[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 106 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5985-H6009]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2015
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cassidy
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). 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 $5,000,000)''.
Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman
from Louisiana and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about setting
priorities. The Army Corps of Engineers construction account has a
serious backlog of over $60 billion. According to a recent CRS report,
there is a backlog of more than 1,000 authorized studies and
construction projects.
The President's budget inadequately addresses this backlog, only
allocating $1.1 billion for these important infrastructure projects, a
32 percent reduction over fiscal year 2014-enacted levels.
Now, I applaud the committee for providing $48 million more for Corps
construction over the 2014-enacted levels, but more needs to be done.
This is especially prevalent with the recent passage of the bipartisan
water resources conference report, which contained authorizations for
existing projects, such as the Louisiana Coastal Area, and new
projects, such as Morganza to the Gulf.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment transfers $5 million out of the Department
of Energy's administrative account and moves that money into the Corps
of Engineers construction budget. The goal is to move more projects
forward, to reduce the backlog, and to open up the door for projects
across the country vital to our Nation's waterways, our economy, and
our ability to export.
Louisiana, for example, contains 3 million acres of coastal wetlands.
Louisiana's coast is home to over 2 million people, supporting vital
ecosystems, national energy security, thousands of jobs, and a unique
culture.
As you may know, our coastal wetlands are rapidly disappearing. The
U.S. Geological Survey estimates that if present land-loss trends
continue, Louisiana will lose 2,400 square miles of land between 1932
and 2050. That is an area about 25 times that of Washington, D.C.
Morganza to the Gulf, which is one of five new projects authorized in
WRRDA's hurricane and storm damage risk reduction subsection, is of
immense importance to Louisiana's coastal restoration and protection
efforts. The project's purpose is to protect the remaining fragile
marsh and wetlands from hurricane storm surge. This is one of many
projects around the country that needs funding and is vital to our
Nation's infrastructure.
Taxpayers wish to see this backlog cleared out and other projects
important to our Nation's economy moved forward. That is what this
amendment intends to help achieve.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the
amendment.
I appreciate the gentleman's passion for coastal restoration. I know
it is a high priority for his district, his State, and, in fact, for
the country.
The committee often hears complaints that projects take too long and
cost too much to build, in large part attributed to inefficient
funding. If that is true, then the only responsible way to allow for
new starts is to finish understanding the impacts of the selected new
starts on the Corps' future budget requirements and on the expected
costs and timelines of ongoing projects. Unfortunately, we do not have
that information, and the administration has shown no willingness to
provide it.
The fiscal year 2014 act allowed for a limited number of new
construction starts, with the requirement that the administration
provide information to show that these projects would be affordable at
reasonable construction account levels and that these new projects
would not unduly delay or increase the cost of ongoing projects.
To say that the so-called analysis from the administration was
inadequate would be an understatement. And no information at all was
provided for the new start proposed in the fiscal year 2015 budget
request.
Additionally, the administration continues to propose budgets with
significant cuts to the construction account, including a 32 percent
cut for fiscal year 2015. In fact, several individual projects
authorized in the recent WRRDA are each estimated to cost more than
what the administration requested for the entire nationwide
construction program. Clearly, as promising as some new projects may
be, it would be fiscally irresponsible to initiate new projects with no
information on the impact of doing so.
I understand that some Members with authorized projects in their
districts are anxious to get construction underway. I also understand,
however, that many Members with projects already under construction in
their districts want to see those projects completed and to start
realizing the benefits of these Federal, State, and local investments.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CASSIDY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ben Ray Lujan of New Mexico
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. 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 $15,000,000)''.
Page 7, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $15,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman
from New Mexico and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise to amend the
Energy and Water Appropriations bill to increase the construction
account by $15 million to ensure local governments like the city of Rio
Rancho, the county of Bernalillo, and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District get reimbursed for work they have done in conjunction with the
Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers works with local
governments in New Mexico to construct levies, implement flood control
measures, and other important infrastructure for the safety of the
public.
More specifically, the city of Rio Rancho entered into a
reimbursement contract with the Army Corps of Engineers and has not
been paid back for several years due to the lack of appropriations. The
same goes for the county of Bernalillo, the Middle Rio Grande
[[Page H5986]]
Conservancy District, and other communities across the United States.
This delay in reimbursement has led to interruptions in financing for
other city projects and also has the potential to hurt the credit
rating of these entities if they do not recover these funds via
reimbursement, as stated in their contracts with the Federal
Government.
By increasing the dollar amount in this account, which includes a
number of programs and accounts that are critical to local
governments--like engineering, construction, technical assistance,
flood control, and environmental infrastructure--we can get these
entities reimbursed and get these liabilities off the books of the Army
Corps of Engineers to get other projects going.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this increase has zero
impact on the budget and, in fact, would save money by reducing
liability for the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, local governments have been left holding an IOU from
the Federal Government for doing work based on the good faith written
agreements with the Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Chairman, I understand there may be opposition from some of my
colleagues, but I am hoping that I can persuade the chairman to support
me in this effort.
Under section 593 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, the
city of Rio Rancho and other local governments entered into agreements
with the Army Corps of Engineers. When city and local governments enter
into reimbursement contracts, they expect to be reimbursed. They have
annual budgets with the expectations they will get paid back. Congress
should live up to these obligations in the authority given to the
agency by Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the constraints that the subcommittee
dealt with, with the allocations given to them. But we need to make
sure that we are working to make these local governments whole with the
agreements and contracts they have with the Federal Government.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
First, though, let me assure my colleague that I am sympathetic to
the need for increased construction funding. In fact, the underlying
bill increases construction funding by almost $50 million above fiscal
year 2014 and by almost $600 million, or 52 percent above the budget
request.
While I understand there is always more that can be done, we could
shift the entire expenses account to construction, and there still
would be more that needs to be done.
Although it may seem like an easy offset here on the floor, Members
should recognize that a $50 million cut to the expenses account cannot
be sustained in conference. Funding for the expenses account in the
underlying bill already reflects a 2 percent reduction from fiscal year
2014 and a 4 percent reduction from fiscal year 2012.
For those reasons, I must oppose the amendment, and I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose a
question either to the chairman or the ranking member:
With local governments like this entering into agreements with the
Army Corps of Engineers and doing work like this, is there something
that could be done associated with trying to get an assessment of
those, and maybe we can chip away at those reimbursements in a timely
manner? Is that something that we might be able to work on?
Mr. Chairman, I would yield to anyone who might be able to respond to
that.
Mr. Chairman, my question is:
With local governments, like the ones in New Mexico and other parts
of the United States, that have entered into agreements with the Army
Corps of Engineers or others for reimbursement in a timely manner, is
there a way that we might be able to chip away or work at this? I would
be willing to withdraw the amendment if I could get an assurance that
this is something that we can look at and work at.
I have offered this amendment in years past. And, again, there are
local governments across the United States that are waiting for
reimbursement, and I think it is something that would be good for us to
take a look at.
I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. I certainly understand the gentleman's concern, and I
agree with him. It all comes down to funding levels.
But I would be more than willing to work with the gentleman to try to
see if we could address his concern, which is a concern for all of us,
as we move forward into the conference process.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, would that be
agreeable or amenable to the ranking member?
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. I yield to the gentlewoman from
Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. The chairman and I work very closely on matters like
this. It is difficult because of the fact that we have no new starts.
We have a backlog that is enormous. And the Corps is under pressure.
But we will be very happy to work with the gentleman and to try to
resolve situations that you may face in your region.
Mr. BEN RAY LUJAN of New Mexico. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the staff for their time and their
effort and the courtesy of the chairman and the ranking member.
I will not offer this amendment today and we will see if we might be
able to work together, Mr. Chairman, and if not, we will come back next
year and we will see what we can do. Maybe we will need to take a vote.
But I appreciate everyone's courtesy today.
Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cicilline
Mr. CICILLINE. 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 17, before the semicolon, insert ``; of which
$44,000,000 shall be for environmental infrastructure
projects for financially distressed municipalities''.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman from Rhode Island and
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the chairman and
the ranking member for the hard work that they have done on this piece
of legislation.
My amendment is a simple one. As we all recognize, the Army Corps of
Engineers provides invaluable assistance to financially strapped
communities through its general construction fund, specifically for
wastewater and water improvements and, in past years, has allocated
specifically funds for this purpose. However, this year's report does
not include any money for this account.
So the amendment I offer would direct that $44 million, which is 3
percent of the total allocation for construction projects in the Army
Corps of Engineers, be set aside to support environmental
infrastructure programs specifically for financially distressed
communities around the country.
{time} 1445
As we know, Mr. Chairman, there are approximately $298 billion of
unmet needs for wastewater and stormwater treatment that are projected
over the next 20 years. Of that, about 15 to 20 percent represents
water treatment, and that percentage is expected to grow over time
because of increases in Federal regulations.
In older cities, a single system, in fact, combines both stormwater
and sewage; and rain, obviously, and snow can overwhelm those systems
and present tremendous challenges.
Seventy-two percent of the United States population is served by
sewage treatment plants, and 3.8 million Americans are served by
facilities providing less than secondary treatment, which is the basic
requirement of law.
[[Page H5987]]
This is a huge unmet need, and for municipalities--particularly
financially distressed municipalities--investing in water treatment
facilities can be a tremendous burden that they can't meet alone.
In fact, since 2007, the Federal Government has required cities to
invest more than $15 billion in new pipes, plants, and equipment to
address sewer and wastewater treatment.
So we are imposing--and rightly so, I am not criticizing that--but we
are imposing these standards, and the costs of those are being borne by
municipalities.
What this amendment attempts to do is to ensure that at least some
portion of that account is set aside for wastewater treatment projects
and particularly targets facilities that have financial challenges--
financially distressed communities.
I have spoken with the ranking member, and I recognize the chairman
has reserved a point of order. I would ask if my ranking member would
continue to make the case that these wastewater treatment facilities
require some additional investment, and if that is the case, I look
forward to working with the chairman and my ranking member, so that we
can be sure that this investment is preserved, as it has been in past
years, so that communities that really need assistance with their
wastewater treatment facilities will have some access to these
resources, and if so, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CICILLINE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. There is no objection from our side. We look forward to
working with the gentleman.
In your region of the country, the Midwest, the Great Lakes, and the
Northeast, in particular, those needs are huge.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Rhode Island?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
mississippi river and tributaries
For expenses necessary for flood damage reduction projects
and related efforts in the Mississippi River alluvial valley
below Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as authorized by law,
$260,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such sums as are necessary to cover the Federal share of
eligible operation and maintenance costs for inland harbors
shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Amendment Offered by Mr. McAllister
Mr. McALLISTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 4, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $47,000,000)''.
Page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $127,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman
from Louisiana and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. McALLISTER. Mr. Chairman, first, let me just say to Chairman
Simpson that I appreciate all the hard work you all have done on this
whole committee bill and appropriation process.
I know it is not an easy task, and there is a lot of juggling to
offset prices on everything, but my amendment will increase the MR&T,
the Mississippi River and Tributaries project, by $47 million, to bring
it back to FY14 levels. The FY14 enacted $307 million, and FY15
committee was $260 million.
The offset for this is reducing the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy by $127 million. This number is necessary to make it
outlay neutral. This is less than 7 percent of the proposed spending by
the committee. Budget authority will be reduced by $80 million.
The Mississippi River and tributaries are the main arteries of
commerce for the Nation--as we see in the reports today, that we have
flooding going on in the Mississippi River, starting from the north up
above St. Louis, coming down.
This MR&T project is the largest flood control project in the world,
providing protection for the 36,000-square mile lower Mississippi
valley acreage.
The navigation features of the MR&T project seek to facilitate
navigation and promote commerce on the Nation's most vital commercial
artery. Waterborne commerce on the Mississippi River increased from 30
million tons in 1940 to nearly 500 million tons today.
Since the initiation of the MR&T project in 1928, the Nation has
received a $24 return for every dollar invested. The remaining work to
be completed will have an estimated 37 to 1 return on investment.
With the Panama Canal expansion project underway, we must continue to
invest in this vital resource, not reduce funding. These waterways are
too important to our Nation.
I just want to say how important the Mississippi River is to the
Nation as a whole, not just to my district and those of us that border
the Mississippi River and their tributaries all up and down the central
United States.
It is very vital to the agriculture industry, to the commerce
industry, to everything, and the flood control. It just has a
tremendous impact that we all need to be aware of. I know that this
$127 million looks like a lot in the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, but we try to find different places that we can take
it.
This is one that we found the less neutral, only reducing it 7
percent of its total budget. It was the largest that we found that we
could take it from.
Again, I just want to commend the committee on the hard work they
have done, and I know it is not an easy challenge at all for them to
reduce and have to answer to certain parties for what was reduced and
not reduced.
We have worked on this bipartisan--got a lot of bipartisan support on
it throughout yesterday and today, and I appreciate your consideration
and support on trying to make sure that we do everything we can to take
care of the MR&T.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. Let me
assure my colleague, though, that I agree with him about the importance
of making investments in navigation and flood control infrastructure.
In fact, a lot of the problem was trying to find an offset for $47
million, and as the gentleman knows, it is very difficult because there
are things in this bill that are very important to at least someone
within this body.
Because of the importance of navigation and flood control, that is
why the underlying bill increases funding for MR&T by 6 percent above
the President's budget request and focuses funding, such that
navigation is increased by 21 percent and flood control by 15 percent
above the budget request.
While I understand that there is almost always more that can be done,
we must balance several competing activities within the Energy and
Water bill. The amendment would reduce the EERE account, which is
already cut by $113 million below last year's level and $528 million
below the President's budget request.
So while we did increase funding for the MR&T account above the
President's request, the EERE account is already $528 million below the
budget's request by the administration. Within the EERE account, the
funding the bill preserves is just as important as the funding it cuts.
The bill focuses funding for three main priorities: helping American
manufacturers remain competitive, supporting weatherization assistance
programs, and addressing future high gas prices.
This funding supports breakthrough research to reduce what Americans
pay at the gas pump and to help our companies compete in the global
market, which creates jobs here at home.
For these reasons, while I sympathize with what the gentleman is
trying to do with the amendment and tried to help on crafting an
amendment that we can find $47 million for, I must oppose the amendment
and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McALLISTER. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McAllister).
[[Page H5988]]
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SIMPSON. 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 Louisiana
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Crawford
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 4, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $18,800,000) (increased by $9,500,000) (increased by
$9,300,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman
from Arkansas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the chairman and
the committee for their hard work putting this bill together. I know it
has taken a lot of time and effort to get here, and I appreciate that.
My amendment addresses a very real threat to the lives and
livelihoods of Arkansans and Americans across the country and the
citizens and businesses in areas of the depletion of aquifers and lack
of water for agriculture during times of drought.
The Bayou Meto and Grand Prairie projects in my district, which are
well on the way to completion, will provide an economical and
environmentally sensible alternative for protecting aquifers from
catastrophic depletion and provide both a renewable agriculture water
supply, as well as a valuable role in water quality and quantity
control efforts for one of our Nation's most critical waterways, the
Mississippi River.
In most of the Mississippi Delta, aquifers provide significant
portions of water used for ag irrigation. With the increasing water
demands of agriculture, businesses, and municipalities, aquifers across
the country, especially the alluvial and Sparta-Memphis aquifers which
supply much of the Mississippi Delta, face the increasing threat of
depletion.
This takes the immediate form of drastically lowering well yields and
the requirement to drill more often and deeper to access sufficient
quantities of water.
Bayou Meto and Grand Prairie were designed to address the threat of
aquifer depletion, both to ease demands on aquifers and to ensure a
steady and renewable water supply for agriculture in Arkansas'
Mississippi Delta region.
First authorized in 1996, these projects are a framework of canals,
pumps, and pipes that pull excess water from the delta's rivers in
times of abundance and store it for future use.
During periods of drought, farmers are able to take from those canals
and reservoirs, instead of further depleting the aquifers or taking
from the rivers and streams that feed the Mississippi, helping ensure a
continued and reliable water supply, both for agriculture and
municipalities.
In addition to the ag benefits, Bayou Meto and Grand Prairie will
work to ease demands on the water table, help mitigate the flood damage
done to homes and businesses, ensure a safe and steady food and water
supply for American citizens, and provide a habitat for various
amphibians and waterfowl across the South.
Most importantly, Bayou Meto and Grand Prairie will support jobs for
a region of our country persistently above the national unemployment
rate.
Without these two important projects, Mississippi Delta farmers will
be forced to continue depleting aquifers, the same aquifers
municipalities and businesses depend on, risking losing their
livelihood.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. I rise in opposition, although I am hopeful that my
colleague will withdraw the amendment.
First, let me assure the gentleman that I am sympathetic to the
issues that he has highlighted in his statement.
Adequate water supply, whether it is for agricultural irrigation or
municipal or industrial use, is a basic necessity for economic
prosperity. In the committee's view, however, navigation and flood
control are top priorities for the Corps of Engineers, and the bill
before us prioritizes funding accordingly.
My colleague from Arkansas has proven to be a strong advocate for his
constituents and for the projects that seek to further develop the
agricultural irrigation infrastructure important to his constituents.
If the gentleman will agree to withdraw the amendment, I will agree
to work with him, moving forward, to try to address these needs, if
additional funding beyond that necessary for navigation and flood
control becomes available.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I thank the chairman for his commitment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
operation and maintenance
For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and
care of existing river and harbor, flood and storm damage
reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related
projects authorized by law; providing security for
infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, including
administrative buildings and laboratories; maintaining harbor
channels provided by a State, municipality, or other public
agency that serve essential navigation needs of general
commerce, where authorized by law; surveying and charting
northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters;
clearing and straightening channels; and removing
obstructions to navigation, $2,905,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which such sums as are necessary
to cover the Federal share of eligible operation and
maintenance costs for coastal harbors and channels, and for
inland harbors shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund; of which such sums as become available from the
special account for the Corps of Engineers established by the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 shall be derived
from that account for resource protection, research,
interpretation, and maintenance activities related to
resource protection in the areas at which outdoor recreation
is available; and of which such sums as become available from
fees collected under section 217 of Public Law 104-303 shall
be used to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of the
dredged material disposal facilities for which such fees have
been collected: Provided, That 1 percent of the total amount
of funds provided for each of the programs, projects, or
activities funded under this heading shall not be allocated
to a field operating activity prior to the beginning of the
fourth quarter of the fiscal year and shall be available for
use by the Chief of Engineers to fund such emergency
activities as the Chief of Engineers determines to be
necessary and appropriate, and that the Chief of Engineers
shall allocate during the fourth quarter any remaining funds
which have not been used for emergency activities
proportionally in accordance with the amounts provided for
the programs, projects, or activities.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Hahn
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 4, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $57,600,000)''.
Page 20, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $73,309,100.00)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentlewoman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself however much time I may
consume.
I rise to offer the Hahn-Huizenga amendment to the Energy and Water
Appropriations bill to utilize the harbor maintenance trust fund as the
target set forth in the recently passed Water Resources Reform and
Development Act.
As a representative of the Nation's busiest port complex and the
cofounder, along with you, Mr. Chairman, of the Ports Caucus, I have
fought hard, from my first day here in Congress, to increase the
funding for our Nation's ports and to fully utilize the harbor
maintenance trust fund to ensure that the money that we collect at
[[Page H5989]]
our ports goes back to our ports. Around here, they are starting to
call me ``Miss Harbor Maintenance Tax.''
After working for months with my colleagues, we reached a plan to
finally put the harbor maintenance trust fund to work and fully utilize
this trust fund by 2025.
I appreciate the chairman and the ranking member and the hard work
that you put on the bill before us today, but I have one little problem
with it. The bill on the floor today fails to follow the law that we
just passed 7 weeks ago in such a bipartisan fashion, and we are
falling behind by over $57 million towards utilizing that harbor
maintenance fund.
That is money that our ports have paid for and they need. I
understand the difficult task the Appropriations Committee has in front
of it, but for our ports to remain competitive, they need this funding.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment, but let me
assure my colleagues that I agree with her about the importance of
sufficient maintenance of our Nation's water resources infrastructure,
including our waterways. It seems like the amendments that Members are
offering, I agree with them; however, there are challenges that they
face.
I also agree that since the harbor maintenance tax is collected for a
specific purpose and since the need for dredging is apparent, we should
be using these funds for their intended purpose to the greatest extent
possible rather than allowing a balance to accumulate in the trust
fund. That is an issue we have been dealing with for the last several
years, trying to figure out how we can do that without harming all of
the other programs within the budget. Unfortunately, that is what they
do. Until we change our budget rules or something, and I don't have the
answer to it yet, but we have been trying to work with the Budget
Committee and with the Appropriations Committee to try to make sure
that those taxes collected for the harbor maintenance trust fund are
used for what they are intended to do. And if the account is just
growing, then we shouldn't be collecting the tax.
Ms. HAHN. That sounds like support for my amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. I know that is what it sounds like. In fact, the bill
continues to increase funding for harbor maintenance trust fund
activities above the previous year and above the budget request, as the
committee has repeatedly done over the past few years. The bill
includes more than $1.1 billion for these activities, which equates to
more than a 20 percent increase over the amount requested by the
administration for fiscal year 2015. While I understand that there is
almost always more work that can be done, we must balance several
competing activities within the Energy and Water bill.
The amendment would reduce the nuclear energy account by $12.8
million, which would bring the account below the fiscal year 2014
level. The underlying bill provides a total of $899 million for nuclear
energy programs, only $10 million above last year. That is what seems
strange about this, doing what we all think is the right thing to do
using the harbor maintenance trust fund to do harbor maintenance. By
increasing that, we hurt nuclear energy, which I don't think is the
intent of the gentlelady or the gentleman from Louisiana who want to do
this.
In addition to protecting the Department of Energy's nuclear energy
materials, this funding protects a range of national security programs
at the NNSA, Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal
agencies. Furthermore, I oppose the reduced funding for nuclear energy
research and development, which is a critical part of this bill's
support for a balanced energy portfolio. Nuclear power currently
generates 20 percent of the Nation's electricity, and it will continue
to play a large role in the future.
As I said, I am sympathetic to what the gentlelady is trying to do.
In fact, I was cosponsor at one time of a bill by my friend from
Louisiana that said you have to use the harbor maintenance trust fund
and use it to dredge the harbors. If there is a need out there, we
ought to be using that to do it.
We need to work together to try to solve this problem. And believe
me, it would help us a lot in crafting this bill if somehow we could do
that. Otherwise, we shouldn't be collecting the tax if we have a need
and the account is growing. But it is because of our budget rules and
so forth that it creates this problem. I understand what the gentlelady
is doing. Unfortunately, her amendment would hurt the nuclear account
and other accounts within the bill which has been the problem in the
past.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman for yielding and for your sympathy
toward the intent of the amendment. I commend Congresswoman Hahn and
Congressman Huizenga for elevating the question of our ports.
Waterborne shipping is the most-efficient mode for moving goods in and
out of this country. I think they are performing for this Congress an
extraordinary service by uniting on a bipartisan basis and kind of
ringing the bell and saying, Hey, pay attention to what is happening
here with this harbor maintenance tax and how we help our ports
compete, as we see the Panama Canal come online and shipbuilding
occurring in other countries like South Korea, for example, and China
and Singapore and lots of other places, and saying, Hey, America, wake
up.
I feel some urgency to want to support the direction of their
efforts, but, as with the chairman, it comes to where the offset is. It
is true that, with harbor maintenance tax funds, $185 million has been
moved into the fund as a result of our efforts that the administration
had not requested, so we as a subcommittee are moving in the right
direction, but I am hoping that this might begin a conversation with
our subcommittee and how we work with them on the harbor maintenance
tax in a more effective manner. So I thank the chairman for yielding.
They brought an important issue before us that we need to resolve more
effectively.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. I thank my colleague from California for
working with me on this. I am glad to hear the elevation that this
issue is getting. In fact, on Monday I met with Andrie Shipping out of
Muskegon, Michigan, in my district about this issue, among other issues
regarding Great Lakes shipping.
I can tell you, though, that it seems to me as we passed the WRRDA
bill just a short 7 weeks ago, as you pointed out, I was willing to
compromise on that glide path. What I don't see currently is that glide
path to the direction. We are, as you point out, nearly $58 million
below what was laid out in that WRRDA bill.
The chairman from Idaho has a very difficult job balancing all this,
and he has pointed out that the nuclear energy program is the way that
we are going to offset this. I will point out, though, that it is
appropriated for $899 million this year, a level that is $36 million
above the President's budget request, $10 million above the fiscal year
2014 enacted level, and $243 million above the level proposed by the
House Appropriations Committee for fiscal year 2014. So it doesn't seem
to me we are exactly raiding that when everybody has said that we are
overfunding that portion of the bill, and it seems to me that this is a
great way of impacting our economy to help create jobs and to help
create the momentum to continue to move forward.
So with that, I just want to thank the committee for working towards
a solution. I know that I, too, had signed on to Mr. Boustany's bill
earlier and have been a champion of this, and we are working towards a
true solution on this.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and this critical
maritime activity.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gene Green).
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
[[Page H5990]]
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I stand to speak in favor of
the Hahn amendment. I would like to commend the Appropriations
Committee's efforts to increase the Army Corps of Engineers' budget.
In Texas, we have serious water and infrastructure needs. At the Port
of Houston, which I represent, our need for operation and maintenance
as well as construction money is significant. I greatly appreciate the
committee's efforts to fund our needs by appropriating $31 million, but
this amount does not reflect the amount that is needed. The Port of
Houston is the second-largest port in the country by tonnage. The Port
of Houston ranks number one in foreign tonnage. In 2012, we expanded
operations to include cruise ships.
For maintenance dredging operations alone, the Port of Houston
requires more than $70 million annually. The Port of Houston generates
significant tax revenue both for the State and Federal Government. That
is why I am a strong supporter of the Hahn amendment.
To meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century, the
Port of Houston needs more than $31 million from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund.
The Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) required that
67 percent of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund fees be spent on related
activities.
Unfortunately, this bill short changes the Port of Houston and many
other ports around the country.
I support the Hahn amendment.
The funding shortfall significantly impacts the ability of the Port
of Houston to receive larger ships and it is our job to help them meet
those demands.
I ask that my colleagues support the Hahn amendment.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Benishek).
(Mr. BENISHEK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hahn-
Huizenga amendment which would increase funding for the United States
Army Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance account by $57
million, a funding level that was established in the House-passed WRRDA
bill. This funding is fully offset and is bipartisan in nature.
I am here today to support additional funding because my district--
Michigan's First--urgently needs to address the backlog of projects on
the book, from dredging to basic port maintenance to the Soo Locks,
which are in desperate need of replacement. The backlog impacts jobs
and our local economy in Northern Michigan.
I understand tough decisions must be made during these economic
times, but Michiganders and all Americans depend on the Great Lakes for
transportation of goods and services. I appreciate consideration of
this amendment. I ask for a ``yes'' vote from my colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Huizenga-Hahn Amendment,
which would increase funding for the United States Army Corps of
Engineers Operations and Maintenance account by $57.6 million, a
funding level that was established in the House-passed WRRDA bill. This
funding is fully offset, and is bipartisan in nature.
I am here today to support additional funding for the Army Corps O&M
budget because my district--Michigan's First--is in urgent need of
funding to address the backlog of projects on the books. From dredging
to basic port maintenance, to the Soo Locks the needs in Northern
Michigan are only getting worse. This backlog impacts jobs and our
local economy. While $57 million will certainly not suffice to meet the
backlog on the Great Lakes, nor even begin to address a number of the
other already authorized projects around the country, this represents a
small step forward.
What types of projects are we talking about? In my district, we have
the Soo Locks. The Soo Locks represent the primary point of passage for
goods in the Great Lakes. Products travel on ships from all around the
world through the Soo Locks, which are in desperate need of
replacement. This is truly a national security issue, and the estimated
cost for replacement is approximately $580 million.
The inability to replace the Soo Locks leads has lead to light-
loading and collisions at the entry point, which also increases annual
maintenance costs. This is costly to taxpayers and the shipping
industry, ultimately leading to higher costs for Northern Michiganders
and all Americans who utilize goods that are transported through the
Great Lakes.
The work done by the Army Corps impacts the economy and jobs not only
in Northern Michigan, but around the world. Commodities transported on
the Great Lakes Navigation System represent 10 percent of all U.S.
waterborne domestic traffic. The 60 large and smaller federal
commercial ports on the Great Lakes are linked in trade with each
other, with Canadian ports, and with ports throughout the rest of the
world.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that tough decisions must be made during
these economic times. However, Michiganders and all Americans depend on
the Great Lakes for the transportation of goods and services.
I thank you for your consideration, as this amendment would work to
support projects not only in my district, but across the country.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
Mr. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The
Great Lakes are operating at 80 percent of capacity. It is costing us
$3 billion in annual business, jobs, growth, and income. The Hahn-
Huizenga amendment would restore these funds and move our country
forward economically.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.
When our ports are strong, our country is strong.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the bipartisan
amendment offered by my colleague Ms. Hahn from California and Mr.
Huizenga of Michigan, which would increase the appropriation provided
in the underlying bill for Army Corps operations and maintenance
dredging of harbors by $57.6 million. This amendment would fulfill the
obligations made in the recently-enacted Water Resources Reform and
Development Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-121), an important one of them being
the increase in expenditure of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as a
way to adequately address maintenance needs at our nation's ports and
harbors.
Specifically, I support adoption of this amendment because it would
position the Army Corps to be more responsive to the maintenance needs
at Puerto Rico's six federally-authorized harbors, which are located in
Arecibo, Fajardo, Mayaguez, Ponce, San Juan and Yabucoa. Through these
harbors, Puerto Rico engages in domestic trade with U.S. states and
territories and international trade with foreign countries. In 2012,
the San Juan and Ponce harbors alone accounted for over 13 million tons
in trade of commodities, making them some of the busiest ports in the
United States. Access to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to maintain
these harbors at their federally-authorized depth levels is crucial to
the expanding $103 billion trade industry in Puerto Rico. Maintenance
and development of the harbors is essential to Puerto Rico's waterborne
economy and its ultimate its viability as a commercial maritime
waypoint hub between North and South America.
Additionally, I take this opportunity to note that the underlying
bill includes an appropriation of $800,000 specifically for maintenance
dredging of the harbor in San Juan--which ranked as the 52nd busiest
port in the nation in 2012 in terms of tonnage of total cargo handled.
I also appreciate the Committee's expressed concern in its report
accompanying the bill about the accessibility of navigation maintenance
funds for small, remote and subsistence harbors and waterways across
the United States. I believe the Army Corps should review its criteria
for allocating harbor maintenance funds in order to develop a more
reasonable and equitable allocation for small, remote or subsistence
harbors. The current criteria results in those ports with the heaviest
cargo traffic being allocated funding from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund. The criteria presents a paradoxical situation in that harbors
that are not maintained to their federally-authorized depth become less
available and less attractive over time to the berthing of maritime
vessels. As a consequence, the diminishing number of port calls reduces
cargo volume, which in turn makes the harbor less likely to receive
maintenance funding. If the overall Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
allocation criteria are not realigned to better account for maintenance
needs at smaller harbors, designing a separate budgeting mechanism or
criteria to address these needs would be warranted.
In Puerto Rico, for example, although the San Juan Harbor has been
given regular maintenance attention in recent years and the harbor in
Arecibo recently received maintenance dredging as a result of sediment
buildup associated with a hurricane, the island's four other federally-
authorized harbors have received minimal to no HMTF funds for much-
needed maintenance dredging. Potential improvements to these harbors
would be beneficial to the economic revitalization of some of Puerto
Rico's 44 coastal municipalities. For
[[Page H5991]]
these reasons, I support the renewed call for the Army Corps to update
Congress on its review of criteria used for determining which
navigation projects at harbors across the United States are funded.
In closing, I urge adoption of this amendment. It is through
increased expenditure in 2015 by the Army Corps of Engineers of funds
available through the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund that the domestic
economy will be strengthened, and that our constituents who rely upon
the free, timely and safe flow of goods at our nation's ports will be
supported. This amendment gives us an opportunity to better ensure
operations at the nation's federally-authorized harbors--including the
harbors in Puerto Rico--can reach their full capacity.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SIMPSON. 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 California
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cassidy
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 4, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman
from Louisiana and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the President's 2015 budget
request cuts O&M funding by 28 percent, reflecting an overall $1
billion cut in the Corps of Engineers' civil works budget from the
levels set in the fiscal year 2014 omnibus budget bill.
While I appreciate the House Appropriations' mark of $44 million
above the fiscal year 2014 level, more must be done to help ensure our
waterways are properly maintained.
This is especially true with the Water Resources conference report,
which allows for 100 percent of the funds generated by the cargo tax to
be utilized for harbor maintenance and dredging by the year 2025. We
need to help bridge this gap now, as nearly 1,000 Federal ports and
harbors have not been adequately maintained, and are dredged to their
authorized depths and widths only 35 percent of the time.
The amendment myself and my colleague from Louisiana are coauthoring
directs $1 million from the Department of Energy's administrative
offices and directs $1 million to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
operation and maintenance accounts.
The purpose of the funding redirection is to make strategic and
justified investments in our Nation's port and waterway infrastructure,
such as the Calcasieu Ship Channel. For example, Port of Lake Charles
officials announced yesterday that vessel traffic is expected to
increase by more than 50 percent over the next 5 years and double
within the decade. With more than $67 billion worth of capital
investments in southwest Louisiana, the increased channel use is
attributed to expanded operations of existing terminals and the
construction of several proposed facilities.
Mr. Chairman, we need to work to provide the resources to maintain
and dredge these vital navigation and shipping channels.
{time} 1515
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chair, first of all, I want to compliment Chairman
Simpson on all the work he has done on this bill, but also the work he
has done with me to plus up the harbor maintenance account and the
funds available for dredging. It is critically important.
I am very proud to stand with my colleague from Louisiana in support
of this very important amendment. As my colleague expressed, the
President's fiscal year '15 budget creates even more of a shortfall.
We have got a significant backlog in harbor maintenance. This is
going to hurt American competitiveness. In fact, roughly $3 billion
worth of coastal navigation operations and maintenance work could be
done if the funds that are collected for this were actually made
available to be used for it.
Louisiana is a leading State in trade, international trade, with
three of our top ten ports that conduct trade in goods and energy.
More U.S. merchandise travels by ocean-going vessels than by
airplanes, trucks, freight trains, and pipelines combined. That is why
these funds are critical for American competitiveness, and that is why
they are really important in facilitating U.S. foreign trade.
Our waterways are vital economic pathways for our Nation's commerce
and the ability to move American goods to these foreign markets.
Hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on this--jobs in Louisiana and
across the United States. This infrastructure is vital.
Our amendment would take a modest step. It would redirect $1 million
from the Department of Energy's administrative offices to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers operations and maintenance account. I believe this
was a simple, strategic, and commonsense approach to help prioritize
necessary maintenance and move us in the right direction.
The Federal Government has the principal responsibility for
maintenance of these harbors and shipping channels. Let's make sure
that the Corps has the tools to do the job with the money that is
collected for that job. The President failed to do that in his budget
request. We can make that change now.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. CASSIDY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lankford
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 4, line 25, after ``expended,'' insert ``of which such
sums as are necessary to carry out the study authorized in
section 6002 of the Water Resources Reform and Development
Act of 2014;''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman
from Oklahoma and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chair, earlier this year, there was a bill that
authorized the Corps' projects that was passed in the House and the
Senate and signed into law. It also included into that a study that
would allow the Corps of Engineers to be able to evaluate their
projects.
As simple as this may be, the Corps of Engineers has a tremendous
number of things on their inventory that they are doing operation and
maintenance for. The study required them to be able to go through all
the different projects that they have nationwide and just do a simple
evaluation of which projects met the simple focus of the Corps of
Engineers and which projects might not meet the central focus. It
allowed them to be able to make a simple determination of what, if you
will excuse the pun, are the core projects of the Corps.
There are projects that are all over the country. There may be boat
ramps, picnic pavilions, or in Oklahoma we have a place called Lake
Optima that was a lake built in the 1970s that has never had more than
5 percent water in it. It was a project that did not work effectively
as it was originally planned but the Corps still has to maintain
because it is on their inventory.
This study would allow them to be able to look at all of their
inventory and develop what is the core focus of that. This amendment
just ensures that the Corps would have the money necessary to be able
to fulfill that study.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page H5992]]
regulatory program
For expenses necessary for administration of laws
pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands,
$200,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016.
formerly utilized sites remedial action program
For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites
in the United States resulting from work performed as part of
the Nation's early atomic energy program, $100,000,000, to
remain available until expended.
flood control and coastal emergencies
For expenses necessary to prepare for flood, hurricane, and
other natural disasters and support emergency operations,
repairs, and other activities in response to such disasters
as authorized by law, $28,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
expenses
For expenses necessary for the supervision and general
administration of the civil works program in the headquarters
of the Corps of Engineers and the offices of the Division
Engineers; and for costs of management and operation of the
Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Institute for
Water Resources, the United States Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers Finance Center allocable to the civil works
program, $178,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2016, of which not to exceed $5,000 may be used for
official reception and representation purposes and only
during the current fiscal year: Provided, That no part of any
other appropriation provided in this title shall be available
to fund the civil works activities of the Office of the Chief
of Engineers or the civil works executive direction and
management activities of the division offices: Provided
further, That any Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
appropriation may be used to fund the supervision and general
administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other
activities in response to any flood, hurricane, or other
natural disaster.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 7, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $4,000,000)''.
Page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a simple amendment to
save precious taxpayer resources and to reduce the amount of money
spent on paying inefficient bureaucrats with a history of mismanagement
and disorganization.
Specifically, my amendment reduces net outlays for the administration
of the Army Corps of Engineers by $1 million from the fiscal year 2014
level, which reduces the budget authority in this bill for the Corps'
administration by 2.25 percent. The Corps of Engineers received an
overall increase of $25 million in the bill above the fiscal year 2014
level.
While I can support more funds going to worthwhile projects, I take
issue when the Corps continually receives the budget request level for
administrative officials who fail to curb their bad behavior and
competently perform their jobs.
I would like to read a quick excerpt from the committee report for
this bill that highlights some of the continued mismanagement from
within the Corps of Engineers:
The Corps of Engineers has suffered several significant
failings in recent years that have resulted in cost increases
for projects, such as the massive cost escalation associated
with the Olmsted Locks and Dam project.
In some cases, the administration has not requested
authorization increases in time for the Congress to act
before projects experience delays.
The committee enacted new requirements in fiscal year 2014
intended to address these problems, but to date--5 months
after enactment--the Corps has not complied with the
committee's directions.
In addition, the committee notes that the Corps still has
not submitted a complete work plan for fiscal year 2014 nor
complied with several other oversight initiatives necessary
to safeguard taxpayer dollars.
Another blatant example of the administrative ineptitude within the
Corps is the agency has now been working on one chief's report for a
particular project in Arizona for 5-plus years now. Throughout the
country, this is the norm and not the exception to the rule. This
failure to perform even the most simple of tasks drives up the costs of
projects and leads to projects not being completed in a timely manner.
Due to frustrations with these delays, Congress was forced to enact a
provision that recently passed WRRDA that requires Chiefs' reports to
be completed within 3 years.
Let me provide another example of mismanagement by the Corps in
Arizona.
An important flood control project was initially estimated by the
Corps to cost roughly $24 million. Now, several years past the deadline
for completing this project, the total cost estimate for the project
exceeds more than $100 million. I realize projects have issues
sometimes, but this is a clear example of failed leadership within the
agency. Unfortunately, mismanagement has become prevalent in the Corps
for quite some time now. Several years ago, former Senate Majority
Leader Tom Daschle, a Democrat from South Dakota, said the Corps is
``one of the most incompetent and inept organizations in all the
Federal Government.''
One final example of significant malfunction within the Corps'
administration was cited by the Government Accountability Office. The
GAO had nothing but negative things to say about a Corps study
justifying a $332 million project in the Delaware River. GAO found that
the study ``was based on miscalculations, invalid assumptions, and
outdated information.'' GAO found that projected benefits for this
project were nearly 75 percent fraudulent.
With an almost $18 trillion debt that continues to grow, it is
irresponsible to throw more money at a department that cannot manage
its own affairs. My amendment does not reduce funding for important
projects. Again, my amendment simply reduces net outlays for
incompetent Corps of Engineers bureaucrats from the fiscal year 2014
level.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for their continued work on
the committee.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman and Members, I rise to oppose the amendment
because it doesn't make any sense to me to make it harder for the Corps
to do its job when we know they have backlogs in projects of over $60
billion. We are increasing funding for the Corps to try to meet the
needs of States like Arizona--and the other 49 States as well--and
there seems to be no shortage of complaints about the Corps' response
time on project issues because they can't get their work done because
they don't have enough money to complete their projects.
This gentleman may be unaware that oversight funding has already been
cut by $4 million from the current year. We are giving the Corps more
project money to try to deal with their backlog; but then if we don't
have proper oversight, we are going to dig the hole deeper. We need to
have the resources in order to complete the projects.
The amendment, in a way, is penny-wise and pound-foolish because it
reduces Federal oversight of more than $5 billion. The problem with the
Corps historically has been that every Member has projects that they
want completed, but we don't have the money to do it. If you are going
to cut the legs out of staff that are there to do the job, it is going
to make it much more difficult to manage the money. It is like trying
to send an army into battle and not giving them the weapons to do it or
creating all these barriers to completion.
We need to turn around and allow the Corps to resolve the projects
that are on the books--there are no new starts in this bill--and give
them the staff to do the job and to get it done and to get it done well
and within budget, not stretch it out. The reason these projects are
stretched out over the years: they simply don't have the money. To put
the infrastructure in the ground, whether it is Arizona, Ohio, or
California, they are just shortchanged at every end. We make it really
difficult for them.
I think the gentleman is well-intended. He wants to get the work
done. I want to get the work done. I don't think that the amendment
actually leads us to that end. Respectfully, we
[[Page H5993]]
would oppose the amendment and ask our colleagues to join us.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
office of the assistant secretary of the army for civil works
For the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works as authorized by 10 U.S.C. 3016(b)(3),
$2,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bilirakis
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 7, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
to $0)''.
Page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
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. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to ask my colleagues to
support increased accountability of the Army Corps of Engineers.
I thank, of course, Chairman Rogers and Chairman Simpson for their
work on this appropriations bill and leadership to ensure scarce
taxpayer dollars are well spent.
My amendment seeks to strike all funding for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works.
Under current law, fringe groups are allowed to, for the cost of a
postage stamp, Mr. Chair, file lawsuits against any infrastructure
project needing a clean water permit that they spot in the Federal
Register. This is outrageous. These lawsuits and the fear of them have
stopped a number of worthy projects that were necessary for local
governments to protect their constituents.
The Corps' failure to defend the public safety is because of a
serious lack of leadership by the Corps, in my opinion. One such
project in Pasco County, Florida, my Congressional District, is the
Ridge Road extension, a much-needed route for hurricane evacuation.
{time} 1530
For over two decades, this project has been in the permitting process
because of the bureaucratic paper shuffling and duplicative
environmental studies. During this time of scarce taxpayer dollars and
economic uncertainty, we have pending infrastructure projects that can
create jobs and protect the public, but the Corps often drags out the
application process to push the applicant to drop their application out
of fear that the agency will have to engage in litigation. These
lawsuits are solely to kill worthy public safety projects, in my
opinion, and not based on the merits of the projects.
I note this bill's committee report, which says that, ``the committee
is concerned that the administration has not been taking congressional
direction seriously,'' in regards to these permit projects.
There is clearly a serious leadership problem at this agency. This is
an opportunity for the administration to act and ensure the public is
protected.
The committee report also includes encouragement from the committee
``to keep in mind the public safety aspects of the project when
considering permit applications and to pursue ways to shorten review
times, including by performing reviews currently and eliminating
duplicative reviews to the maximum extent practicable.''
I call the Corps to work with the communities across the country and
approve these needed public safety projects to prevent needless loss of
life. With reassurances from Chairman Simpson that the committee will
continue to encourage the Corps to prioritize public safety projects, I
would consider withdrawing the amendment at this time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BILIRAKIS. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. I would assure the gentleman that we share his concerns,
and in fact, if you look at the underlying bill, we have reduced
funding for the ASA's office by 60 percent, or $3 million, because of
the same concerns we have that you are expressing and that Mr. Gosar
expressed before you. It is a concern that all of us have. We will work
with you to make sure that we address this.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Reclaiming my time, thanks for giving me those
assurances. This is very important for public safety purposes. Our
constituents need evacuation routes in case there is a hurricane or any
kind of disaster.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 101. (a) None of the funds provided in this title
shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or
activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project,
or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this
Act;
(4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a
specific program, project, or activity by this Act;
(5) increases funds for any program, project, or activity
by more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or
(6) reduces funds for any program, project, or activity by
more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less.
(b) Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any project or
activity authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control
Act of 1948, section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946,
section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954, section 107 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1960, section 103 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1962, section 111 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1968, section 1135 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986, section 206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996, or section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992.
(c) The Corps of Engineers shall submit reports on a
quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate detailing all the
funds reprogrammed between programs, projects, activities, or
categories of funding. The first quarterly report shall be
submitted not later than 60 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.
Sec. 102. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to award or modify any contract that commits
funds beyond the amounts appropriated for that program,
project, or activity that remain unobligated, except that
such amounts may include any funds that have been made
available through reprogramming pursuant to section 101.
Sec. 103. None of the funds in this Act, or previous Acts,
making funds available for Energy and Water Development,
shall be used to award any continuing contract that commits
additional funding from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
unless or until such time that a long-term mechanism to
enhance revenues in this Fund sufficient to meet the cost-
sharing authorized in the Water Resources Development Act of
1986 (Public Law 99-662) is enacted.
Sec. 104. The Secretary of the Army may transfer to the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service
may accept and expend, up to $4,700,000 of funds provided in
this title under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance'' to
mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps of Engineers
projects.
Sec. 105. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water
Development for any fiscal year may be used by the Corps of
Engineers to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or
enforce any change to the regulations in effect on October 1,
2012, pertaining to the definitions of the terms ``fill
material'' or ``discharge of fill material'' for the purposes
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.).
Sec. 106. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water
Development for any fiscal year may be used by the Corps of
Engineers to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or
enforce any change to the regulations and guidance in effect
on October 1, 2012, pertaining to the definition of waters
under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), including the provisions of the
rules dated November 13, 1986, and August 25, 1993, relating
to such jurisdiction, and the guidance documents dated
January 15, 2003, and December 2, 2008, relating to such
jurisdiction.
[[Page H5994]]
Sec. 107. As of the date of enactment of this Act and each
fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary of the Army shall not
promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an
individual from possessing a firearm, including an assembled
or functional firearm, at a water resources development
project covered under section 327.0 of title 36, Code of
Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of
this Act), if--
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from
possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the
law of the State in which the water resources development
project is located.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Central Utah Project
central utah project completion account
For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, $9,874,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $1,000,000 shall be deposited into the
Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for use
by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Commission: Provided, That of the amount provided under this
heading, $1,300,000 shall be available until September 30,
2016, for necessary expenses incurred in carrying out related
responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided
further, That for fiscal year 2015, of the amount made
available to the Commission under this Act or any other Act,
the Commission may use an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for
administrative expenses.
Bureau of Reclamation
The following appropriations shall be expended to execute
authorized functions of the Bureau of Reclamation:
water and related resources
(including transfers of funds)
For management, development, and restoration of water and
related natural resources and for related activities,
including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of
reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling
related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and
related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with,
State and local governments, federally recognized Indian
tribes, and others, $856,351,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $25,000 shall be available for transfer to
the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $6,840,000 shall be
available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin
Development Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary
may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund: Provided,
That such transfers may be increased or decreased within the
overall appropriation under this heading: Provided further,
That of the total appropriated, the amount for program
activities that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund or
the Bureau of Reclamation special fee account established by
16 U.S.C. 6806 shall be derived from that Fund or account:
Provided further, That funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395
are available until expended for the purposes for which the
funds were contributed: Provided further, That funds advanced
under 43 U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to this account and
are available until expended for the same purposes as the
sums appropriated under this heading: Provided further, That
of the amounts provided herein, funds may be used for high-
priority projects which shall be carried out by the Youth
Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ruiz
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 12, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I would like to thank
Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their hard work and
collaboration on this bipartisan and important bill.
I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 4923, the Energy and Water
Appropriations Act, to provide additional, critical resources for
Bureau of Reclamation environmental restoration projects that address
or improve public health conditions.
The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for managing, developing,
and restoring our Nation's waters to support the interests of the
American public. Mr. Chairman, I can think of fewer efforts more in the
public interest than protecting the public's health.
Across the West, the Bureau helps water districts develop recycled
water technology to provide safe irrigation water for crops, provides
engineering assistance for restoration efforts, and monitors water
quality so that communities can take preventative action to protect the
environment and public health.
There are many examples in our Nation, and I will give just a couple.
In southern California, in the Coachella Valley, the Bureau of
Reclamation plays a large role in protecting public health by
monitoring and helping restore the water equality of the Salton Sea.
For several decades now, deteriorating water quality and reduced water
inflows have made the Salton Sea a threat to southern California
residents, and eventually the sea could threaten public health in
cities all across southern California.
As the sea dries and the water level recedes, exposed lake bed will
release windblown contaminants containing selenium, arsenic, and
pesticides. Exposure to these contaminants has been shown to increase
the number and severity of asthma attacks; decrease the growth and
development of lung function in school-age children; and increase the
risk of cardiac disease, heart attacks, and mortality in adults.
Already, exposed lake bed on the southern portion of the sea has had
an impact on local air quality, with rates of pediatric asthma-related
hospitalizations in the region far above the national average. As an
emergency medicine physician, I have seen firsthand the effects of poor
air and water quality.
The public health danger to families and children from the Salton Sea
is very real, and to help address the exposed lake bed in the southern
portion of the sea, a partnership has put together the Red Hill Bay
project to cover over 700 acres of exposed lake bed with clean water.
These shallow pools will cover the dangerous contaminants in the lake
bed, preventing them from becoming airborne and threatening the
surrounding communities.
The Bureau of Reclamation supports projects like Red Hill Bay all
across the Western United States, working with local stakeholders who
recognize the value of ensuring our waters are well managed.
For example, in my neighboring district, California's 42nd District,
the Bureau of Reclamation assisted in helping to mitigate public health
concerns and water quality issues at Lake Elsinore. Lake Elsinore, like
the Salton Sea, has faced chronic challenges related to water level and
water quality. Algae blooms from the lake caused public health
concerns, and even took the life of a child.
A collaboration between local governments, local water districts, and
the Bureau of Reclamation came together to establish a supply of
recycled water to maintain water levels and installed aerators to
reduce algae blooms and prevent fish die-offs by keeping oxygen levels
high.
Lake Elsinore now supports many local businesses, has a flourishing
tourism industry, and is safer for residents to enjoy all the benefits
the lake has to offer, including swimming and water sports.
My amendment would provide additional resources towards many Bureau
water projects throughout the Nation that will protect the public's
health. The health of the American people must be put above politics,
and I urge my colleagues to come together to support my amendment.
I reserve 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 support the gentleman's amendment
and to say that he has worked so hard in the interest of maintaining
both public health and restoration of the environment related to the
Salton Sea. Unless you have actually seen the Salton Sea and the
changing nature of the ecosytem in southern California, you can't
imagine how enormous that challenge is. From the very first day he was
elected, Mr. Ruiz was talking to us about the needs of that particular
part of our country.
I know that polluted agricultural runoff had something to do with
what has happened to the Salton Sea. The changing nature of rainfall
has transformed it.
I think about the Sea of Azov in Russia and how dangerous that has
become to the surrounding environment. We face the same challenge here
in our country.
I know it is difficult to resolve this issue, and it will take many
years, because it didn't just take one year for
[[Page H5995]]
the sea to become a wasteland, really, and the surrounding communities
so affected.
I just want to thank the gentleman for his leadership and for keeping
us and your part of America on the right course. You are very talented
and very caring. I just wanted to stand in support of your efforts.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ruiz).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gardner
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 12, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000) (increased by $3,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment
which allocates $3 million for water conservation and delivery.
The funding for this amendment is taken directly from the underlying
bill's $56 million appropriation to the Bureau of Reclamation for water
projects. The amendment directs $3 million of this sum specifically for
water conservation and delivery projects.
The Bureau of Reclamation water conservation delivery fund provides
critical assistance to Western areas of the country. In the arid West,
water is our life. These projects improve water supply quality, address
water shortage issues, improve conservation measures, and stabilize
water supplies. These are projects like the Arkansas Valley Conduit,
with over 100 miles of pipelines serving dozen of communities with
clean, abundant, and affordable water.
In the Western United States, water is an economic driver. In order
to attract more economic growth, either in business or agriculture,
every industry in the West is dependent upon an ample and safe water
supply.
This amendment will allow the Bureau of Reclamation more flexibility
to continue with these types of projects while simultaneously improving
public health and improving the environment. Also, these projects are
critically important during drought years so that water is
appropriately allocated for both municipal and agriculture uses.
The water conservation and delivery line in the Bureau's budget has
been previously used for the California Central Valley Project,
Washington State's Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, the
Arkansas Valley Conduit in Colorado, and the Lewiston Orchard Project
in the chairman's home State of Idaho.
I urge support of the amendment, and I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), the coauthor of
this amendment, and I thank him for leadership on issues relating to
water in the State of Colorado.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague (Mr. Gardner) for
yielding to me and for his partnership in this critical matter.
As you know, water is the lifeblood of the Western United States and
absolutely critical to the health of our communities and our local
economies. In order to meet federally mandated water quality standards
across the West, the Bureau of Reclamation water conservation and
delivery fund is essential.
In Colorado, as is the case throughout the West, we have similar
needs to be able to move forward with engineering design work on the
authorized features of existing Reclamation projects. This amendment
will provide the Bureau of Reclamation the flexibility it needs to be
able to allocate funds to advance and complete ongoing work that will
provide efficient delivery of water from an existing multipurpose
Reclamation project as authorized by Congress in 1962.
{time} 1545
Among the eligible projects within the water conservation and
delivery fund is, in my district, the Arkansas Valley Conduit. It is
the final component of the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, which is a water
diversion and storage project in the lower Arkansas Valley.
Once constructed, the conduit will deliver clean drinking water to
families, producers, and municipalities throughout southeastern
Colorado.
By directing $3 million of this sum specifically for water
conservation and delivery projects, the Bureau of Reclamation can
proceed with ongoing work on water supply delivery projects at a more
efficient pace to be able to reach our shared goals in meeting
increased water demands by developing and maximizing clean water
supplies.
It is our hope that Reclamation prioritizes these projects and
resolves the water shortages that exist in the West while enhancing our
regional development and promoting our job growth.
Mr. GARDNER. Again, I would like to thank the chairman of the
subcommittee for his leadership. He is another Western lawmaker who has
done tremendous good for our Western States when it comes to water
conservation delivery efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge the support of 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 Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Noem
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 12, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.
Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $6,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentlewoman
from South Dakota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from South Dakota.
Mrs. NOEM. I thank the chairman and the ranking member and all of the
committee staff for their hard work on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, one of the most important things during the
appropriations process is making tough decisions and identifying
priorities that need funding. One area that is specifically important
is providing water throughout the country, including in rural areas.
In my State and across the West, there are critical water
infrastructure projects that are waiting to be funded. They were
promised to be funded by the Federal Government years ago, and
construction is underway on many of these projects.
Many communities have put in more than their fair share of funding.
The States have done so as well. The only entity that has failed to
follow through on that commitment is the Federal Government.
Water is one of our most basic needs, and we need to ensure that we
have safe and affordable drinking water across this country.
For rural areas, it is also a jobs issue. Without the completion of
rural water projects, businesses aren't able to create much-needed
jobs, and local economies suffer. Unfortunately, year after year, the
funding for these projects continues to decline under the President's
budget requests.
We have the opportunity here today to make some meaningful progress
on these projects and ensure that the Federal Government follows
through on its previous commitments. Even with my amendment, the
funding for rural water projects is still below what it was for fiscal
year 2014.
My bill increases the funding for rural water projects, and it does
not increase net budget outlays. We need to support critical
infrastructure and essential access to water, and I urge my colleagues
to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Daines).
Mr. DAINES. I want to thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on
this amendment, as well as the chairman for allowing us to have this
debate.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. In the
appropriations process, we must prioritize funding for necessary
projects and balance those with spending reductions to reduce the
national debt.
[[Page H5996]]
In Montana, we depend on a steady supply of water to irrigate our
crops, to water our livestock, and to provide energy through
hydropower--a renewable resource.
The struggle for clean water continues to create health challenges
for Indian Country and nearby communities, in addition to making
economic development more difficult.
Without this critical funding for Rocky Boy's-North Central Mountain
Rural Water System and the Fort Peck Reservation-Dry Prairie Rural
Water System, thousands of Montanans in rural communities could go
without quality water accessibility.
The President's budget requests for these critical projects continue
to decline each year, while prioritizing other accounts that are not
related to the basic needs of our rural communities.
Mr. Chairman, every year that we wait to delay the funding of these
essential projects, the more expensive construction, operation, and
maintenance become.
For instance, the Fort Peck project's reduced funding levels have
doubled the authorization period, and inflation has nearly doubled the
overall cost of construction, but the projected savings is still $11
million.
However, overhead will consume the projected savings on the project
to date and will encroach upon the authorized construction ceiling.
The CBO has just scored this amendment. This decreases the net budget
outlays. Passing this amendment is the responsible stewardship of tax
dollars and is important to rural communities.
It is also a nonpartisan issue. Funding these projects is supported
by the entire Montana delegation--both Republicans and Democrats--and
last year, a similar amendment passed by voice vote. I urge the support
of this amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentlelady's
amendment, and I do so for several reasons.
First of all, the renewable energy accounts, where the funds are
taken from, have already been reduced by $113 million from the prior
fiscal year.
Frankly, those accounts are part of our future--of our future energy
security for the country and, as I said in my opening statement, of the
preservation of our liberty.
With over 40 percent of our energy resources being imported, there is
no higher priority than for us to diversify our energy portfolio and to
reclaim our own economic and energy security. Further reduction in
those accounts will have a detrimental impact not just in Montana, but
across this country.
In addition, the amendment, as I understand it, reduces Departmental
administration by $6 million. Given my colleague's frustration with the
Department's pace on many activities, including on the approval of our
LNG export efforts, this seems to be a case of, really, making it much
more difficult for the Department to do its job.
Let me put on the record again that, just since 2003, in the last
decade, our country has spent $2.3 trillion on importing foreign
petroleum. This is a vast shift of wealth, and thousands upon
thousands--literally millions of jobs--are evaporating from our
country.
Bloomberg New Energy Finance reports for 2030 that the market outlook
estimates that renewables will command over 60 percent of the $7.7
trillion of power investment that is going to be made someplace.
When we think about our country's future, we must be vigilant, and we
must be smart. We must be engaged in those markets because, if we
aren't, we see what China is doing and we see what Russia is doing.
We have to pay attention. We can't rob Peter to try to pay Paul. Any
water project, whether it is in Montana or whether it is in Ohio, is
largely a public project, and you have to make money in the market to
pay for it.
Reasserting ourselves and becoming leaders in energy, rather than
importers of energy, is where America needs to head. I think this takes
us in the wrong direction.
We should be leading investment in these technologies, not further
eroding their capacity for our country, because other countries will
displace us, and they are doing so.
Now, in terms of rural water projects in the Bureau of Reclamation,
those water projects already will receive $21 million above the
administration's request, so it is not like our subcommittee isn't
doing its job.
Frankly, our part of America gets much less attention than the West
does, in terms of rural water investment. We have a 50-50 match in our
part of the country.
We don't have anything like the Bureau of Reclamation, and we have to
compete in the Midwest for those precious dollars. We don't have
enough, but we manage to move along as best we can.
I think that we have done what we can in our bill for rural water,
and I really would take objection to the gentlelady's efforts to try to
further cripple those renewable energy accounts that are going to help
to create America's new future and to lead us toward energy
independence and toward a reassumption of our liberties. I would hope
that she would find another way to achieve her objectives.
I think I must also offer the comment that, as we look toward the
West and its water needs, because of what is happening in the
environment, we may be at a point in America's history at which we have
to put our dollars where it makes the most sense, and if development is
occurring in areas that are already water short or that are becoming
desert--where the desert is growing and where literally nature can't
provide what it did, maybe, 100 years ago--I think we have to manage
the public dollars more wisely.
I oppose the gentlelady's amendment. I hope that we can find a
different way to meet her genuine concerns.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Chairman, a couple of facts to follow up on the
gentlelady's comments.
What we are trying to do is to get clean drinking water to
individuals, to people, where the Federal Government has failed to
follow through on commitments that it has made previously.
The reason that we have already plussed up some of these dollars is
that the President's budget requests have been so low over the last few
years, so we have had to do that in order to try to meet the need.
Water projects still, even if my amendment is adopted, will receive
less than they did in 2014.
I certainly understand your concerns, as I am a supporter of an all-
of-the-above American energy supply as well, but we have people waiting
for clean drinking water. That should be a priority, and this amendment
should be adopted.
Last year, it was voice adopted because everybody recognized the
importance of making sure that people in this country could get clean
drinking water. They at least should have that basic privilege.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask for everyone's support 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 South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
central valley project restoration fund
For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, habitat
restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $56,995,000, to be
derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d),
3404(c)(3), and 3405(f) of Public Law 102-575, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau of
Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount
of the additional mitigation and restoration payments
authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available under this
heading may be used for the acquisition or leasing of water
for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed to
in-stream purposes by a court adopted decree or order.
california bay-delta restoration
(including transfers of funds)
For carrying out activities authorized by the Water Supply,
Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act, consistent
with plans to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior,
$37,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such amounts as may be necessary to carry out such activities
may be transferred to appropriate accounts of
[[Page H5997]]
other participating Federal agencies to carry out authorized
purposes: Provided, That funds appropriated herein may be
used for the Federal share of the costs of CALFED Program
management: Provided further, That CALFED implementation
shall be carried out in a balanced manner with clear
performance measures demonstrating concurrent progress in
achieving the goals and objectives of the Program.
policy and administration
For necessary expenses of policy, administration, and
related functions in the Office of the Commissioner, the
Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau
of Reclamation, to remain available until September 30, 2016,
$53,849,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be
nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That
no part of any other appropriation in this Act shall be
available for activities or functions budgeted as policy and
administration expenses.
bureau of reclamation loan program account
(including rescission of funds)
Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$500,000 is hereby permanently rescinded.
administrative provision
Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be
available for purchase of not to exceed five passenger motor
vehicles, which are for replacement only.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Sec. 201. (a) None of the funds provided in this title
shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or
activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted by this Act;
(4) restarts or resumes any program, project or activity
for which funds are not provided in this Act, unless prior
approval is received from the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate;
(5) transfers funds in excess of the following limits:
(A) 15 percent for any program, project or activity for
which $2,000,000 or more is available at the beginning of the
fiscal year; or
(B) $300,000 for any program, project or activity for which
less than $2,000,000 is available at the beginning of the
fiscal year;
(6) transfers more than $500,000 from either the Facilities
Operation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation category or the
Resources Management and Development category to any program,
project, or activity in the other category; or
(7) transfers, when necessary to discharge legal
obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation, more than
$5,000,000 to provide adequate funds for settled contractor
claims, increased contractor earnings due to accelerated
rates of operations, and real estate deficiency judgments.
(b) Subsection (a)(5) shall not apply to any transfer of
funds within the Facilities Operation, Maintenance, and
Rehabilitation category.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ``transfer''
means any movement of funds into or out of a program,
project, or activity.
(d) The Bureau of Reclamation shall submit reports on a
quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives and the Senate detailing all the
funds reprogrammed between programs, projects, activities, or
categories of funding. The first quarterly report shall be
submitted not later than 60 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.
Sec. 202. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to determine the final
point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis
Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and
the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the
water quality standards of the State of California as
approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis
drainage waters.
(b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program
and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program
shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as
reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully
repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program--Alternative
Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP--Alternative Repayment
Plan'' described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report,
Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley
Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future
obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or
providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the
San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit
beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal
reclamation law.
TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ENERGY PROGRAMS
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for energy efficiency and
renewable energy activities 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, $1,789,000,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of such
amount, $150,000,000 shall be available until September 30,
2016, for program direction.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $112,686,000)''.
Page 21, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $165,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentlewoman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment to boost the energy efficiency initiatives across America
that have a proven return on investment for taxpayers.
This amendment is paid for by reducing--but not by eliminating--
accounts that do not have the same return on investment for taxpayers.
The appropriation in the bill for energy efficiency and renewable
energy is $112 million below the 2014 appropriated level, and it is
$528 million below the budget request.
Now, I wish we could meet the budget request this year, but,
colleagues, we should at least restore the money back to last year's
levels, which is still a very modest investment in energy efficiency
and renewable energy for America.
The funds tied to energy efficiency and renewable energy fuel jobs
across America in advanced manufacturing and clean energy.
{time} 1600
These investments in energy efficiency help make our businesses more
competitive compared to businesses all across the globe. In addition,
energy efficiency reduces the cost for consumers--wouldn't that be
revolutionary, to put some money back into the pockets of our neighbors
in this day and age--and has the added benefit of providing cleaner
air.
Back home in Florida, I have noticed so many local governments
investing in better lighting and energy efficiency. So this even has
the potential to lower property taxes for our neighbors back home.
Mr. Chairman, we are on the cusp of a technological revolution when
it comes to energy and energy efficiency. Look at what is happening all
across America. We have a very diverse portfolio. But this budget today
is skewed a little bit. It chops energy efficiency and renewable energy
that has sufficient great potential to create jobs and it is a little
too heavy on some of the fossil fuel areas.
I will suggest an area that my Republican colleagues on the Energy
and Commerce Committee criticized during a committee meeting not too
long ago, and that was the carbon capture and sequestration. Compare
the return on investment right now provided in this bill for the
multimillion-dollar amount we are putting into carbon capture that is
not proven compared to what we could achieve on the return on
investment on energy efficiency for our neighbors, for our businesses,
and for jobs. So, therefore, this amendment will shift a little bit,
not all, from those technologies and put it into a place where it
works--energy efficiency.
I appreciate Ranking Member Kaptur's vision. She understands that
this is our future, this is a job creator. I appreciate her work and
Chairman Simpson's work on the appropriations bill.
I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Castor amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, while I share my colleague's support for
energy efficiency programs, the bill funds EERE, the Energy Efficiency
portfolio, at $26 million above last year's level,
[[Page H5998]]
with targeted increases for weatherization assistance and advanced
manufacturing.
What we did in this bill, actually, was refocus some of the
administration's requested increases in the renewable energy arena to
where we actually use energy. Coal, oil, and natural gas provide 82
percent of the electricity in this country, of the energy used in this
Nation's homes and businesses, 82 percent. Reducing the fossil energy
research--they are studying things like how heat can more efficiently
be converted into electricity in a cross-cutting effort with the
nuclear and solar energy programs, how water can be more efficiently
used in power plants, and how coal can be used to produce electrical
power.
The amendment would also reduce funding for a program that ensures we
use our Nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as
possible. In fact, if we increased the efficiency of our fossil fuel
plants by just 1 percent, we could power an additional 2 million
households without using a single additional pound of fuel from the
ground.
That is the research we are doing in the fossil energy area. That is
where we would take the money out of, the area where most of our
electricity is produced from, and shift it to an area, while important,
doesn't produce nearly as much energy as the other areas in this bill.
So, while I understand what the gentlelady is trying to do, we have
actually increased the energy efficiency budget, as I said, by $26
million above last year, and we will continue to work on that.
I would oppose this amendment and ask my colleagues to vote against
it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Marchant). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Wenstrup
Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,421,000)''.
Page 23, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $8,540,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman
from Ohio and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to follow through on a promise the
American Government made to the people in my district and across the
country to fund nuclear cleanup projects at cold war enrichment
facilities. This amendment would direct $15 million to the Uranium
Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.
At the height of the atomic age, the government began enriching
uranium in our arms race against the Soviet threat. One of these
facilities is the Portsmouth plant in Pike County, Ohio. Today, half a
century later, it needs to be decommissioned and cleaned up, a task
that has been entrusted to the Department of Energy.
Like other DOE projects, Portsmouth is largely funded through uranium
sales. Since the price of uranium has dropped significantly since
Fukushima, additional funding is necessary to make up for the loss of
revenue.
The community cannot move forward without an adequate cleanup. The
people of Pike County and the region worked extremely hard for the
national security interests of this country. Unfortunately, we, the
Federal Government, seem to be running from them in their time of need.
This community is held hostage, unable to develop their economy and
their land until the cleanup is complete. Delaying the cleanup punishes
a community that answered our Nation's call, and now our Nation is
willing to walk away from them, leaving a radioactive and chemical
contamination.
Without adequate funding, the Federal Government is leaving a
massively contaminated site right in the heartland of our country. A
delay in funding for fiscal 2015 only means a higher cost to the
government in future years.
The success of the environmental management work at the Portsmouth
plant is critical to the Pike County area and the entire region. We are
talking about good, honest, hardworking Americans, and we are standing
in their way by undercutting the project's funding and leaving a
contaminated cold war facility in the heart of their community.
In an effort to minimize wasteful delays, unnecessary layoffs, and
job loss, our amendment would provide $15 million for this fund,
completely paid for by offsets in the bill from less crucial
administrative and energy accounts. This amendment prioritizes funding
for an actual, existing, ongoing project that employs hundreds of
hardworking Ohioans and keeps important environmental management work
on schedule.
I acknowledge and appreciate the committee's work to include $15
million in funding for this project, but the bottom line is this is far
short of the needed $65 million more to continue the cleanup project in
a timely manner. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
With each delay, the cost goes up.
Our Nation benefited from the work conducted in Pike County, and now
they are being left out and endure more uncertainty from Washington.
This site must be cleaned up. It is an environmental imperative and an
economic imperative, and it is the right thing to do.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WENSTRUP. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. So I understand, where are you taking the $15 million
from?
Mr. WENSTRUP. The $15 million is coming from renewable energy
accounts and less crucial administrative accounts.
Ms. KAPTUR. Could I offer the opinion that, if the gentleman found
different offsets, this Member, as an Ohioan, would be very interested
in supporting the workers in Portsmouth and in that region of Ohio
which are so devastated.
At the moment, I can't do that because I don't agree with the
offsets, but I wanted to place the opinion on the Record. And I thank
the gentleman very much for his efforts on behalf of the State of Ohio
and that region of Ohio.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Reclaiming my time, you know, renewable is not an
option for this area of America until it is cleaned up, and waiting
costs more and it paralyzes a large portion of Ohio.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
although I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. The
gentleman's amendment would increase appropriated funds to Portsmouth
by another $15 million. Because of the overall reductions that were
necessary in the Department of Energy's environmental cleanup programs,
we balanced these reductions across all cleanup sites so that no one
site is targeted.
I certainly understand the gentleman's concerns about the site, and
this bill provides strong support for Portsmouth. Despite the fact that
funding at most sites is going down, the bill actually boosts funding
for the site by $37 million above the fiscal year 2014 and $15 million
above the budget request.
However, I can't support further increases to compensate for the
Department's off-budget uranium transfers, which our subcommittee has
criticized for years. The Department has been transferring stockpiles
of uranium to generate cleanup funds for the site, a practice the
Government Accountability Office has determined to be illegal and which
could be further held up in fiscal year 2015 due to recent litigation.
The Department's reliance on its uranium transfers has
inappropriately circumvented the appropriations process, has adversely
impacted our domestic uranium mining and conversion industry, and is
now creating further problems as the market price of uranium continues
to drop.
I am also concerned about the amendment's offsets, particularly the
[[Page H5999]]
cut to EERE, which is $113 million below the budget request. The last
amendment, by Ms. Castor, proposed increasing EERE by taking money out
of fossil energy. I opposed that. It wasn't because I don't like EERE.
It was because I didn't like where they were taking the money from.
This would take money out of EERE that is already reduced $113 million
from last year, which I also oppose.
So I must oppose this gentleman's amendment and urge Members to do
the same.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. I wanted to make a point on this particular Portsmouth
facility and the Department of Energy's seeming inability to help
communities transition. Whether it is coal-fired utilities and the
issues that coal country faces in general or here you have a facility
that is important in the Nation's defense looking back and looking
forward, and so many times it just seems that when technologies change,
when situations change, the local people who have invested their lives
just get spit out.
I just wanted to put that statement on the Record, because I know the
Department of Energy is listening today, and we have the ability in
this country to transition communities. Maybe in places like Portsmouth
we should be doing more on renewables, because America is going to need
renewables; and maybe there is a way the Department of Energy could be
more creative, whether it is natural gas, whether it is storage of
certain material and so forth. But to put all those people out of work,
without a plan, without a transition plan, it is like, you know, the
private sector giving them the pink slip at Christmas. That is when
they always give them the pink slips, right before Christmas. It is so
heartless. Here you have a community that is going to be heavily
affected.
So I just wanted to say on the Record, Mr. Chairman of the full
committee, that I just feel that the Department has been a bit laggard,
and I would hope that they could work with us in a more constructive
way. I understand what the gentleman is trying to do, and he is very
well-intentioned as he comes to the floor today. I just wish I could do
more to convince the Department to help him.
Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentlelady's
comments.
I should say, it is not Portsmouth's or the gentleman from Ohio's
fault that they have been using uranium transfers to fund this. It is
not the people who are working there; it is not their fault. It is the
Department's fault, and we have raised concerns for years that that is
inappropriate and illegal. We knew that it was going to come to this
when those uranium transfers couldn't be made anymore because of the
price of uranium and other things, and it is the result of the choice
of the Department to fund this by using the uranium transfers.
Unfortunately, it has come to what we predicted would be a problem when
we started raising these concerns with the Department.
So, while I understand what the gentleman is doing and sympathize
with what the gentleman is doing and will be willing to work with him
to see what could be done as we move this bill forward, I do have to
oppose the amendment as it currently exists.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chairman, I yield 60 seconds to my colleague from
Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of
the amendment offered by Dr. Wenstrup. This much-needed amendment will
blunt the job losses that are coming to the hardworking men and women
who are currently working to try and clean up that Atomic Energy
Commission plant there in Piketon.
I understand the committee's attempts, and I appreciate the
committee's attempts. Unfortunately, the $15 million that they have put
in this appropriation is still not enough to stop the hundreds of
layoffs that will come if nothing more is done, nor is it enough to
keep this critical cleanup project on track so that the property can be
developed to create more jobs to replace the ones that are going to be
lost anyway.
{time} 1615
That is why this amendment is so necessary. It reroutes money from
renewable and overhead costs to pay for the cleanup work that we
promised to the Piketon, Ohio, folks; and we ought to stay with that. I
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WENSTRUP. 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 Ohio will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Swalwell of California
Mr. SWALWELL 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 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $111,641,000)''.
Page 21, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $161,879,450)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as
I may consume.
This legislation asks the simple question: Will we look forward, as a
country, as to where we draw our energy resources, toward cleaner, more
renewable sources? Or will we continue to look backwards toward dirtier
fossil fuels that will harm our environment? Do we want to be a part of
a 21st century energy policy? Or do we want to be a part of a 20th
century energy policy?
My amendment increases the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, or EERE, R&D funding levels by $111.6 million above what is in
the bill. The offset comes from the fossil energy R&D in an amount
necessary to make the outlays in my amendment budget-neutral.
The request from the majority exceeds the White House's request for
fossil fuel R&D but cuts the request for EERE. This increase in EERE
would bring the funding levels back to fiscal year 2014 level and help
ensure that, at the very least, we are not moving backwards in our work
towards energy security.
My colleagues across the aisle, instead, are seeking to cut this
forward-looking program by $111 million. Reducing funding for EERE on
top of the cuts that it suffered last year is incredibly shortsighted,
not to mention it is done at the expense of protecting the fossil fuel
industry which is already doing pretty all right, if you ask me.
I find it hard to believe that any of us actually have a problem with
supporting efforts to become more energy efficient. The only reason I
can think of that anyone would support any cuts to EERE would be a
dislike on the part of some for the term ``renewable energy.''
By increasing energy efficiency in our homes, at our businesses, and
through developing advanced models and methods of manufacturing, we
will save money, we will improve productivity, and create new good-
paying jobs here the United States. And, most importantly, yes, we can
reduce emissions from power plants that are contributing to global
climate change and leave an Earth that is much healthier for our
children.
One great example of this is that EERE is partnering with Colorado
State University to provide small- and medium-sized manufacturing
companies no-cost energy assessments. More than 650 energy assessments
have been done to date, with an average of $30,000 in energy savings
per assessment. I would say that programs like this are worthy of a
sustained support and that $5.6 billion in savings has been found
across the country. EERE's manufacturing program is also enabling us to
become a world leader in making new energy technologies.
[[Page H6000]]
So the choice is clear: we can accept this massive cut to EERE and
risk becoming a net importer of next-generation energy technologies, or
we can do what America has always done, and we can look forward, and we
can make the needed investments to help us become a net exporter of
these next generation technologies.
EERE supports all types of innovative and potentially groundbreaking
research in solar, wind, geothermal, and water technologies. Given how
abundant these resources are, from the sun in the southwest to the wind
in the plains to the numerous rivers and potential for tidal power, we
would be foolish to pull back on the potential for using these
environmentally sustainable resources for power on a larger scale.
The greatest challenge today with the renewables is that when the sun
is not shining and wind is not blowing, it is very hard to harness
those energies. However we are very, very close to closing that gap,
and EERE goes a very long way to bridging that gap.
They are also helping to pioneer research into advanced combustion
engines that will drastically increase gas mileage, with EERE funding,
in traditional cars, saving taxpayers countless amounts of money even
as they remove harmful emissions from the atmosphere.
EERE R&D can help our Nation transform the way that we generate and
use energy. This cut that is proposed by the majority is unnecessary,
ill-conceived, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to
restore the funding level of fiscal year 2014.
Appropriations is about priorities, and priorities reflect values.
America has always looked forward. And we should not look anywhere but
forward when it comes to where we receive America's energy needs.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I rise in opposition to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the gentleman from
California's comments, I have to say that you can oppose this amendment
and still like renewable energy, in contradiction to the gentleman's
statement.
I rise to oppose this amendment that would increase funding for
energy efficiency and renewable energy by $112 million using the fossil
energy account, again, as an offset.
This year, funding for EERE is $1.789 billion, $113 million below
last year and $528 million below the budget request. It is still $1.789
billion. It is not like we are eliminating EERE. They still have a
substantial amount of money in that account. They have much more in
that account than they have in the fossil energy account or that they
have in the nuclear energy account.
This is a modest 6 percent cut from the robust funding level included
in last year's omnibus appropriation bill and slightly below the fiscal
year 2013 level presequester. Put another way, there is nearly $1
billion more than last year's House bill.
The funding that the recommendation provides is focused on three main
priorities, where he is trying to take money out of the fossil energy
account: helping America's manufacturers compete in the global
marketplace; supporting the Weatherization Assistance Program; and
addressing future high gas prices. These are areas with broad
bipartisan support. We simply cannot afford to increase funding in this
bill by diverting funds from research to fossil energy.
Fossil fuels, as I said during the last couple of amendments, such as
coal, oil, and natural gas provide for 82 percent of the energy used by
this Nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide for the
majority of energy needs for the foreseeable future. It is folly to
believe that renewable energies are going to replace the base load that
much of this produces for our energy needs in the future.
But renewable energies are an important part of an all-of-the-above
energy strategy that we have in this country. But it is not renewable
energies that are going to replace all of the fossil energies that we
have. So we need to do research into the fossil energies, too, and what
they do.
If we increase the efficiency of our fossil fuel plants, as I said
earlier, by just 1 percent, we could power an additional 2 million
households without using a single additional pound of fuel from the
ground. That is energy efficiency. That is the research we are focusing
on with funding this program. Therefore, I must oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. I appreciate the gentleman from Idaho and
his comments.
I would just ask that the majority's reasoning for--and I understand
tough budgetary priorities have been made--but to reduce EERE's budget
but to increase the fossil R&D budget, maybe if you could explain the
reasoning behind an increase in fossil but a decrease in renewables?
Mr. SIMPSON. As I said, we tried to refocus the request from the
administration to those areas that actually produce the energy. Eighty-
two percent, as I said during my statement, is produced by coal, oil,
and natural gas. That is where we do the majority of our research.
I am not saying we shouldn't do anything in the renewable energies. I
love renewable energies. I don't believe that they are going to replace
the majority of our base load.
And, as the gentleman said, you have got real problems when the sun
isn't shining and you are using solar energy. You have got real
problems if you are trying to address the base load. That means, when
you turn on the switch, the power actually comes on and the light goes
on. If you are trying to replace that base load and the wind isn't
blowing, you have got no wind power. But they are a very important and
vital part of our energy mix. But we are trying to put the research
into those areas that produce most of the electricity while still
maintaining research into those areas that are important for the
future.
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. 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. Byrne
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $1,789,000,000)''.
Page 19, line 13, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $150,000,000)''.
Page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $1,789,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman
from Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to strike all of the
funding for the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy program. This program, under the Department of Energy, allows
the government to invest millions of taxpayer dollars in high-risk
research and development schemes for ``green energy'' projects to the
tune, as we have heard already, of over $1.7 billion.
The government should not be subsidizing the research and development
initiatives of individual companies. Competition and innovation have
been key aspects of private sector success from day one in the energy
sector and other parts of our economy, and the government should not
take the role of a private investor.
For example, the EERE program facilitated a $2.5 million grant to
Massachusetts-based TIAX LLC to work with Green Mountain Coffee to
reduce the energy used in roasting coffee beans. The program has also
allowed for millions of dollars to large chemical and auto companies,
such as providing a subsidy to Ford Motor Company to develop a new
sheet metal forming tool.
I have nothing against those companies, but why should the government
[[Page H6001]]
be picking and choosing winners and losers?
Every business has a bottom line which, in and of itself, is a direct
incentive for developing methods for becoming more energy efficient and
innovative. By subsidizing this small sector of the energy economy,
which includes renewables such as solar and wind, and allows for such
focuses as the weatherization of houses, we are essentially allowing
DOE to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on unconventional energy
initiatives and projects that place taxpayer dollars at risk and that
are not likely to produce a return on investment.
We, as a Congress, have continuously stated the need for an all-of-
the-above energy strategy but continued investment into the EERE
program focuses on a small portion of a largely unproductive portion of
the energy sector at the expense of the more traditional energy
sources, such as fossil fuels and nuclear, that we have a proven,
reliable track record on.
{time} 1630
With regard to the national energy policy, the committee report even
highlights the President's failure to adequately focus our resources on
an all-of-the-above energy strategy stating that ``his fiscal year 2015
budget request, like its predecessors, instead seems more ideological
than practical,'' cutting ``this country's most important energy
sources in order to increase funding for energy efficiency and
renewable energy programs.''
It goes on to say that:
As attractive as renewable energy may be, it will supply
only a mere fraction of this country's energy needs over the
next 50 years, and it presents considerable challenges to the
Nation's existing electric power grid, given its increasing
variability and uncertainty from supply and demand changes.
At a time when our economy continues to recover and many Americans
continue to struggle to make ends meet, including paying their energy
bills, we must focus on reasonable energy strategies that allow for the
most affordable and reliable energy resources for consumers and
businesses alike.
I am pleased that the committee has made reductions to this account
in general. However, I believe that eliminating the energy efficiency
and renewable energy program altogether under the Department of Energy
will achieve all of our goals, while allowing savings to go towards the
very important goal of reducing the deficit of this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman very much for allowing me this
privilege.
I just wanted to rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and
to say that one of the reasons we have a budget deficit is because we
have an energy deficit. We have had an energy deficit for over a
quarter century--well over three decades now--and every year, the
average family in our country puts out over $2,800 now, just for
gasoline for their automobiles.
There were those who said we shouldn't incentivize the ethanol
industry. Now, about 10 percent of every tank full of gasoline has
ethanol in it, and that has reduced our imports. If you look at the
hemorrhage from this country of over $10 trillion over the next quarter
century with oil being $100 a barrel and you look at what is happening
to the middle class in our country because we aren't energy
independent, we had better be serious about changing the composition of
energy production in this country because it is part of the major
problem we face in lack of robust economic growth.
You can't import economic growth; you have to produce economic
growth. One of the major ways we can produce economic growth in this
country is to invent a future different from the past, so I completely
oppose the gentleman's amendment because you are going to increase the
Federal deficit because economic growth will not increase at the level
that it should be.
It has been slowly creeping forward with the weight of two wars on
our backs over the last decade or so, but you can't kill the future.
In Alabama especially, you have that major Huntsville operation with
all those NASA facilities and all those subcontractors, and there are
parts of Alabama that are doing very well as a result of Federal
investment, but don't hurt the rest of the country on the energy front
because you have some perspective about why we might have a deficit.
We have a deficit because we are not inventing the future fast
enough, and we are importing too much of what we should be making here
at home.
So I appreciate the courtesy in allowing me to place this on the
Record. We can't kill renewable energy. We can't kill the future. We
have got to be able to invent it and to cut off these imports and to
begin to produce our way forward again in this country. I view it as
our chief strategic vulnerability.
So I appreciate the gentleman wants to do something good in terms of
reducing the deficit. The best thing we can do is to invent our way
forward and create new energy sources for this country, including the
renewables.
Don't kill the future. Oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I would
respectfully yield the time that has been yielded to me back to the
gentleman.
Mr. SIMPSON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I also oppose the
amendment. While I opposed increasing EERE funding in previous
amendments, I am also opposed to eliminating EERE.
When you look at the traditional energy sources that we use, the
government has done research into the fossil fuels, into nuclear
energy, into fracking, into other things, and hydrocarbons because they
are important.
It is not the companies that we try to pick winners and losers from,
but it is the technology that we try to do the research into, to try to
advance certain technologies and help technologies become more
efficient for the consumers to use.
We are trying to make automobiles more fuel efficient. We are trying
to do work to make a SuperTruck that is much more fuel efficient.
I guess it could be argued whether the government should do any
research at all. Years and years ago, a lot of those things used to be
done by private companies, when you had the Bell Labs and other types
of things like that.
Those aren't done anymore by companies because they are much, much
too expensive for companies to do, but they are good for our economy.
You could make the argument that we really shouldn't have put any
money into space research and putting a man on the Moon--that should
have been done by a private company--yet the American economy and the
world has benefited greatly from the investment that American taxpayers
made into NASA. The same is true with the fuels that we use.
While we have tried in this bill to refocus what the administration
had proposed, which was huge increases for renewable energies that
produce a minority--a small amount--of energy compared to the others,
we have tried to refocus that appropriation to where it more accurately
reflects the actual energy used, the percentage of the actual energy
used.
That doesn't mean that we can completely eliminate EERE and renewable
energies. As I said previously, I like renewable energies. I think they
are cute. They provide a small portion of our overall energy demand,
and I don't see that increasing a whole lot because they can't address
the base load needs of our energy demand in this country, but they are
going to be a very important part of an overall energy strategy.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with the
gentlewoman. The reason we have a deficit problem is because we are
spending money we don't have, and this is a clear example of where we
are spending money we don't have.
Even under the most optimistic projections for this year, we are
going to run a $400-plus billion deficit, and we have got to start
cutting in areas that may be good things or nice things, things we
would like to do. We have got to start prioritizing our spending, and
this is one place we can start.
[[Page H6002]]
Mr. Chairman, I would urge this House to adopt this amendment, to
make a concrete step forward in reducing our deficit and not favoring
certain companies in our economy over the others.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BYRNE. 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 Alabama will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen
Mr. COHEN. I offer an amendment, Mr. Chairman, which should be at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,340,000)''.
Page 21, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $15,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment with Mr. Scott Peters
of California. Mr. Peters and I both have an interest in saving money--
and this amendment would save $5 million--and in putting our money
wisely in research on renewable energies which saves individuals
money--individual citizens money--and protects our environment and
using that money, instead of putting the money in the budget to do
research on coal and fossil fuels that contribute to global warming and
a threat to our environment.
The fact is the Department of Energy's energy efficiency program has
been effective. This would increase it by $10.3 million. This program
is underfunded already in the bill, and it would take $15 million from
funds that are in the budget for coal research and development--$15
million that are in excess of the President's budget request.
The Department of Energy's energy efficiency programs partner with
private industry, small business, and academics to facilitate research,
development, and deployment of innovative energy efficiency
technologies in manufacturing, buildings, and homes.
In this collaboration with these different stakeholders, they have
determined the best practices that can be found and then put into
commercial use, resulting in energy-saving advancements that create
jobs and give businesses competitive advantages with foreign
competitors.
Increasing energy efficiency is often done in ways that the
individual citizen benefits in their home by saving money by more
energy-efficient devices and appliances.
We work on these in the Energy Department now, and they finalized new
efficiency standards for more than 30 household and commercial
products. These include dishwashers, refrigerators, water heaters--just
the general stuff you have got in your kitchen and your home.
Because of the Energy Department's new efficiency standards,
consumers are estimated to save more than $400 billion--$400 billion
for our constituents, consumers--and we will be cutting greenhouse
emissions by 1.8 billion metric tons through 2030. That is a lot of
help to our environment and a whole lot of help to our constituents in
saving money.
Just as an example, walk-in coolers and freezers, the rules that have
been proposed will yield $37 billion in savings, while cutting 159
million metric tons of carbon dioxide. That is the equivalent of taking
30 million cars off the road.
As the cost of energy continues to pose a burden on the American
consumers' wallets--our voters, our taxpayers, our constituents--and
costs them more money and extreme weather causes climate change which
threatens the fauna and the flora, our property and way of life, we
need to find ways to reduce energy consumption and decrease those
adverse affects upon our environment.
Mr. Chairman, we need to redouble our efforts at this point on
renewable energy and energy efficiency, and the efforts by this
amendment would save money--$5 million for the budget, energy deficit
reduction--it would protect our environment by having more research on
energy efficiency standards, save our consumers and constituents money,
and protect our environment at the same time, and yet not have us
invest needlessly in fossil fuels, which is the opposite direction we
should be going.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and show their
vote for fiscally conservative, sound budget deficit reduction
programs, as well as protect the environment and be concerned about the
effects on the pocketbook of our individual consumers.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. The
amendment would increase funding for the Office of Electrical Delivery
and Energy Reliability by $10 million, using funds from fossil energy
as an offset.
We have already had conversations about taking funds out of where we
create most of our energy. Some of the things that are done in fossil
energy--and while the gentleman speaks passionately about the
environment, fossil energy also is doing the research into
sequestration and carbon capture technology.
Now, I don't suspect that we are going to stop using fossil energy in
the near future. In fact, if you looked at the predictions of the
Department of Energy of what the percentage of fossil energy--what
percentage of the energy is going to be used by fossil energy--be
created by fossil energy 20 years from now, it is pretty close to what
it is now.
So it is important that we do some things environmentally, like
carbon capture and sequestration, and we need to do some research into
that. You are taking money out of an account that would do that. I
don't think that is a wise thing for us to do.
While I share my colleague's support for the electrical grid, that is
why this bill before us already provides a $13 million increase for the
Office of Electrical Delivery and Energy Reliability above last year--
or a 9 percent increase over the last year.
That is the largest percentage increase of any of the other applied
energy programs within this bill--the largest increase.
{time} 1645
The bill prioritizes programs within OE that keep our electrical grid
safe and secure, including $47 million for cybersecurity and $16
million for infrastructure security, which will provide $8 million for
a strategic operations center to better respond to emergencies.
While I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, I have already
spoken of the important investments that our fossil energy research
does for our economy and our electrical prices; therefore, I oppose the
gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, this and other amendments challenging
NETL and the fossil fuel research, I would oppose.
I would oppose because NETL is providing us the doorway--the pathway
for energy independence. In the past, it has been funded by over $700
million. This administration, in the last 4 or 5 years, has seen that
erode down.
Thanks to the appropriators, they have been putting that number back
up again to what is appropriate, so it is a big difference, but we have
already made a cut from $700 million down to $590-some million. We are
talking about a huge cut that has already occurred.
What we have to understand is this facility, just in the sponsor of
this amendment, there are 24 projects, $27 million being spent in his
State, to be able to take care of 300 jobs that are at risk.
More importantly, what they are doing in these research laboratories
[[Page H6003]]
across the country--they are trying to find ways to have carbon
capture, for example. If we truly want to reduce our carbon footprint,
we need to spend it through the Department of Energy in their
laboratories.
They are doing chemical looping. They are trying to develop ways of
reducing our carbon footprint by energy-efficient high turbines for
boilers to make energy from our coal and natural gas and steam. They
are trying to find ways to improve it.
These are things NETL is working with. They are trying to find ways
of fracking the gas, so we get more gas out of the ground than we are
getting right now. Instead of 15 or 20 percent, we would get 25 or 30
percent.
So NETL has a terrific track record. We have some of the best
scientists and physicists in the country trying to improve energy
efficiency, and we have already cut their budget by over $100 million
in the last few years.
This is not a time, Mr. Chairman, to be cutting their budget and
challenging them even further. If we are going to reach this, I want
them be able to reach internally to do the things that will give us
energy independence.
It is not a time to poke an eye at these hardworking people and what
they have done. This is a time to continue the funding and continue
this. If we are going to get energy independence, this is a way to do
it, so I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment and any others that
further erodes the power of NETL to do their job.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to close by saying that one day--
one day, this House will see that we need to have more and more money
put into research on energy efficiency and renewables and not into
fossil fuel.
I feel a cold wind coming from the South, and I realize that today is
not that day, but one day, one day. I feel a chill coming, and I don't
want anyone else to get a cold.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,789,000,000)''.
Page 19, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $150,000,000)''.
Page 20, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $717,000,000)''.
Page 21, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $593,000,000)''.
Page 21, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $120,000,000)''.
Page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,099,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires energy
companies of all kinds to fund their own research and development
programs, rather than continuing to require taxpayers to subsidize this
activity to the tune of $3.1 billion.
If we are serious about an all-of-the-above energy policy, we have
got to stop using taxpayer money to pick winners and losers in the
energy industry and start requiring every energy technology to compete
on its own merits.
For too long, we have suffered from the conceit that politicians can
make better energy investments with taxpayer money than investors can
with their own money. It is this conceit that has produced a long line
of scandals, best illustrated by the Solyndra fiasco.
This research doesn't even benefit the common good by placing these
discoveries in the public domain. Any discoveries, although they are
financed by the public, are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the
private companies that received these public funds.
Public costs, private benefit--that is called corporate welfare. That
is what these energy subsidies amount to.
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.
Last year, when we debated similar amendments, we heard about all of
the technological breakthroughs financed by the Federal Government,
from railroads to the Internet, and we heard promises of future
breakthroughs from this massive expenditure of Federal funds.
Well, I freely recognize that, if you hand over billions of dollars
of public subsidies to private business, those particular private
businesses will do very well. I freely recognize that some of these
dollars will produce breakthroughs that will then be owned by these
private companies, and they will do extremely well.
What the advocates of these subsidies fail to consider is the vast
dilemma between the seen and the unseen, the immediate effects that you
can clearly see and the unintended effects that cannot be seen.
In this case, what we don't see clearly is the opportunity cost of
these subsidies. Investors, using their own money, are very focused on
making investments based on the highest economic return of these
dollars. Politicians, using other people's money, make investment based
on the highest political return of these dollars. This is the principal
difference between Apple computer and Solyndra or between FedEx and the
post office.
These public subsidies, in effect, take dollars that would have
naturally flowed into the most effective and promising technologies and
diverts them into those that are politically favored.
Dollar for dollar, this minimizes our energy potential, rather than
maximizing it. For example, hydraulic fracking--it has revolutionized
the fossil fuels industry. It offers us the very real potential of
becoming energy independent.
Well, after the 1973 oil embargo, the Federal Government began
heavily subsidizing research on this technology. How did it work out?
According to CNN:
Between 1978 and 2000, the Federal Government spent about
$1.5 billion on oil and gas production research, much of it
on extracting fuel from shale, according to a 2001 report
from the National Academy of Sciences, but the process
remained expensive, and research faded as oil prices came
back down in the 1980s. By the 1990s, private industry began
to step back into the business with new technologies with
lower costs, leading to today's boom.
We were told last year that the little companies don't have the
capital to develop their big ideas. Well, that is why there are private
investors who can accurately evaluate those ideas and invest in the
best of them.
Government investment doesn't do that very well or efficiently, and
it is time we had done with it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. I rise to oppose the amendment. This year, the committee
continues its responsibility to reduce government spending, and we have
worked tirelessly to that end. The bill cuts energy efficiency and
renewable energy by $113 million below last year's level and $528
million below the budget request.
The fossil and nuclear energy programs received modest increases of
$31 million and $10 million, respectively. The increase to fossil
energy will support research into how heat can be more efficiently
converted into electricity, how water can be more efficiently used in
power plants, and how coal can be used to produce electrical power
through fuel cells.
The increase to nuclear energy will accommodate a $10 million
increase to support base physical and cybersecurity activities at the
Idaho National Laboratory to protect the Nation's nuclear energy
materials and a range of national security programs at the NNSA,
Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies.
Although my colleague asserts that the amendment would keep the
government from intervening in the private markets, these applied
energy programs are strategic investments for our energy independence.
I appreciate my colleague's desire to reduce the size of government,
but this
[[Page H6004]]
amendment goes too far by eliminating strategic investments we make for
our own future.
I, therefore, oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote
against the amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in
opposition to the gentleman's amendment. It is quite astounding that
somebody from the State of California--a State that exists because of
Federal investments through the entirety of its existence--would even
come forward with an amendment like this. For someone from Ohio, it is
very unusual to see this.
Let me just say that, in opposing this amendment, I wish to offer the
perspective that America can't live in the past, that, in fact, when
one looks at what we are enduring because of our dependence on energy
that is imported, there is no greater imperative than for us to unhook
from imports.
As I look at the gentleman's amendment, it is actually very
destructive. You actually destroy our future. America is not innovating
at the level that we should in renewables. We have a burgeoning solar
industry, but China has captured it. She steals the patents. She steals
the innovation, and we don't do much about it.
You take money from fossil programs. I don't have all of the
scientific answers, but I know that a piece of our future relies on
access that we have here in the ground.
The energy portfolio and the research portfolio of the Department of
Energy is critical. The reason we have the horizontal drilling
technologies--those weren't developed outside by some humanitarian
group. They were developed by the American people's investment in
drilling technologies, which have now given us a gas boom that will
help us transition to a new energy future because the gas won't last
forever, but at least we have the possibility of becoming independent
here at home again.
I find the gentleman's amendment very backward-looking; and I would
say, for someone from the State of California, if you look at the
Bureau of Reclamation, if you look at all of the benefits that have
accrued to the State of California and your own presence inside this
50-State Union, it is because of the investment in energy and water
that you even exist.
So for you to come forward--and it may be a well-intentioned
amendment, but to try to destroy the future of innovation through your
amendment in the primary arena of imports--imported petroleum, which we
have to unhook from and become energy independent--to me, is just
astounding.
{time} 1700
We live in very different universes--that is clear through your
amendment--but there is no greater strategic imperative than for this
country to become energy independent here at home. Our liberty depends
on it. If you go back over the last 25 years and look at where our
soldiers have died, it is very clear we are not independent.
I oppose the gentleman's amendment. I think it is backward looking. I
think that it fails to move America into a new energy future. I oppose
this amendment with full gusto.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I forgive my friend from Ohio for not
being up on California history. The fact is California exists because
it had the freedom to develop its vast natural resources. It is
government intervention that has caused this economy to decline
dramatically.
Both of my friends miss the point. Government simply doesn't make
these investments as wisely as private investors who are using their
own money. Private investors invest to the highest economic value of a
dollar; politicians invest to get the highest political return.
The gentlewoman is correct in one respect: California is the home of
Solyndra and many, many other failed government investments in recent
years. It is the private investors who took up the research on
hydraulic fracturing after government investments failed that have
produced the technologies that are giving us the economic boom in
States like North Dakota that actually have the freedom to develop
their resources on public lands.
It is simply a question of efficiency, a question of waste, and a
question of right and wrong. Let's stop picking winners and losers in
the marketplace and let the investors use their own money to make these
research and development decisions.
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. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
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:
An amendment by Mr. McAllister of Louisiana.
An amendment by Ms. Hahn of California.
An amendment by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
An amendment by Mr. Wenstrup of Ohio.
An amendment by Mr. Swalwell of California.
An amendment by Mr. Byrne of Alabama.
An amendment by Mr. McClintock of California.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment Offered by Mr. McAllister
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. McAllister) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes 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 132,
noes 284, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 371]
AYES--132
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barr
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Byrne
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Daines
Davis, Rodney
DeSantis
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleming
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Guthrie
Hahn
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
LaMalfa
Lankford
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Nugent
Palazzo
Paulsen
Peterson
Petri
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Ribble
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Southerland
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Thornberry
Tiberi
Wagner
Walorski
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--284
Barber
Barletta
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
[[Page H6005]]
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gosar
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Noem
Nolan
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stewart
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
Walberg
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Aderholt
Campbell
Cardenas
Carney
Flores
Grimm
Hanabusa
Johnson, E. B.
McCarthy (NY)
Nunnelee
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Richmond
Rooney
Sewell (AL)
Waxman
{time} 1730
Messrs. CARTER, SCHNEIDER, McHENRY, GOSAR, ROGERS of Michigan, Ms.
WILSON of Florida, Messrs. McCAUL and DEUTCH changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. HAHN, Messrs. HOLDING, WOMACK, and Ms. GRANGER changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 371, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Ms. Hahn
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Hahn) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the ayes 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 281,
noes 137, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 372]
AYES--281
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Butterfield
Byrne
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Coffman
Cohen
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crawford
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
DeSantis
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fleming
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Granger
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanna
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
LaMalfa
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Marino
Massie
Matsui
McAllister
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Nolan
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--137
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Burgess
Bustos
Calvert
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Dent
DesJarlais
Ellmers
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gosar
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Holt
Hudson
Hurt
Israel
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
King (IA)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lipinski
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Paulsen
Pearce
Pittenger
Pitts
Polis
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Rooney
Rothfus
Runyan
Rush
Salmon
Schock
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thornberry
Tipton
Tonko
Turner
Valadao
Wagner
Walorski
Walz
Wenstrup
Williams
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
NOT VOTING--14
Aderholt
Amodei
Campbell
Carney
Gowdy
Grimm
Hanabusa
Issa
Johnson, E. B.
McCarthy (NY)
Nunnelee
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Richmond
[[Page H6006]]
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1737
Mr. ROONEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. PERRY, YOUNG of Indiana, BENTIVOLIO, and JORDAN changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Gosar) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes 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 104,
noes 316, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 373]
AYES--104
Amash
Bachmann
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Chabot
Coble
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Cramer
Daines
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hartzler
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Labrador
Lamborn
Lankford
Long
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
Meadows
Messer
Miller (FL)
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Nugent
Palazzo
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roe (TN)
Rokita
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Stockman
Stutzman
Tipton
Wagner
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IN)
NOES--316
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Conyers
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Granger
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Massie
Matsui
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Noem
Nolan
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
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
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--12
Aderholt
Amodei
Campbell
Carney
Grimm
Hanabusa
Johnson, E. B.
McCarthy (NY)
Nunnelee
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Richmond
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1741
Mr. PITTENGER 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. Wenstrup
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Wenstrup) 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 112,
noes 309, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 374]
AYES--112
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barr
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Broun (GA)
Byrne
Cantor
Chabot
Chaffetz
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cramer
Daines
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Fleming
Flores
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Issa
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
Kingston
LaMalfa
Latta
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Massie
McAllister
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pitts
Posey
Price (GA)
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rogers (AL)
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Yoder
Yoho
NOES--309
Amodei
Barber
Barletta
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clawson (FL)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
[[Page H6007]]
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Hurt
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
Nunes
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stewart
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--11
Aderholt
Campbell
Carney
Grimm
Hanabusa
Johnson, E. B.
McCarthy (NY)
Nunnelee
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Richmond
{time} 1745
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Swalwell
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 172,
noes 245, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 375]
AYES--172
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fortenberry
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibson
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOES--245
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Enyart
Esty
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Veasey
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--15
Aderholt
Bilirakis
Campbell
Carney
Clark (MA)
Foster
Grimm
Hanabusa
Johnson, E. B.
McCarthy (NY)
Nunnelee
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Richmond
Tierney
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1749
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Byrne
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the
[[Page H6008]]
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) 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 110,
noes 310, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 376]
AYES--110
Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Byrne
Cantor
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Daines
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Hall
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kingston
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lankford
Long
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McAllister
McClintock
McHenry
Meadows
Messer
Miller (FL)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Petri
Pittenger
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Southerland
Stockman
Stutzman
Thornberry
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
NOES--310
Amodei
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Hultgren
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
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
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Aderholt
Campbell
Carney
Grimm
Hanabusa
Johnson, E. B.
McCarthy (NY)
Nunnelee
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Richmond
Roe (TN)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1753
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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
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 97,
noes 321, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 377]
AYES--97
Amash
Bachmann
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Byrne
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Daines
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett
Gohmert
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Hall
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kingston
LaMalfa
Lankford
Long
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McAllister
McClintock
McHenry
Meadows
Messer
Miller (FL)
Mulvaney
Neugebauer
Olson
Palazzo
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Stockman
Stutzman
Thornberry
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IN)
NOES--321
Amodei
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
[[Page H6009]]
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothfus
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
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wagner
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Yoho
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--14
Aderholt
Campbell
Carney
Davis, Rodney
Grimm
Hanabusa
Holt
Johnson, E. B.
McCarthy (NY)
Nunnelee
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Richmond
Visclosky
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1757
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen) having assumed the chair, Mr. Marchant, 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.
4923) making appropriations for energy and water development and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________