[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 106 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5971-H5985]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 4923, and that I may include 
tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Idaho?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 641 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4923.

[[Page H5972]]

  The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1329


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4923) making appropriations for energy and water development and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for 
other purposes, with Mrs. Black in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) and the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, it is my distinct honor to present the 
fiscal year 2015 Energy and Water bill for consideration before the 
full House. I would like to recognize the efforts of our chairman, Mr. 
Rogers, and Ranking Member Lowey to bring this bill to the floor. Their 
efforts to bring the appropriations process back to regular order 
ensures that our Federal discretionary spending receives the full 
scrutiny of this body and our committee process.

                              {time}  1330

  I would also like to thank Ranking Member Kaptur for all of her work. 
Her contributions and advice have made this legislation stronger.
  The bill before us totals $34.01 billion for activities for the 
Department of Energy, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, 
and other agencies under our jurisdiction. This is a $50 million 
reduction from last year's funding levels.
  The bill prioritizes investments in this Nation's infrastructure and 
national defense. As we do each year, we worked hard to incorporate 
priorities and perspectives from both sides of the aisle.
  For instance, this bill overcomes the budget request's proposed cut 
of nearly $1 billion to the critical programs of the Army Corps of 
Engineers. The request would have led to economic disruptions at our 
ports and waterways as our ports and waterways filled in and would have 
left our communities and businesses vulnerable to flooding. Instead, 
this bill recognizes the critical work of the Corps and provides $5.492 
billion for these activities, $959 million above the request and $25 
million above last year.
  This bill takes a strong stand against government overreach by 
prohibiting changes to the definitions of the ``waters of the United 
States'' and ``fill material.''
  The bill also provides $11.361 billion for the automatic security, 
nonproliferation, and naval reactors programs of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration, a $154 million increase from fiscal year 2014.
  This bill is clear about our concerns with Russia's recent activities 
in Eastern Europe. It eliminates all new funding for nonproliferation 
funding in Russia and requires that, before the Secretary of Energy 
funds any activity in Russia, he must certify that the activity is in 
our national security interests.
  Madam Chairman, Russia's activities in Ukraine have shown once again 
how important our nuclear security umbrella is to our allies. We have 
also seen how Russia has used Ukraine's reliance on natural gas to put 
pressure on its new leadership. The movements by insurgents to occupy 
Iraq threaten to drive oil prices through the roof.
  Our country has abundant natural energy resources, and it is our 
national security and economic interest to ensure that they are fully 
and responsibly used. That is why this bill makes a strong, balanced 
investment in our energy sector to ensure that our constituents 
continue to have reliable, affordable energy.
  Fossil energy, which provided more than 71 percent of our electricity 
production in 2013, receives $593 million, a $31 million increase above 
fiscal year 2014. Nuclear energy is increased by $10 million above last 
year. Energy efficiency and renewable energy is slightly reduced by 
$113 million from last year. This balanced investment prioritizes 
improvements to energy sources that we rely upon today while making 
long-term investments in alternative energy sources.
  I appreciate the full committee's attention to this bill, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5973]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY14.001



[[Page H5974]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY14.002



[[Page H5975]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY14.003



[[Page H5976]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY14.004



[[Page H5977]]

  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I thank Chairman Simpson for his leadership.
  This energy, water, and nuclear security bill is liberty's business. 
It is about national nuclear security, about energy security, about 
jobs and economic growth here at home through upgrading our ports, 
preventing flooding, assuring fresh water from coast to coast, and 
inventing the new energy technologies required to reposition America 
for energy security in our homeland for a new century. Bottom line: our 
bill is about the business of ensuring liberty for our country.
  The United States entered this 21st century with a net reliance on 
foreign oil. Renewed conflicts in Iraq, Ukraine's Crimea, and Syria 
once again warn us that U.S. energy dependence on imported product 
remains our chief strategic vulnerability. Throughout the last century, 
American reliance on foreign oil grew dangerously. Our share of imports 
in the Nation's total energy supply rose from 42 percent in 1990 to 
more than 50 percent by 1998 and, frankly, keeps bobbing between 40 and 
50 percent now. It consumes over half of the trade deficit we hold with 
the world. This energy dependence seriously weakens America.
  As Michael Klare states in his book, ``Blood and Oil'':

       Every economic recession since World War II has come on the 
     heels of a petroleum shortage.

  I would add, the millions of lost jobs associated with those 
recessions has harmed America gravely.
  Just since 2003, the United States has spent $2.3 trillion--
trillion--importing foreign petroleum. At a price per barrel of $100, 
the total bill for America importing oil over the next 25 years could 
cost us over $10 trillion. That is $10 trillion of hemorrhage of U.S. 
wealth, millions of lost jobs, and the economic muscle that goes with 
it.
  If you want to understand why our middle class is shrinking and more 
people are falling into poverty, just look at the energy trade deficit 
this country endures and has endured for a quarter century. Those 
numbers clearly demonstrate the lost energy opportunity inside our own 
Nation. We are ceding wealth, jobs, economic power, and our national 
security. If you really want to understand why America has developed a 
horrendous budget deficit, you had best take a look at the energy trade 
deficit as a major cause of our condition as we have ceded our wealth 
elsewhere. In fact, the entirety of our committee bill at $34 billion 
cannot begin to compensate for the over $200 billion in imported 
foreign oil that will pour into our country this year alone--eight 
times more than the value of our bill.
  Recent natural gas discoveries and added domestic oil drilling 
provide our Nation with some breathing room, but only for a while, as 
these supplies are not endless--they are precious--to help us as we 
transition to a broad, diversified energy portfolio that captures the 
energy wealth here for our Nation.
  Congress must lead our Nation to restore energy security and greater 
prosperity for our Nation through the innovation that this bill 
incentivizes. The horizontal drilling technologies that are creating a 
boom in domestic natural gas discoveries were made possible by research 
done through our bill at the Department of Energy.
  America must invest in our own energy future across all energy 
sectors. We must restore some of our lost economic luster. 
Alternatively, if we cede our future to China, Russia, and Singapore, 
we will have missed the call of our generation.
  A focus on high-impact energy research at the Department through 
renewable technologies, advanced energy, and applied energy are 
critical, as well as funding for the Advanced Manufacturing Office to 
lead us to a new era of energy and job creation.
  Further, the increased allocation for the Corps of Engineers is vital 
to restore our infrastructure, supporting thousands of jobs in economic 
growth as we upgrade our fresh water systems while our Nation adapts to 
climate change and more parched places as deserts grow in places we 
thought were easily habitable.
  Though our bill provides $5.492 billion to support the Corps, keep in 
mind there are no new starts in it, and there are over $60 billion 
worth of project requests that are backlogged that we simply can't 
address. Imagine what potential job creation could be induced coast to 
coast by meeting this massive Corps backlog.
  The bill before us today takes a modest step forward in diversifying 
America's energy sources. Frankly, based on the challenge facing our 
Nation for almost a third of a century now, this bill's bottom line 
should be tripled to get us faster to a solution for liberty and 
security. We know with energy conservation and additional innovation we 
can meet our goal, but our imperative must be sooner rather than later. 
Our generation should make it easier for the next generation, not hand 
the problem to them.
  I do have concerns with amounts provided to certain accounts within 
the nonproliferation activities of the National Security Agency and the 
Defense Environmental Cleanup account, where, despite the chairman's 
best efforts, the subcommittee's allocation was simply insufficient to 
address the many competing needs.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield myself an additional 10 seconds.
  I look forward to the debate and working with Chairman Simpson, a 
gracious chairman, to complete the task before us to strengthen liberty 
as she encounters the challenges of a new era.
  I want to thank Rob Blair and Taunja Berquam, our able staff, for 
moving us to this point.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I now yield as much time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the full 
committee.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairwoman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  This is a balanced bill. It makes important investments in our 
Nation's nuclear defense capabilities, as well as the water 
infrastructure and energy resources that keep the economy moving. It 
does so in a fiscally sound manner, finding ways to save taxpayer 
dollars wherever possible.
  First and foremost, this legislation prioritizes national security by 
increasing funding for nuclear weapons programs above last year's level 
to support the safety and readiness of our nuclear stockpiles. 
Maintaining this Nation's nuclear deterrence posture remains critical 
to our safety, particularly during a time of global instability and 
increasing risks of future nuclear threats.
  Next, this bill includes investments in our water infrastructure that 
will also help grow our economy, facilitate trade and commerce, and 
ensure the well-being of the Nation. Recognizing the importance of what 
the Army Corps of Engineers does, we have rejected the administration's 
proposed cuts to these programs, providing nearly $1 billion more than 
requested and $25 million above last year's levels. That funding will 
allow the Corps to continue its important work performing flood 
mitigation, updating dam safety, and improving our waterways to 
facilitate increased import and export capability.
  Within the Department of Energy, the bill prioritizes funding for 
programs that encourage economic competitiveness and energy 
independence and that help promote an all-of-the-above solution to the 
Nation's energy needs. By making sound investments in coal, natural 
gas, and other fossil energy sources, we are moving our Nation closer 
to a balanced energy portfolio, as well as keeping down energy costs 
for hardworking Americans across the country.
  To make these important investments, the bill targets lower priority 
programs for cuts. For example, renewable energy programs with the 
Department of Energy are cut by $113 million from last year's levels. 
By implementing these types of savings and including stringent 
oversight requirements for the DOE, the Army Corps, and other Federal 
agencies, we have produced a bill that will support economic growth and 
security, while encouraging the government to act with greater 
efficiency.
  The legislation also puts the brakes on the administration's 
destructive and misguided regulatory agenda that threatens our Nation's 
small businesses and other industries. For example, within this bill, 
we have included a

[[Page H5978]]

provision prohibiting the unnecessary expansion of Federal jurisdiction 
over our Nation's waterways.
  At one of the subcommittee's many hearings about the Federal budget 
just a few weeks ago, the Assistant Secretary for the Corps could not 
provide clear answers as to how much these regulations would cost the 
American taxpayer, how many man-hours it would take to implement, and 
how such a change would affect this struggling economy. Since the Corps 
plainly has no idea what it is doing with this rule, it would be 
irresponsible, if not disastrous, to allow such a change to move 
forward.
  The bill also stops the administration from changing the definition 
of ``fill material,'' an action that could drastically alter Federal 
regulations and could effectively shut down coal and other mining 
operations throughout the country. While this proposal is very 
troubling on many levels, I am most concerned about the unknown costs 
of this large-scale, invasive change. This is the type of overzealous, 
unneeded regulation that will harm, not help, the economy in this very 
sensitive time.
  Madam Chairwoman, before I close, I want to thank Chairman Simpson--
this is his maiden voyage as chair of this subcommittee--and Ranking 
Member Kaptur and all of the subcommittee and the staff for their hard 
work on the bill, and I want to commend Chairman Simpson for a job well 
done on his first bill as chairman of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee.
  This is a good bill. It reflects smart budget decisions to invest tax 
dollars in effective, necessary programs that will help keep our Nation 
safe and our economy growing. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
the bill.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of our full committee.

                              {time}  1345

  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chair, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking 
member, whose bipartisan cooperation and hard work are evident in the 
bill before us.
  This bill invests in a number of important programs that have strong 
Democratic backing. It underscores the constraints of virtually flat 
discretionary spending.
  According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, underinvestment 
in our marine ports and inland waterways endangers more than 1 million 
U.S. jobs and $270 billion in U.S. exports by 2020.
  While the Corps of Engineers would be given a slight increase above 
this year's level, budget caps won't help the Corps make a dent in its 
$60 billion project backlog, forcing them once again to put off vital 
projects that would protect homes, businesses, and communities.
  We are also missing an opportunity to ramp up investments in science 
and technology. Research and development spending has fueled our 
economic growth for the last 60 years, and dramatic increases in this 
area are needed to sustain our economic recovery.
  Flat funding for ARPA-E and the Office of Science is particularly 
problematic, given that other countries, including China, Russia, 
Germany, and Singapore, are increasing investments in these fields. We 
cannot permit an innovation deficit. We must ensure that tomorrow's 
breakthroughs occur in American labs and universities.
  Given, however, the subcommittee's allocation, I am pleased that 
these critical accounts were mostly protected from cuts or slightly 
increased, but we could do better.
  There are a number of shortcomings I would like to mention.
  First is the continued safeguarding of Federal spending that benefits 
Big Oil and fossil fuel companies instead of supporting investments in 
emerging renewable technologies.
  I strongly disagree with the $113 million cut to the energy 
efficiency and renewable energy account and the decision to fund the 
fossil energy account at $117.5 million above the President's request. 
Our country is home to a robust fossil fuels industrial base that makes 
over $100 billion annually in profits and actively invests in robust 
private sector R&D spending to advance its interests. With such a tight 
allocation, we should invest in creating green jobs of the future 
instead of backing an industry which already benefits from billions in 
tax breaks.
  Second, the bill includes unnecessary riders related to navigable 
waters and the definition of fill materials under the Clean Water Act. 
The Corps of Engineers and EPA recently released a proposed rule 
regarding navigable waters, and their work needs to move forward in 
order to address the ambiguity created by Supreme Court rulings in 2001 
and 2006.
  Despite strong disagreements regarding the merits of the proposed 
rule, these issues should be resolved through the rulemaking process, 
not in this bill. By preemptively stopping any efforts to update the 
definition of fill materials, this bill ensures that communities in 
coal country will continue to live with public health threats and the 
environmental consequences of mountaintop removal mining.
  Lastly, this bill does not do nearly enough to address the incredibly 
damaging effects of climate change. Rising sea levels and increased 
flooding from torrential downpours and hurricanes demonstrate the 
overwhelming need to invest in new water infrastructure to safeguard 
our communities. Yet the subcommittee can't invest in new projects 
because its allocation is dwarfed by the growing backlog of ongoing 
projects, which includes projects that were authorized decades ago.
  Clinging to outdated fossil fuels instead of doubling down on the 
promise of renewable energy slows future job growth that saves lives by 
lessening the impact of climate change.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to thank you for restoring a portion of the administration's 
proposed cut to the Richland Operations Office at Hanford in my 
district. I appreciate your willingness to work with me on funding, and 
I know the provisions on Yucca Mountain and MOX that are in this bill 
are also key to the Hanford cleanup success.
  Madam Chair, the Richland Operations Office is responsible for many 
critical cleanup projects and legal commitments, and progress there has 
largely been a success. This represents a new model for cleanup. And it 
has been successful. It is nearing completion and will save taxpayers 
$250 million.
  I am encouraged that the $235 million in this bill provided for 
cleanup for the River Corridor will focus on the 300 Area milestones 
under the River Corridor Closure Contract.
  As the appropriations process continues, I look forward to working 
with you to ensure appropriate restoration for Richland, given the 
budget constraints that we have.
  Mr. Chairman, this is my last Energy and Water bill, yet I am 
confident that Hanford has a friend and an advocate in your leadership.
  When it comes to the other project at Hanford, the Office of River 
Protection, there are a number of challenges. Among other things, I am 
hopeful that DOE and the State of Washington will reach an agreement on 
an achievable path forward for WTP.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. First, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Washington for his continued advocacy of Hanford cleanup funding in the 
Energy and Water bill. His leadership on these issues will be sorely 
missed in the future.
  I am pleased to support funding for the cleanup of the River 
Corridor, and I am hopeful that the Department of Energy will soon 
provide the necessary details for the Waste Treatment Plant project. 
WTP is a critical project, but Congress needs more answers and greater 
transparency.
  I look forward to working with you to make sure adequate funding is 
available should a new agreement on the path forward be reached.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham), a member of the Agriculture, 
Budget, and Oversight Committees.
  Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. I thank my colleague for

[[Page H5979]]

yielding time, and I commend her and the chairman for their efforts to 
put together a bipartisan bill and bring it to the floor. I do have a 
couple of a concerns with the bill that I am addressing today.
  First, it provides additional funding for the Waste Isolation Pilot 
Project in southeastern New Mexico. I am pleased that the committee has 
seen the need to provide additional funding so that the causes of an 
incident that occurred earlier this year can be better understood and 
remedied, but I urge the committee to find a different source of 
funding for those efforts.

  Altering the payment schedules for pension fund payments, I think, is 
bad fiscal policy. These pension plans face significant liabilities, 
and they simply cannot afford it.
  I am also concerned about the way the bill deals with Laboratory 
Directed Research and Development, or the LDRD. LDRD is the primary 
source of funding for fundamental research at our national security 
laboratories, like Sandia National Laboratories, which is based in my 
district.
  LDRD allows these critical facilities to sustain their mission-
essential science and technology capabilities, anticipate and address 
emerging mission needs, and advance technologies in a wide range of 
areas critical to national security.
  The provision in this bill, coupled with last year's cuts to LDRD, 
combine to decrease the funds available for this important program by 
over 20 percent and increase the labs' administrative burden.
  In my view, these policy changes will have a negative impact on the 
labs' ability to conduct critical national security work, and I look 
forward to continuing to work with the chairman and the ranking member 
to address both of these issues as the bill moves through the 
legislative process.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. AMODEI. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the chance to speak on 
programs at the Nevada National Security Site that are critical to our 
Nation's ability to ensure the safety and performance of our nuclear 
weapons stockpile and for the excellent job you and the ranking member 
have done in managing the fiscal year 2015 Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations bill.
  However, the bill before us does not include the full amount 
requested for a new advanced radiography capability that will establish 
an integrated facility at the Nevada National Security Site to help us 
understand the effects of aging and manufacturing processes on proposed 
approaches to stockpile life-extension programs.
  I appreciate that in this fiscal environment we must all make 
difficult choices. Yet, I am hopeful in conference there will be budget 
flexibility to support the full request for advanced radiography.
  Furthermore, going into conference, I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the 
fact that you would be open-minded to additional information from the 
Department of Energy on this proposed capability to better understand 
its strategic value to our nuclear weapons stockpile.
  We stand ready, willing, and able to assist you in getting more 
transparency and more information from the Department of Energy 
regarding proposed plans for advanced radiography capability.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. AMODEI. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman. I look forward to working with 
you to making sure adequate funding is available to support the needs 
of our nuclear weapons stockpile and to receiving more information on 
the Department of Energy's proposal to construct this new capability.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
colleague from California (Mr. Lowenthal) for the purpose of a 
colloquy.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. First, I would like to thank the ranking member and 
Chairman Simpson for bringing to the floor a bill that has incorporated 
interests from both parties within the limit of the Bipartisan Budget 
Act.
  In particular, I want to thank the committee for increasing funding 
for a specific activity within the Department of Energy's fossil energy 
research and development. That is the risk-based data management 
system.
  This activity supports the funding of a tool which is used by many 
States for public disclosure of hydraulic fracturing operations. It is 
called FracFocus. While this tool is intended to be easily usable by 
the public, it has been pointed out by a special Department of Energy 
task force that some improvements must be made to this government-
funded database in order for it to be more accurate, accessible, and 
transparent.
  That is why I was very pleased to hear from the chairman and the 
ranking member that a portion of the increased funding for the risk-
based data management system is intended to help update the FracFocus 
database to meet modern data, usability, and public transparency 
standards.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue. I 
agree we should set our public transparency standards high when looking 
at taxpayer-funded projects. A portion of the risk-based data 
management activity is intended to be used for improving FracFocus, and 
as we move forward I will work with the gentleman to ensure that our 
intent is included in the conference report language.
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. I thank the ranking member, and I look forward to 
working with her in the future.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I would like to inquire as to the time 
remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Madam Chair, I rise today to speak in favor of the 
work the committee did in this bill to protect Americans from 
additional, unnecessary regulatory burdens. In particular, I want to 
thank them for protecting landowners in rural Kansas--and elsewhere 
across this Nation--from attempts by the Army Corps and the EPA to 
regulate, from Washington, every single drop of water that falls to the 
ground.

                              {time}  1400

  When it passed the Clean Water Act, Congress never contemplated and 
certainly never authorized a definition of ``navigable waters'' that 
covered roadside ditches, prairie potholes, water tanks, or farm ponds 
in Kansas or elsewhere.
  This proposed rule by some bureaucrats in far-off Washington is a 
clear violation of the separation of powers within our Constitution. 
Ultimately, it is nothing more than a power grab of private property.
  In practice, this rule would require Kansas farmers and ranchers to 
apply for costly permits--to apply for permission to perform routine 
farming activities like building a fence, fertilizing, or even plowing, 
and if our food producers have to pay more to comply with Washington's 
overregulations, Americans will see it in higher prices at the grocery 
store.
  Madam Chairman, only in Washington would one try to define ``standing 
water'' in a ditch that is surrounded by prairie in Kansas as water 
that is capable of navigation. It is time for the administration to 
ditch this rule. Until then, this Congress should not spend a single 
penny in advancing this massive 370-page rule. I support the provisions 
in this bill.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with 
Chairman Simpson, and I thank the chairman for including language in 
the committee's report, which would require that the Army Corps of 
Engineers also look to strategic seaport designations

[[Page H5980]]

when allocating funding for additional work.
  However, the President's budget for FY 2015 proposes to cut the 
maintenance budget for the Sabine-Neches Waterway by 35 percent over 
last year. No other area of the country, at least that I have been able 
to identify, has seen such a dramatic cut to its maintenance resources 
in the President's budget. This simply does not make sense.
  The Sabine-Neches Waterway is located between Texas and Louisiana. It 
is responsible for the third highest tonnage volume of foreign trade in 
the Nation and supplies 55 percent of our Nation's strategic petroleum 
reserves.
  Refineries located there manufacture 60 percent of our Nation's 
commercial jet fuel and a significant majority of our military's jet 
fuel. It is also used by the U.S. military to transport cargo to and 
from overseas deployments via the Port of Beaumont and Port Arthur, 
which are located along the waterway and handle over 33 percent of 
military cargo.
  Reducing resources to maintain waterways and harbors like this will 
restrict commerce, increase costs, and jeopardize safety at a time of 
increasing trade volume. I believe this cut is extremely shortsighted.
  Will the chairman agree that Congress needs to hold the 
administration accountable in how it allocates precious taxpayer 
resources for economically significant national infrastructure? Will 
the chairman work with me and others to ensure that harbors and 
waterways that play a critical role for our economy and national 
security are a priority in the allocation of maintenance resources?
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Texas for highlighting the 
importance of allocating sufficient resources to the maintenance of our 
waterways and harbors.
  It is for this very reason that he articulated that the bill being 
considered today increases funding for navigation maintenance by 18 
percent above the budget request.
  Madam Chair, I agree that Congress needs to hold the administration 
accountable in this regard, and I promise to work with the gentleman to 
ensure that we prioritize maintenance funding for all of our Nation's 
economically and strategically significant waterways and harbors.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, I am particularly pleased to see section 401 
in this bill, which requires the Chair of the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission--currently Allison Macfarlane--to notify the other members 
of the Commission and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, 
the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and the Senate Environment and 
Public Works Committee, within 1 day after the Chairwoman or Chairman 
begins using emergency powers.
  This provision was included in the last Congress, and I am hopeful 
that the underlying policy can be put into permanent statute. In fact, 
over the last 2 years, Madam Chairman--two Congresses--I have had a 
bill to make these permanent changes. The bill is H.R. 3132.
  For example, currently, no definition of an ``emergency'' exists, and 
no requirement of notice by the Chair to fellow Commissioners or to 
Congress exists.
  That is why this language is so important in this bill, yet the 
current Chair, Ms. Macfarlane, opposes this language as ``too 
burdensome.'' This follows on the heels of a former Chair--her 
immediate past Chair--who declared an emergency without telling anybody 
and used it for a political purpose.
  There is obviously a need for this type of language, and we should 
make it permanent, instead of having to do this every year on the 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
  I am glad to see that the current Commission is more collegial now, 
but it is incumbent upon us in the House and Senate to make sure that 
these changes are made permanent, so this abuse of power doesn't occur 
anymore.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) for the purpose 
of a colloquy.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I thank the chairman.
  Madam Chair, yesterday, we received a letter and white paper from the 
Chief of Naval Operations and the Director of the Naval Reactors 
program. I will include these documents and statement for the Record 
that I will be submitting shortly.
  This eight-star letter from our Nation's most senior naval officer 
makes clear that the cuts made to the Naval Reactors' budget request 
over the last 4 years are endangering the safety and reliability of the 
Navy's nuclear fleet.
  With the 12 percent reduction proposed by the bill before us today, 
Naval Reactors will have taken over $600 million in cuts over 5 years.
  The letter from the admiral is clear:

       The persistent cuts have put Naval Reactors in the position 
     of being unable to provide for a safe and reliable nuclear 
     fleet, to design and test the nuclear reactor plant for the 
     Ohio replacement program, and to safely and responsibly 
     manage the aging infrastructure and the facilities for 
     processing naval spent nuclear fuel. This approach is no 
     longer sustainable.

  Naval Reactors is a critical defense priority contained in this much 
larger appropriations bill. I share the admiral's concern that, if 
sustained, these reductions will endanger national security and the 
Naval Reactors' unparalleled 60-year record of safe and reliable 
nuclear operations.
  I urge the gentleman from Idaho to review these proposed reductions 
and their impacts as this bill progresses and to restore the Naval 
Reactors' funding to the budget request level in a conference or in a 
potential continuing resolution.
  I and my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee stand ready to 
support these efforts.

                                       Department of the Navy,

                                     Washington, DC, July 7, 2014.
     Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We write today to express our strong 
     concern over proposed cuts to Naval Reactors' (NR's) portion 
     of the FY15 National Nuclear Security Administration budget 
     request.
       Our Navy and our national security rely on a nuclear Fleet 
     of 10 aircraft carriers and 73 submarines, including our 14 
     Ohio-Class ballistic missile submarines--over 40 percent of 
     our major combatants. These warships form the backbone of our 
     Navy, enabled by the 93 reactors that power them--reactors 
     provided, operated, and regulated solely by NR. NR has been 
     doing this for our nation for over 60 years, compiling over 
     166 million miles safely steamed on nuclear power--it is an 
     unmatched record of safety and effectiveness.
       The funding level proposed in H.R. 4923, the Energy and 
     Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2015, proposes reducing NR's funding below the request by 
     $162 million which places operation of that nuclear Fleet 
     including sustained carrier operations and the nation's 
     security at risk. If enacted, this would be the fifth 
     consecutive year of significant marks to NR's requests for 
     funding. To date, these reductions below requested levels 
     have totaled over $450 million; this bill would bring that 
     total to well over $600 million. These shortfalls have 
     resulted in delaying the construction of needed facilities, 
     effectively halting research and development, and deferring 
     procurement of equipment needed to address emergent fleet 
     issues. The persistent cuts have put NR in the position of 
     being unable to provide for a safe and reliable nuclear 
     fleet, design and test the reactor plant for the OHIO 
     Replacement Program, and safely and responsibly manage aging 
     infrastructure and the facilities for processing naval spent 
     nuclear fuel. This approach is no longer sustainable.
       Moreover, the bill includes a number of provisions on the 
     use of funds, continuing a trend that reduces NR's ability to 
     manage the Program consistent with the priorities of safe and 
     reliable operation of the fleet.
       As the Committee moves forward with H.R. 4923, we 
     respectfully ask that you consider full funding for NR at the 
     FY15 budget request and removal of restrictive provisions on 
     the expenditure of funds. This is essential for continued 
     operation of the nation's nuclear-powered fleet now and into 
     the future.
       An identical letter has been sent to Representatives 
     Rogers, Frelinghuysen, and Simpson; and Senators Mikulski and 
     Levin.
           Sincerely,
     John M. Richardson,
       Admiral, U.S. Navy, Director, Naval Nuclear Propulsion 
     Program.

[[Page H5981]]

     Jonathan W. Greenert,
       Admiral, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Operations.
                                  ____


       FY15 House Energy & Water Appropriations Reduction Impacts

       H.R. 4923, the Energy and Water Development and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015, reduced Naval Reactors 
     funding by $162 million. This cut, on top of multi-year 
     reductions to Naval Reactors Operations and Infrastructure 
     and Naval Reactors Development, places the Navy's nuclear-
     powered fleet at risk. These funding constraints impede Naval 
     Reactors' ability to respond to emergent issues in the Fleet, 
     maintain its operating nuclear power plants, and address 
     issues associated with its aging facilities and 
     infrastructure.
       Naval Reactors Operations and Infrastructure (NOI) was 
     funded $44M below the FY 2015 budget request. This budget 
     line funds operation and maintenance of Program research and 
     training reactors, environmental compliance and protection 
     activities, spent fuel handling including packaging for dry 
     storage, environmental and radiological remediation, 
     demolition of legacy facilities, and recapitalization of the 
     nearly 60 year old aging infrastructure. This reduction will 
     result in the following:
       Planned disposal of radioactive waste equipment and 
     materials in Pennsylvania and Idaho will be delayed. This 
     will result in the loss of approximately 20 jobs in Idaho.
       Planned decontamination and dismantlement (D&D) work in New 
     York, inclusive of DIG prototype remediation, will be scaled 
     back. Planned D&D in Idaho, such as removal of legacy 
     Expended Core Facility water pool tunnel piping, will not be 
     executed. Reductions in this work will cause the loss of 
     approximately 20 jobs in New York and 60 jobs in Idaho.
       Planned capital investment projects in Idaho, including 
     replacement of the undersized storm water sewer system at the 
     north end of the Naval Reactors Facility, will not be 
     executed.
       Planned infrastructure sustainment work in Idaho will be 
     deferred. Potential examples include refurbishment of rail 
     spurs necessary for receipt of naval spent nuclear fuel and 
     replacement of a degrading, 50-year old, switchgear that 
     provides power to critical loads across the Naval Reactors 
     Facility.
       Naval Reactors' infrastructure exists solely to support the 
     nation's nuclear-powered fleet. Reductions to NOI jeopardize 
     the operation of those facilities. If site operations are 
     stalled, whether as a result of infrastructure failures or 
     failure to meet regulatory requirements, the nuclear-powered 
     fleet will be placed at risk. Naval Reactors continues to 
     identify specific impacts as a result of the FY15 HEWD 
     reduction, including possible loss of jobs comparable in size 
     to those already identified. However, concerns about adverse 
     impacts to worker and public safety, regulatory compliance, 
     and court-enforceable commitments are impeding identification 
     of practical alternatives.
       Naval Reactors Development (NRD) was funded $15M below the 
     FY2015 budget request. Additionally, the HEWD directed that 
     an additional $2M of NRD funds be specifically directed 
     toward the Advanced Test Reactor. The NRD funding line 
     provides for the research, development, analysis, 
     engineering, and testing required to support current Fleet 
     operations, as well as future nuclear-powered warship 
     technologies. Reductions to NRD continue to erode unique 
     laboratory capabilities required solely for naval nuclear 
     propulsion plants. Because NR will not compromise reactor 
     safety, the impacts ultimately manifest as impacts to cost, 
     schedule, and operational availability of the Navy's nuclear-
     powered combatants. Among the ramifications of reduced NRD 
     funding in FY15:
       Inability to replace failing specialized analytical and 
     chemical analysis equipment needed to characterize material 
     properties of failed reactor plant components and weld 
     surfaces. Common problems that require investigation include 
     effects of materials under various manufacturing and 
     operating environmental conditions (e.g., corrosion). Without 
     the proper equipment to investigate these problems, our only 
     safe response to problems in the Fleet is likely overly 
     conservative and will include limitations on ship speed, 
     reactor lifetime, or costly component replacements.
       Inability to replace a specialized 30-year old heat 
     treatment furnace that supports investigation of nuclear fuel 
     material specimens and resolution of complex manufacturing 
     problems that without timely resolution will delay our 
     ability to deliver new and refueling reactor cores for 
     existing and planned Fleet reactors.
       Inability to replace a failed motor generator needed to 
     conduct acoustic performance testing to ensure reactor 
     components meet submarine stealth requirements.
       Inability to begin refurbishment of the failing linear 
     accelerator; the only facility in the US capable of providing 
     the fundamental physics data needed to validate nuclear 
     reactor performance assumptions and support nuclear 
     criticality safety assessments.
       Inability to fund advanced development innovation work--the 
     type of work that has lead in the past to our most successful 
     cost savings and performance increasing initiatives such as 
     higher energy density fuel and electric drive.
       Inability to fund improvements aimed at reducing the cost 
     of future reactor cores, consolidating test facilities and 
     personnel, reduction of expensive large-scale prototypic 
     thermal-hydraulic testing.
       The proposed FY15 NRD reductions continue the gradual, 
     cumulative effect of degrading Naval Reactors' facilities, 
     capabilities and expertise. Maintaining the operational 
     availability of today's nuclear fleet and ensuring that the 
     future fleet meets military needs requires a sustained 
     commitment. By continuing the process of diminishing the 
     foundational technical excellence of the NR Program, the 
     proposed budget reductions increase the risk of long-term 
     damage to this premier national capability.

  Mr. SIMPSON. I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama for his 
continued advocacy for the important national security activities 
funded in the Energy and Water bill, which includes the Naval Reactors 
program.
  Madam Chair, as the appropriations process continues, I look forward 
to working with him and his colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, 
to ensure that Naval Reactors receives the funding it requires to 
sustain, support, and to modernize the nuclear fleet.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I would like to inquire how much time is 
remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho has 10 minutes remaining, and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and at this time, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray 
Lujan) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Madam Chair, for over 70 years, our 
national laboratories have worked to ensure the security of our Nation. 
We have a responsibility to be good stewards of the environment in 
relation to the historic and ongoing radiological work at these 
laboratories.
  At Los Alamos, there are legal obligations, including the 3706 
campaign to remove transuranic, or TRU, waste and the broader 2005 
consent order between the DOE and the State of New Mexico to remediate 
legacy waste at Los Alamos.
  Two major wildfires near Los Alamos National Lab have highlighted the 
importance of removing aboveground waste from this facility. The DOE 
was nearing its completion of the 3706 campaign when the Nation's only 
repository for TRU waste, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, experienced, 
first, a fire and then a radiological release.
  As we work to restore WIPP operations, we must ensure that our 
national laboratories have the resources to meet their legal 
obligations for environmental remediation. We also must recognize our 
moral obligation to these communities that have served our great 
Nation.
  It is with this intention that I request the chair to work with me 
and Representatives from other affected communities, as this bill moves 
forward to conference, to ensure that adequate and appropriate funds 
are available not only for the restoration operations of WIPP, but also 
for legally-mandated environmental remediation efforts at Los Alamos 
and at other affected national laboratories.
  I thank you for this time to address this important issue. I look 
forward to working with you to find a solution, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
New Mexico for his continued advocacy of the cleanup program at Los 
Alamos.
  I look forward to working with you on ensuring that adequate funding 
is available to support the Department of Energy's cleanup program, 
including the cleanup work at Los Alamos and the restoration of 
operations at WIPP.
  I thank the gentleman, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I would like to inquire if the gentleman is 
ready to close.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I believe we have two more speakers.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the chairman for yielding.

[[Page H5982]]

  Madam Chair, I am happy to see $20 million included in this 
appropriations bill for the reimbursement of uranium and thorium 
cleanup.
  I also want to highlight the language in the bill that directs the 
Department of Energy to provide sufficient resources in future budgets 
to eliminate the reimbursement backlog, which stands at $54 million, 
and return to a more normal reimbursement schedule to ensure that a 
backlog doesn't occur again.
  The current backlog of $54 million grows year by year, with sites in 
Illinois, Colorado, Wyoming, Washington, South Dakota, and New Mexico.
  The way this works out in my constituency is that, in the community 
of West Chicago, Illinois, it had an adverse situation years and years 
ago with thorium that was spread throughout the community. They have 
done a tremendous job in the cleanup, but the cleanup needs to 
continue.
  I commend the chairman for his commitment, and I look forward to 
being part of this solution for the full remediation of this issue in 
West Chicago, Illinois, and in other places around the country.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations bill, which makes important investments in 
our communities, our energy jobs, and our Nation's energy future.
  This bill prioritizes using abundant coal reserves to produce clean, 
efficient energy. I am very pleased that the bill makes a strong 
investment in fossil energy research and development, including work on 
clean coal technologies. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing 
amendments that would strip this funding.
  West Virginia is a leader in this technology, with the National 
Energy Technology Lab in Morgantown conducting much of this important 
research.
  This administration has continued to attack coal and the people who 
rely on coal for energy and employment. This bill not only rejects the 
administration's 15 percent cut to fossil energy research, but sends a 
clear message: coal is, will be, and must be an important part of a 
national all-of-the-above strategy, and we will continue to invest in 
developing ways to make it more efficient and cleaner.
  The Energy and Water Appropriations bill also rejects the Army Corps 
of Engineers' and the EPA's proposed rule to expand Federal 
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Finally, this bill maintains 
funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission, underscoring its 
importance to local communities.
  My State of West Virginia is the only State that is entirely within 
the boundaries of the ARC, and the people of West Virginia have truly 
benefited from the ARC's proven record of spurring economic development 
and of improving access to health care and education in lower-income 
communities.
  I want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Hal 
Rogers, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mike Simpson, for 
bringing this piece of legislation to the floor, which makes the right 
choices and sets the right priorities for our country's energy future.
  With that, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would inform the gentlewoman that we 
have no more speakers, and if the gentlewoman is ready to close, I will 
close.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I am prepared to close, Mr. Chairman, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, an energy-hungry world will continue to push up global 
energy prices and availability. America must not get caught in this 
ensuing juggernaut. Our liberty and economic security truly are at 
stake. The world is changing and so America must adapt, and adapt 
sooner rather than later.
  Over a quarter century ago, President Jimmy Carter was not wrong when 
he equated the struggle for energy independence as the moral equivalent 
of war. America, since, has been engaged in plenty of fighting abroad 
in oil-rich, unstable regions of our world. Instead, we must refocus 
and draw forth the powers of our own land, performing something worthy 
to be remembered, as Daniel Webster reminds us every day. Energy 
security is such a calling.
  Certainly, this bill leaves unmet opportunities on the table--too 
much, in my view--but its direction is clear. It aims at liberty. It 
looks forward to meeting that objective by moving this bill forward.
  I want to thank Chairman Simpson, Rob Blair, Taunja Berquam, and our 
entire staff for their willingness to work together, for preparing a 
bill that is inclusive and pragmatic. I appreciate Chairman Simpson's 
gentlemanly reach out to our side of the aisle.
  I also want to thank all the staff who helped. Their countless long 
hours, late nights during holidays and so forth, and their thoughtful 
insights have been critical to helping us prepare this legislation that 
is aimed at restoring liberty, creating jobs in America, reassuming 
economic power here at home, strengthening our energy portfolio and 
water security for future generations, and, fundamentally, our national 
security.
  I ask our colleagues as we move through the amendment process to help 
us move this bill forward in America's interest.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her work on 
this bill. She has been a valuable partner in crafting a bill.
  In trying to address the needs of all Members on both sides of the 
aisle, obviously you can never address all of them, but I think both 
the Republican and Democratic members of the committee and of the House 
ought to be proud of the bill that is before them and our efforts to 
try to address their desires and their needs.
  With that, I would encourage all Members to support this legislation. 
I look forward to the debate on the amendments that are going to be 
coming up.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, I often say, there are some in this Chamber 
who seem to know the cost of everything yet the value of nothing. 
Without question there are savings to be found in the federal 
government, but sometimes to realize those savings we have to invest a 
little money.
  Let's take the federal government's energy consumption as a case in 
point.
  Since coming into office in 2009, the Obama administration has made 
it a priority to make the federal government a leader in reducing 
energy consumption and increasing energy efficiency. The administration 
recognizes that as the nation's largest energy consumer, the federal 
government has a tremendous opportunity and a clear responsibility to 
lead by example in energy efficiency.
  The federal government operates more than 500,000 buildings and other 
structures comprising more than 3 billion square feet, and it operates 
a fleet of more than 600,000 civilian and non-tactical military 
vehicles. The total cost of energy consumption to the Federal 
government was nearly $25 billion in FY2012.
  I am pleased the President has made energy efficiency in federal 
buildings a priority of his Climate Action Plan. The President's recent 
commitment of another $2 billion in energy efficiency in federal 
buildings is a critical step in reducing both energy costs and carbon 
emissions.
  As a result of these actions we have reduced energy use per square 
foot in federal buildings by more than 9 percent since FY2008, curbing 
pollution and reducing utility bills. The federal government also 
purchased more than 7% of its electricity from renewable sources such 
as solar and wind in 2013, exceeding statutory requirements and 
promoting homegrown energy industries. And we have reduced greenhouse 
gas emissions by more than 15 percent from 2008 levels--the equivalent 
of permanently taking 1.5 million cars off the road.
  However, I fear cutting the Department of Energy's Federal Energy 
Management Program by almost 30% will jeopardize this progress.
  FEMP is a critical component in enabling federal agencies to meet 
their energy-related and sustainability goals. FEMP helps other 
agencies to accomplish energy, water, and greenhouse gas improvements 
within their organizations by providing expertise in federal

[[Page H5983]]

energy project and policy implementation and coordination to enhance 
national efforts in energy management.
  In addition, FEMP activities reduce the energy intensity at federal 
facilities, lowering their energy bills and providing environmental 
benefits through increased use of performance contracting which 
includes energy saving performance contracts, utility energy service 
contracts, and power purchase agreements. From 2009 to 2011, FEMP 
negotiated performance contracts that saved taxpayers more than $3.5 
billion in federal energy costs.
  Through these and other efforts, FEMP strives to reduce the federal 
government's energy footprint by 30% by the end of 2015 compared to 
2003 levels, reduce water consumption intensity by 16% by the end of 
2015 relative to 2007 baseline, and increase renewable electricity 
energy equivalent to at least 5% of total federal facility electricity 
use.
  FEMP plays other important roles both in interagency coordination to 
align federal government efforts related to federal energy management 
planning and legislation compliance, and in training federal agency 
managers about the latest energy requirements, best practices, and 
technologies available.
  The savings FEMP has helped agencies achieve over the past 15 years 
is roughly equal to one year's worth of federal energy consumption, and 
it has produced more than a 2.5-to-1 return on investment. Mr. Speaker, 
we all want to find savings in the government, but let's not be blinded 
by short-term spending cuts that jeopardize this program that has 
proved it can save taxpayer dollars in the long run.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chair, let me thank the Chair and our 
Ranking Member Lowey and of the subcommittee, Congresswoman Kaptur for 
their very hard work on this bill.
  This appropriations bill is intended to provide the Department of 
Energy, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Interior, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and other offices with the funds they 
need to safeguard our natural resources.
  Unfortunately, instead of adequately funding these critical agencies, 
this bill has been turned into a vehicle for Republican efforts to cut 
protections that keep our drinking water safe, protect our rivers and 
oceans from toxic dumping, and to protect critical wildlife.
  The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are proven public health tool 
to reduce dangerous pollution known to make people sick and cut short 
lives.
  That is why I am opposed to the Republican policy riders included in 
this bill that are designed to block or weaken clean air protections, 
specifically the EPA's proposed limits on carbon pollution from 
existing power plants.
  This bill also cuts Federal investment in innovative clean energy 
research and development (R&D) at a time of significant global 
competition and progress.
  Mr. Chair, as a member of the Budget and Appropriations Committee, I 
know spending bills are difficult enough to pass without weighing them 
down with toxic policy riders.
  We need to continue this Appropriations process in good faith, and I 
am disappointed that the bill in front of us today does not reflect 
that.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment each amendment shall 
be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment. No pro 
forma amendment shall be in order except that the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for 
the purpose of debate. The chair of the Committee of the Whole may 
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
Congressional Record designated for that purpose. Amendments so printed 
shall be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4923

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for energy and water 
     development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, namely:

                   TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

       The following appropriations shall be expended under the 
     direction of the Secretary of the Army and the supervision of 
     the Chief of Engineers for authorized civil functions of the 
     Department of the Army pertaining to river and harbor, flood 
     and storm damage reduction, shore protection, aquatic 
     ecosystem restoration, and related efforts.

                             investigations

       For expenses necessary where authorized by law for the 
     collection and study of basic information pertaining to river 
     and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore 
     protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related needs; 
     for surveys and detailed studies, and plans and 
     specifications of proposed river and harbor, flood and storm 
     damage reduction, shore protection, and aquatic ecosystem 
     restoration, projects and related efforts prior to 
     construction; for restudy of authorized projects; and for 
     miscellaneous investigations, and, when authorized by law, 
     surveys and detailed studies, and plans and specifications of 
     projects prior to construction, $115,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                              construction

       For expenses necessary for the construction of river and 
     harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, 
     aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects 
     authorized by law; for conducting detailed studies, and plans 
     and specifications, of such projects (including those 
     involving participation by States, local governments, or 
     private groups) authorized or made eligible for selection by 
     law (but such detailed studies, and plans and specifications, 
     shall not constitute a commitment of the Government to 
     construction); $1,704,499,000, to remain available until 
     expended; of which such sums as are necessary to cover the 
     Federal share of construction costs for facilities under the 
     Dredged Material Disposal Facilities program shall be derived 
     from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as authorized by 
     Public Law 104-303; and of which such sums as are necessary 
     to cover one-half of the costs of construction, replacement, 
     rehabilitation, and expansion of inland waterways projects 
     shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, except 
     as otherwise specifically provided for in law.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Walorski

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

       Page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentlewoman 
from Indiana and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Indiana.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide a $500,000 
increase for the Army Corps of Engineers Continuing Authorities 
Program, or CAP, and would pay for the increase with a small $500,000 
cut from the Department of Energy's departmental administration 
account. For small communities struggling to pay for $25,000 projects, 
this minor amendment can be a major help around the country.
  The CAP program allows for funding of small local projects without 
the lengthy study and authorization process typical of most larger 
Corps projects. The program funds projects dealing with issues like 
stream bank erosion, navigation improvements, and flood control, and it 
is incredibly important to local communities that cannot afford to fund 
these studies and projects on their own.
  Two specific sections of the program are vitally important to my 
district: section 205, which deals with flood control, and section 14, 
which deals with stream bank erosion.
  The city of Peru, Indiana, lives within an area designated as a 
floodplain because of a ditch that runs through it, but the ditch 
hasn't flooded in the entire time the city has been keeping records, 
which is more than 80 years. This floodplain designation has made 
insurance premiums so expensive, business developers are reluctant to 
locate to the area and residents are struggling to pay their premiums.
  Corps engineers have been to the site, and they don't think the 
floodplain is correct either. The ditch hasn't flooded. So CAP funds 
are desperately needed in places like Peru, Indiana, so the Corps can 
conduct a study to determine whether the ditch really is ever likely to 
flood and, if so, what type of project could be done to prevent 
flooding and bring down flood insurance premiums.
  In a place called Rochester, Indiana, the Tippecanoe River runs along 
a stretch of East County Road 350 North. The river is eroding soil from 
underneath the road, and over the last decade, the road has lost 
several feet of its

[[Page H5984]]

embankment. The situation has become so dangerous authorities have 
closed the road until it can be fixed. An examination is needed to 
determine how to stop this stream bank erosion, and then a project must 
be able to be done to fix it. County officials can't afford to conduct 
the study or repairs on their own.
  The Army Corps of Engineers said they can conduct the examination and 
repairs, but CAP funds are needed. However, the Continuing Authorities 
Program is so popular with local communities like Peru and Rochester, 
the Corps of Engineers routinely receives many more projects than it 
can fund, and CAP funds for the year run out quickly.
  Chairman Simpson and his staff have worked hard to address this 
problem and put together a great bill. President Obama's budget request 
only provided $10 million for CAP and only funded four of the CAP 
sections, but Chairman Simpson rejected that devastating cut and has 
allocated $56.8 million for eight CAP sections. My amendment would 
provide a small funding bump for CAP that would enable the Army Corps 
of Engineers to help dozens of communities making very small funding 
requests.
  Some people will say that the Department of Energy can't afford 
another cut to its administrative funding, but that is simply not true. 
This year's bill provides $255 million for the Department of Energy's 
departmental administration budget. This is $20.5 million more than 
last year. My amendment would only cut $500,000 from this amount. That 
is a 0.19 percent cut. Given the enormous importance of local 
infrastructure, I believe this is one very small cut that Congress 
should make.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, although I am 
not opposed to amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment and thank the 
good lady for offering it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and 
the ranking member. I appreciate the work that has gone into this bill, 
and I appreciate your willingness to accept my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Murphy of Florida

  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer the 
Murphy-Cleaver amendment to the underlying Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill to support the Army Corps' construction account by 
an additional $1 million.
  Supporting the Corps' ongoing construction efforts is crucial to the 
well-being of regions like the Treasure Coast and Palm Beach 
communities in Florida that I am so proud to represent. The restoration 
projects in our area are vital to restoring the natural flow of water 
south of Lake Okeechobee, reducing the harm that is currently caused by 
discharges from the lake into our St. Lucie River and Indian River 
Lagoon. All these projects work together to improve the water quality 
throughout the system, with our local waterways being no exception.
  The urgency to move these ongoing projects forward could not be more 
clear. The record rainfall in our area resulted in last year being 
dubbed the ``lost summer,'' with major die-offs of important species in 
this unique ecosystem as well as health warnings that kept the public 
out of the water and harmed our local economy that relies so heavily on 
our waterways.
  While $1 million might not seem like a lot, this money could be used 
to help projects that are near completion cross the finish line. For 
example, the Kissimmee River Project just north of my district is 86 
percent near completion, and this funding could be used to fund one of 
the final steps needed to complete this project. Once completed, this 
project will restore up to 20,000 acres of wetland, storing more water 
north of the lake, lessening the amount of harmful discharges that must 
be released to the east and west into our local estuaries, and cleaning 
the water before it flows into the already inundated waterways.
  For Florida's 18th District, $1 million can make a real difference in 
the fight to protect our waterways.
  Mr. Chair, I now yield as much time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), my good friend. Mr. Cleaver is a 
great champion of infrastructure projects such as these that invest in 
our future and come back to our economy in multiples.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, first, Mr. Murphy, and to the chair, ranking 
member, and the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment would transfer a modest amount, as Mr. 
Murphy stated, $1 million, from the Corps' expense account to the 
construction account. The boost in funding can help flood control 
projects that communities, including several in my district, are 
pushing in hopes that they can be completed.
  The United States has, as I believe we all know, an aging water 
infrastructure system and a colossal $80 billion backlog of Army Corps 
projects. Over 1,000 authorized projects vigorously compete for 
funding. This is understandable when you consider the fact that 
America's levees, dams, and inland waterways were given a grade of D by 
the American Society of Civil Engineers in their 2013 report card. How 
can we expect our economy to flourish when its bedrock is 
deteriorating?
  Water infrastructure funding is vital to my district. It sits on the 
confluence of several rivers, and flood control projects protect 
thousands of lives and billions in economic investment.
  One such project, Swope Park Industrial Area, lies within a 100-year 
floodplain. When it floods, access to and from the park is cut off, 
risking the lives of over 400 workers. Without a 7,000-foot floodwall 
and levee, those 400 workers and over $61 million in manufacturing 
remain unprotected.

                              {time}  1430

  Another project in my district, Dodson Industrial Park, is ready to 
start its final phase. But until that final segment is completed and 
connected, the rest of the project, the investment $250 million within 
the park, remain at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, most Army Corps projects contain agreements between the 
Federal Government and local communities to share the funding and 
responsibilities for their construction. It is time for the Federal 
Government to hold up its end of the agreement, for us to step up to 
the plate, and fully invest in our water infrastructure.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy) for his 
collaboration on this amendment.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) for his support of this commonsense 
amendment and urge my colleagues to support this proposal that, as you 
have heard, has the potential to make a major difference in the well-
being of communities from Florida to Missouri.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. We will accept the amendment.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. I want to thank the ranking member and the 
chairman for their support of this amendment and for all of their hard 
work.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H5985]]

  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I wanted to thank the gentleman from the Lake Okeechobee 
region of Florida (Mr. Murphy) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Cleaver) for the very effective manner in which they have handled 
themselves in bringing this to our attention. And I want to thank the 
chair for accepting this important amendment, which is so important to 
Florida.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Again, I thank the chair and ranking member 
for their hard work, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. McClintock) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________