
because we've allowed those with talent and opportunity to be able to
share that talent in advancing the quality of life, not only for
Americans, but humankind.
I'd ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FOSTER. 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 Illinois
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy

For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities
authorized by section 5012 of the America COMPETES Act (42
U.S.C. 16538), $50,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 26, line 18, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $329,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $329,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment together with Mr.
Polis. We've heard discussion repeatedly about the value of science.
But if we back up a few moments, we also need to understand our values
as Representatives of this Nation.
There's been an interesting subset of debates here over the last
several hours and, on the one hand, it's the issue of, we must maintain
our nuclear weapon superiority, and the committee has taken up that
value, that goal, and has put a lot of money into that area while
moving money out of the science.
Unfortunately, the committee couldn't take a larger view of the
overall budget and the appropriations and deal with, perhaps, the fact
that we're spending $82 billion in Afghanistan this year and maybe move
some of that money over into these accounts. But that wasn't possible.
But if you stand back and take a look at what has happened throughout
the course of this day, you'll see that there have been repeated
efforts on the part of the Democrats to rebuild the science, the
research budget of the United States.
This appropriation bill simply decimates that budget, that critical
investment in today and tomorrow, and in the economy of the future. Our
ability to deal with climate change, our ability to deal with energy,
are just stripped, gutted and actually set aside as a result of this
appropriation bill.
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a $2 billion
reduction, 73 percent, ARPA-E, the subject of this amendment, a $329
million reduction, an 87 percent reduction. The Office of Science,
25,000 researchers across this Nation are likely to be laid off,
thousands of research projects will simply not be funded. They will
simply die on the vine.
The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, an $80
million reduction. It goes on and on.
This is so backward, this is so backward. What this Nation needs to
do is to build its research capabilities, build its science. We do not
need to build more bombs. But yet, that's what we are doing here.
This amendment replaces the $329 million dollar cut to the ARPA-E
program, a program that has actually created many new opportunities,
which my colleagues will be discussing here in the next few moments,
but a program based upon the Defense Department's DARPA program, that
has, through arguments that we've heard over the last several hours,
developed extraordinary technology that has now found its way into the
world's economy, for example, the Internet.
We really must restore this money, and we must restore the science
budget and research budget for the Department of Energy. We can't fail.
If it's a choice between building more nuclear weapons and replacing
our nuclear weapons or creating tomorrow's economy, it's a simple
choice.
But this bill doesn't do that. It deals with yesterday. Yes, we're
going to need nuclear weapons, but not 5,500 of them. We don't need to
rebuild all of them. We don't need to spend $7.7 billion on that
enterprise while gutting the research and the science future of this
Nation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, you know, the funding priorities of this
bill are simply upside down. This bill prioritizes nuclear weapons
funding over research for innovative technologies that will lead to
energy independence and launch a future for sustainable energy and job
growth in our country.
This bill before us underfunds programs that not only will grow our
Nation's clean energy sources but also will promote jobs and emerging
technologies and maintain critical infrastructure. At the same time it
makes the cut in the ARPA-E program that you've heard so much about
here today, the bill increases weapons activities by $97.7 million
above the 2013 enacted level.
As I mentioned earlier in my Rules Committee discussion time, this
past

[[Page H4284]]

February I had the privilege of meeting with an ARPA-E project team
from my district in Colorado, a joint project between the University of
Colorado at Boulder and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which
demonstrated significant energy yield improvements and cost reduction
potential in solar photovoltaic power systems.
The team leaders were very excited about the challenges in clean
energy, and there are examples of projects like this which ARPA-E has
helped fund, and would not even exist without ARPA-E, across our
country that are leading and will lead to countless benefits for
consumers and for our national energy security.
But despite the success of ARPA-E, which was even acknowledged by the
subcommittee chair and ranking committee member before our Rules
Committee yesterday, the underlying bill disproportionately cuts from
clean energy programs, 81 percent cuts, while bolstering wasteful
spending for weapons.
We need to restore the ARPA-E funding to the President's budget
levels. That's why Mr. Garamendi and I are offering this amendment to
provide $329 million in funding to ARPA-E. This amendment is offset
with a corresponding cut to the NNSA Weapons Activities account.
This amendment provides an amount of support that ARPA-E needs to
ensure that our country keeps moving towards energy independence and
can sustain job growth.
I strongly encourage my colleague on both sides of the aisle to
support the Garamendi-Polis amendment, and 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. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. This
amendment would unacceptably strike funding for NNSA's weapons
activities by $325 million in order to increase funding for ARPA-E at
the Department of Energy.
I am supportive of ARPA-E, but a reduction of this magnitude in the
National Nuclear Security Administration's Weapons Activities account
would seriously affect their ability to ensure the continued
reliability of our weapons.
These weapons have to be certified by the Secretary of Energy to the
President, our Commander-in-Chief. The Secretary's ability to do that
would be hurt by cuts of this magnitude.
And for this, and other reasons, 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 California (Mr. Garamendi).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. 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. Schiff

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 26, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment, along with my
colleague, Representative Woodall of Georgia, and my colleague,
Representative Polis of Colorado. It would increase funding for the
Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, otherwise known as ARPA-E.
The bill provides only $50 million for ARPA-E, a reduction of $215
million, or 81 percent, from fiscal year 2013. Moreover, the bill would
reduce ARPA-E by 87 percent compared to the 2014 budget request.
This amendment would increase the funding by $20 million, with the
increase offset by a reduction in the Department Administration
account. This is a very modest investment for an agency whose work has
the potential to remake our economy.
While the amendment would leave us a long way short of where the
funding for this program should be, as well as where it is in the
Senate bill and in the President's budget, passing it would send a
strong signal that there's bipartisan support for this kind of
research.
In 2011, I offered a similar amendment to restore funding to ARPA-E,
which was adopted by a bipartisan majority in the House.
Started in 2009, ARPA-E is a revolutionary program that advances
high-potential, high-impact energy technologies that are too early for
private sector investment. This is an innovative agency modeled on
DARPA, which has spearheaded incredible breakthroughs in the Defense
Department, with both military and civilian applications.
ARPA-E was created to bring that same kind of innovative thinking to
the energy sector. That includes a focus on high-risk, high-reward R&D
and a quick-moving culture made up of experts who stay for just a few
years to ensure that new ideas are continually being brought forward.
Its philosophy, much like a tech startup, is to hire the best technical
staff and then hire the managers and leadership that can get the most
out of them.
As the committee report notes, ARPA-E works on ``developing energy
technologies whose development and commercialization are too risky to
attract significant private sector investment but are capable of
significantly changing the energy sector to address our critical
economic and energy security challenges.''
That's a great description of ARPA-E, and I'd ask the House to
consider whether it sounds like something we should be cutting by 81
percent.
Mr. Chair, there are cuts I can support in this bill, but a cut to
our investment in new generations of energy technology is shortsighted
in the extreme.
As we cut spending to return the budget to balance, we must not cut
those programs that are vital to our economic future and our national
security. ARPA-E is just such an agency. Even if we cannot make the
investment the President called for in his budget, let's at least not
destroy an agency that is pointing the way toward a more energy-secure
future.
Cutting programs like ARPA-E so severely is akin to shutting them
down completely. No agency can absorb an 81 percent cut to its budget
in a single year, but even less so an agency that relies on attracting
elite scientists and engineers.
Energy is a national security issue, it's an economic imperative,
it's a health issue, and it's an environmental issue. And to invest in
the kind of cutting-edge research that's going on at ARPA-E is exactly
the direction we need to go.
We want to lead the energy revolution. We don't want to see that
leadership go to China, India or any other nation. But if we're serious
about it, we need to invest in cutting edge research, and that means
ARPA-E.
Our competitiveness in a global economy where we have to compete with
labor that costs a fraction of what American workers costs depends on
research and development.

{time} 2115

I can't understand why we'd want to give away that big advantage. So
I urge support for this amendment to support cutting-edge investments
in our energy future, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. I know my colleague from Georgia will be speaking on this
shortly. I appreciate him and Representative Schiff working on this
amendment, and I will be very brief to voice my support for Congressman
Woodall and Congressman Schiff in their efforts to restore some of the
funds in ARPA-E.
As we discussed, the underlying bill cuts ARPA-E by 81 percent. We
live in times of fiscal austerity. We have the sequestration. We know
it's time for cuts. Eighty-one percent is clearly singling it out.
What this amendment does is restores $20 million in funding to ARPA-

[[Page H4285]]

E. Even $20 million goes a long way when we're talking about ARPA-E.
We're talking about early-stage investments. It could be $500,000, $1
million, $2 million--very high leverage, very high return. And $70
million is not enough to fund the program. But, yes, it will make great
strides even at this funding level, because investment in early-stage
companies is all about risk-taking. That's why the government has a
critical role in promoting innovation and making sure that we do the
basic research to even get it ready for tech transfer, to get it ready
for venture capital, to get it ready for the private sector to
commercialize it. In order for ARPA-E to be successful, investors need
to see that the government is willing to invest in risky, but high-
reward, projects that can truly alter the course of energy independence
for our country.
So I strongly salute Representatives Woodall and Schiff for bringing
forward this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to adopt this as a
step forward, and I deeply appreciate everybody on both sides of the
aisle who said great things about the ARPA-E project and how it can
help lead to energy independence.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOODALL. I also want to thank the gentleman from California and
the gentleman from Colorado for their enthusiasm about this important
project. The amendment that my colleague from California is bringing
forward is modest in scope. I'll say to my colleagues who want to see
spending reduced, we're talking about the difference between an 81
percent cut, as is in the chairman's mark today, to a 74 percent cut,
if we add this $20 million back in. It's a modest number, but it's an
important number because the committee could only do what the committee
could do. And I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, the chairman. I
know he is committed to this research.
I hate to hear folks describe the commitment to advancement, Mr.
Chairman, the commitment to next-generation technologies as a
Republican or a Democrat commitment. I think it's an American
commitment. It's certainly a House commitment, and it's one that the
chairman and the ranking member tried their best within their
allocations to satisfy.
What are you going to take the money away from, Mr. Chairman? Look at
what we're dealing with in this appropriations bill. We're talking
about nuclear security. We're talking about environmental cleanup.
We're talking about uranium enrichment, decontamination, and
decommissioning. The choices we have here are tough choices. And the
amendment that's before us now, knowing that we want to put the money
where it's going to do the most good, says let's take the money out of
administration. That's not to say that there doesn't have to be
administration. That's not to say phones don't have to be answered and
electricity doesn't have to be turned on. But when you have to make
tough choices, the one that the gentleman from California is asking us
to make today is: Are we going to invest in the bureaucracy or are we
going to invest in that opportunity to make tomorrow so much more
different than today?
If my colleagues haven't had a chance, look at those project teams
like the one my colleague from Colorado mentioned and what they are
researching. Mr. Chairman, I come from coal-burning country. And the
work that ARPA-E is doing on carbon sequestration could change the
debate about American energy independence forever.
ARPA-E isn't working on what is going to happen tomorrow. They're
working on what's going to happen in the next generation; what is it
going to be that changes the debate forever. Those are the kinds of
ideas that this $21 million will support.
Mr. Chairman, it's the commitment to fundamental research, the
commitment to game-changing ideas that is a bipartisan commitment. It's
one that goes from coast-to-coast, from north to south, and on both
sides of the aisle.
Again, I'm grateful to the gentlelady from Ohio and the chairman from
New Jersey for all they have done to try to support these accounts. It
is my great hope that my colleagues here in the House will support the
gentleman from California's amendment and we'll get this $20 million
plus-up.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. McNERNEY. I rise in support of the Schiff amendment, which makes
sure that we continue investing in quality energy research programs
that will benefit the United States.
Energy innovation, research and development are essential for our
country, especially if we truly want to move forward with reducing our
energy dependence on fossil fuels. One important component of this goal
is the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E. Since 2009,
ARPA-E has funded over 275 potentially transformational energy
technology projects. Many of the research projects are occurring in my
own State of California.
These companies, national labs, and educational institutions are
working on items that will greatly benefit the energy security of our
country. Some projects include Distributed Power Flow Control Using
Smart Wires for Energy Routing; Low-Cost Biological Catalyst to Enable
Efficient CO2 Capture; Large-Scale Energy Reductions Through
Sensors, Feedback, and Information Technology; Highly Dispatchable and
Distributed Demand Response for the Integration of Distributed
Generation; and Carbon Nanotube Membranes for Energy-Efficient Carbon
Sequestration.
Our Nation faces significant energy challenges in the years ahead,
both from a production and reliability standpoint, but also from the
effects of climate change. Climate change's effects include severe
storms, sea level rise, and the extremely poor air quality that
continually plagues California's Central Valley. We must become more
energy efficient, reduce the release of CO2 and other
harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and improve our electric
grid and its ability to meet peak demands. ARPA-E projects aim to solve
these problems and at the same time will help reduce blackouts, reduce
energy costs, and improve both environmental and public health.
ARPA-E initiatives help facilitate future private investments by
helping companies reach their potential in the early stages. In fact,
the American Energy Innovation Council, which consists of some of
America's largest companies, like Lockheed Martin and Microsoft, has
called for ARPA-E to be funded at 10 times the proposed level.
Unfortunately, the bill today provides only $50 million for ARPA-E,
which is $215 million less than what was enacted the last fiscal year
and $329 million less than the President's request.
ARPA-E project successes have attracted more than $450 million in
private investments. It's this return on investment that must be
continued, not cut back. The Schiff amendment aims to correct this
error in the underlying bill.
The only reason I can think of to reduce ARPA-E funding is to help
prop up fossil fuel industries, and that's going to get us more global
warming and cause us more problems. We need to reduce global warming.
Global warming is a threat to our national security. We need to fight
it. ARPA-E is going to give us the tools to do that.
So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program

Such sums as are derived from amounts received from
borrowers pursuant to section 1702(b)(1)(B) of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 under this heading in prior Acts, shall be
collected in accordance with section 502(7) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided, That, for
necessary administrative expenses to carry out this Loan
Guarantee program, $22,000,000 is appropriated, to remain
available until September 30, 2015: Provided further, That
$22,000,000 of the fees collected

[[Page H4286]]

pursuant to section 1702(h) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(42 U.S.C. 16512(h)) shall be credited as offsetting
collections to this account to cover administrative expenses
and shall remain available until expended, so as to result in
a final fiscal year 2014 appropriation from the general fund
estimated at not more than $0: Provided further, That fees
collected under section 1702(h) in excess of the amount
appropriated for administrative expenses shall not be
available until appropriated: Provided further, That the
Department of Energy shall not subordinate any loan
obligation to other financing in violation of section 1702 of
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16512) or
subordinate any Guaranteed Obligation to any loan or other
debt obligations in violation of section 609.10 of title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations.

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program

For administrative expenses in carrying out the Advanced
Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, $6,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2015.

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:

Page 28, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
to $0)''.
Page 60, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment eliminates the
remaining funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing
Loan program, transferring $6 million to the Spending Reduction
Account. Since 2008, the U.S. Government has been in the business of
lending money to build cars that no one wants to buy. For instance, $50
million went to the Vehicle Production Group for natural gas minivans.
That company failed. Meanwhile, $190 million went to Fisker Automotive
to make electric cars that catch on fire. For instance, the Karma,
Fisker's hybrid-electric luxury sedan, which cost around $100,000
apiece, was recalled to fix a hose connection that allowed coolant
leaks into the battery chamber, causing an electrical short.
Fortunately, no one was hurt before production was ended.
Unfortunately, taxpayers got back only a fraction of the payout.
Mr. Chairman, I'm 100 percent supportive of the automobile industry
producing more fuel-efficient automobiles. However, there's simply no
good reason that the Federal Government should be subsidizing billion-
dollar companies at a time when our Nation is broke. It is time that we
begin to reverse this disturbing trend of energy loan programs for
companies and let the automobile industry succeed or fail in the
marketplace on its own merits. We have to stop these kinds of
subsidies, particularly in these hard times when our Nation is in an
economic emergency.
I urge support of this commonsense amendment, and 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 rise to oppose the amendment.
While I appreciate the gentleman's position on the Advanced Technology
Vehicles Manufacturing Loan program--and certainly some of his
knowledge of the program is entirely accurate--the elimination of this
funding would hurt Federal oversight of the more than $8 billion in
loans already given. As our committee report states, there are no new
applications for this program, and the Department of Energy doesn't
expect any. The committee recommendation includes the $6 million as a
reasonable amount to provide oversight and direction to the existing
loan portfolio, and no more.
So I must oppose the gentleman's amendment in order to ensure proper
oversight of taxpayers' funding that's already out there in the form of
loans, 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.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Departmental Administration

For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy
necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the
purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and official reception and representation expenses
not to exceed $30,000, $187,863,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2015, plus such additional amounts as
necessary to cover increases in the estimated amount of cost
of work for others notwithstanding the provisions of the
Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That
such increases in cost of work are offset by revenue
increases of the same or greater amount: Provided further,
That moneys received by the Department for miscellaneous
revenues estimated to total $108,188,000 in fiscal year 2014
may be retained and used for operating expenses within this
account, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238,
notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2014 appropriation from the
general fund estimated at not more than $79,675,000.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,200,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.

{time} 2130

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to add my appreciation to
the committee's work. It's tough work. It's important work because this
is how we serve the American people.
I ask my colleagues to discuss with me--or follow my discussion on
the importance of the amendment that I offer because it is an amendment
that takes its funding from a source of funding that has been discussed
previously, and that is the Atomic Energy Defense Activities, National
Nuclear Security Administration. But it does take these moneys and it
uses them in a very constructive manner. It is moneys to maintain for
environmental justice that go to Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, minority-serving institutions, tribal colleges, and other
organizations. This is imperative in preserving sustainability and
growth of a community and environment.
Mr. Chairman, that is the intent, the simple intent, that alongside
of the important work of this appropriation of the Energy and Water
there is a constant need to be assured that our communities are
protected. Let me cite just a few examples as we proceed.
Many of us understand the recent tragedy that occurred--not in this
country, but recently occurred in Canada where areas were wiped out.
This is an important highlight for what environmental justice is all
about.
Many of us have heard in the years past of the Buffalo Creek
disaster. This is what environmental justice does; it is to fund
programs that are vital to ensuring that minority groups are not placed
at a disadvantage when it comes to the environment and the continued
preservation of their homes.
But it goes further. It is underserved areas. It is as much important
to preserve areas in Appalachia, in the Delta, in places where poor
communities cannot, if you will, represent themselves. Through
education about the importance of environmental sustainability, we can
promote a broader understanding of science and our citizens can improve
their surroundings.
What better group than Historically Black Colleges, minority-serving
institutions that include Hispanic-serving institutions and tribal
colleges; why are they the best to move in that direction? Primarily
because they communicate with those underserved communities.
Funds that would be awarded to this important cause would increase
youth involvement in STEM fields and also promote clean energy,
weatherization cleanup, and asset revitalization. These improvements
will provide protection to our most vulnerable groups.
Many people believe environmental justice has to do with lawsuits. It
has to do with outreach and information.

[[Page H4287]]

This is simply a small program that allows the Department of Energy to
focus on this constituency and ensure the coverage and the protection.
This program provides better access to technology for underserved
communities. Together, the Department of Energy and Department of
Agriculture distributed access to information which generates a
recognition of protecting the environment. Community leaders are able
as well to participate in environmental justice.
In our communities, in urban areas, there's a need for environmental
justice. Again, what better institutions than those institutions that
draw their population from the communities, that draw their population
from the reservations or from the communities that our Native Americans
are engaged in?
So I ask my colleagues to look at this program, look at the, if you
will, fiscal responsibility that I've utilized in drawing from the
program to invest in environmental justice. It's a fair way to give
resources to these vital institutions that, to be frank with you, Mr.
Chairman, they don't have the resources, but they do good work.
Texas Southern University had an environmental justice clinic located
in Houston in the 18th Congressional District. But let me be very
clear, this is not an earmark. These are resources that can be used by
the Department of Energy that will respond to this broad depth of
universities, Historically Black Colleges, tribal institutions,
minority-serving--which include, of course, the Hispanic-serving
institutions.
Let me quickly say that since 2002, the Tribal Energy Program has
also funded 175 energy projects. But again, this is limited to
environmental justice. I believe this is an effective utilization of
these funds and would ask my colleagues to ensure that we have the
funds to ensure the good work of these particular entities.
Let me conclude by asking my colleagues to support the education of
our young people in the environmental protection area that enhances the
communities from which they have come, making America better. I ask my
colleagues to support the Jackson Lee 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. I must oppose the gentlelady's amendment. This is,
though, a very important program, and I support it, our committee
supports it. But this program is primarily funded within the Office of
Legacy Management. That office receives substantive funding in this
bill under the account for other defense activities.
Funding for the Legacy Management increases $3.4 million over fiscal
year 2013. The Office of Legacy Management is the correct office to
provide stewardship for the legacy sites. They are the experts. And I
am happy to help ensure that this very important program receives
support within available funding for Legacy Management.
I look forward to working with Ms. Jackson Lee to support this
program as we move on through the appropriations process, but I oppose
the amendment and 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 would like to yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentlelady, and I thank my good friend
from New Jersey. But I do want to cite that nearly 10 years ago,
President Clinton produced Executive Order 12898, thereby highlighting
the importance of not only giving greater attention to our underserved
communities, but also how we can help our citizens by educating them on
the areas in which they live. That falls under the particular account
that I'm utilizing, and I would therefore like to go forward in this
instance.
Let me just be very appreciative of my good friend, the chairman of
this subcommittee, and the ranking member. I am very appreciative of
how difficult it is under sequester. But what I would say is that these
entities--Historically Black Colleges, minority-serving and tribal
colleges--in the course of what we're trying to do, these resources,
added to what the gentleman has already indicated, the $3.2 million,
$3.4 million is meager in what they could do with protecting
communities, educating communities about their environmental needs.
So that's environmental justice. It is expanding the reach so that
communities are far more protected than those that we've seen.
I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady for bringing
this issue before us during this debate.
You know, when I look at the executives that come and appear before
our subcommittee from the Department, I would have to say that the
gentlelady brings a very important concern to our subcommittee.
I would not say that if I look at those who have come, they are
completely representative of our country. So I'm not sure that the
consciousness exists at the highest level for assuring that all
communities in America are engaged in the activities of the Department.
I don't know--I heard the chairman, and there is a concern about
which accounts have been included in the gentlelady's amendment. I
would hope that, as this legislation moves forward, we could find a way
to accomplish the gentlelady's objectives in a way that would not raise
concerns on the other side.
So I think that she has really brought an important proposal before
us here, and I would hate to see that it would not be considered simply
because a wrong account has been identified, for example. So I would
just like to remain open to the gentlelady's proposal in a manner in
which it could be considered and ultimately approved.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentlewoman yield for a moment if you still
have time?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me sort of clarify, because the chairman has
made a point about a certain area where it is referencing Historically
Black Colleges. They are referencing several areas. I am speaking
specifically to environmental justice, which is represented in the
Departmental Administration account. So I'm focusing on the important
work that these colleges can do as it relates to educating our poor,
impoverished communities and communities of which they have a direct
ability to communicate with.
I will tell you, bringing forth environmental experts out of these
jurisdictions--tribal colleges, minority-serving, and Historically
Black--is a great asset to improving the quality of life of all
Americans. So I would ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
So mine is one of the references. There are many references where
Historically Black Colleges are, but this is specifically dealing with
environmental justice.
Ms. KAPTUR. I would also say to the gentlelady that in many
communities that are contaminated around this country and have
problems, oftentimes they are in neighborhoods and places where people
who are minority, who are tribal, people who are not necessarily
represented broadly within the Department live. So I think that we have
to be conscious in all parts of the Department, that there should be an
inclusivity.
So I think that the gentlelady has done a service, as always, by
raising our consciousness to all of the activities of the Department
and that they be sensitive to all parts of America, including
environmental justice. So I would hope that as we move forward, we
could find a way to support the gentlelady's concerns.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.

[[Page H4288]]

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:

Page 28, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $9,500,000)''.
Page 60, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $9,500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the
appropriations for the Department of Energy's salaries and expenses by
$9.5 million and place that amount in the spending reduction account.
When combined with the reduction included in the underlying bill, this
amount would represent a 25 percent cut from current levels.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that this may seem somewhat drastic.
However, I've spoken again and again today about the fiscal emergency
facing our country.
There are legitimate constitutional functions of the Federal
Government which must be funded, particularly those that relate to our
national defense. Yet even those functions are facing cuts--deep cuts.
This means that prioritization is necessary so that we may determine
our wants versus our needs.
We need to open up access to new sources of energy. We need to stop
being dependent on foreign oil. The Department of Energy has done very
little to further either of these goals. In fact, according to its
original purpose of being stood up, it has been a dismal failure.
Certainly, there are advances to be made in current technology. But
in the here and now, we know that we are sitting on vast resources that
are so tied up in red tape it could be decades before they could come
to fruition.
The House has passed several bills--and will continue to pass bills--
to lighten the Federal burden and bring true energy freedom to this
country. But the Senate and the administration disagree with us. They
would rather throw millions upon millions towards new sources of clean
energy, some of which have turned into highly publicized wastes of
taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Chairman, we need to prioritize developing the resources that we
have now. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has proven time and
again it is out of touch with the needs of our country. The bureaucrats
responsible for putting the Solyndras of the world above traditional
sources of energy pull in more than $100,000 a year on average, all the
while doing little to lighten costs for American families. In fact,
despite a supposed hiring freeze, the Department of Energy's Web site,
right now today, is currently advertising 31 job openings paying over
$105,000 per year.

{time} 2145

This is ridiculous, Mr. Chairman, and it must stop.
My amendment would force the Department of Energy to reevaluate its
priorities and put our current needs first rather than hoping that new,
clean sources of energy will pan out eventually.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and 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, our bill had many competing
priorities with a low allocation, and I appreciate my colleague's
commitment to finding more savings in the bill. He is ever persistent,
and I salute his willingness to challenge us each year on the floor
when we do this energy and water bill, and we are not the only bill
where he makes these challenges.
However, the Department Administration account in our recommendation
was already suffering a $49 million cut from last year's level. Earlier
amendments that we did this afternoon and this evening have taken
another $60 million. There is not a lot of money left to run the
department.
While some may want to close down the department, the department has
some pretty incredible responsibilities in terms of nuclear safety and
national defense and things that relate to cleanups and things of this
nature. If they had to respond--if you will pardon the expression--to
some of the emergencies that we might have as a Nation, and we know our
deficit is an emergency situation, they might not be able to respond on
our behalf.
Therefore, I 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. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
I kind of think back to the movie Titanic. There is one scene where
the captain--evidently the captain--comes out on the deck just about as
the Titanic is going to hit the iceberg. I can remember the blank look
on his face and thinking what had he been doing before all this
happened. We saw the tragedy that occurred. Sometimes if you don't have
captains in the pilot house you can really run aground, you can really
have trouble.
Already, the majority this evening has cut--I think we are down to
$146 million in administration in the Department of Energy, a vast
department. That kind of level of cut is going to cause big mistakes.
There will be accounting mistakes, there will be contracts that won't
be overseen. In a way, you are seeding a very bad future for the
management of the funds that we do vote for here tonight.
I think the gentleman, perhaps, isn't really familiar with everything
the Department does. You can come down here and be kind of cavalier and
propose amendments, but in the end, we can't absorb these cuts at the
Department because you're going to have problems that are caused by no
captains being at the helm.
I think that's really a big mistake, because this Department has to
manage over $30 billion--billion dollars--of tax dollars on the energy
and water front. These are big contracts, they are major projects that
are undertaken by this Department, and to act otherwise is to really, I
think, perform naively.
I think the gentleman has an objective, but I really think that he is
going to cause great harm to the Republic by this amendment. Obviously,
I oppose it, urge my colleagues to oppose it, 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 amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of the Inspector General

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector
General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, $42,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2015.

ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Weapons Activities

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy
defense weapons 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, and the purchase of
not to exceed one ambulance, $7,675,000,000, to remain
available until expended.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Quigley

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $23,700,000)''.
Page 60, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $23,700,000)''.

Mr. QUIGLEY (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 gentleman
from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment with my
friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
Our amendment is very straightforward. It simply cuts the $23.7
million from the B61 nuclear bomb not requested by the Department of
Energy.

[[Page H4289]]

The National Nuclear Security Administration requested a 45 percent
increase for a gold-plated upgrade plan for the B61 nuclear bomb. The
committee provided the 45 percent increase in funding for a portion of
the most expensive $10 billion upgrade plan. Then they provided an
additional $23.7 million. Our amendment simply cuts these additional
funds provided beyond what the agency requested.
Let me back up for a minute and explain what the $560 million in this
bill is actually going to pay for. At a time when we are slashing funds
for research at the NIH, failing to fund our crumbling infrastructure,
and underinvesting in our children's education, we are increasing
funding to keep hundreds of nuclear bombs in operation that we will
never use.
The Cold War is over. Mr. Chairman, I thought today that I was back
in a ``Twilight Zone'' episode--well, they're all like this--where you
woke up in the morning and it is 50 years earlier--it's 1963. The Cold
War is still raging.
Despite the fact that security experts of all political stripes,
including conservatives Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, have called
for deep cuts to our outsized nuclear stockpile.
General Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, said the ``military utility'' of the B61 is ``practically nil.''
As the U.S. and Russia work to reduce their nuclear stockpiles and
shift funds to meet today's threats, the B61 in Europe will be one of
the first weapons cut. Just last month in Berlin, the President stated
that he wants to ``seek bold reductions in tactical weapons,'' aka the
B61, in Europe.
My friends on the other side of the aisle claim they want to reduce
the deficit. I agree, but if we are actually going to reduce spending,
everything has to be on the table, including defense. This amendment is
a tiny, thoughtful cut to an outsized nuclear budget for weapons that
do little to keep us safe.
I hope my colleagues will join me in cutting funds not requested by
the Department of Energy for nuclear upgrades not needed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Quigley for bringing
forward this important amendment. There has been growing concerns, in
fact, raised by the Air Force's 2008 Blue Ribbon Review regarding the
effectiveness and vulnerabilities of the B61s.
The B61 bomb was originally developed and placed in Europe during the
Cold War for Cold War-era threats. Today, according to General James
Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
military utility of the B61 is ``practically nil.'' Let me repeat that:
According to General James Cartwright, the military utility of the B61
is practically nil.
Despite the lack of utility, the price tag continues to rise. As it
rises, some of our allies, like Germany, have called for the B61s to be
removed from their borders. There is no reason that we should spend
more and more taxpayer dollars on programs that aren't even needed or
wanted by our NATO allies and don't contribute to our national
security.
These missiles are a kind of saving opportunity that we need to take
advantage of. Given our fiscal restraints, we need to ensure that
taxpayer dollars are not wasted on programs that don't protect our
national security.
This amendment is simple: it cuts the B61 program back to the
agency's own request level, saving $23.7 million. To me, this is about
as much of a no-brainer of a cut that we can find. Let's do it.
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes''
on the Quigley-Polis amendment.
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Our bill provides $560 billion for the B61 Life Extension Program,
$23.7 million above the request.
I understand there are concerns about the cost of the refurbishment
of the B61 and the committee shares those concerns. As a result, this
bill contains a provision that requires that NNSA provide a full
analysis of the alternatives that were considered. But failing to move
forward without the full support of the B61 refurbishment will put that
program even further behind what is already a tight schedule.
The Government Accountability Office conducted a study of the B61
Life Extension Program in 2011 and reported there was no room left in
the refurbishment schedule. If the Life Extension Program slips further
behind, there will be gaps in the United States commitment to our NATO
allies.
In fiscal year 2012, NNSA performed a full cost estimate for the B61
refurbishment, and the Department of Defense Office of Cost Assessment
and Program Evaluation validated those costs. This was the most
comprehensive and accurate performed by the NNSA on a life extension to
date--aka the administration was behind the most comprehensive and
accurate report on the program to date--and the costs, by everybody's
admission, were admittedly staggering.
Those costs were ultimately verified and provided to the committee in
a cost report. The amount of funding in this bill is consistent with
that cost report and provides $23.7 million above the amount requested,
which fell slightly short of the validated figures.
The National Nuclear Security Administration explained the shortfall
away by stating they would find unspecified ``efficiencies in the
program,'' hence the additional money.
While I do support a concerted effort that will lower the cost of
this program to the taxpayer, we never received any plan on how the
NNSA--aka the administration--proposes to find savings. This is not the
first time this has happened.
The administration has as a stated goal to reduce the overall cost of
the W76 Life Extension Program. The Department of Energy's inspector
general reported there was no credible plan to make savings and that
the lower funding levels being requested would simply lead to delays in
the refurbishment.
We cannot allow the B61 Life Extension Program to be further delayed
given the important role it serves in providing a nuclear umbrella to
our allies.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with what the gentleman
from New Jersey, the chairman of the subcommittee, has just said, and I
rise in opposition to this amendment.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, we have debated similar
concepts recently and we rejected them. This would be harmful to our
national security. The reason, besides what the chairman from New
Jersey has already said, these weapons are forward deployed in Europe
to support NATO and are employed also by U.S. strategic forces in the
continental United States.
If we do not extend the life of the B61, here is what the Department
of Defense has said:

Failure to fully fund the B61 Life Extension Program will
be viewed by NATO and other allies as a weakening in the
overall U.S.-extended deterrence commitment, potentially
prompting certain allies to pursue their own nuclear program.

Unless you want other countries in the world to start their own
nuclear programs from scratch to develop their own weapons systems,
increasing proliferation, then you want to reject this amendment,
because that will potentially be the result if the U.S. deterrence is
weakened. That's what this amendment does.
It is important that we do the Life Extension Program also because
under New START, which this country entered into recently with Russia,
it was determined that we would be upgrading the remaining weapons. We
are making dramatic reductions in the amount of the nuclear weapons in
our stockpile, so those that remain have to be more reliable or we made
a bad deal.
To make sure that those remaining weapons are more reliable we do the
Life Extension Programs. The B61

[[Page H4290]]

weapons we are talking about are 30 years or more old. They are
degrading. They are using sometimes obsolescent parts, so they are not
as secure as they could be. We need to do the Life Extension Program
for that reason as well.
For all these reasons, I would ask that we strongly oppose and reject
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 2200

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to my colleague from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I respect and have enjoyed this thoughtful
debate that we've had in the last few minutes about this issue,
particularly because it raises critical issues about our relationships
with our NATO allies, but let's look at the big picture here.
The 2010 START Treaty with Russia, which passed the Senate in 2009,
requires that Russia and the United States reduce their stockpiles to a
maximum of 1,550 nuclear weapons by 2018. Let's look at what people are
talking about now, people we respect.
General James Cartwright, retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and former commander of the U.S. nuclear forces; Richard Burt,
a former chief nuclear arms negotiator; Chuck Hagel, current Secretary
of Defense; Thomas Pickering, a former ambassador to Russia; and
General John J. Sheehan, a former senior NATO official, all issued a
report noting that the United States' nuclear deterrence could be
guaranteed with 900 nuclear weapons.
According to General Cartwright:

The world has changed, but the current arsenal carries the
baggage of the Cold War . . . What is it we're really trying
to deter? Our current arsenal does not address the threats of
the 21st century.

Let's talk about our NATO allies.
Steve Andreasen, the Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control on
the National Security Council, recently argued:

Wouldn't it be more reassuring and wiser burden-sharing to
spend this money on weapons and capabilities that are more
relevant to the threats NATO faces today? Indeed, why would
allies be reassured by an investment that provides no real
military capability and no modicum of deterrence beyond that
already provided by the U.S., Britain, and France, each of
which has nuclear arsenals capable of obliterating any
adversary?

The biggest concerns for NATO right now include threats from Mali and
Syria, nuclear proliferation and terrorism. The B61 can do nothing to
address those threats.
I close by reminding us that four great American statesmen--George
Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn--argued for the
elimination of these short-range nuclear weapons designed to be forward
deployed--that is, the B61--in their landmark 2007 op-ed.
Ms. KAPTUR. In reclaiming my time, I would like to lend support to
the amendment offered by my colleague from Illinois.
His amendment would cut funding from the weapons account in the
amount that was added to the President's budget request for the B61. In
these tight fiscal times, all programs must find efficiencies, and the
$23.7 million was the amount that the administration estimated could be
achieved for this activity.
So I want to thank the gentleman very much for his efforts and for
waiting all day. We have to proceed in order.
I know it's excruciatingly difficult for such an athlete, like
yourself, with all that pent-up energy and drive, to have to wait until
this late in the evening, but we thank you for the contribution you
have made in many ways, including in offering this amendment tonight.
I ask my colleagues to support his efforts, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. QUIGLEY. 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 Illinois
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 by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
Amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
Amendment by Mr. Swalwell of California.
Amendment by Mr. McClintock of California.
Amendment by Mr. Peters of California.
Amendment by Mr. Perlmutter of Colorado.
Amendment by Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
Amendment by Mr. Takano of California.
Amendment by Mr. Takano of California.
Amendment by Mr. Heck of Nevada.
Amendment by Mr. Butterfield of North Carolina.
Amendment by Mr. Foster of Illinois.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Cohen) 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 168,
noes 241, not voting 25, as follows:

[Roll No. 316]

AYES--168

Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
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
Costa
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
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
Matsui
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
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--241

[[Page H4291]]

Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latta
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McCollum
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
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
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--25

Barber
Campbell
Cole
Franks (AZ)
Garcia
Gosar
Heck (WA)
Horsford
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Marchant
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McDermott
Negrete McLeod
Pastor (AZ)
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Sinema
Webster (FL)
Young (FL)

{time} 2228

Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mrs. CAPITO, and
Mr. POSEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. POCAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the 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 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158,
noes 256, not voting 20, as follows:

[Roll No. 317]

AYES--158

Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cotton
Crawford
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (PA)
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
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stockman
Stutzman
Thornberry
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--256

Aderholt
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
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
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
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
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Nunes
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Richmond
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
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)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--20

Barber
Campbell
Esty
Franks (AZ)
Garcia
Gosar
Heck (WA)
Horsford
Hoyer
Hunter
Kirkpatrick
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pastor (AZ)
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Sinema
Webster (FL)
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2232

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 317, had I been present, I would
have voted ``no.''

[[Page H4292]]

Amendment Offered by Mr. Swalwell of California

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Swalwell) 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 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201,
noes 213, not voting 20, as follows:

[Roll No. 318]

AYES--201

Andrews
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
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
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
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
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
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--213

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
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
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
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
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--20

Barber
Campbell
Franks (AZ)
Garcia
Gosar
Heck (WA)
Horsford
Hoyer
Hunter
Kirkpatrick
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pastor (AZ)
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Shuster
Sinema
Webster (FL)
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2235

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 318, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. McClintock) 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

[Roll No. 319]

AYES--115

Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cotton
Crawford
Culberson
Daines
DeSantis
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Farenthold
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Guthrie
Hall
Harris
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kingston
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lankford
Latta
Long
Marchant
Massie
McClintock
McHenry
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Nugent
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ross
Royce
Sanford
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stockman
Stutzman
Thornberry
Tiberi
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IN)

NOES--300

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Andrews
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo

[[Page H4293]]

Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kuster
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Nolan
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Richmond
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wenstrup
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--19

Barber
Campbell
Franks (AZ)
Garcia
Gosar
Heck (WA)
Horsford
Hoyer
Hunter
Kirkpatrick
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pastor (AZ)
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Sinema
Webster (FL)
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2239

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Peters of California

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Peters) 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

[Roll No. 320]

AYES--191

Andrews
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
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
Costa
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
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
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
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--223

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barton
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
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
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Long
Lucas
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
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
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--20

Barber
Campbell
Franks (AZ)
Garcia
Gosar
Grijalva
Heck (WA)
Horsford
Hoyer
Hunter
Kirkpatrick
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pastor (AZ)
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Sinema
Webster (FL)
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2242

Mr. GUTIERREZ changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Perlmutter

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Perlmutter) on which further proceedings

[[Page H4294]]

were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 321]

AYES--177

Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
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
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
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
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
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
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOES--238

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
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
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
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
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
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
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
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--19

Barber
Campbell
Franks (AZ)
Garcia
Gosar
Heck (WA)
Horsford
Hoyer
Hunter
Kirkpatrick
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pastor (AZ)
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Sinema
Webster (FL)
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2246

Mr. WESTMORELAND 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. Connolly

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Connolly) 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

[Roll No. 322]

AYES--174

Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
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
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
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
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
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--242

[[Page H4295]]

Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
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
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
Lofgren
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
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
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
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
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)
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Sinema
Webster (FL)
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2249

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Takano

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the first 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

[Roll No. 323]

AYES--164

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
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Grayson
Green, Al
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
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Takano
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--252

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
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
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
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
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
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
Rangel
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 (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
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)
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Sinema
Webster (FL)
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2252

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Takano

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the second 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.

[[Page H4296]]

The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166,
noes 250, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 324]

AYES--166

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
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
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
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Takano
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--250

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
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
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
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
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
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rangel
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
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
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)
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Sinema
Webster (FL)
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2257

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Heck of Nevada

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nevada
(Mr. Heck) 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

[Roll No. 325]

AYES--81

Amodei
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Capuano
Cartwright
Chaffetz
Chu
Clarke
Cohen
Conyers
Crowley
DeFazio
DeGette
Doggett
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Garamendi
Grayson
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Heck (NV)
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kennedy
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
Nadler
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Pocan
Polis
Rohrabacher
Ruiz
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Scott, David
Serrano
Smith (WA)
Speier
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Vargas
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman

NOES--335

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Black
Blackburn
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cicilline
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney

[[Page H4297]]

Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
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
Van Hollen
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Watt
Weber (TX)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
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)
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Sinema
Webster (FL)
Young (FL)

{time} 2301

Messrs. DUNCAN of South Carolina and MORAN changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. LEE of California and Ms. CLARKE changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Butterfield

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) 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

[Roll No. 326]

AYES--150

Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibson
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
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
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Walz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--266

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Cardenas
Carter
Cassidy
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Esty
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meng
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)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schwartz
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
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Weber (TX)
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)
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Sinema
Webster (FL)
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2304

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Foster

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Foster) 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

[Roll No. 327]

AYES--143

Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)

[[Page H4298]]

Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Huffman
Hultgren
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowenthal
Lowey
Maloney, Carolyn
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--273

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Cardenas
Carter
Cassidy
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Esty
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meng
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
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, 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
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
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)
Salmon
Schweikert
Shimkus
Sinema
Webster (FL)
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2307

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Heck of Nevada

Mr. HECK of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $14,000,000)''.
Page 30, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $16,546,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nevada is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HECK of Nevada. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the
subcommittee and the ranking member for the work they've done on this
bill; but I especially want to thank the Appropriations Committee staff
for helping me fine-tune this amendment very quickly at the last
minute.
My amendment transfers $60 million from the International Material
Protection and Removal Activities within the Global Threat Reduction
Initiative to a program that will help secure our nuclear materials
here at home. This year's budget request included funding for a project
to construct a security perimeter around the Nevada National Security
Site. Additionally, this funding was authorized by this House when we
voted to pass H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act of
2014. However, the bill under consideration fails to provide funding
for this critical project.
I agree that we must work with other nations to ensure their nuclear
material does not fall into the wrong hands, and applaud the
committee's efforts on this front. However, we should not neglect
priorities to secure nuclear material on our own soil while providing
$20 million in excess of what was requested to help foreign countries
secure their nuclear materials.
I'm simply requesting we transfer a relatively small sum--$16 million
out of a total $2.1 billion--from a portion of the bill that provides
funding to other countries to secure their nuclear materials and
instead use that money to secure our own facilities containing nuclear
materials. This funding will be used for the DAF/Argus project, which
will provide a state-of-the-art perimeter intrusion detection and
assessment system at the Nevada National Security Site's Device
Assembly Facility.
As I mentioned, this project is a priority for the Nevada National
Security Site and was included in the President's budget request and
authorized by this House just last month. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment which will prioritize national security concerns
here at home while still providing adequate funding to ensure nuclear
material in other countries does not fall into the hands of those who
wish to do us harm.
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. I rise in reluctant opposition to the gentleman's
amendment and I salute, obviously, his desire to protect all of our
nuclear sites. I certainly share the gentleman's concern for the
security of nuclear weapons infrastructure.
The security incursion at Y-12 in Oak Ridge in July of 2012 revealed
some disturbing problems with Federal oversight that directly impacted
the effectiveness of the protective forces. In particular, a botched
security upgrade project caused an excessive number of false alarms,
which distracted the security forces. And poor maintenance practices
meant the security cameras where the protesters entered the high-
security area were not working.
There is also a second security upgrade project at Los Alamos that
was installed incorrectly. The National Nuclear Security Administration
is still working on getting that project back on track.
We need to be able to upgrade our security systems, but I have
concerns that taking on a third project in 2014 will lead to more
problems.

[[Page H4299]]

{time} 2315

Our report has directed NNSA to wait a year before starting the
project at Nevada. Given the problems, I feel this is the most prudent
path forward and will give the administration some time to implement
the reforms that are so urgently needed in security oversight and
project management. So I must reluctantly oppose the amendment at this
time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. While the amendment is a modest one in terms of the
funding in the account, which is over $400 million, I cannot support
further cuts in this program.
The budget already has cut $16 million from the Global Threat
Reduction Initiative, and that means nuclear material that exists
globally in places that we know we need to remove it. So even though
the gentleman's amendment is well intended, I think that we can't
predict the consequences of this in terms of what we face globally to
remove this material.
I think it's very important to recognize that there are some
unfriendly actors on the face of this Earth. And we want to remove
material as best as possible, working with others around the world, as
the program indicates, to reduce global threats that might result from
those who shouldn't have this material in the first place.
So I don't think that this is moving us in the right direction
globally. I don't really think it's necessary. I thank the gentleman
for bringing it to the attention of the body, but I think that
nonproliferation in general is $600 million below last year's
activities when you compare it to past accounts.
So I think that this is not in the best interest of the country and
not in the best interest of national security. So I oppose the
gentleman's amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heck).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HECK of Nevada. 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 Nevada will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

Mr. POLIS. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 29, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $13,072,000)''.
Page 60, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $13,072,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I'm offering an amendment that will reduce
the funding level for the W76 by $13 million, back down to what the
agency requested.
The W76 is a 1970s-era submarine-launched ballistic missile that was
first introduced into the stockpile by the Navy in 1978. This bill
actually increases funding by $13 million to increase funding levels
above those required by the New START Treaty.
If the New START Treaty levels are in effect, it requires us to have
1,550 nuclear weapons--plenty to deter any nuclear threat, plenty to
obliterate any enemy, plenty to end life on Earth as we know it. Even
if we were to reduce our stockpile to 1,000 nuclear weapons, the Arms
Control Association stated that it would save over $39 billion. Now,
this amendment doesn't even come close to going that far, but this puts
that in perspective. If we reduced our number of nuclear weapons from
1,500, enough to obliterate any enemy and destroy life as we know it on
Earth, to 1,000, enough to obliterate any enemy and end life as we know
it on Earth, it would save $39 billion. This amendment very simply
reduces funding by $13 million, back to what the agency itself
requested. It doesn't detract from nuclear preparedness at all.
These missiles are a continuing relic of Cold War policies that spend
billions of taxpayer dollars every year. And it's a great opportunity
for Congress to save taxpayer money while maintaining our national
security. In fact, the current bill actually spends millions more than
the military needs, and passage of my amendment will encourage a
focused, agile, lean military policy.
In fact, a total of $1.8 billion is projected to be spent on W76 by
2016. That's a lot of money to support a very dated set of
preparedness. My amendment makes a small dent in that by reducing the
funding back to what the agency itself has requested.
When we have these kinds of opportunities to maintain our national
security and create savings for our country and reduce our budget
deficit, we need to take it.
Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists has argued
that while the W76 is important for national security, we could
``probably reduce the refurbishment production by half and still retain
enough W76 warheads on the submarines for a credible retaliatory
capability.'' Again, my amendment doesn't even come close to the marker
that was set by Hans Kristensen. It simply returns funding to the level
that the agency itself has asked for and reduces funding by $13
million.
The GAO has been critical of the cost, schedule, and risk involved
with the W76 program. It is an area that is ripe for a relatively minor
cut like this, which will help reduce our budget deficit by $13
million.
My amendment would create $13 million in savings for taxpayers while
maintaining our national security. I strongly urge my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to support it.
The primary goals of the extension program extends the life of the
original warheads from 20 to 60 years, addresses the aging issues, and
refurbishes the system in a managed fashion. However, all these goals
are accomplished under the funding levels that have been requested by
the agency. And yet here in Congress, we're second-guessing the
agency's own funding requirements and saying let's give you more money,
take a few million more, take a few million more--a few million more
while we cut ARPA-E, a few million more while we cut science programs,
a few million more while we shortcut our own Nation's renewable energy
future. And yet here's a few million more, $13 million more than an
agency is even requesting, to maintain nuclear deterrents at the level
of 1,550 nuclear weapons, and maintaining these particular W76 warheads
from the 1970s, deployed by submarines, that we don't even need the $13
million to accomplish.
So, again, I think this is some commonsense savings. I encourage my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this smart cut, and 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. I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
The W76 life extension program is a critical ongoing program to
extend the life of that warhead. This warhead supports the mission of
our Navy's ballistic missile submarines, the most survivable leg of our
nuclear deterrent.
Our nuclear deterrent posture relies heavily on this Navy mission,
but the President's budget request proposed to cut production of the
W76 by nearly 20 percent. I'm very concerned that these reductions to
the W76 were proposed without fully explaining the force structure
implications or the impacts to national security.
Therefore, this bill restores full funding for the W76 to the levels
previously provided to the committee last year in the NNSA's last
acquisition report. Even the Department of Energy's inspector general
provided a report that stated that the National Nuclear Security
Administration's plans to try to reduce costs of the ongoing W76
program would not be achieved. That IG concluded the NNSA would need
additional funds above the request to stay on track with their
production requirements. This bill resolves those funding problems by
increasing funding $13 million above the request.
I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

[[Page H4300]]

Mr. POLIS. 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 Colorado
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other incidental expenses necessary for defense nuclear
nonproliferation 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, $2,100,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary
of Energy may make available from funds provided under this
heading in this Act not more than $48,000,000 for the purpose
of carrying out domestic uranium enrichment research,
development, and demonstration activities.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 30, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $48,000,000)''.
Page 60, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $48,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, at a time when the Federal Government is
having to make tough, painful choices on how to prioritize taxpayer
dollars, this Congress has yet to learn the lessons of the past as to
where we waste the most money. In fact yet again this year, as in so
many years past, the bill before us insists on throwing good money
after bad. It's time to put an end to that wasteful habit.
This amendment would strike $48 million from the Nuclear
Nonproliferation account, which is an earmark for a bailout to a
failing uranium enrichment company, the United States Enrichment
Corporation, known as USEC. This $48 million would be put towards
deficit reduction.
Look, opponents of the amendment are going to claim that this money
is necessary, vitally necessary, for national security when, in fact,
that could not be further from the truth. In fact, the question of
whether the United States Enrichment Corporation is truly necessary for
our national security needs is actually being reviewed right now by the
Government Accountability Office, which is expected to release a report
on both the national security question as well as the economics of
sending further taxpayer dollars to the United States Enrichment
Corporation.
Because the report is pending, it is in the best interests of hard-
earned taxpayer dollars that we suspend any further aid to USEC until
we have more information as to what the company is doing with the money
that it is receiving.
Indeed, the United States Enrichment Corporation is so poorly run
that, last May, the New York Stock Exchange threatened to delist USEC
due to its desperate financial health. Articles over the years have
documented USEC's financial woes, including the near-monthly collapse
of its stock prices. During the June shareholders meeting just a few
weeks ago, 80 percent of USEC's shareholders voted to approve a reverse
stock split due to its rock-bottom share prices. It's shocking to most
observers that the company has avoided bankruptcy thus far, and it's
only done so because of the continued bailout by Congress year after
year in the Energy and Water appropriations bill.
As if USEC's financial troubles were not enough, just last month the
company filed a Federal lawsuit against the United States for more than
$38 million. This House is contemplating giving $48 million to USEC;
they've got a lawsuit for $38 million.
Two decades ago, Congress created, by charter, the United States
Enrichment Corporation, believing that USEC could better run the
uranium enrichment facilities than the government itself. But by now,
it should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer that Congress
was wrong.
Since its inception, USEC has squandered billions of dollars in
Federal bailouts, running its operations to near insolvency because of
poor decisions. Yearly, they come to the Congress and the executive
branch, hat in hand, begging for millions of dollars in bailouts to
continue operation sites that are technologically out of date.
It is time that the Federal Government stop the endless bailouts to a
failing enterprise.
Moreover, USEC has been a bad-faith actor in its negotiations with
the uranium mining industry, which provides the needed raw materials to
be enriched at these facilities. And what motivation does USEC have to
negotiate in good faith with the miners when it knows that if it
doesn't get everything it wants from the miners it can simply go to the
Department of Energy and receive a handout, time and again, either in
the form of a direct cash payment or in the form of spent uranium
tails?
The Department of Energy has had a longstanding agreement with the
uranium mining industry not to dump more than 10 percent of the
market's worth of uranium in handouts to USEC at any given time. Yet it
has become increasingly clear that the Department of Energy is willing
to ignore that agreement and provide any bailout that USEC requests or
desires.
This betrayal of the mining industry threatens thousands of jobs
across the western United States--States like Texas, Nevada, New
Mexico, Illinois, and Wyoming, to name a few. Arguments that USEC is
the only facility that can supply tritium to the Department of Defense
ignores the plain language of the Washington Treaty and the U.S.-India
Nuclear Agreement, known as the 123 Agreement.

{time} 2330

The Department of Energy has in its possession enough highly enriched
uranium and tritium to last for 15 years, costing hundreds of millions
of dollars less than the continued bailouts that USEC is currently
receiving from the country.
It is time that Congress stood up against the continual bailouts of a
failed business model. Propping up one failed company at the expense of
an entire industry is not how we should operate in Congress. Let's end
the bailout, let's return the money to the Treasury, let's give the
hardworking taxpayer a break. It is time we did the right thing.
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 rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment. This is the final year of funding to a project
to construct a limited number of centrifuges in order to demonstrate
this technology can provide a domestic capability for enriching
uranium. This capability is needed to ensure adequate supplies of
enriched uranium for our defense needs.
Domestically enriched uranium is needed to supply tritium for the
nuclear weapons stockpile and will eventually be needed to fuel the
nuclear reactors on board our submarines and aircraft carriers. Even
though we have found a way to supply all our needs for the next few
years, there is still no plan on how we will fulfill our defense
requirements after the limited amount of fuel has been expended.
In every future scenario, we will ultimately need to make an
investment to ensure unencumbered enriched uranium is available. There
is no reason to cut off funding for a project that is showing progress.
The total cost of this project was originally estimated to cost $300
million, but the project is proceeding extremely well, it remains on
budget, and is on schedule for completion this December. Because of
these and other expected cost savings from uranium transfers, the
overall cost to the taxpayer has been reduced and could be reduced
further.
The bill provides the Department with special reprogramming authority
to fund the final $48 million installment, instead of direct funding.
Providing the Department with flexibility on how to fulfill its portion
of the cost-sharing agreement could reduce the overall costs of the
program if that same progress continues and the full funding amount is
not ultimately needed.

[[Page H4301]]

This is a responsible approach that meets our defense needs while
potentially saving taxpayer dollars.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas.
First of all, the American centrifuge project is the only source of
domestic enriched uranium--the only source. I think that is important
for us to understand America is fighting for its manufacturing future
on many fronts, including this one.
One needs enriched uranium in order to make tritium. Tritium is
essentially for our nuclear weapons complex and enriched uranium is
necessary for commercial operations. This single facility is really
important because our country is running out of what we would call
``U.S. flag material,'' material that can be used for these distinct
purposes.
As Chairman Frelinghuysen has said, this program is currently on
schedule and within budget. That is in stark contrast to some of the
other programs that we've been trying to get control of in our
subcommittee.
While foreign-owned facilities exist, and there are some in this
Chamber who represent those facilities, there is a true need for a
domestic supplier. The program in question was proposed by the
Department of Energy to meet crucial national security and
nonproliferation needs, and DOE has certified completion of two of the
five program technical milestones. There are remaining three and they,
as the chairman has said, are scheduled for completion in December and
are completely on track.
This is an important program, I would say an essential program, to
our country. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong opposition
to the amendment offered by my good friend from Texas.
First and foremost, my opposition to this amendment is about national
security. Since the 1940s, the United States has had a U.S.-owned and -
operated uranium enrichment entity in place. This allows the U.S. to
control its uranium stockpile, to be a signatory to nuclear weapons
treaties, and make sure that we do not rely solely on foreign-owned
companies for our uranium needs.
This amendment would put this streak of nearly 70 years in jeopardy
if it were to pass and would leave the U.S. without any domestic
producer of enriched uranium.
Some will say that we can rely on a foreign-owned company in New
Mexico to supply our uranium needs. First, the National Nuclear
Security Administration and the Department of State have made it clear
that we will never be able to rely on a foreign-owned company for our
nuclear weapon triggers, to fuel our nuclear military fleet, or for any
other national security purpose, period, end of story.
Even if we could rely on a foreign-owned company for these purposes,
I have serious concerns about this company. This company in question is
the former employer of AQ Khan, the man responsible for giving away
nuclear secrets to North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan. The company did not
have the controls in place to safeguard their secrets. As we now know,
Pandora's box was opened because of AQ Khan and the lack of oversight
of this company.
How can we now consider giving them sole control of our country's
uranium enrichment process? This would put our national security at
risk if we ever changed our laws to allow foreign-owned outsourcing of
uranium enrichment.
Furthermore, if this amendment passes, it will likely cost the
taxpayers billions more in the long-run. The United States Enrichment
Corporation is a publicly-owned corporation that has invested and will
invest billions of private sector money into developing new and
improved enrichment technology. If USEC is not able to finish their
research program and goes belly up, the Federal Government will be
forced to start a new enrichment program from scratch and spend
hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to start up its own
uranium enrichment program.
So we can either spend $40 million plus now and leverage billions of
dollars of private investment, or we can be here a year from now
appropriating billions of dollars more. I will take $40 million today
over billions of dollars tomorrow any day.
In addition, the taxpayer is protected from failure of this research
program. The Department of Energy is both the owner of the intellectual
property of the centrifuge machines and even of the machines
themselves. DOE will be able to recoup any taxpayer money that goes
into the project. But make no mistake: if this project is stopped, DOE
will have to spend billions more of taxpayer money to get the project
up to scale as opposed to billions of dollars coming from the private
sector.
Finally, this amendment, if passed, would be a jobs killer. The
American Centrifuge Project currently employs over 1,000 people in
multiple States. Furthermore, the project utilizes over 160 American
supplier companies in at least 28 States. All of that would go away if
this amendment were to pass.
I would also like to remind my colleagues that a similar amendment
was offered last year on the Energy and Water appropriations bill with
my friend from Texas and the new Senator from Massachusetts, Ed Markey.
It was easily defeated because of all of these very same reasons.
Nothing has changed in the last year.
I urge all of my colleagues to again defeat this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I join with the chairman and ranking
member, a fellow Ohioan, in opposition to this amendment.
I strongly oppose the gentleman from Texas' amendment, as it would
seriously undermine our national security.
Specifically, this amendment would strike a provision providing the
Department of Energy with the authority to use existing funds for
domestic uranium enrichment technology development. Let me emphasize
that there is no direct funding in the bill for the project. The
provision simply provides the authority to transfer existing funds from
other Department of Energy programs.
In the last Congress, as we have previously spoken, the Congress beat
two amendments that were offered that were similar, both with strong
opposition to these amendments.
According to the National Nuclear Security Administration, in the
near future, the United States will need a fully domestic source of
unrestricted enriched uranium, based on domestically-developed
technology, to support the nuclear weapons program and Navy nuclear
reactors program.
The United States is prohibited from seeking this material
internationally. Regardless of the agreements, the United States must
never rely on foreign companies for such a critical component of our
nuclear deterrent. Simply stated, we need U.S.-owned domestic supply of
enriched uranium, and the use of a foreign supplied material would
violate these long-standing policies and agreements.
This has been defeated twice before, and this is really simple. It
has been defeated because this is a critical component of our nuclear
deterrent. Do we want to depend on foreign or do we want to have a
domestic source? Congress has twice said it would be crazy to
jeopardize our nuclear deterrent and rely on foreign sources. Congress
should again for the third time defeat this amendment because we need
to rely on domestic in protecting the United States nuclear deterrent.
I urge my colleagues to once again oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

[[Page H4302]]

This funding, which supports our Nation's domestic uranium enrichment
capabilities, is vital for our national security and our energy
security and independence. The RD&D program, located in the American
Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio, is the cornerstone for a domestic
source of enriched uranium.
American Centrifuge is necessary to support our national defense
program needs, including supporting tritium production requirements for
the U.S. nuclear stockpile. USEC has received no bailouts. It is
inaccurate and misleading to use this politically-charged term in
connection with an important national and energy security technology. I
strongly believe that American Centrifuge is too important to our
Nation's national and energy security to abandon now.
It is vital that the United States maintain a domestic technology to
provide enriched uranium for national security purposes.
We must have a U.S.-owned domestic supply of enriched uranium. With
the closure of the 1950s-era Paducah enrichment plant, American
Centrifuge is the only available technology to meet the Nation's future
national security needs for enriched uranium.
Thankfully, we don't have to rely on foreign sources. The RD&D
program is within budget and on schedule for completion by December
2013. This funding is not an earmark, as it was included in the budget
request and there is no direct funding in the bill for the project. The
provision simply provides the authority to transfer existing funds from
other DOE programs.
The Burgess amendment would remove the final piece of funding needed
to complete the RD&D program, shutting down operations and essentially
wasting the $200 million that has already been spent.
I urge you to support domestic uranium enrichment technology and
oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. 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 Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Burgess

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 30, line 6, strike the colon and all that follows
through ``activities'' on line 11.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, this is a continuation of the previous
amendment. I was advised by the Parliamentarian it had to be split into
two parts. So not to belabor the issue because of the lateness of the
hour, the first amendment that was just voted on will remove the
funding. This removes the language from the bill, the words ``provided
that the Secretary of Energy may make available from funds provided
under this heading in this act not more than $48 million for the
purposes of carrying out domestic and uranium enrichment research
development and demonstration activities.''
It is apparently necessary to remove that language as a separate
amendment. It could not be included in a single amendment. So this is a
continuation of the discussion that we just had.
Recognizing the lateness of the hour, I will yield back the balance
of my time.

{time} 2345

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Following the doctor's lead, for the reasons I
opposed this amendment the last time, I oppose this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. 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 Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 30, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, the committee has done a considerable
amount of work on one of the very expensive facilities we have in the
nuclear arena. This is the MOX facility in South Carolina.
In the current report language, the committee deals with the problem
that this facility has. It's over budget, isn't going anywhere, will
ultimately produce a product that nobody wants. So what I'm trying to
do with this amendment is to take this thing one step further in order
to try to find a solution to this very, very expensive problem. If I
might just quote the committee's report here:

Despite the influx of additional funding, the NNSA has been
unable to recover its schedule and is now facing another $2.8
billion in additional costs. Instead of its fulfilling its
responsibility to address these rising costs through
reforming its management of the project and conducting an
independent cost estimate to quantify these cost increases,
the NNSA wrote ``TBD''--which I suspect means ``to be
determined''--in its budget justification and removed all
project funding from its 5-year plan while it carries out a
strategic pause.

This program is in deep trouble, and it is a hole into which the U.S.
taxpayers continue to pour money. I am pleased that the committee is
taking steps, but I'd like the bill to take an additional step, and
that's what this amendment does. Let me explain what it is all about.
Technically, the bill takes $1 million from the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation and reinserts the same amount into that account. This
is done in order to avoid a point of order. The legislative intent of
the amendment is therefore to remove the $1 million from the funding
from the MOX facility at the Savannah River site and then direct the
NNSA to instead use these funds for:
One, an independent report to analyze the potential cost-effective
alternatives for plutonium disposition, including a detailed assessment
of technologically feasible costs; and, two, a study examining whether
there are other potential uses for the facilities already built and for
the Savannah River site more generally.
While not legally binding, the Agency should comply with this
legislative intent if this amendment is adopted.
The amendment is consistent with an amendment that I offered earlier
with regard to the NDAA, and the language would be similar. I would
urge the adoption of this. We really need to try to figure out the very
best way to deal with this sinkhole of taxpayer money.
With that, 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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Our bill supports the most responsible path forward for dealing with
this ongoing and troubled project.
The National Nuclear Security Administration has stated it is
conducting a strategic pause to pursue other alternatives to the MOX
plant in light of what are very large cost increases. However, it has
not provided any information on what new alternatives are available
which have not already been exhaustively considered. While there are
considerable and valid concerns about the project's management and cost
growth, the United States must fulfill its end of the plutonium
disposition agreement, and more delays will only raise costs.
It is time for the Department of Energy to fix these issues and to
get back

[[Page H4303]]

on track with meeting its commitments. There is no value in prolonging
this study into fiscal year 2014.
I urge 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. Let me just say that I normally agree with the gentleman
from California on many issues. On this particular one, we will part
company, but I certainly appreciate his commitment.
In the report, we state that we provide no additional funding to
continue studying the alternatives to the MOX plant and that the NNSA
has not described any alternatives which have not already been
exhaustively considered or which are likely to resolve in any
substantial cost savings to justify this pause, particularly with no
permanent nuclear waste repository available after the Department's
decision to unilaterally terminate Yucca Mountain.
So there are reasons for the MOX facility. We have made an enormous
investment in it, and thousands of jobs are at stake. I am very sorry
that we have to part company on this, but I have the highest respect
for you and your work.
I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. I appreciate the respect. You and the chairman have
made a very good argument for my amendment, and I thank you for that.
My amendment doesn't do anything that you're not already trying to
do. It simply gives some more specific direction to the Department,
specifically to seek outside analysis of the alternatives that might be
available.
Clearly, the Department has not been successful in running this
project, and they are not in the process of seeking outside help.
They're going to try to do it inside. I think that would be a mistake.
There are people out there--there are companies and there are actually
researchers outside--who could provide that outside view of what's
going on.
Secondly, there are other ways of dealing with this problem. This is
an aqueous process that's being used there, and it simply isn't
working. There are other ways of disposing of the plutonium and of the
highly enriched uranium that are proven to work--I discussed this
earlier this day--and we need to study whether that can be used at this
facility. We're not talking about jobs. We are actually talking about
making this facility work and possibly using a different technology,
but we really need to have somebody outside take a look at this whole
thing.
Both you and the ranking member and the chair have adequately
explained why my language should be adopted. I thank you for the
committee's looking at this thing in a very hard, structured way. It
has to be dealt with.
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Naval Reactors

For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval
reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the
acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or
otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment,
facilities, and facility expansion, $1,109,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That $43,212,000 shall be
available until September 30, 2015, for program direction.

Office of the Administrator

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Administrator
in the National Nuclear Security Administration, including
official reception and representation expenses not to exceed
$12,000, $382,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2015.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
remainder of the bill through page 46, line 15 be considered as read,
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Defense Environmental Cleanup

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense
environmental cleanup 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, and the purchase of
not to exceed one sport utility vehicle, three lube trucks,
and one fire truck for replacement only, $4,750,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That $280,784,000
shall be available until September 30, 2015, for program
direction.

Other Defense Activities

For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment
and other expenses, necessary for atomic energy defense,
other defense activities, and classified 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, $830,000,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That of such amount, $122,734,000 shall
be available until September 30, 2015 for program direction.

POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATION

Bonneville Power Administration Fund

Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund,
established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for
construction of, or participating in the construction of, a
high voltage line from Bonneville's high voltage system to
the service areas of requirements customers located within
Bonneville's service area in southern Idaho, southern
Montana, and western Wyoming; and such line may extend to,
and interconnect in, the Pacific Northwest with lines between
the Pacific Northwest and the Pacific Southwest, and for John
Day Reprogramming and Construction, the Columbia River Basin
White Sturgeon Hatchery, and Kelt Reconditioning and
Reproductive Success Evaluation Research, and, in addition,
for official reception and representation expenses in an
amount not to exceed $5,000: Provided, That during fiscal
year 2014, no new direct loan obligations may be made.

Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy, including transmission wheeling and ancillary
services, pursuant to section 5 of the Flood Control Act of
1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southeastern power
area, and including official reception and representation
expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500, $7,750,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944, up to $7,750,000 collected by the
Southeastern Power Administration from the sale of power and
related services shall be credited to this account as
discretionary offsetting collections, to remain available
until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual
expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration: Provided
further, That the sum herein appropriated for annual expenses
shall be reduced as collections are received during the
fiscal year so as to result in a final fiscal year 2014
appropriation estimated at not more than $0: Provided
further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to
$78,081,000 collected by the Southeastern Power
Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 to
recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be
credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further,
That for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses
means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same
year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and
wheeling expenses).

Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of
power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power
and energy, for construction and acquisition of transmission
lines, substations and appurtenant facilities, and for
administrative expenses, including official reception and
representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500 in
carrying out section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16
U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the Southwestern Power
Administration, $45,456,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and
section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s),
up to $33,564,000 collected by the Southwestern Power
Administration from the sale of power and related services
shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting
collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole
purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southwestern
Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2014

[[Page H4304]]

appropriation estimated at not more than $11,892,000:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to
$42,000,000 collected by the Southwestern Power
Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 to
recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be
credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further,
That, for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses
means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same
year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and
wheeling expenses).

Construction, Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area
Power Administration

For carrying out the functions authorized by title III,
section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7152), and other related activities including conservation
and renewable resources programs as authorized, including
official reception and representation expenses in an amount
not to exceed $1,500; $299,919,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $292,019,000 shall be derived from the
Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, section 5 of the Flood
Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), and section 1 of the
Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1939 (43 U.S.C. 392a),
up to $203,989,000 collected by the Western Area Power
Administration from the sale of power and related services
shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting
collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole
purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Western Area
Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2014 appropriation estimated at
not more than $95,930,000, of which $88,030,000 is derived
from the Reclamation Fund: Provided further, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $230,738,000 collected
by the Western Area Power Administration pursuant to the
Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Reclamation Project Act of
1939 to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be
credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain
available until expended for the sole purpose of making
purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further,
That for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses
means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same
year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and
wheeling expenses).

Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the
hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams,
$5,330,671, to remain available until expended, and to be
derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance
Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in
section 2 of the Act of June 18, 1954 (68 Stat. 255):
Provided, That notwithstanding the provisions of that Act and
of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $4,910,671 collected by the Western
Area Power Administration from the sale of power and related
services from the Falcon and Amistad Dams shall be credited
to this account as discretionary offsetting collections, to
remain available until expended for the sole purpose of
funding the annual expenses of the hydroelectric facilities
of these Dams and associated Western Area Power
Administration activities: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as
collections are received during the fiscal year so as to
result in a final fiscal year 2014 appropriation estimated at
not more than $420,000: Provided further, That for purposes
of this appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures
that are generally recovered in the same year that they are
incurred: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2014, the
Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration may
accept up to $865,000 in funds contributed by United States
power customers of the Falcon and Amistad Dams for deposit
into the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund,
and such funds shall be available for the purpose for which
contributed in like manner as if said sums had been
specifically appropriated for such purpose: Provided further,
That any such funds shall be available without further
appropriation and without fiscal year limitation for use by
the Commissioner of the United States Section of the
International Boundary and Water Commission for the sole
purpose of operating, maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating,
replacing, or upgrading the hydroelectric facilities at these
Dams in accordance with agreements reached between the
Administrator, Commissioner, and the power customers.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of
Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and
representation expenses not to exceed $3,000, $304,600,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed
$304,600,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and
other services and collections in fiscal year 2014 shall be
retained and used for necessary expenses in this account, and
shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That
the sum herein appropriated from the general fund shall be
reduced as revenues are received during fiscal year 2014 so
as to result in a final fiscal year 2014 appropriation from
the general fund estimated at not more than $0.

GENERAL PROVISIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 301. (a) No appropriation, funds, or authority made
available by this title for the Department of Energy shall be
used to initiate or resume any program, project, or activity
or to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals or similar
arrangements (including Requests for Quotations, Requests for
Information, and Funding Opportunity Announcements) for a
program, project, or activity if the program, project, or
activity has not been funded by Congress.
(b)(1) Unless the Secretary of Energy notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate at least 3 full business days in advance, none
of the funds made available in this title may be used to--
(A) make a grant allocation or discretionary grant award
totaling $1,000,000 or more;
(B) make a discretionary contract award or Other
Transaction Agreement totaling in excess of $1,000,000,
including a contract covered by the Federal Acquisition
Regulation;
(C) issue a letter of intent to make an allocation, award,
or Agreement in excess of the limits in subparagraph (A) or
(B); or
(D) announce publicly the intention to make an allocation,
award, or Agreement in excess of the limits in subparagraph
(A) or (B).
(2) The Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate on the first business day of each quarter a report
detailing each grant allocation or discretionary grant award
totaling less than $1,000,000 provided during the previous
quarter.
(3) The notification required by paragraph (1) and the
report required by paragraph (2) shall include the recipient
of the award, the amount of the award, the fiscal year for
which the funds for the award were appropriated, the account
and program, project, or activity from which the funds are
being drawn, the title of the award, and a brief description
of the activity for which the award is made.
(c) The Department of Energy may not, with respect to any
program, project, or activity that uses budget authority made
available in this title under the heading ``Department of
Energy--Energy Programs'', enter into a multiyear contract,
award a multiyear grant, or enter into a multiyear
cooperative agreement unless--
(1) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement is funded
for the full period of performance as anticipated at the time
of award; or
(2) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement includes
a clause conditioning the Federal Government's obligation on
the availability of future year budget authority and the
Secretary notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate at least 3 days in
advance.
(d) Except as provided in subsections (e), (f), and (g),
the amounts made available by this title shall be expended as
authorized by law for the programs, projects, and activities
specified in the ``Bill'' column in the ``Department of
Energy'' table or the text included under the heading ``Title
III--Department of Energy'' in the report of the Committee on
Appropriations accompanying this Act.
(e) The amounts made available by this title may be
reprogrammed for any program, project, or activity, and the
Department shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate at least 30 days
prior to the use of any proposed reprogramming which would
cause any program, project, or activity funding level to
increase or decrease by more than $5,000,000 or 10 percent,
whichever is less, during the time period covered by this
Act.
(f) None of the funds provided in this title shall be
available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates, initiates, or eliminates a program, project,
or activity;
(2) increases funds or personnel for any program, project,
or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this
Act; or
(3) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a
specific program, project, or activity by this Act.
(g)(1) The Secretary of Energy may waive any requirement or
restriction in this section that applies to the use of funds
made available for the Department of Energy if compliance
with such requirement or restriction would pose a substantial
risk to human health, the environment, welfare, or national
security.
(2) The Secretary of Energy shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
of any waiver under paragraph (1) as soon as practicable, but
not later than 3 days after

[[Page H4305]]

the date of the activity to which a requirement or
restriction would otherwise have applied. Such notice shall
include an explanation of the substantial risk under
paragraph (1) that permitted such waiver.
Sec. 302. The unexpended balances of prior appropriations
provided for activities in this Act may be available to the
same appropriation accounts for such activities established
pursuant to this title. Available balances may be merged with
funds in the applicable established accounts and thereafter
may be accounted for as one fund for the same time period as
originally enacted.
Sec. 303. Funds appropriated by this or any other Act, or
made available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for
intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically
authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal
year 2014 until the enactment of the Intelligence
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014.
Sec. 304. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be used for the construction of facilities classified
as high-hazard nuclear facilities under 10 CFR Part 830
unless independent oversight is conducted by the Office of
Health, Safety, and Security to ensure the project is in
compliance with nuclear safety requirements.
Sec. 305. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to approve critical decision-2 or critical
decision-3 under Department of Energy Order 413.3B, or any
successive departmental guidance, for construction projects
where the total project cost exceeds $100,000,000, until a
separate independent cost estimate has been developed for the
project for that critical decision.
Sec. 306. Section 20320 of the Continuing Appropriations
Resolution, 2007, Public Law 109-289, division B, as amended
by the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007,
Public Law 110-5, is amended by striking in subsection (c)
``an annual review'' after ``conduct'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``a review every three years''.
Sec. 307. None of the funds made available by this or any
subsequent Act for fiscal year 2014 or any fiscal year
hereafter may be used to pay the salaries of Department of
Energy employees to carry out the amendments made by section
407 of division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009.
Sec. 308. Notwithstanding section 307 of Public Law 111-
85, of the funds made available by the Department of Energy
for activities at Government-owned, contractor-operated
laboratories funded in this or any subsequent Energy and
Water Development appropriation Act for any fiscal year, the
Secretary may authorize a specific amount, not to exceed 4.5
percent of such funds, to be used by such laboratories for
laboratory directed research and development.
Sec. 309. Notwithstanding section 301(c) of this Act, none
of the funds made available under the heading ``Department of
Energy--Energy Programs--Science'' may be used for a
multiyear contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or Other
Transaction Agreement of $1,500,000 or less unless the
contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or Other Transaction
Agreement is funded for the full period of performance as
anticipated at the time of award.
Sec. 310. Not later than June 30, 2014, the Secretary
shall submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate a tritium and enriched
uranium management plan that provides--
(a) an assessment of the national security demand for
tritium and low and highly enriched uranium through 2060;
(b) a description of the Department of Energy's plan to
provide adequate amounts of tritium and enriched uranium for
national security purposes through 2060; and
(c) an analysis of planned and alternative technologies
which are available to meet the supply needs for tritium and
enriched uranium for national security purposes, including
weapons dismantlement and down-blending.

The Acting CHAIR. Are there any amendments to that section of the
bill?
Hearing none, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 311. (a) The Secretary of Energy shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate not later than December 1, 2013, a report
which provides an analysis of alternatives for each major
warhead refurbishment program that reaches Phase 6.3,
including--
(1) A summary of the overall cost, scope, and schedule
planning assumptions for the major refurbishment activity;
(2) A full description of alternatives considered prior to
the award of Phase 6.3;
(3) A comparison of the costs and benefits of each of those
alternatives, to include an analysis of trade-offs among
cost, schedule, and performance objectives against each
alternative considered;
(4) An assessment of the risks, costs, and scheduling needs
for each military requirement established by the Department
of Defense and/or any requirement established to enhance
safety, security, or maintainability;
(5) Identification of the cost and risk of critical
technology elements associated with each refurbishment
alternative, including technology maturity, integration risk,
manufacturing feasibility, and demonstration needs; and
(6) Identification of the cost and risk of capital asset
and infrastructure capabilities required to support
production and certification of each refurbishment
alternative.
(b) The Secretary of Energy or the Secretary's designee
shall certify to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate that--
(1) No less than three feasible and distinct alternatives
are considered prior to the award of milestone Phase 6.3 for
any major warhead refurbishment program; and
(2) Appropriate trade-offs among cost, schedule, and
performance objectives have been made to ensure that the
program is affordable when considering the per unit cost and
the total acquisition cost in the context of the total
resources available during the period covered by the most
recent stockpile stewardship and management plan and the
future-years nuclear security plan submitted during the
fiscal year in which the certification is made.
(c) In this section, the term ``major warhead refurbishment
program'' includes all nuclear weapons life extension
programs, alterations, and modifications carried out for the
life cycle management of the nuclear weapons stockpile, and
all non-routine nuclear weapons stockpile activities that are
estimated to cost over $1,000,000,000.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 46, beginning on line 16, amend section 311 to read as
follows:
Sec. 311. The Secretary of Energy shall submit to the
congressional defense committees (as defined in 10 U.S.C.
101(a)(16)) not later than December 1, 2013, a report that
provides an analysis of alternatives for each major warhead
refurbishment program that reaches Phase 6.3, including--
(1) a summary of the overall cost, scope, and schedule
planning assumptions for the major refurbishment activity;
(2) a full description of alternatives considered prior to
the award of Phase 6.3;
(3) a comparison of the costs and benefits of each of those
alternatives, to include an analysis of trade-offs among
cost, schedule, and performance objectives against each
alternative considered;
(4) an assessment of the risks, costs, and scheduling needs
for each military requirement established by the Department
of Defense or any requirement established to enhance safety,
security, or maintainability;
(5) identification of the cost and risk of critical
technology elements associated with each refurbishment
alternative, including technology maturity, integration risk,
manufacturing feasibility, and demonstration needs; and
(6) identification of the cost and risk of capital asset
and infrastructure capabilities required to support
production and certification of each refurbishment
alternative.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN (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 New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial
amendment, worked out jointly with the minority and the authorizing
committees.
It would amend the existing section 311 to require only the report on
analysis of alternatives for major weapons programs to be submitted to
both the authorizers and appropriators. This is a change requested by
the authorizers, and I am happy to be able to include it. I ask that
this amendment be supported.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. We have no objection to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Appalachian Regional Commission

For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized
by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965,
notwithstanding 40 U.S.C. 14704, and for necessary expenses
for the Federal Co-Chairman and the Alternate on the
Appalachian Regional Commission, for payment of the Federal
share of the administrative expenses of the Commission,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and hire
of passenger motor vehicles, $70,317,000, to remain available
until expended.

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456,
section 1441, $29,915,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2015: Provided, That of the amount provided
under this heading,

[[Page H4306]]

$850,000 shall be made available to procure Inspector General
services from the Inspector General of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.

Delta Regional Authority

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Delta Regional Authority and
to carry out its activities, as authorized by the Delta
Regional Authority Act of 2000, notwithstanding sections
382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 382M, and 382N of said Act, $11,319,000,
to remain available until expended.

Denali Commission

For expenses of the Denali Commission including the
purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital
equipment as necessary and other expenses, $7,396,000, to
remain available until expended, notwithstanding the
limitations contained in section 306(g) of the Denali
Commission Act of 1998: Provided, That funds shall be
available for construction projects in an amount not to
exceed 80 percent of total project cost for distressed
communities, as defined by section 307 of the Denali
Commission Act of 1998 (division C, title III, Public Law
105-277), as amended by section 701 of appendix D, title VII,
Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-280), and an amount not
to exceed 50 percent for non-distressed communities.

Northern Border Regional Commission

For necessary expenses of the Northern Border Regional
Commission in carrying out activities authorized by subtitle
V of title 40, United States Code, $1,355,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That such amounts shall
be available for administrative expenses, notwithstanding
section 15751(b) of title 40, United States Code.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
remainder of the bill through page 59, line 9 be considered as read,
printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:

Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

For necessary expenses of the Southeast Crescent Regional
Commission in carrying out activities authorized by subtitle
V of title 40, United States Code, $250,000, to remain
available until expended.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out
the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, including official representation
expenses (not to exceed $25,000), $1,043,937,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That of the amount
appropriated herein, not more than $9,500,000 may be made
available for salaries, travel, and other support costs for
the Office of the Commission, to remain available until
September 30, 2015, of which, notwithstanding section
201(a)(2)(c) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5841(a)(2)(c)), the use and expenditure shall only be
approved by a majority vote of the Commission: Provided
further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection
services, and other services and collections estimated at
$920,721,000 in fiscal year 2014 shall be retained and used
for necessary salaries and expenses in this account,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available
until expended: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of revenues
received during fiscal year 2014 so as to result in a final
fiscal year 2014 appropriation estimated at not more than
$123,216,000: Provided further, That of the amounts
appropriated under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be for
university research and development in areas relevant to
their respective organization's mission, and $5,000,000 shall
be for a Nuclear Science and Engineering Grant Program that
will support multiyear projects that do not align with
programmatic missions but are critical to maintaining the
discipline of nuclear science and engineering.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, $11,105,000, to remain available until September 30,
2015: Provided, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection
services, and other services and collections estimated at
$9,994,000 in fiscal year 2014 shall be retained and be
available until September 30, 2015, for necessary salaries
and expenses in this account, notwithstanding section 3302 of
title 31, United States Code: Provided further, That the sum
herein appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of
revenues received during fiscal year 2014 so as to result in
a final fiscal year 2014 appropriation estimated at not more
than $1,111,000.

Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical
Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section
5051, $3,400,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund,
to remain available until September 30, 2015.

Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation
Projects

For necessary expenses for the Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects
pursuant to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act, $1,000,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2015: Provided, That
any fees, charges, or commissions received pursuant to
section 106(h) of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (15
U.S.C. 720d(h)) in fiscal year 2014 in excess of $2,402,000
shall not be available for obligation until appropriated in a
subsequent Act of Congress.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Sec. 401. The Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission may not terminate any program, project, or
activity without a majority vote of the Commissioners of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission approving such action.
Sec. 402. The Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than 1
day after the Chairman begins performing functions under the
authority of section 3 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980,
or after a member of the Commission who was delegated
emergency functions under subsection (b) of that section
begins performing those functions. Such notification shall
include an explanation of the circumstances warranting the
exercise of such authority. The Chairman shall report to the
Committees, not less frequently than once each week, on the
actions taken by the Chairman, or a delegated member of the
Commission, under such authority, until the authority is
relinquished. The Chairman shall notify the Committees not
later than 1 day after such authority is relinquished. The
Chairman shall submit the report required by section 3(d) of
the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1980 to the Committees not
later than 1 day after it was submitted to the Commission.

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

(including transfers and rescissions of funds)

Sec. 501. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence
congressional action on any legislation or appropriation
matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to
Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913.
Sec. 502. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to eliminate or reduce funding for a program,
project, or activity as proposed in a President's budget
request for a fiscal year until such proposed change is
subsequently enacted in an appropriations Act, or unless such
change is made pursuant to the reprogramming and transfer
provisions of this Act.
Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of
understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant
to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to any corporation
that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any
Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the
awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless the agency
has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and
has made a determination that this further action is not
necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
Sec. 504. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of
understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant
to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation
that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been
assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies
have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being
paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the
authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where
the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability,
unless the agency has considered suspension or debarment of
the corporation and has made a determination that this
further action is not necessary to protect the interests of
the Government.
Sec. 505. (a) None of the funds made available in title III
of this Act may be transferred to any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government, except
pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer authority provided
in this Act or any other appropriation Act for any fiscal
year, transfer authority referenced in the report of the
Committee on Appropriations accompanying this Act, or any
authority whereby a department, agency, or instrumentality of
the United States Government may provide goods or services to
another department, agency, or instrumentality.
(b) None of the funds made available for any department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government
may be transferred to accounts funded in title III of this
Act, except pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer
authority provided in this Act or any other appropriation Act
for any fiscal year, transfer authority referenced in the
report of the Committees on Appropriations accompanying this
Act, or any authority whereby a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government may provide
goods or services to another department, agency, or
instrumentality.
(c) The head of any relevant department or agency funded in
this Act utilizing any

[[Page H4307]]

transfer authority shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
a semiannual report detailing the transfer authorities,
except for any authority whereby a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government may provide
goods or services to another department, agency, or
instrumentality, used in the previous 6 months and in the
year-to-date. This report shall include the amounts
transferred and the purposes for which they were transferred,
and shall not replace or modify existing notification
requirements for each authority.
Sec. 506. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of Executive Order No. 12898 of
February 11, 1994 (``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'').
Sec. 507. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be expended for any new hire by any Federal agency funded
in this Act that is not verified through the E-Verify Program
as described in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1324a note).
Sec. 508. (a) Of the unobligated balances available from
prior year appropriations for the following accounts, the
following amounts are hereby permanently rescinded:
(1) Under the heading ``Corps of Engineers-Civil--
Department of the Army'', $200,000,000, to be derived by the
Secretary of the Army from funds made available for
``Construction, General'', ``Flood Control, Mississippi River
and Tributaries, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee'', ``General
Investigations'', ``Construction'', ``Investigations'', and
``Mississippi River and Tributaries''.
(2) ``Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy'', $157,000,000.
(3) ``Department of Energy--Atomic Energy Defense
Activities--National Nuclear Security Administration--Weapons
Activities'', $142,000,000.
(4) ``Department of Energy--Atomic Energy Defense
Activities--National Nuclear Security Administration--Defense
Nuclear Nonproliferation'', $20,000,000.
(b) No amounts may be rescinded under this section from
amounts that were designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget
or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985.

The Acting CHAIR. Are there any amendments to this section?
Hearing none, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 509. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to conduct closure of adjudicatory functions,
technical review, or support activities associated with the
Yucca Mountain geologic repository license application, or
for actions that irrevocably remove the possibility that
Yucca Mountain may be a repository option in the future.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Titus

Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 59, lines 10 through 16, strike section 509.

Ms. TITUS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Nevada?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Nevada is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to ask my colleagues to join
me in protecting the fiduciary interests of the American taxpayer and
in preserving the safety of my constituents in southern Nevada as well
as of all of those who live along the proposed route for Yucca Mountain
waste.
My amendment would remove misguided language included in this bill
that injects politics into a very serious and consequential debate
surrounding the issue of nuclear waste disposal. This amendment would
simply strike the language included in this bill that tries to restart
the failed Yucca Mountain project by prohibiting the DOE from moving
forward with plans to close Yucca Mountain and develop proposals for
its alternative use.
When the Department of Energy made the correct decision to put an end
to the misguided Yucca Mountain project in 2010, they did so after
decades of debate with nothing to show for it except for $15 billion
wasted and a big hole in the ground. According to the Government
Accountability Office, had the project been completed, it would have
cost more than $80 billion. Those figures don't even take into account
the cost of transporting 75,000 metric tons of highly radioactive
nuclear waste thousands of miles across the country, through nearly
every State in the Union.
Now, this waste wouldn't just magically appear in Nevada. It would
travel through many of your congressional districts--through backyards
all across the country, near schools, homes, parks, and businesses--nor
does this enormous cost figure account for the significant security
expenditures required to protect the contents of Yucca Mountain from
those seeking to cause our Nation harm.
Mr. Chairman, if a nun with a pair of bolt cutters were able to break
into one of the most secure nuclear facilities in the world, how can we
ever expect to protect all of the Nation's waste in just one location?
Let's not forget that Yucca Mountain is less than 100 miles from one
of the Nation's largest cities that hosts more than 40 million visitors
a year.
In January of 2012, the Department of Energy's bipartisan Blue Ribbon
Commission on America's Nuclear Future, led by former Congressman and
9/11 Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton and former National Security
Advisor Lieutenant General Brent Scowcroft stated in its final report:
``The need for a new strategy is urgent.''
The key concept here is ``new,'' but, instead, this bill tries to
turn back the clock, back to an old, flawed strategy. It's Groundhog
Day here in the United States House of Representatives.
On the subject of Yucca, Congressman Hamilton stated: ``Nuclear waste
storage at Yucca Mountain is not an option.''
General Scowcroft said the Commission will ``look forward, not
back.''
It appears that that message didn't make it all the way up the steps
of the Capitol and that some Members of Congress have not gotten the
message that Yucca is dead.

{time} 0000

We cannot continue to throw good money after bad ideas and go down
the same failed path that Congress put us on when politics targeted the
people of Nevada in the development of the Yucca Mountain project
decades ago.
Although I don't agree with everything that's included in the bill, I
applaud the bipartisan group of Senators who have introduced
legislation to enact the recommendations of the Commission and have an
actual debate that doesn't target communities like Nevada.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment. It's
time to have a serious debate over the safe disposal of the Nation's
nuclear waste and develop an alternative plan that doesn't throw away
billions of taxpayer dollars, endanger citizen safety, or threaten
economic development projects in southern Nevada.
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 rise to oppose the gentlewoman's
amendment.
The House has repeatedly had overwhelming votes in support of
continuing the Yucca Mountain Repository. The language that this
amendment would strike, we have been carrying for years as a way to
keep the will of the House alive, and the American people support what
we're doing.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. TITUS. 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 gentlewoman from Nevada
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 510. The Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation
and the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) shall
submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, at the time that the
President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2015 is submitted
pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code,
a comprehensive report compiled in conjunction with the
Government Accountability Office that details updated
missions, goals, strategies, and priorities,

[[Page H4308]]

and performance metrics that are measurable, repeatable, and
directly linked to requests for funding.
Sec. 511. It is the sense of the Congress that the
Congress should not pass any legislation that authorizes
spending cuts that would increase poverty in the United
States.

spending reduction account

Sec. 512. The amount by which the applicable allocation of
new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of
proposed new budget authority is $0.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Aderholt) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, 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.

____________________