[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 106 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H6010-H6032]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2015

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 641 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4923.
  Will the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  1807


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4923) making appropriations for energy and water 
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2015, and for other purposes, with Mr. Holding (Acting Chair) in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
an amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) 
had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 19, line 
14.


                  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 $22,000,000)''.
       Page 20, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,810,000)''.
       Page 21, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $30,935,000)''.
       Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,551,000)''.
       Page 52, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $49,062,000)''.
       Page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $121,358,000)''.

  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, ever since 1835, the rules of the House 
have forbidden spending money except for purposes authorized by law. 
Yet last year, the eleven appropriations bills reported out of the 
House Appropriations Committee contained over $350 billion in spending 
on unauthorized programs. The rule against unauthorized spending cannot 
be enforced because it is always waived by the resolutions that bring 
these appropriations to the floor.
  The bill before us today contains $24 billion in such unauthorized 
spending for programs that have not been reviewed by the authorizing 
committees since as far back as 1980. That was Jimmy Carter's last year 
in office.
  Now, I am sure that some of these programs are valuable and worthy of 
taxpayer dollars, but surely, others are not. The fact that they have 
not been authorized in as much as 35 years ought to warn us to be at 
least a little more careful about continuing to fund them.
  Rather than reviewing our spending decisions and making tough choices 
about spending priorities, Congress simply rubberstamps these programs 
out of habit. It is no wonder we are so deeply in debt with so little 
to show for it. My amendment does not defund these unauthorized 
programs, as the House rules would require. It simply freezes spending 
on them at last year's levels.
  The cuts contained in this amendment total just $121 million, which 
is about 0.036 percent of the total spending in this bill.
  If year after year, the authorizing committees haven't found these 
programs worth the time to reauthorize, then maybe that is just 
nature's way of telling us they aren't worth the money we are shoveling 
at them either.
  It is the proper role of the House of Representatives to control the 
purse strings of our government. But we do a disservice to our 
constituents when we allow this kind of spending growth to occur on 
autopilot, absent any oversight or congressional authorization.
  I look forward to the day when Congress will again assert its 
constitutional prerogative to control Federal spending and enforce its 
own rules to prohibit spending blindly on unauthorized programs.
  However, in the meantime, adopting this amendment will merely freeze 
the spending in these unauthorized programs, shaving just 0.036 percent 
of this appropriation. By freezing that spending on unauthorized 
programs, I hope that will be a small symbolic step toward reclaiming 
the House's responsibility to act as a watchdog over the Treasury.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's proposal.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman stood up earlier this 
afternoon and was trying to cut from really essential accounts. And I 
accept his desire to try to balance the budget.
  When his party shut down the government and threw the wrench of 
shutdown into every program that the Nation depends upon, it created 
quite a bit of chaos around here and around the country. Money was 
wasted on furloughs. The military was trying to decide how they were 
going to rotate different operations and so forth. It was a terrible 
period that we lived through. And we are still taking and gluing our 
programs back together after all of that.
  Some of the work of the authorizing committees, under your 
leadership, were not able to clear their bills on time. So the 
gentleman's solution is to say, well, you know, none of that happened. 
So I am just going to take this opportunity to go after the Energy and 
Water bill and kind of take this and this and this and propose this 
amendment.
  And I think that the gentleman's goal of fiscal responsibility is one 
that I share, but this isn't the way to do it. This isn't the way to 
kind of pick some programs, and we don't even know what impact it will 
have across the country.

                              {time}  1815

  I would rather have a much more thoughtful presentation that would 
come before us. What programs is he talking about? The same ones this 
afternoon he was trying to cut, the renewable energy program--he is 
talking about cutting nuclear and fossil energy.
  He really doesn't like the Department of Energy. I bet, if you ask 
the gentleman, he doesn't even want the Department of Energy to exist 
for our country. If you look around the world, I am probably not wrong 
on that bet, so this is just another way to try to cause havoc over at 
the Department of Energy.
  As I have said earlier today, I view what is happening in that 
Department as one of the most important strategic sets of investments 
that this country has to make.
  Why create more havoc over there? We have had difficulties in trying 
to balance our energy accounts over the years. Imported petroleum still 
constitutes 40 percent of what Americans are paying for. The average 
family, every year, $2,800 comes out of their pocket for gasoline.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to modernize our fleet. There is a lot of 
natural gas conversions going on in the country for our truck fleets. 
We need not throw a wrench into that. We need to hasten it, to move 
America to a new day.
  We need a modernized grid, whatever that is going to look like. We 
need to

[[Page H6011]]

be able to dispose of our nuclear waste. We need to make sure that our 
energy policy plays on all keys, not just a few.
  I don't think this is a time to create more havoc, following on the 
havoc that has been created in the past, which I am sure the gentleman 
supported, and to pick on the Department of Energy--we need a much more 
coherent strategy in order to balance our budget, and the most 
important strategy we can have is to put people back to work and, 
through innovation in this country and the balancing of our trade 
deficit, begin to reinvest those dollars back here at home.
  Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier today that we have about, oh, I 
think $34 billion in this entire bill. Our energy trade deficit with 
the world this year is a little over $210 billion. Maybe it is a little 
higher than that.
  The deficit--the hole this year alone is eight times bigger than our 
bill. So if you look at what you are trying to do here, it is 
counterproductive, and we need to be looking at modernizing our energy 
system here in this country, not picking it apart, and not creating 
more havoc at the Department, but actually investing in America's 
future.
  So I ask my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment, and let's 
get on with the regular order here. Let's get this bill cleared. Let's 
go to conference with the Senate and do for America what she needs, and 
that is restoring her energy security in order that our liberty not be 
threatened in this generation and the future.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I agree with the 
sentiments expressed by the gentleman from California, in that the 
rules of the House say we should not appropriate money for any 
unauthorized program.
  Unfortunately, the authorizing committees have not reauthorized an 
awful lot of these programs throughout the government. In fact, a few 
years ago, I tried to reduce funding by eliminating any money for the 
endangered species listing because it was unauthorized for 26 years.
  We lost on the floor on that, but his sentiment is absolutely 
correct, and we need to make sure the authorizing committees do their 
job.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I can forgive my colleague from Ohio 
for misstating California's history as she did earlier today, but I 
cannot excuse her for misstating the recent history that we were all 
quite familiar with.
  I would remind the gentlewoman that this House passed three 
appropriations bills over to the Senate funding the entire government 
last year, including a lot of things that we would like to reform, but 
we agreed to fund all of those spending with one exception.
  We asked for a 1-year delay in the train wreck that has become 
ObamaCare. I think the American people can see that that was a 
realistic request. Unfortunately, the Senate chose not to act. That is 
what caused the government to seize up and to shut down.
  Now, I also want to correct the gentlelady in her suggestion that, 
somehow, this is motivated because I don't like energy. I love energy, 
and I want to see it efficiently researched, and that is best done by 
the private sector using its own money, rather than politicians using 
other people's money to reward politically well-connected companies.
  I would simply ask the gentlewoman this: If these programs were all 
so worthwhile, why is it that the authorizing committees have not 
bothered to reauthorize them in a span of up to 35 years?
  I suggest that fact speaks for itself. Until these programs are 
properly reviewed and reauthorized, all I am asking is we don't keep 
increasing their budgets; we freeze them until the authorizing 
committees review them and reauthorize them.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Perry

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

       Page 19, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,100,000)''.
       Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,100,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman 
Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their diligence in this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I think every single American can agree that reducing 
our dependence on foreign oil is something that--and all foreign 
sources of energy--should be something that we should pursue, and in 
that vein, renewables is a significant component, but this bill cuts 
hydropower over $20 million.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would seek to restore funding 
specifically--not to all renewables--but to hydropower, and it is 
offset with a Department of Energy administrative cost. That is where 
the money is coming from. According to the budget office, the amendment 
actually reduces outlays by $8 million.
  Now, hydropower is available in every region of the country. It is 
not just the east coast. It is the whole way across the country, to the 
point that 2,200 hydropower plants provide America its most abundant 
source of clean, renewable electricity and accounts for 67 percent of 
domestic renewable generation or 7 percent of the total electricity 
generated. This could increase that 15 percent, creating over 1 million 
jobs by 2025--1.4 million, according to my figures.
  Mr. Chairman, hydroelectricity is predictable. You can count on it. 
It is not variable. You don't have to count on the wind blowing. You 
don't have to count on the Sun shining. Twenty-four hours a day, 7 days 
a week, 365 days a year, as long as the rain is falling and the rivers 
are flowing, we are generating power.
  You don't need a bank of batteries. You don't need the wind to be 
blowing. You don't need an alternative source of base load powers being 
generated. It provides it at a relatively low-maintenance cost.
  As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I would contend that it is the 
most efficient and economic form of renewable energy. It is 
unobtrusive. It is not bothering anybody. It is sitting there. You 
don't have to worry about birds flying into it or bats being killed on 
its blades. The fish swim right through it.
  Now, it does face a significant regulatory approval process. There is 
much red tape, which equates to up to 15 years in permitting cycles, 
and that is a detractor that needs to be addressed, so much so that 
there are now 60,000 megawatts of preliminary permits and projects 
awaiting final approval and are pending before the commission in 45 of 
our 50 States--45 of our 50 States.
  We can have this electricity if we can get through this red tape, Mr. 
Chairman. Of our 80,000 dams in the United States, 600--600 of them--
have an immediate capability to produce energy at this moment.
  Harnessing conventional hydroenergy will create a truly renewable and 
green energy source for our country. It is not just about Pennsylvania, 
and it is not just about the Fourth District that I represent. It is 
about all of our country becoming energy independent on renewable.
  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, while I oppose the amendment, I understand 
my colleague wants to see increased funding for the conventional 
hydropower within EERE. I understand that.

[[Page H6012]]

I am a big fan of hydropower in the Pacific Northwest.
  One of the reasons we have some of the cheapest electricity in the 
country is because of the great use of hydropower in the Pacific 
Northwest.
  The bill before us actually increases conventional hydropower by $1.7 
million above last year. I look forward to working with the gentleman 
on this important program as we move forward through this process, but 
I do oppose this amendment.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to align my remarks with 
yours, and that is, though I would oppose the gentleman's amendment at 
this point, the potential of hydropower is enormous, both low-power 
hydro--and the more robust parts of the country, I am sure Idaho has 
big falls and Pennsylvania, in many places, but the low-power hydro 
that is more characteristic of the Great Lakes region, for example, 
offers enormous potential, and there are new inventions to be had in 
capturing the power of water, even as it moves in streams that flow 
just at grade.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to allow this conversation to influence the 
Department of Energy, so that there is more attention given to hydro 
and to the development of new technologies, water dropping--being 
elevated and then being dropped in different parts of the country--as 
well as existing watersheds being used more effectively.
  We need a lot more work. I would say to the gentleman that I bet we 
could get more than 15 percent, if we really put our minds to it, so I 
wanted to offer general support of the idea.
  Even though we can't support your amendment today, let's hope in the 
future we can find a way to do a better job with hydropower.
  I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the chairman 
in the future on this and would ask, at this point, unanimous consent 
to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Bonamici

  Ms. BONAMICI. 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 $9,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentlewoman 
from Oregon and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because of the power and 
potential of water and in support of an amendment that I am pleased to 
offer with my two colleagues from Maine, Congressman Michaud and 
Congresswoman Pingree.
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment would increase funding to the Department 
of Energy's Water Power Program by just $9 million, a small price tag 
that will yield a huge return on investment. This increase is offset by 
an equal amount from the Departmental administration account.
  The modest increase that we are proposing will support hydropower and 
also the development of innovative hydropower technologies, along with 
marine and hydrokinetic energy technologies.
  Development of these new technologies can offer the United States a 
chance to lead the world in an emerging area of abundant renewable 
energy. Marine and hydrokinetic energy--in particular, energy from 
waves, currents, and tides which, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
just recognized, unlike the Sun and wind, do not stop--is an exciting 
frontier in the renewable energy sector.
  Currently, Oregon State University and the University of Washington 
are using Federal funding from the Water Power Program to develop the 
Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, a center that will 
provide visionary entrepreneurs a domestic location to test wave energy 
devices, along with other technology, rather than traveling to Scotland 
to use the European test center. Without continued Federal investment, 
Europe will remain the leader.
  When fully developed, wave and tidal energy systems could generate a 
significant amount of total energy used in the United States. As 
Congress promotes technologies that can help lower our constituents' 
energy bills, we must embrace new and innovative solutions, like marine 
and hydrokinetic renewable energy.
  With this modest increase, the Water Power Program can do that while 
continuing to support a Federal investment in conventional hydropower 
technology.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  1830

  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. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly to oppose the 
amendment. The amendment would increase funding for the marine and 
hydrokinetic programs within the EERE account. I appreciate my 
colleague's passion for renewable energy programs. She has worked 
tirelessly to support efforts to advance American research and industry 
in this area.
  This year's funding for EERE is $1.789 billion, $113 million below 
last year and $528 million below the budget request. This is roughly 
equivalent to the fiscal year 2013 level presequester and is nearly $1 
billion more than last year's House bill.
  Funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy is focused on 
three main priorities: helping American manufacturers compete in the 
global marketplace, supporting the Weatherization Assistance Program, 
and addressing future high gas prices. This left limited funding for 
renewable energy programs for which funding is prioritized to support 
two main projects: an offshore wind demonstration project and an 
enhanced geothermal field test site.
  Within the remaining resources, the recommendation provides $38.5 
million for water power and accepts the budget request proposal for an 
almost even split between the conventional hydropower program and the 
marine and hydrokinetic technologies program. I support the water 
program, and I would be happy to work with my friend in the event the 
EERE account receives additional funding in conference, but we simply 
cannot afford to increase these activities in this bill by diverting 
funds from inherently Federal responsibilities. While I am supportive 
of reducing the size of government, this amendment would reduce funding 
that supports 64 people within the Department of Administration. I must 
therefore reluctantly oppose the amendment and urge Members to do the 
same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Michaud), my friend and cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I 
rise in strong support of this amendment.
  The Water Power Program supports critical private sector research, 
development, deployment, and commercialization for new American 
hydropower technologies and marine hydrokinetic energy. Water power 
research helps to reduce costs and environmental impacts of these 
reliable, renewable energy sources and is very critical for private 
sector investment.
  In Maine, the Ocean Renewable Power Company has deployed our Nation's 
first grid-connected marine hydrokinetic energy system, the first in 
the country, and they are working to deploy additional units in other 
areas of the country. They have invested nearly $30 million in the 
local economy while creating or retaining over 100 quality jobs.
  Countries like Japan, Chile, and Australia have shown an interest in 
this American technology, and it presents a great opportunity for 
exporting American technology. So not only will the development of new 
domestic water power technology create jobs and reduce the energy costs 
for homes and

[[Page H6013]]

businesses across the country, but it represents an opportunity for the 
U.S. to lead the world in an emerging area of renewable and abundant 
energy.
  Now is not the time for a drastic cut in these important programs. I 
urge my colleagues to support this very modest amount of money while at 
the same time realizing that we do have fiscal constraints.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. BONAMICI. 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 Oregon 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

              Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for electricity delivery and 
     energy reliability activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $160,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That of such 
     amount, $27,500,000 shall be available until September 30, 
     2016, for program direction.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. McNerney

  Mr. McNERNEY. 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 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.

  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. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's electrical system is in 
transition. The infrastructure is aging. It remains vulnerable to 
physical and cyber threats, and our energy use is changing and evolving 
every day.
  The Nation's electric grid connects Americans with more than 5,000 
power plants nationwide and about 450,000 miles of transmission lines. 
Seventy percent of those transmission lines and power transformers are 
more than 25 years old, and the average age of the power plant in this 
country is more than 30 years old.
  Between 2003 and 2012, there were 679 power outages, each affecting 
at least 50,000 people and costing billions of dollars.
  The Department of Energy's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy 
Reliability works to modernize our Nation's electric grid and 
infrastructure by partnering with industry, academia, and State 
governments to modernize the grid and our Nation's electrical 
infrastructure.
  The amendment Mrs. Ellmers and I are offering increases funding for 
the Department of Energy's Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability 
office by $20 million and decreases the departmental administration 
account by the same amount.
  Making smart investments to address issues facing our Nation's 
electricity infrastructure will have a number of benefits: it will 
ensure long-term stability in the electricity and energy systems; it 
will spur innovation; it will help make the transition to more 
efficient use of electric power; and it will create technical and 
manufacturing jobs. Ensuring a reliable and resilient electricity grid 
will reduce costs for businesses and consumers by saving energy.
  Grid industry groups such as GridWise Alliance and the National 
Electrical Manufacturers Association, utilities, and manufacturers 
support this amendment. I urge its adoption.
  I now yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers), my colleague and cosponsor, and thank 
her for her leadership on this issue.
  Mrs. ELLMERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this 
amendment, and I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McNerney) for his leadership as well and working with me to promote 
further research that protects and improves our Nation's energy 
infrastructure.
  This amendment will have a positive impact on our Nation's energy 
reliability, efficiency, and security. It will help us maintain a 
robust manufacturing presence and will ensure the critical research and 
development to continue in the vital areas of energy transmission, 
smart grid technology, energy storage, and cybersecurity.
  Technological advancements in the energy sector are occurring across 
the country at a rapid pace, and there is no better example of the 
industry's success than in North Carolina. The success of research and 
development is due in part to the strong partnership between the 
private sector and universities.
  Mr. Chairman, I have seen firsthand on the campus of North Carolina 
State University where they have partnered with industry leaders to 
innovate grid technologies to create the Smart Grid Center of 
Excellence. I have also seen the positive impact of implementing this 
technology and the benefits it brings to our rural communities and 
their rural electric cooperatives.
  Mr. Chairman, with a growing need for grid reliability and 
cybersecurity measures to promote our Nation's energy infrastructure, I 
urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  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. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. The 
amendment would increase funding for the Office of Electricity Delivery 
and Energy Reliability by $20 million using funds from the departmental 
administration account as an offset.
  The President's budget request proposes to increase the Office of 
Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability from $147 million to $180 
million, a 22 percent increase, which the amendment would achieve. 
Instead, the bill before us provides a balanced increase of $13 million 
for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, 9 
percent above the fiscal year 2014 level. Put another way, that is a 
larger percentage increase than any other applied energy program in 
this bill. The underlying bill is a larger percentage increase than any 
other applied energy program in this bill.
  The bill prioritizes programs within OE that keeps our electricity 
grid safe and secure. To that end, the bill provides $47 million to 
protect the energy sector's critical infrastructure against the ever-
present threats of cyber attack and $16 million for infrastructure 
security, including $8 million for a strategic operations center to 
better respond to emergencies.
  While I support the program championed by my colleagues, we must and 
have to abide by our allocation, and we simply cannot afford additional 
increases to the OE program by diverting funds from other Federal 
responsibilities. It is a choice that we have had to make as we balance 
this bill. As I said, this has the largest percentage increase--9 
percent--of any other programs within this area of the budget. 
Therefore, I must oppose the amendment and urge Members to do the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chairman, grid reliability is an issue that we are 
facing. Just this last year, we faced a physical attack on a substation 
in the south bay of the bay area. We are seeing increasing cyber 
attacks. We also have an opportunity to utilize renewable energy more 
effectively with grid responsiveness with the new technology that 
allows rapid switching. In other words, this could help transform our 
country to a more modern, a more reliable, more efficient, and a more 
economic grid system. So I think the money would be well spent. I urge 
my colleagues to support the McNerney-Ellmers amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H6014]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Tonko), a capable and engaged Member of this House.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4923 is far from a perfect bill. I have 
serious concerns about some of the policy riders in the bill, and I am 
disappointed that it does not contain higher funding for renewable 
energy programs, but there are a number of important programs that 
receive the funding they desperately need. We all know that tough 
choices have to be made within the overall funding allocations, and I 
want to thank subcommittee Chair Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for 
their hard work on the bill.
  Earlier this year, I joined with 79 of our colleagues in support of 
strong funding for two important energy efficiencies programs at the 
Department of Energy: the Weatherization Assistance Program and the 
State Energy Program. These programs were underfunded in recent House 
appropriations bills, and I am pleased that this bill includes a 
significant improvement in the funding status for these two programs.
  I want to thank my colleagues for joining me in expressing support 
for these programs to the committee earlier this year, and again, I 
thank the subcommittee chair and ranking member for responding to our 
requests for robust funding for these programs.
  The Weatherization and State Energy Programs not only help our 
citizens to use energy more efficiently and effectively, these programs 
create and sustain jobs in communities across our great Nation. Energy 
efficiency improvements make homes more comfortable and keep utility 
costs affordable. They also create jobs for small business contractors 
in local communities.
  The Weatherization Assistance Program enables seniors and veterans 
and persons with disabilities and families with low incomes to make 
energy efficiency improvements that they would otherwise not be able to 
afford. Lowering their energy bills frees up limited income they can 
use toward other essentials like food purchases and medicines. DOE 
estimates savings from weatherizing a home of over $400 per year. That 
is real money to many families who are struggling to make ends meet.
  The State Energy Program enables our home States to develop and 
implement their own energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, 
projects that are tailored to address the very specific needs of our 
individual States.
  The electricity sector is undergoing, as we all know, a significant 
transformation. The old model of one-way distribution from central 
generation points is giving way to systems with more distributed 
generation. Grids need to be upgraded and are becoming smarter; 
security issues need attention; and changing economics, fuel mix, and 
regulations are also catalyzing changes in this sector. State Energy 
Programs have an important role to play in this transformation, and 
support for these programs will be very helpful to States as they work 
through these changes.

                              {time}  1845

  On a separate issue, together with our colleagues Representative 
Owens and Representative Gibson, both of New York, we called for robust 
funding for DOE's Naval Reactors Program. The $1.2 billion included for 
naval reactors in this bill is critical to support three long-term 
projects: the Ohio class replacement, the spent fuel handling facility, 
and research and training reactor maintenance.
  Over the past 5 years, Naval Reactors has been funded below 
requirements by over $450 million, including $151 million below the 
President's fiscal year '14 request. While I was disappointed to see 
Naval Reactors at $162 million below this year's request, I do thank 
the committee for including some very important report language.
  The work done at the Kesselring site and the Knolls Atomic Power Lab 
is essential to our national security and our Navy's readiness. The 
training reactors at the Kesselring site in upstate New York are 
critical to training nuclear-qualified sailors. Earlier this year, 
unfunded maintenance and repair costs threatened to shut down one of 
the site's two reactors, which would have resulted in 450 fewer 
nuclear-qualified sailors in the fleet next year.
  This bill requires significant funding for training reactor 
operations and maintenance at the Kesselring site and fully funds 
development of the Ohio replacement at KAPL, which cannot afford 
further delays. I hope that we can work together to make sure this 
critical program is fully funded moving forward to ensure that the 
Navy's nuclear-powered fleet has the resources, sailors, and research 
it needs to operate effectively and safely.
  Finally, I am also pleased to see that the ARPA-E program receives 
robust funding in this bill. ARPA-E is an important program. Its 
mission to tackle big challenges in energy and move promising 
technologies forward into the market through strategic partnerships 
between government, universities, and businesses is vital to our long-
term economic and energy security.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                             Nuclear Energy

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for nuclear energy activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion, $899,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of such amount, $73,000,000 shall be 
     available until September 30, 2016, for program direction 
     including official reception and representation expenses not 
     to exceed $10,000.

                 Fossil Energy Research and Development

       For necessary expenses in carrying out fossil energy 
     research and development activities, under the authority of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition of interest, including 
     defeasible and equitable interests in any real property or 
     any facility or for plant or facility acquisition or 
     expansion, and for conducting inquiries, technological 
     investigations and research concerning the extraction, 
     processing, use, and disposal of mineral substances without 
     objectionable social and environmental costs (30 U.S.C. 3, 
     1602, and 1603), $593,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of such amount, $120,000,000 shall 
     be available until September 30, 2016, for program direction.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Speier

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

       Page 21, line 2, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $30,935,000)''.
       Page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $30,935,000)''.

  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. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, it is not often that I can use a passage 
from the Bible to describe an appropriations bill, but the money-
wasting allocation of funds in this bill is perfectly described by the 
Gospel of Matthew. It observes:

       For whoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have 
     more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be 
     taken away even that he hath.

  A sociologist termed this the ``Matthew Effect,'' a term for why the 
rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
  That is pretty much what is going on here. Why on Earth are we 
handing out money to fossil fuel companies? They don't need more 
abundance. They are receiving more than enough from the Federal 
Government as it is, some $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies each year.
  My amendment is extremely modest. It retains the $562.1 million for 
R&D that is in the budget--far more, I might add, than the President 
had in his budget of $475 million. But do we really need to increase 
the R&D budget for fossil fuels beyond the $563 million? Let's show the 
taxpayers we have just a little restraint.
  Fossil fuel companies are perfectly capable of funding their own 
research. In fact, they do. ExxonMobil alone has spent about $5 billion 
since 2008. If more spending on R&D is, in fact, needed, they are more 
than capable of funding it on their own. Perhaps they could reallocate 
some of the $144 million, or

[[Page H6015]]

more than $396,000 per day, they spent last year lobbying Members of 
Congress. Maybe some of their 763 lobbyists--nearly two for each Member 
of Congress in the House--would be willing to start a new career in 
research.
  Here in the Federal Government where we don't have millions of 
dollars to throw around willy-nilly, we need to reexamine our 
investments. Appropriations bills are documents that spell out our 
priorities. Increasing the fossil fuel R&D budget by $31 million to an 
already overly generous $562 million while slashing renewable R&D 
budgets by $80 million states loud and clear that we are more 
interested in funding rich energy companies of the past rather than 
energy of the future.
  Again, this amendment is simple. It strikes $31 million in R&D from 
fossil fuels and commits it to deficit reduction and maintains the FY14 
level of funding for this research.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's references 
from the Bible in her debate. It is always interesting.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment. The amendment would 
reduce funding for the fossil energy account by $31 million in favor of 
deficit reduction.
  Fossil fuels, 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 our energy needs for the 
foreseeable future. That is 82 percent.
  The bill rejects the administration's proposed reductions to fossil 
energy, particularly with drastic cuts to the coal program, which is 
reduced by 29 percent under the budget request, and, instead, funds 
these programs at $593 million, $31 million above last year. With this 
additional funding, the Office of Fossil Energy will research how heat 
can be more efficiently converted into electricity in a cross-cutting 
effort with nuclear and solar energy programs, how water can be more 
efficiently used in water plants, and how coal can be used to produce 
electricity, electric power, through fuel cells.
  This amendment would reduce funding for a program that ensures that 
we use our Nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as 
possible. In fact, if we increase the efficiency of our fossil energy 
plants, as I have said before during this debate, if we increase the 
efficiency of our fossil energy plants by just 1 percent--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 focusing on with funding this program.
  We all know that American families and businesses have struggled with 
high energy prices, and the fossil energy research program holds the 
potential once and for all to prevent future high prices and 
substantially increase our energy security.
  Therefore, I must oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, we have been having a raging debate in this 
House over the Ex-Im Bank. Many of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle are screaming that that is, in fact, corporate welfare.
  Well, when the three largest oil companies in this country--
ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell--made over $62.7 billion in the last year, 
and you are sitting here and telling us that giving them $4 billion and 
giving them another $563 million is not enough, that we need to augment 
it by some $31 million, I think that is pretty darn laughable.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SPEIER. 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves

       For expenses necessary to carry out naval petroleum and oil 
     shale reserve activities, $19,950,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, unobligated funds remaining from prior 
     years shall be available for all naval petroleum and oil 
     shale reserve activities.

                      Elk Hills School Lands Fund

       For necessary expenses in fulfilling the final payment 
     under the Settlement Agreement entered into by the United 
     States and the State of California on October 11, 1996, as 
     authorized by section 3415 of Public Law 104-106 (10 U.S.C. 
     7420 Note), $15,579,815, for payment to the State of 
     California for the Teachers' Retirement Fund of the State, of 
     which $15,579,815 shall be derived from the Elk Hills School 
     Lands Fund.

                      Strategic Petroleum Reserve

       For necessary expenses for Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     facility development and operations and program management 
     activities pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), $205,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                   Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For necessary expenses for Northeast Home Heating Oil 
     Reserve storage, operation, and management activities 
     pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
     6201 et seq.), $7,600,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the unobligated balances from 
     prior year appropriations available under this heading, 
     $6,000,000 is hereby permanently rescinded: Provided further, 
     That no amounts may be rescinded from amounts that were 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget or the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

                   Energy Information Administration

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities of 
     the Energy Information Administration, $120,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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

       Page 22, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.
       Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.

  Ms. KAPTUR (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentlewoman 
from Ohio and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment 
regarding opportunities for small businesses on behalf of our able and 
dedicated colleague from Texas, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who 
had to return to Texas on very important official business this 
evening, and she is airbound, I believe, at this point. I am honored to 
offer it on her behalf.
  Essentially, the amendment increases funding for the Department of 
Energy's Office of Economic Impact and Diversity by a minimal amount of 
$500,000 offset by a reduction of like amount in funding for the Energy 
Information Administration. This amendment increases funding for the 
Department's Office of Minority Impact, which should be used to enhance 
the Department's engagement with minority programs and other related 
activities.
  The Office of Economic Impact and Diversity is really a credit to 
Secretary of Energy Moniz's holistic view of diversity, which 
recognizes that participation via equal access is critical to our 
commitment to ensuring that the Department works for all Americans, 
particularly to improve the lives of low-income and minority 
communities, as well as our environment at large.
  Twenty years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued 
Executive Order 12898, directing Federal agencies to identify and 
address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income 
populations.
  We need to highlight the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity in 
the

[[Page H6016]]

Office of Economic Impact and Diversity because STEM education--
science, technology, engineering, and math education--has become a real 
calling card.
  The Department of Energy seeks to provide equal access in these 
opportunities for underrepresented groups in STEM, including 
minorities, Native Americans, and women.
  Mr. Chairman, women and minorities make up 70 percent of college 
students but only 45 percent of undergraduates that are STEM degree 
holders. That is really quite a startling statistic. The women and 
minorities comprise 70 percent of college students. Only 45 percent of 
them that are undergraduates are STEM degree holders. That is almost a 
2-to-1 ratio.
  This large pool of untapped talent is a great potential source of 
STEM professionals. As the Nation's demographics are shifting and now 
most children under the age of 1 are minorities, it is critical that we 
take and close the gap in the number of minorities who seek STEM 
opportunities. I applaud the Secretary's commitment, which will 
increase the Nation's economic competitiveness and enable more of our 
people to realize their full potential and America's full potential.
  Mr. Chairman, there are still a great many scientific riddles left to 
be solved, and perhaps one of these days a minority engineer or 
biologist will come up with the solutions. The larger point is that we 
need to make more STEM educators and more minorities to qualify for 
them and to make this country fully representative.
  The funding provided by this amendment will help ensure that members 
of underrepresented communities are not placed at a disadvantage when 
it comes to environmental sustainability, preservation, and health. 
Through education about the importance of environmental sustainability, 
we can promote a broader understanding of science and how citizens can 
improve their surroundings. In community education efforts, working 
with teachers and students, they can also learn about radiation, 
radioactive waste management, and other related subjects. In fact, many 
of the communities that these individuals live in are places where 
environmental cleanup is so desperately needed based on the legacy 
costs of our nuclear programs, for example.
  The Department of Energy places interns and volunteers from minority 
institutions into Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs. The 
Department of Energy also works to increase low-income and minority 
access to STEM fields and help students attain graduate degrees, as 
well as find employment.
  The other offices within the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity 
are the Minority Business and Economic Development, the Minority 
Education and Community Development, Civil Rights Diversity and 
Inclusion, and the Council on Women and Girls and Minority Banks.

                              {time}  1900

  With the continuation of this kind of funding, we can increase 
diversity, provide clean energy options to our most underserved 
community, and help improve their environments, which will yield better 
health outcomes and greater public awareness. Most importantly, 
businesses will have more consumers with whom they may engage in 
related commercial activities.
  We must help our low-income and minority communities and ensure 
equity for those who are the most vulnerable in our country.
  I ask our colleagues to join me in support of the Kaptur amendment, 
by way of Sheila Jackson Lee's amendment, for the Office of Economic 
Impact and Diversity program.
  I ask for the support of my colleagues, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and 
Ranking Member Kaptur for their stewardship in bringing this 
legislation to the floor and for their commitment to preserving 
America's great natural environment and resources so that they can 
serve and be enjoyed by generations to come.
  My amendment increases funding for DOE Office of Minority Impact by 
$500,000, which should be used to enhance the Department's engagement 
with minorities programs and other related activities.
  Mr. Chair, the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity is a paean to 
Energy Secretary Moniz's holistic view of diversity, which recognizes 
that participation via equal access is critical to our commitment to 
ensuring that the Department works for all Americans--particularly to 
improve the lives of low income and minority communities as well as the 
environment at large.
  Twenty years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued 
Executive Order 12898, directing federal agencies to identify and 
address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income 
populations.
  I need to take time to highlight the Office of Economic Impact and 
Diversity in the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity because STEM 
education has become my calling card.
  The Department of Energy seeks to provide equal access in these 
opportunities for underrepresented groups in STEM, including 
minorities, Native Americans, and women.
  Mr. Chair, women and minorities make up 70 percent of college 
students, but only 45 percent of undergraduate STEM degree holders.
  This large pool of untapped talent is a great potential source of 
STEM professionals. As the nation's demographics are shifting and now 
most children under the age of one are minorities, it is critical that 
we close the gap in the number of minorities who seek STEM 
opportunities. I applaud the Secretary's commitment which will increase 
the nation's economic competitiveness and enable more of our people to 
realize their full potential.
  Mr. Chair, there are still a great many scientific riddles left to be 
solved--and perhaps one of these days a minority engineer or biologist 
will come-up with some of the solutions.
  The larger point is that we need more STEM educators and more 
minorities to qualify for them.
  The funding provided by this amendment will help ensure that members 
of underrepresented communities are not placed at a disadvantage when 
it comes to the environmental sustainability, preservation, and health.
  Through education about the importance of environmental 
sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and 
how citizens can improve their surroundings.
  Through community education efforts, teachers and students have also 
benefitted by learning about radiation, radioactive waste management, 
and other related subjects.
  The Department of Energy places interns and volunteers from minority 
institutions into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The 
DOE also works to increase low income and minority access to STEM 
fields and help students attain graduate degrees as well as find 
employment.
  The other offices within the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity 
are the Minority Business and Economic Development, the Minority 
Education and Community Development, Civil Rights, Diversity and 
Inclusion, Council on Women and Girls, and Minority Banks.
  With the continuation of this kind of funding, we can increase 
diversity, provide clean energy options to our most underserved 
communities, and help improve their environments, which will yield 
better health outcomes and greater public awareness.
  But most importantly businesses will have more consumers to whom they 
may engage in related commercial activities.
  We must help our low income and minority communities and ensure 
equity for those who are most vulnerable in our country.
  I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Jackson Lee Amendment 
for the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity Program.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Kaptur).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   Non-defense Environmental Cleanup

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for non-defense environmental 
     cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes of the 
     Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $241,174,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Reed

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

       Page 23, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

[[Page H6017]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will 
provide an additional $4 million in funding to the nondefense 
environmental cleanup line of the subject bill by diverting money that 
otherwise would go to the D.C. bureaucracy and putting that money on 
the front line to this critical piece of necessary work that needs to 
be done across the country.
  I would offer, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment supports public 
safety and health.
  I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that we are operating in tough fiscal 
times, and I appreciate the work the subcommittee has done on 
appropriations by going through this bill in a very thoughtful and 
methodical way. It has offered a good piece of sound legislation.
  However, I would ask that this amendment be considered and supported 
by my colleagues because what it fundamentally will do is provide the 
necessary resources for nuclear waste cleanup sites around the Nation 
and ensure that these dollars are spent at a level that recognizes the 
priority of these efforts to our country.
  In our district, I have a site called the West Valley Demonstration 
Project that is one of these types of sites. I have heard from many of 
my constituents--the West Valley Citizens Task Force, in particular--
that spend and devote a tremendous amount of time to this facility and 
this effort of cleaning up these nuclear waste sites across the 
country, and in particular the West Valley Demonstration Project site.
  The information I received, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a need for 
consistent funding in this area, because if there is not, the long-term 
capability and the long-term cost to our country to clean these sites 
up significantly is increased because of the lack of consistency in the 
funding necessary to go through this tremendous remediation and 
restabilization efforts at these nuclear sites.
  I am also pleased, Mr. Chairman, to rise with support on a bipartisan 
basis, working with Congressman Higgins, my colleague in New York, as 
well as Mr. Matheson, who has joined us in these efforts to recognize 
across the country that this is a priority level type of effort that 
needs to be done for our nuclear waste sites across the country.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REED. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise to support this amendment. I certainly understand the 
gentleman's concerns about support for the ongoing cleanup efforts at 
the Department of Energy sites. This amendment is a small adjustment 
that will ensure continued progress to the West Valley Demonstration 
Project, and I am pleased to support this amendment.
  Mr. REED. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's support of 
that effort.
  With that, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Higgins).
  Mr. HIGGINS. I appreciate Mr. Reed yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment, which seeks 
to modestly increase the funding to the nondefense environmental 
cleanup program.
  Passage of this amendment, as Mr. Reed has said, will ensure nuclear 
cleanup sites across the country receive adequate funding, thereby 
protecting communities from the harmful effects of radioactive waste.
  In western New York, as Mr. Reed has said, the West Valley nuclear 
waste processing plant was established in 1966 in response to Federal 
calls to commercialize the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. When the 
facility terminated its operation only a few years later, it left in 
its wake more than 600,000 gallons of high-level radioactive waste, a 
hazardous and unfortunate legacy that the community is still dealing 
with today.
  This is a public safety and environmental hazard that we cannot 
ignore. The leakage of a plume of radioactive material at that site 
into groundwater underscores the danger posed by the proximity of the 
facility to streams that drain into Lake Erie. If this radioactive 
waste were to make its way into the Great Lakes, the effects would be 
devastating.
  Simply put, it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to 
make sure that cleanup proceeds expeditiously.
  Mr. Chairman, it is critical that we maintain our commitment to West 
Valley and other nuclear sites across the country by continuing to 
support remediation efforts.
  I am proud to work with my friend and colleague, Congressman Tom 
Reed, on this issue, and I urge support of this important bipartisan 
amendment.
  Mr. REED. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee 
chairman for the support on this amendment. I thank my colleague on the 
other side of the aisle for joining us in this effort, and I ask that 
we support this amendment and move forward.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

      Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund

       For necessary expenses in carrying out uranium enrichment 
     facility decontamination and decommissioning, remedial 
     actions, and other activities of title II of the Atomic 
     Energy Act of 1954, and title X, subtitle A, of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992, $585,976,000, to be derived from the 
     Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund, 
     to remain available until expended.

                                Science

       For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment, 
     and other expenses necessary for science activities in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or facility 
     or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, or 
     expansion, and purchase of not more than 17 passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, including two buses, 
     $5,071,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That of such amount, $180,000,000 shall be available until 
     September 30, 2016, for program direction: Provided further, 
     That no funding may be made available for U.S. cash 
     contributions to the International Thermonuclear Experimental 
     Reactor project until its governing Council implements the 
     recommendations of the Third Biennial International 
     Organization Management Assessment Report: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of Energy may waive this requirement upon 
     submission to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate a determination that the 
     Council is making satisfactory progress towards 
     implementation of such recommendations.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Foster

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

       Page 24, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $40,155,000)''.
       Page 28, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $40,155,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
increase overall spending for the Department of Energy's Office of 
Science.
  The underlying bill provides a budget allocation approximately $40 
million below the President's request for the Office of Science. My 
amendment would restore the funding level to the President's request. 
Our national labs and the major user facilities housed at those labs 
are some of the greatest tools that we have to offer researchers and 
industry. My amendment would ensure that our national labs are on a 
sound footing to maintain our role as a global leader in innovation and 
scientific research.
  The greatest long-term economic and national security threat that our 
country faces is the prospect of losing our role as world leaders in 
science and technology. Nothing is more critical to preserving our role 
as world leaders than the fundamental and applied scientific research 
that is supported by the DOE Office of Science.
  As a physicist who worked at Fermi National Accelerator Lab for over 
20 years, I understand the productivity

[[Page H6018]]

and the potential of the Department of Energy's national lab system, 
their contributions to our economy, and the wide range of scientific 
research that they support.
  The Chicago area is home to a number of scientific centers, including 
Fermilab and Argonne National Laboratory. The economic impact of 
Argonne and Fermilab in Illinois alone is estimated to be more than 
$1.3 billion annually.
  The work done at Argonne and Fermi national labs not only supports 
our local economy, employing roughly 5,000 people in Illinois, but it 
is critical to our Nation's long-term economic success.
  Despite the economic benefits of scientific research, Federal 
investments in research and development are at historically low levels. 
In 2014, our Federal spending on R&D, both defense and nondefense, 
amounted to less than 1 percent of our GDP, a trend that simply must be 
reversed.
  In fact, over the last 3 years, Federal research and development 
expenditures decreased by 16.3 percent, which is the steepest decline 
over a 3-year period since the end of the space race.
  We simply cannot sustain this downward trend and still expect to be 
at the cutting edge of scientific research and innovation.
  The Office of Science is responsible for supporting research that is 
too big for any single company or university to develop. Our national 
labs are critical research tools to academics and industry alike. For 
example, Eli Lilly conducts nearly half of its drug discovery research 
at the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne.
  The Office of Science is also home to the Department's newest 
ventures, the innovation hubs, which seek to discover and develop the 
next generation of energy sources and delivery systems.
  Programs like the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research, 
headquartered at Argonne, and the Fuels from Sunlight Hub, 
headquartered at the California Institute of Technology, bring together 
multiple teams of researchers who are working to develop energy 
advancements that have the potential to transform energy systems.
  The Office of Science also invests in fusion, a safe, clean, and 
sustainable energy source that has the scientific potential to provide 
the U.S. with energy independence and a nearly limitless energy supply.
  Through the Office of Science's Biological and Environmental Research 
programs, we have become world leaders in biofuels research. This 
research is laying the foundation for a revolution in biofuel 
production that will help to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
  And the list goes on.
  The investments in the DOE Office of Science have also supported 
research driven by intellectual curiosity alone, such as the discovery 
science at the forefront of high energy and particle physics, 
astronomy, or the physics of ultracold atoms.
  These investments have led to the development of new technology such 
as the construction of accelerators and detectors that enable our 
scientists to discover new particles, including the top quark, the 
heaviest known form of matter, and the Higgs boson, that help explain 
the fundamental nature of the universe.
  But perhaps most importantly, the Office of Science has supported the 
training of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers for more than 60 
years.
  At a time of continuing economic stress, we must continue to develop 
the next generation of American technical workforce. As other world 
powers are growing and challenging our position as a global leader in 
science and innovation, we cannot afford to let the number of American 
scientists and researchers, or the quality of their research 
facilities, diminish.
  Funding scientific research and development results in one of the 
highest return on investments that our Nation can make. It is essential 
that we continue to fully support funding for our national labs to 
preserve our global competitive advantage.
  I rise in strong support of my 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, I am concerned that the amendment proposes 
to shift funding from defense to nondefense functions.
  Assuring funding for the modernization of our nuclear weapons 
stockpile is a critical national security priority in this bill. 
Shifting funding between defense and nondefense allocations would have 
negative repercussions on every appropriations bill by exceeding the 
Ryan-Murray budget caps that trigger sequestration.
  I share my colleague's support for the programs within the Office of 
Science, and I will be happy to work with him in the event we have 
additional funding for the basic energy science program in conference. 
However, I must oppose the amendment as written, and urge others to do 
the same.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Illinois?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Foster

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

       Page 24, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $300,000) (increased by $300,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer this amendment on 
behalf of Representative Rush Holt, who is, even as we speak, being 
honored for his many years of service to science, to Congress, and to 
the citizens of New Jersey.
  Our amendment simply transfers funds within the Department of 
Energy's Office of Science account with the intent of restoring the 
National Undergraduate Fellowship Program, sometimes affectionately 
referred to NUF.
  The Department of Energy's FY 2015 budget request would zero out 
funding for NUF while increasing funding for the Science Undergraduate 
Laboratory Internships, sometimes referred to as SULI.

                              {time}  1915

  Our amendment would simply reallocate the additional SULI funding 
back to NUF, allowing the program to continue. The elimination of NUF 
would reduce the overall slots available for those wishing to study 
plasma physics.
  Additionally, the goal of NUF is to support a very specific workforce 
need, and an analysis of the numbers proves that this program has been 
remarkably successful, particularly in encouraging female participation 
in the sciences.
  According to the data collected by program administrators, since 
2000, almost three-quarters of the undergraduate students who have 
participated in NUF have entered a doctoral program in physics, and 
nearly half have studied plasma physics or related fields.
  The program has succeeded in encouraging women to study plasma 
physics. The Division of Plasma Physics of the American Physical 
Society has a female composition of only 7 percent, yet 51 percent of 
female NUF participants enter a Ph.D. program, with almost half of 
those entering the plasma physics Ph.D. program.
  I urge support for this amendment, which would restore the NUF 
program, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would restore the funding 
for the National Undergraduate Fellowship Program within the Office of 
Science, which was proposed for elimination as part of the 
administration's overall science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics--or STEM's--consolidation efforts.
  I appreciate my colleague's passion for the general science 
education. He has worked tirelessly to support efforts

[[Page H6019]]

that advance American research in this area. I have no issues with his 
amendment, and I would encourage its adoption by voice vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOSTER. I thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for 
their work on this bill and for their support of this amendment.
  Before I yield, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read a section from a 
June 21, 2014, report by the Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee, 
which assessed workforce development needs and the importance of a wide 
education pipeline:

       A complete picture of the scientific workforce must be 
     understood in the context of the broader education pipeline. 
     There are many reports that discuss the challenge of training 
     highly qualified individuals in the so-called STEM--science, 
     technology, engineering, and mathematics--fields. We believe 
     that a robust workforce for fusion energy sciences requires a 
     wide pipeline that starts with precollege activities and ends 
     with strong employment opportunities. This pipeline should 
     also tap into the full potential of the American populace, 
     with opportunities to attract women and groups that are 
     traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields.

  The adoption of our amendment today will help address this point in 
part, but we would also like to state our opposition to the Department 
of Energy's plan to remove precollege science education activities from 
its mission portfolio.
  The Department of Energy labs provide world-class facilities, where 
students and scientists conduct groundbreaking research. These 
facilities should operate both as hubs of innovation and as research 
tools to engage students.
  When young students and teachers are able to directly engage with our 
national labs, it inspires an interest and a passion for science beyond 
what any textbook or online resource could ever provide.
  Both Representative Holt and I worked at a national lab for many 
years before coming to Congress, and we have witnessed firsthand how a 
young student's time spent among researchers and experiments can 
inspire a lifelong interest in science.
  We fear that, in limiting educational activities only to the 
Education Department, that we will further isolate the public from 
important scientific research that is being conducted in our national 
labs and that we will diminish science education in America overall.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         Nuclear Waste Disposal

       For nuclear waste disposal activities to carry out the 
     purposes of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (Public Law 
     97-425), including the acquisition of real property or 
     facility construction or expansion, $150,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, and to be derived from the Nuclear 
     Waste Fund.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Titus

  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to call up amendment No. 15.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 24, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $150,000,000)''.
       Page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $150,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentlewoman 
from Nevada and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us directs $150 
million to be spent on ``activities related to the Nuclear Waste Policy 
Act.'' For my constituents in southern Nevada, we know that that is 
code for ``build the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.''
  After decades of losing time and over $15 billion having been 
squandered on this boondoggle, the current administration has rightly 
said it is time for a new strategy.
  Our colleagues in the Senate understand this need to turn the page, 
which is why Senators Wyden and Murkowski introduced bipartisan 
legislation that creates a new system for the disposal of the Nation's 
nuclear waste.
  Unfortunately, some in this body still believe that we should force 
nuclear waste that has been created in their districts on a region that 
does not have a single nuclear power plant.
  What started decades ago as a law authorizing the study and the 
selection of two geological depositories suitable for the permanent 
storage of spent nuclear fuel has now transformed into politics at its 
worst.
  With the passage of the ``screw Nevada'' bill in 1987, which 
designated Yucca Mountain as the sole repository for the Nation's 
nuclear waste prior to the completion of adequate scientific 
evaluation, the goal shifted from how to find the best site for storage 
to how to force Nevada to take all of this waste--science and common 
sense be damned.
  As the years passed, billions of dollars were wasted, and the 
misguided Yucca project changed from being a geologic depository to a 
manmade structure, with barriers erected to attempt to mitigate the 
tectonic fault lines that run directly under the mountain, threatening 
the geohydrology of the area with leaking radioactive waste.
  The original plan was ill-conceived, and studies conducted over the 
past few decades clearly illustrate the dangers and costs associated 
with the project. Unfortunately, you can add the passage of legislation 
to institute a new national nuclear waste policy to the growing list of 
issues this Congress has now failed to address.
  In the absence of coherent policy, I offer this amendment today to 
use the funding appropriated for carrying out the failed Yucca Mountain 
plan to reduce our deficit.
  Instead of wasting tens of millions of dollars more on an unworkable 
solution, let's instead meet our fiduciary obligations to future 
generations. At the same time, let us commit to moving forward with a 
new policy to address the Nation's nuclear waste, one that relies on a 
consent-based system, so that it doesn't force waste on communities 
like mine.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and send a clear 
message that this Congress will not continue to go backwards, but that 
it will take serious action to address our Nation's nuclear waste 
policy.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlelady's passion with 
which she speaks about that, and I understand it, but when she says the 
failed Yucca Mountain policy, I have to remind her that Yucca Mountain 
is the law of the land. The policy of Yucca Mountain has not failed, 
and Yucca Mountain has not failed.
  What happened is that someone running for the Presidency of the 
United States needed four electoral votes--or five or however many it 
was--in Nevada, so he promised the citizens of Nevada that he would 
shut down Yucca Mountain, regardless of what the law said, and that is 
what happened.
  We can argue as to whether Yucca Mountain is the right place or not. 
I think there have been 52 or 53 studies done on Yucca Mountain. It is 
the most studied piece of earth on this Earth. We know more about it 
than anywhere else; yet, for political reasons, we have stopped it, and 
it will truly be a $15 billion waste if we don't proceed.
  What we do in this bill is tell the administration to proceed with 
following the law, so I oppose the gentlelady's amendment.
  I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who has 
been an advocate and an ardent supporter of this for many years here in 
Congress.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank my colleague.
  To my friends from Nevada, I, too, understand their issues of 
concern, and we look forward to working with them.
  To the Appropriations Committee, you have done great work.
  Mr. Chairman, there have been two laws passed: the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act of 1982 and the amendments offered in 1987. It is the law of 
the land. In fact, the Federal courts have ruled in favor of the law of 
the land. That is why we are where we are today.
  The gentlelady's amendment would say: take the money away for 
finishing the court-mandated scientific study. She even mentioned in 
her opening comments of the scientific research.

[[Page H6020]]

  The Federal courts have said: DOE--the Federal Government--finish the 
scientific study. Her amendment would take that money away.
  We are going to find out, through the scientific study, that the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission is going to end up saying that this is 
the best place on the planet Earth for the long-term nuclear storage of 
waste.
  It is going to be safe for a million years, and that is going to come 
if we reject this amendment; but if we accept this amendment, it is 
their last chance to pull money away from finishing the court-mandated 
scientific study. That is what her amendment would do.
  I know my colleagues here don't believe that I am all science-based, 
but in this case, I am. We have an independent commission that is ready 
to finish its work and render a decision, and all we are asking is to 
let us do it.
  If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it is not safe, we are 
done, right, Chairman? Yet, if it is safe for a million years, I think 
the folks from Nevada are going to say: Okay. Let's work together to 
make this feasible. Let's bring jobs and economic growth.
  The State of Nevada can't rely on gaming for economic growth and 
development. By closing Yucca Mountain down, you have lost high-paying 
Federal jobs in the scientific arena, and for a State that has such a 
need for jobs and a diversification of economy to reject this is really 
hard.
  We are pledging right here--and the chairman is here also--that, as 
this moves forward and as we get a rendered decision that this location 
is safe, we are going to work with the State of Nevada to make sure the 
transportation location is safe; that the infrastructure is in place; 
and that the jobs, economic growth, and economy occurs.
  That is what we plan to do, and I pledge here today my full support 
to being with the State of Nevada in jobs, in growth, and development 
as they diversify their economy.
  Remember, Yucca Mountain is about 90 miles northeast of Las Vegas. It 
is in the desert, and it is underneath a mountain. There is not a lot 
there. I have been there a couple of times.
  We are appreciative of the nuclear heritage of the State of Nevada. 
The law is the law of the land. It was passed and signed into law. It 
is time that we not jettison the $15 billion and 30 years. Let's finish 
the project.
  Mr. Chairman, thank you for what you have done. I think we will get a 
chance to talk on this one more time in an additional amendment. I 
appreciate all you have done.
  We look forward to moving this process forward, so that not just our 
spent nuclear fuel, but our defense waste has a long-term geological 
repository.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concern for the 
State of Nevada and its economy, and I invite him to come back again 
and spend some of his money there.
  I also appreciate his argument that this is the law of the land. 
Indeed, the Affordable Care Act is also the law of the land, but that 
hasn't stopped the other side from trying, over 50 times, to change it.
  I now yield to my colleague from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).
  Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you to the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to support the amendment 
offered by my colleague, Congresswoman Dina Titus, from District One.
  As she has so eloquently indicated and as I stand here today as the 
Representative who actually has Yucca Mountain in his district, first 
and foremost, we probably should start by pronouncing our State the way 
that people in Nevada say it, which is Nevada and not Nevada.
  If we are going to screw Nevada by bringing nuclear waste and trying 
to store it in our State, we should start by recognizing that the 
people of Nevada hold dear to what is important to our State.
  I oppose efforts to fund the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project. 
Any avenues for the activation of this project should be blocked. 
Potential funding for the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain 
should be put to better use, whether it is to reduce our deficit or to 
fund other essential government programs.
  Nuclear storage at Yucca Mountain is a failed and unworkable 
proposal. There are investments that we have made in Yucca Mountain 
already, as my colleague has said--some $15 billion--and we should find 
an appropriate alternative use for this site.

                              {time}  1930

  But as it stands, this is a project that has been flawed from the 
start, and it remains flawed today.
  This isn't about one political party or another. Our State has worked 
across the aisle for decades, from our Governor, Brian Sandoval, who is 
a Republican, to Senator Dean Heller, to others.
  So this is not a partisan issue, this is a states' rights issue, and 
the people of Nevada reject you storing your nuclear waste in our 
backyard.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Nevada 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the activities 
     authorized by section 5012 of the America COMPETES Act (42 
     U.S.C. 16538), $280,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of such amount, $28,000,000 shall be 
     available until September 30, 2016, for program direction.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Schiff

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

       Page 24, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.

  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. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would increase funding for the 
Advanced Research Project Agency for Energy, otherwise known as ARPA-E. 
The bill provides $280 million for ARPA-E, which is $45 million less 
than the President's request. It also represents less than half of the 
difference between the committee mark and the President's request, with 
the increase offset by a reduction in the Department administrative 
account.
  At the outset, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of our 
subcommittee for the level of funding provided to ARPA-E this year, 
which is a substantial improvement over last year's House mark which 
cut the program by 80 percent. However, I think that rather than 
providing flat funding, we should be stepping up our commitment to a 
potentially game-changing research program, and that is what my 
amendment does.
  This is a very modest investment for an agency whose work is helping 
to reshape our economy. While the amendment would leave us still short 
of where the funding should be and where it is in the President's 
budget, passing it would send a strong signal that there is bipartisan 
support for this kind of research. Last year, I offered a similar 
amendment to restore funding to ARPA-E in this fiscal year 2014 Energy 
and Water Appropriations Act, which was adopted by a bipartisan 
majority in the House.
  Started in 2009, ARPA-E is a revolutionary program that advances 
high-potential, high-impact energy technologies that are too early for 
private sector investment. ARPA-E projects have the potential to 
radically improve U.S. economic security, national security, and 
environmental well-being. ARPA-E empowers America's energy researchers 
with funding, technical assistance, and market readiness.
  ARPA-E is modeled after the highly successful Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, which has produced groundbreaking 
inventions for the Department of Defense and the

[[Page H6021]]

Nation, perhaps most notably the Internet itself. A key element of both 
agencies is that managers are limited to fixed terms so that new blood 
continuously revitalizes the research portfolio.
  As we cut spending to return the budget to balance, we must not 
weaken those programs that are vital to our economic future and 
national security, and ARPA-E is just such an agency. Even if we can't 
make the investment that the President has called for in his budget, 
let's be sure that we don't hinder an agency that is pointing the way 
to a more energy-secure future.
  Energy is a national security issue. It is an economic imperative. It 
is a health concern, and it is an environmental necessity. Investing 
wisely in this type of research going on at ARPA-E is exactly the 
direction we should be going as a nation. We want to lead the energy 
revolution. We don't want to see this advantage go to China or anywhere 
else in the world.
  If we are serious about staying in the forefront of the energy 
revolution, we must continue to fully invest in the kind of cutting-
edge work that ARPA-E represents. By providing the funding I am 
recommending today, we will send a clear signal of the seriousness of 
our intent to remain world leaders in energy.
  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 today to reluctantly--and I do mean 
reluctantly--oppose the amendment.
  The amendment would increase funding for the Advanced Research 
Projects Agency for Energy, ARPA-E, as has been mentioned, by $20 
million using funds from the departmental administration as an offset.
  I share my colleague's support for advanced research; that is why the 
bill before us already provides $280 million for ARPA-E. That is the 
highest funding level the Agency has ever received in an annual 
appropriation, equal to last year's, with all funding going to fully 
fund new projects over the next three years. Put another way, this bill 
funds ARPA-E at $210 million more than last year's House bill did. This 
is the highest level of funding that ARPA-E has ever received. In 
addition, the bill fully funds ARPA-E's open solicitation to support 
the most promising new energy technologies out there. However, we still 
have to work within our overall budget allocation.
  While I support ARPA-E's program, we must abide by our allocation. 
Although I am sympathetic to reducing the size of government, we cannot 
support taking $20 million from the departmental administration. This 
would do more than just trim the fat beyond what is simply wasteful and 
ineffective; it would slash funding that would result in approximately 
143 people being laid off within the Department of Energy. These are 
jobs with real impacts on families. Therefore, I must oppose this 
amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the chairman for his comments, and I appreciate 
his opposition. I appreciate his reluctance even more than his 
opposition.
  I know the chairman has a large fan company in his district he is 
very proud of, and justifiably so. Those big fans need energy, Mr. 
Chairman. They need a good efficient energy, and ARPA-E is just the 
kind of agency to deliver that.
  ARPA-E, as our own mark and committee report notes, supports research 
that is aimed at rapidly developing energy technology whose development 
and commercialization is still too risky to attract sufficient private 
sector investment but is capable of significantly changing the energy 
sector to address our critical economic and energy security challenges. 
That is an excellent description of ARPA-E.
  By providing robust funding, we can help this vital Agency continue 
working on a wide range of programs that will benefit the United 
States, both in the short-term and for many years to come. These 
programs include improvements in petroleum refining processes, heating 
and cooling technologies with exceptionally high energy efficiency, and 
transportation fuel alternatives to greatly reduce our dependence on 
imported oil.
  So my colleague need not be so reluctant. He can join in support of 
this amendment. Again, it would basically split the difference between 
where the bill is now and what the President has asked for. It is a 
little less than the difference between the two.
  But our competitiveness in this global economy, where we have to 
compete with labor that costs a fraction of what American workers cost, 
depends on research and development. We don't want to get in a race to 
the bottom with the developing world on what we pay our workers, so 
that means that we have to remain the most productive in the world. 
This is an agency that helps us do it, and I urge support for the 
amendment.
  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. Schiff).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program

       Such sums as are derived from amounts received from 
     borrowers pursuant to section 1702(b) of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16512(b)) under this heading in prior 
     Acts, shall be collected in accordance with section 502(7) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided, That, for 
     necessary administrative expenses to carry out this Loan 
     Guarantee program, $42,000,000 is appropriated, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2016: Provided further, That 
     $25,000,000 of the fees collected pursuant to section 1702(h) 
     of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 shall be credited as 
     offsetting collections to this account to cover 
     administrative expenses and shall remain available until 
     expended, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2015 
     appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more 
     than $17,000,000: Provided further, That fees collected under 
     section 1702(h) in excess of the amount appropriated for 
     administrative expenses shall not be available until 
     appropriated: Provided further, That the Department of Energy 
     shall not subordinate any loan obligation to other financing 
     in violation of section 1702 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
     or subordinate any Guaranteed Obligation to any loan or other 
     debt obligations in violation of section 609.10 of title 10, 
     Code of Federal Regulations.

        Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program

       For administrative expenses in carrying out the Advanced 
     Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, $4,000,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2016.

                         Clean Coal Technology

                    (including rescission of funds)

       Of the unobligated balances from prior year appropriations 
     under this heading, $6,600,000 is hereby permanently 
     rescinded: Provided, That no amounts may be rescinded from 
     amounts that were designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget 
     or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended.

                      Departmental Administration

       For salaries and expenses of the Department of Energy 
     necessary for departmental administration in carrying out the 
     purposes of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), $255,171,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2016, including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and official reception and representation expenses 
     not to exceed $30,000, plus such additional amounts as 
     necessary to cover increases in the estimated amount of cost 
     of work for others notwithstanding the provisions of the 
     Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1511 et seq.): Provided, That 
     such increases in cost of work are offset by revenue 
     increases of the same or greater amount: Provided further, 
     That moneys received by the Department for miscellaneous 
     revenues estimated to total $119,171,000 in fiscal year 2015 
     may be retained and used for operating expenses within this 
     account, as authorized by section 201 of Public Law 95-238, 
     notwithstanding the provisions of 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2015 appropriation from the 
     general fund estimated at not more than $136,000,000.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Kaptur

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


[[Page H6022]]


       Page 26, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentlewoman 
from Ohio and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman and Members, I am pleased to offer this 
amendment regarding additional resources for environmental justice on 
behalf of our esteemed colleague, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, who 
had to return to Texas this evening on very important official 
business.
  The amendment is on page 26 of the 60-page bill, and it reprograms 
funding for the Department of Energy's departmental administration to 
increase support for environmental justice program activities by $1 
million, offset by a reduction of like amount in funding for 
departmental corporate information technology programs. The amendment 
increases funding for the Department, and the program is an essential 
tool in the Department's effort to improve the lives of low-income and 
minority communities, as well as the environment at large.
  Twenty years ago, when President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898 
that directed Federal agencies to identify and address 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations, 
America walked toward a new horizon, and we began to understand that a 
healthy environment sustains a productive and healthy community which 
fosters personal and economic growth.
  Maintaining funds for environmental justice that go to Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities, Minority Serving Institutions, Tribal 
Colleges, and other organizations is imperative to protecting 
sustainability and growth of the community and environment. The funding 
of these programs is vital to ensuring that minority groups are not 
placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the environment and the 
continued preservation of their homes.
  It is amazing to go through some of these communities and 
neighborhoods across our country and to look at issues like lead-based 
paint or, importantly, dumps from prior decades that have been covered 
over but are leaching everything from low-level radioactive waste to 
toxic pollutants that have been buried there for years and people are 
living right next door, sometimes on top of these situations. It is 
unbelievable.
  In Ohio, it is amazing how many toxic sites have to be cleaned up, 
and it is not the only place. If you look at maps across our country of 
unattended environmental cleanups, it is staggering, and it is 
important to see who lives on top of or next door to these places.
  Through education about the importance of environmental 
sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and 
how citizens can improve their own surroundings. America has to behave 
differently in 2014 than we did in 1900 or 1950 or 1980.
  Funds that would be awarded to this important cause would increase 
youth involvement in STEM fields and also promote clean energy, 
weatherization, cleanup, and asset revitalization. These improvements 
would provide protections to our most vulnerable groups.
  This program provides better access to technology for underserved 
communities and, together, the Departments of Energy and Agriculture 
have distributed over 5,000 computers to many of these low-income 
populations.
  The Community Leaders Institute is another vital component of the 
environmental justice program. It ensures those in leadership positions 
understand what is happening in their communities and can, therefore, 
make informed decisions.
  These programs have been expanded to better serve Native Americans 
and Alaska Natives, creating a prime example of how various other 
minority groups can be assisted as well.
  Through community education efforts, teachers and students have also 
benefited by learning about radiation, radioactive waste management, 
and other related subjects.
  The Department of Energy places interns and volunteers from minority 
institutions into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, and 
the Department also works to increase low-income and minority access to 
STEM fields and help students attain graduate degrees, as well as find 
employment.

                              {time}  1945

  Since 2002, the tribal energy program has also funded 175 energy 
projects, amounting to over $41.8 million in order to help tribes 
invest in renewable sources of energy.
  With the continuation of this kind of funding, we can provide clean 
energy options to our most underserved communities and help improve 
their environments, yielding better health outcomes and greater public 
awareness.
  In fiscal year 2013, the environmental justice program was not 
funded. For fiscal year 2014, we ask that money be appropriated for the 
continuation of this vital initiative. We must help our low-income and 
minority communities, and ensure equality for those who are the most 
vulnerable.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Kaptur amendment, 
which actually is the Jackson Lee amendment, to improve the 
environmental justice program.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson and 
Ranking Member Kaptur for shepherding this legislation to the floor and 
for their commitment to preserving America's great natural environment 
and resources so that they can serve and be enjoyed by generations to 
come.
  My amendment increases funding for DOE departmental administration by 
$1,000,000 which should be used to enhance the Department's 
Environmental Justice program activities.
  Mr. Chair, the Environmental Justice Program is an essential tool in 
the effort to improve the lives of low income and minority communities 
as well as the environment at large.
  Twenty years ago, on February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued 
Executive Order 12898, directing federal agencies to identify and 
address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income 
populations.
  A healthy environment sustains a productive and healthy community 
which fosters personal and economic growth.
  Maintaining funds for environmental justice that go to Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities, Minority Serving Institutions, Tribal 
Colleges, and other organizations is imperative to protecting 
sustainability and growth of the community and environment.
  The funding of these programs is vital to ensuring that minority 
groups are not placed at a disadvantage when it comes to the 
environment and the continued preservation of their homes.
  Through education about the importance of environmental 
sustainability, we can promote a broader understanding of science and 
how citizens can improve their surroundings.

      Importance of DOE's Environmental Justice Program Activities

  Funds that would be awarded to this important cause would increase 
youth involvement in STEM fields and also promote clean energy, 
weatherization, clean-up, and asset revitalization. These improvements 
would provide protection to our most vulnerable groups.
  This program provides better access to technology for underserved 
communities. Together, the Department of Energy and Department of 
Agriculture have distributed over 5,000 computers to low income 
populations.
  The Community Leaders Institute is another vital component of the 
Environmental Justice Program. It ensures that those in leadership 
positions understand what is happening in their communities and can 
therefore make informed decisions in regards to their communities.
  In addition to promoting environmental sustainability, CLI also 
brings important factors including public health and economic 
development into the discussion for community leaders.
  The CLI program has been expanded to better serve Native Americans 
and Alaska Natives, which is a prime example of how various other 
minority groups can be assisted as well.
  Through community education efforts, teachers and students have also 
benefitted by learning about radiation, radioactive waste management, 
and other related subjects.
  The Department of Energy places interns and volunteers from minority 
institutions into energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. The 
DOE also works to increase low income and minority access to STEM 
fields and help students attain graduate degrees as well as find 
employment.
  Since 2002, the Tribal Energy Program has also funded 175 energy 
projects amounting to over $41.8 million in order to help tribes invest 
in renewable sources of energy.

[[Page H6023]]

  With the continuation of this kind of funding, we can provide clean 
energy options to our most underserved communities and help improve 
their environments, which will yield better health outcomes and greater 
public awareness.
  In fiscal year 2013, the environmental justice program was not 
funded. For fiscal year 2014, we ask that money be appropriated for the 
continuation of this vital initiative.
  We must help our low income and minority communities and ensure 
equality for those who are most vulnerable in our country.
  I ask my colleagues to join me and support the Jackson Lee Amendment 
for the Environmental Justice Program.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Office of the Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Inspector 
     General in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector 
     General Act of 1978, $42,120,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2016.

                    ATOMIC ENERGY DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

                           Weapons Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for atomic energy 
     defense weapons activities in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of 
     not to exceed 4 passenger vehicles, $8,204,209,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of such amount, 
     $97,118,000 shall be available until September 30, 2016, for 
     program direction.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Quigley

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

       Page 28, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $7,600,000)''.
       Page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $7,600,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, it is time we take a smarter approach to 
our nuclear weapons strategy.
  I rise today to offer a reasonable amendment that ensures that 
taxpayer dollars are not wasted on a weapon that the Pentagon is not 
even sure we will have the capability to use. My amendment simply cuts 
the extra $7.6 million above what the NNSA has requested for the next 
generation long-range cruise missile's nuclear warhead.
  This is a modest cut, one that allows the program to move forward at 
the requested level of $9.4 million. The reason behind the cut is 
clear: this funding is for the development of a warhead to be used on a 
cruise missile that the Pentagon has yet to approve. Given this, there 
is simply no reason for the NNSA to rush forward with investments on 
this warhead. And Congress definitely shouldn't be spending taxpayer 
dollars beyond the NNSA's request to do so.
  To get a better idea of what we are spending our constituents' money 
on, let's walk through this program. This warhead is being developed 
for the next generation long-range cruise missile. The weapon it will 
replace, the air-launched cruise missile, isn't being phased out until 
the 2030s.
  This year, the Pentagon delayed the development of this new cruise 
missile by 3 more years and has yet to set exact requirements for the 
missile or necessary warhead.
  Despite there being no rush, this bill pushes extra money into 
developing that warhead. There are also serious questions about whether 
we will even need these new cruise missiles, given the technological 
advances we have already made.
  The next generation long-range bombers will be big, expensive stealth 
bombers able to penetrate enemy airspace to drop their bombs without 
being detected. We are spending a small fortune on the B-61 bomb life 
extension for that advanced capability.
  The B-2 stealth bomber, which this next-generation bomber will 
replace, doesn't carry a cruise missile. Advanced American stealth 
bombers don't need the capability to send a cruise missile from a 
bomber 1,000 miles away. We pay for very expensive submarines and very 
expensive ICBMs for that capability.
  So ask yourselves: Should we be adding money above the request for a 
warhead that goes on a missile that the Pentagon doesn't even know it 
wants and one we probably don't even need?
  Over the next few years, we will be spending billions on our nuclear 
weapons budget alone. Let me name a few of the things we need to pay 
for all at the same time:
  The many NNSA life extension programs, such as the increasingly 
costly B-61 program; 100 next generation long-range bombers; ICBM 
refurbishment and possibly the next generation of ICBMs; plus 12 
nuclear-armed Ohio-class replacement submarines.
  At a time when we have so many other important projects at both the 
Pentagon and at the NNSA, the dollars and manpower spent on 
refurbishing this warhead for a cruise missile that does not yet exist 
are dollars and manpower the Pentagon and the NNSA could be using on 
bombers, subs, or even soldiers.
  That is why I ask my colleagues to support my commonsense amendment 
to take an important step towards a more reasonable, sensible nuclear 
weapons strategy.
  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, the bill provides $8.2 billion for NNSA's 
weapons activities, an increase of $423 million over fiscal year 2014 
and $111 million below the budget request.
  The bill takes advantage of all opportunities to reduce funding for 
activities that are not essential to maintaining the stockpile while 
making sure the highest priority needs are met.
  Assuring funding for modernization of our nuclear weapons stockpile 
is a critical national security priority in this bill. This includes 
the full $17 million in the bill to initiate early conceptual studies 
for a cruise missile warhead life extension program, $7.6 million above 
the budget request.
  The additional funding is a modest amount that will ensure an 
appropriate set of alternatives is being considered. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois.
  As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I am deeply 
familiar with our nuclear forces. In this case, we are talking about 
the long-range standoff weapon, LRSO, which is the follow-on 
replacement for the existing air-launched cruise missile, or ALCM.
  The fleet of existing ALCMs are old and their reliability is 
declining. We have heard directly from the U.S. Strategic Command that 
they are well past their service life and have military effectiveness 
concerns. Projected adversary air defense improvements will impact its 
effectiveness even more. And this is a weapons system we are planning 
to sustain until 2030.
  We need to start development of the nuclear warhead for the LRSO next 
year to meet the 2030 deployment date. The funding that this amendment 
seeks to eliminate is critical to getting this effort started and on-
track.
  The disarm-America crowd will say there is no military requirement 
for this weapon. On the contrary, I have here a letter from the Under 
Secretary of Defense for acquisitions, technology, and logistics, 
stating: ``The Department of Defense has established a military 
requirement for a nuclear capable standoff cruise missile for the 
bomber leg of the U.S. triad.''
  There is a clear military requirement for LRSO. Preserving long-range 
cruise missile capability is a critical component of the U.S. strategic 
and extended deterrence strategies. Gravity bombs and conventional 
weapons cannot provide the same deterrence and defense effects. There 
is a clear national security imperative for LRSO.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

[[Page H6024]]

  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's 
amendment. It simply reduces the long-range standoff missile study to 
the President's request.
  Given the National Nuclear Security Administration's dismal record on 
both life extension projects and construction projects, cost overruns 
like we have never seen before, I think it is wise to take a considered 
approach to any new system and any new study.
  So I support the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
this effort. Support the Quigley amendment.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, the NNSA has a tough enough job as it is 
developing nuclear weapons and handling and restoring the weapons that 
we already have. We have to make choices here. This is a weapon that 
won't be needed until 2030, if it is needed at all. They don't need 
additional money beyond that which is requested.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other incidental expenses necessary for defense nuclear 
     nonproliferation activities, in carrying out the purposes of 
     the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
     seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real 
     property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,592,156,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That funds 
     provided by this Act for Project 99-D-143, Mixed Oxide Fuel 
     Fabrication Facility, and by prior Acts that remain 
     unobligated for such Project, may be made available only for 
     construction and program support activities for such Project: 
     Provided further, That of the unobligated balances from prior 
     year appropriations available under this heading, $37,000,000 
     is hereby permanently rescinded: Provided further, That no 
     amounts may be rescinded from amounts that were designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget or the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Fortenberry

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

       Page 29, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $25,000,000) (increased by $25,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Nebraska and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to commend 
Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for bringing this bill to 
the floor. I am a proud member of this subcommittee. Their work is 
quite remarkable. And it is one of the subcommittees that tries to 
achieve a harmonious balance of bipartisanship in a very difficult and 
divided environment. I want to thank them both for that.
  Mr. Chairman, most Americans may not realize, even though this is an 
Energy and Water bill, that there are important components of our 
national security buried within this bill. There is our 
nonproliferation regimen by which we help secure fissile materials and 
the technology that could potentially go with the development of 
nuclear weapons capability and it falling into the hands of the wrong 
people. This is very, very important work.
  My amendment seeks to move $25 million from the mixed oxide fuel 
program and move it into the defense nuclear nonproliferation accounts, 
such as the global threat reduction initiative and other similar 
accounts.
  The reason I am offering this is I am very concerned about the future 
of the mixed oxide, the MOX, fuel program. So is the Department of 
Energy. So is the administration. So is our committee. Everyone is very 
concerned about the potential viability of this program which we have 
already spent $4 billion of taxpayer money on.
  This bill currently calls for about $350 million to be spent. The 
judgment of the committee is that it is necessary to do this, to put it 
on what I call a ready standby phase so that if the Department of 
Energy can come back to us and tell us that MOX has some viability in 
the future, that we will be ready to move it forward without spending 
enormous new amounts of money, versus what the administration has 
suggested in terms of putting it into cold storage.
  If they determine it is viable, then we would have to spend a lot 
more to ramp it up. If it is not determined to be viable, then the cold 
storage route may have been the more prudent thing to do, which, as I 
recall, the administration wants to spend about $175 million on, if I 
have that correct, on the mixed oxide fuel plant.
  Well, this causes a real dilemma for me because, again, we have got a 
situation in which our other accounts in the nonproliferation area are 
coming down. So it would seem to me prudent, if I was making this 
decision on my own, to actually move some money from an uncertain 
future in the mixed oxide fuel regimen into the nonproliferation 
accounts, such as the global threat reduction initiative.
  However, one more caveat. On our nonproliferation reduction 
initiatives, there is also some uncertainty as to whether or not the 
Department of Energy can absorb the capacity of new money. It is not 
clear on how we would apply that. So there are some significant 
dynamics here that I think lend itself to further consideration.
  Now, I am very grateful to the chairman in hearing me out, having 
heard these concerns when we are debating this on the committee as well 
as the ranking member's sensitivity to these whole dynamics.
  I am going to withdraw this amendment. But I would ask that as we are 
moving forward--not in the next year, but in the next few weeks, as we 
complete these appropriations bills, that we urge the Department of 
Energy to give us some clarity about the real trajectory of the mixed 
oxide fuel, the MOX, program. And if we determine that its future is 
not viable, we need to stop wasting money now. We need to pull it into 
other areas that make more sense, that are higher public goods, that 
help stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the fissile 
materials that would go into them.
  This is not a simple policy debate. I get that. We are trying to make 
judgment calls with a lack of information here. But it seems to me that 
if you are prioritizing something, it is the nuclear nonproliferation 
initiatives and reframing that for the 21st century. It is time that we 
do that.
  The Department of Energy has suggested to us that they are ready to 
work hand-in-glove with us on thinking through a dynamic, new robust 
policy for nonproliferation.
  With that, I would hope that the chairman will give assent to my 
request and continue to work aggressively with me on how we creatively 
construct this moving forward.
  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 appreciate the way in which the 
gentleman is addressing two very important issues. The committee has 
decided that the Department hasn't yet told us what their option is if 
MOX were to close down.
  We are asking for real cost estimates. There are differences of 
opinion about what the cost estimates for the life cycle of MOX are. So 
we have asked for further clarification.
  And as the gentleman rightly stated, if we put it in cold standby and 
the decision is to proceed with MOX from the Department, it is going to 
cost us much more to bring it back up, which is why we have chosen the 
path that we have chosen.

[[Page H6025]]

                              {time}  2000

  The gentleman is also correct that I am as supportive and I think my 
ranking member is also--in fact, I think most of the Members on our 
subcommittee are--that nonproliferation is a very important issue. The 
question is: Can the Department spend $25 million more, and what will 
we get for that?
  I want to work with you to make sure that we are doing the right 
thing and the intelligent thing in both arenas, so I appreciate the 
attitude that the gentleman is displaying in this.
  I know there are a couple of individuals who would like to speak for 
a moment on MOX, so I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 
leadership, and Ranking Member Kaptur, for your leadership in bringing 
this bill before us today.
  I appreciate very much the Congressman from Nebraska and his interest 
in the global threat reduction initiative. It is very worthy, but I 
also want to point out that I am very grateful that the mixed oxide 
fuel fabrication facility is located in the district that I represent.
  It is part of the Savannah River site, and actually, I represent a 
portion of the site and so does Congressman Jim Clyburn of the Sixth 
Congressional District. This is really bipartisan, our support of the 
mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility.
  Mr. Chairman, this facility really is crucial for environmental 
cleanup. It is very crucial to fulfill the nuclear nonproliferation 
agreement that we have with the Russian Federation. The site is over 60 
percent completed.
  You are right that $3.9 billion has already been spent, but the site 
will have such a positive impact by reducing what is already there--34 
metric tons of weapons grade plutonium--and it is made into green fuel, 
part of the fuel for nuclear power production for our country.
  Additionally, it will fulfill the agreement that we have with the 
Russian Federation, to do away with weapons grade plutonium and 
encourage them to do the same.
  I want you to be aware that this is actually proven technology. There 
has been a facility built in France already that has provided and 
proven that this will work, and the other alternatives that have been 
proposed in the National Defense Authorization Act, we have asked for a 
study, but it is very clear that the most efficient and most beneficial 
to the American people and national security is to complete the MOX 
facility.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I join the chairman and Mr. Wilson in opposition to 
this, and I appreciate Mr. Fortenberry's withdrawing because of so much 
of what has already been said. This project actually is about 70 
percent complete. It has been supported by three different 
administrations, authorized by Congress, and is written into an 
international nonproliferation agreement.
  In fact, $4.7 billion has been spent, and this is money that has 
already been invested, and whenever we stop or put it on a cold start 
or cold standby, as this administration already has done, it ends up 
costing more money for the project.
  The best thing to do is to complete this and send that signal 
internationally, but also to keep those jobs locally, which is so 
important for the Augusta, South Carolina, area.
  I believe that if we, as Members of Congress, want to be responsible 
stewards of tax dollars, the best thing to do is to defeat this 
amendment, should it be offered, but, more importantly, get this thing 
completed.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this and 
appreciate his letting me speak.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Again, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from 
Nebraska for both his consideration of this and his passion in this 
arena for what may be, in the long run, the most important thing this 
committee does.
  So I appreciate working with him and look forward to working with you 
to try to address this as we answer these questions as rapidly as we 
can.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your 
understanding of the importance of this debate.
  I ran a simple calculation. If we are going to consider this an 
important jobs bill, that is $233,000 per job that we are about to 
spend. That is a hefty, hefty price for a jobs bill.
  Saying we have completed 60 percent of it at $4 billion, but we are 
not sure of its viability in the future is like saying we don't know 
where we are going, but any road will do. I am worried about that.
  Maybe it becomes viable, maybe it still maintains a status in terms 
of our nuclear proliferation regime, but maybe not. We have got to get 
to this answer because we don't want to waste any more money, or we 
need to invest properly, moving forward, in the future.
  That will be something that will actually help us reduce the 
probability of fissile materials spreading internationally.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
erudite presentation this evening and for the manner in which he has 
handled the issue.
  I appreciate what you have proposed on nonproliferation, very 
underfunded in the accounts, in my opinion, and we look forward to 
working with you in the months ahead.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Nebraska?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                             Naval Reactors

       For Department of Energy expenses necessary for naval 
     reactors activities to carry out the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition (by purchase, condemnation, construction, or 
     otherwise) of real property, plant, and capital equipment, 
     facilities, and facility expansion, $1,215,342,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That of such amount, 
     $41,500,000 shall be available until September 30, 2016, for 
     program direction.

                      Office of the Administrator

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Administrator 
     in the National Nuclear Security Administration, 
     $386,863,000, to remain available until September 30, 2016, 
     including official reception and representation expenses not 
     to exceed $12,000.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses necessary for atomic energy defense 
     environmental cleanup activities in carrying out the purposes 
     of the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 
     et seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any 
     real property or any facility or for plant or facility 
     acquisition, construction, or expansion, and the purchase of 
     not to exceed one sport utility vehicle, one heavy duty 
     truck, two ambulances, and one ladder fire truck for 
     replacement only, $4,801,280,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of such amount, $280,784,000 shall 
     be available until September 30, 2016, for program direction.

                        Other Defense Activities

       For Department of Energy expenses, including the purchase, 
     construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment 
     and other expenses, necessary for atomic energy defense, 
     other defense activities, and classified activities, in 
     carrying out the purposes of the Department of Energy 
     Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including the 
     acquisition or condemnation of any real property or any 
     facility or for plant or facility acquisition, construction, 
     or expansion, $754,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of such amount, $249,378,000 shall 
     be available until September 30, 2016, for program direction.

                    POWER MARKETING ADMINISTRATIONS

                  Bonneville Power Administration Fund

       Expenditures from the Bonneville Power Administration Fund, 
     established pursuant to Public Law 93-454, are approved for 
     the Black Canyon Trout Hatchery and, in addition, for 
     official reception and representation expenses in an amount 
     not to exceed

[[Page H6026]]

     $5,000: Provided, That during fiscal year 2015, no new direct 
     loan obligations may be made.

      Operation and Maintenance, Southeastern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy, including transmission wheeling and ancillary 
     services, pursuant to section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 
     1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the southeastern power 
     area, and including official reception and representation 
     expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500, $7,220,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and section 5 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1944, up to $7,220,000 collected by the 
     Southeastern Power Administration from the sale of power and 
     related services shall be credited to this account as 
     discretionary offsetting collections, to remain available 
     until expended for the sole purpose of funding the annual 
     expenses of the Southeastern Power Administration: Provided 
     further, That the sum herein appropriated for annual expenses 
     shall be reduced as collections are received during the 
     fiscal year so as to result in a final fiscal year 2015 
     appropriation estimated at not more than $0: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to 
     $73,579,000 collected by the Southeastern Power 
     Administration pursuant to the Flood Control Act of 1944 to 
     recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be 
     credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain 
     available until expended for the sole purpose of making 
     purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further, 
     That for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses 
     means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same 
     year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and 
     wheeling expenses).

      Operation and Maintenance, Southwestern Power Administration

       For necessary expenses of operation and maintenance of 
     power transmission facilities and of marketing electric power 
     and energy, for construction and acquisition of transmission 
     lines, substations and appurtenant facilities, and for 
     administrative expenses, including official reception and 
     representation expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500 in 
     carrying out section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 
     U.S.C. 825s), as applied to the Southwestern Power 
     Administration, $46,240,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302 and 
     section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), 
     up to $34,840,000 collected by the Southwestern Power 
     Administration from the sale of power and related services 
     shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting 
     collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole 
     purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Southwestern 
     Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2015 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $11,400,000: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $53,000,000 collected 
     by the Southwestern Power Administration pursuant to the 
     Flood Control Act of 1944 to recover purchase power and 
     wheeling expenses shall be credited to this account as 
     offsetting collections, to remain available until expended 
     for the sole purpose of making purchase power and wheeling 
     expenditures: Provided further, That, for purposes of this 
     appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures that are 
     generally recovered in the same year that they are incurred 
     (excluding purchase power and wheeling expenses).

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

       For carrying out the functions authorized by title III, 
     section 302(a)(1)(E) of the Act of August 4, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7152), and other related activities including conservation 
     and renewable resources programs as authorized, including 
     official reception and representation expenses in an amount 
     not to exceed $1,500, $304,402,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $296,321,000 shall be derived from the 
     Department of the Interior Reclamation Fund: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, section 5 of the Flood 
     Control Act of 1944 (16 U.S.C. 825s), and section 1 of the 
     Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1939 (43 U.S.C. 392a), 
     up to $211,030,000 collected by the Western Area Power 
     Administration from the sale of power and related services 
     shall be credited to this account as discretionary offsetting 
     collections, to remain available until expended, for the sole 
     purpose of funding the annual expenses of the Western Area 
     Power Administration: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2015 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $93,372,000, of which $85,291,000 is derived 
     from the Reclamation Fund: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $260,510,000 collected 
     by the Western Area Power Administration pursuant to the 
     Flood Control Act of 1944 and the Reclamation Project Act of 
     1939 to recover purchase power and wheeling expenses shall be 
     credited to this account as offsetting collections, to remain 
     available until expended for the sole purpose of making 
     purchase power and wheeling expenditures: Provided further, 
     That, for purposes of this appropriation, annual expenses 
     means expenditures that are generally recovered in the same 
     year that they are incurred (excluding purchase power and 
     wheeling expenses).

           Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund

       For operation, maintenance, and emergency costs for the 
     hydroelectric facilities at the Falcon and Amistad Dams, 
     $4,727,000, to remain available until expended, and to be 
     derived from the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance 
     Fund of the Western Area Power Administration, as provided in 
     section 2 of the Act of June 18, 1954 (68 Stat. 255): 
     Provided, That notwithstanding the provisions of that Act and 
     of 31 U.S.C. 3302, up to $4,499,000 collected by the Western 
     Area Power Administration from the sale of power and related 
     services from the Falcon and Amistad Dams shall be credited 
     to this account as discretionary offsetting collections, to 
     remain available until expended for the sole purpose of 
     funding the annual expenses of the hydroelectric facilities 
     of these Dams and associated Western Area Power 
     Administration activities: Provided further, That the sum 
     herein appropriated for annual expenses shall be reduced as 
     collections are received during the fiscal year so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2015 appropriation estimated at 
     not more than $228,000: Provided further, That for purposes 
     of this appropriation, annual expenses means expenditures 
     that are generally recovered in the same year that they are 
     incurred: Provided further, That for fiscal year 2015, the 
     Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration may 
     accept up to $802,000 in funds contributed by United States 
     power customers of the Falcon and Amistad Dams for deposit 
     into the Falcon and Amistad Operating and Maintenance Fund, 
     and such funds shall be available for the purpose for which 
     contributed in like manner as if said sums had been 
     specifically appropriated for such purpose: Provided further, 
     That any such funds shall be available without further 
     appropriation and without fiscal year limitation for use by 
     the Commissioner of the United States Section of the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission for the sole 
     purpose of operating, maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating, 
     replacing, or upgrading the hydroelectric facilities at these 
     Dams in accordance with agreements reached between the 
     Administrator, Commissioner, and the power customers.

                  Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
     Commission to carry out the provisions of the Department of 
     Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, the hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and 
     representation expenses not to exceed $3,000, $304,389,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That of the 
     amount appropriated herein, not more than $5,400,000 may be 
     made available for salaries, travel, and other support costs 
     for the offices of the Commissioners: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed 
     $304,389,000 of revenues from fees and annual charges, and 
     other services and collections in fiscal year 2015 shall be 
     retained and used for necessary expenses in this account, and 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the sum herein appropriated from the general fund shall be 
     reduced as revenues are received during fiscal year 2015 so 
     as to result in a final fiscal year 2015 appropriation from 
     the general fund estimated at not more than $0.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

             (including transfer and rescissions of funds)

       Sec. 301. (a) No appropriation, funds, or authority made 
     available by this title for the Department of Energy shall be 
     used to initiate or resume any program, project, or activity 
     or to prepare or initiate Requests For Proposals or similar 
     arrangements (including Requests for Quotations, Requests for 
     Information, and Funding Opportunity Announcements) for a 
     program, project, or activity if the program, project, or 
     activity has not been funded by Congress.
       (b)(1) Unless the Secretary of Energy notifies the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate at least 3 full business days in advance, none 
     of the funds made available in this title may be used to--
       (A) make a grant allocation or discretionary grant award 
     totaling $1,000,000 or more;
       (B) make a discretionary contract award or Other 
     Transaction Agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more, including 
     a contract covered by the Federal Acquisition Regulation;
       (C) issue a letter of intent to make an allocation, award, 
     or Agreement in excess of the limits in subparagraph (A) or 
     (B); or
       (D) announce publicly the intention to make an allocation, 
     award, or Agreement in excess of the limits in subparagraph 
     (A) or (B).
       (2) The Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate within 15 days of the conclusion of each quarter a 
     report detailing each grant allocation or discretionary grant 
     award totaling less than $1,000,000 provided during the 
     previous quarter.
       (3) The notification required by paragraph (1) and the 
     report required by paragraph (2) shall include the recipient 
     of the award, the

[[Page H6027]]

     amount of the award, the fiscal year for which the funds for 
     the award were appropriated, the account and program, 
     project, or activity from which the funds are being drawn, 
     the title of the award, and a brief description of the 
     activity for which the award is made.
       (c) The Department of Energy may not, with respect to any 
     program, project, or activity that uses budget authority made 
     available in this title under the heading ``Department of 
     Energy--Energy Programs'', enter into a multiyear contract, 
     award a multiyear grant, or enter into a multiyear 
     cooperative agreement unless--
       (1) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement is funded 
     for the full period of performance as anticipated at the time 
     of award; or
       (2) the contract, grant, or cooperative agreement includes 
     a clause conditioning the Federal Government's obligation on 
     the availability of future year budget authority and the 
     Secretary notifies the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate at least 3 days in 
     advance.
       (d) Except as provided in subsections (e), (f), and (g), 
     the amounts made available by this title shall be expended as 
     authorized by law for the programs, projects, and activities 
     specified in the ``Bill'' column in the ``Department of 
     Energy'' table included under the heading ``Title III--
     Department of Energy'' in the report of the Committee on 
     Appropriations accompanying this Act.
       (e) The amounts made available by this title may be 
     reprogrammed for any program, project, or activity, and the 
     Department shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate at least 30 days 
     prior to the use of any proposed reprogramming which would 
     cause any program, project, or activity funding level to 
     increase or decrease by more than $5,000,000 or 10 percent, 
     whichever is less, during the time period covered by this 
     Act.
       (f) None of the funds provided in this title shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates, initiates, or eliminates a program, project, 
     or activity;
       (2) increases funds or personnel for any program, project, 
     or activity for which funds are denied or restricted by this 
     Act; or
       (3) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a 
     specific program, project, or activity by this Act.
       (g)(1) The Secretary of Energy may waive any requirement or 
     restriction in this section that applies to the use of funds 
     made available for the Department of Energy if compliance 
     with such requirement or restriction would pose a substantial 
     risk to human health, the environment, welfare, or national 
     security.
       (2) The Secretary of Energy shall notify the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     of any waiver under paragraph (1) as soon as practicable, but 
     not later than 3 days after the date of the activity to which 
     a requirement or restriction would otherwise have applied. 
     Such notice shall include an explanation of the substantial 
     risk under paragraph (1) that permitted such waiver.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Lankford

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

       Page 40, line 8, insert ``the number of proposals or 
     applications submitted for the award, documentation of the 
     basis for selection of award recipient,'' after ``of the 
     award,''.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  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. Chairman, I am extremely pleased that the 
appropriators and this chairman have included a requirement that 
discretionary grants awarded by the Department of Energy must be 
disclosed to the House and the Senate in a timely manner, and they must 
include information about where these funds are going.
  This is a very positive step forward towards greater transparency and 
greater ability for this body to have oversight over agencies in the 
millions of dollars that are being spent on grants.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I am offering perfects that 
information about those grants and their ability to be disclosed. In 
addition to the money, where it would go, and whom it would go towards, 
it is critical that we know how many entities actually competed for 
these awards and how the winner was actually selected, so that we know 
the full transparency of the process itself.
  Agencies have a tremendous amount of discretion, and they provide 
millions of dollars to grantees. It is incredibly important that 
Congress fulfills their responsibility of oversight. Shining a light on 
how these decisions will be made will allow for critical independent 
assessments of how the DOE spends its money.
  Mr. Chairman, these additions I suggest are relatively minor, but it 
will go a long way to giving Congress greater data on how the 
Department of Energy functions with their grant process.
  I applaud the committee for acknowledging how important disclosure is 
for this agency and for all accountability, and I hope that this is a 
positive sign of how we will handle oversight for all agencies and for 
all grants.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  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. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's intent, and I 
will be happy to work with him as we move forward in conference, but at 
this time, I must insist upon my point of order.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment inserts additional legislative language and is not 
merely perfecting.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  The gentleman from Idaho makes a point of order that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma proposes to change existing law 
in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Under settled precedent, where legislative language is permitted to 
remain in a general appropriation bill, a germane amendment merely 
perfecting that language and not adding further legislation is in 
order, but an amendment effecting further legislation is not in order.
  The Chair finds that the pending section of the bill contains 
legislative language prescribing certain notifications and reports by 
the Secretary of Energy. The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma seeks to expand those notifications and reports to include 
additional information, such as the number of proposals or applications 
submitted for the award.
  As such, the amendment does not merely perfect the pending 
legislative language.
  The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. The amendment is 
not in order.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 302.  The unexpended balances of prior appropriations 
     provided for activities in this Act may be available to the 
     same appropriation accounts for such activities established 
     pursuant to this title. Available balances may be merged with 
     funds in the applicable established accounts and thereafter 
     may be accounted for as one fund for the same time period as 
     originally enacted.

  Mr. SIMPSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 51, line 2, be 
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any 
point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Idaho?
  There was no objection.
  The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:

       Sec. 303.  Funds appropriated by this or any other Act, or 
     made available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for 
     intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically 
     authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414) during fiscal 
     year 2015 until the enactment of the Intelligence 
     Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015.
       Sec. 304.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     shall be used for the construction of facilities classified 
     as high-hazard nuclear facilities under 10 CFR Part 830 
     unless

[[Page H6028]]

     independent oversight is conducted by the Office of 
     Independent Enterprise Assessments to ensure the project is 
     in compliance with nuclear safety requirements.
       Sec. 305.  None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used to approve critical decision-2 or critical 
     decision-3 under Department of Energy Order 413.3B, or any 
     successive departmental guidance, for construction projects 
     where the total project cost exceeds $100,000,000, until a 
     separate independent cost estimate has been developed for the 
     project for that critical decision.
       Sec. 306. (a) Any determination (including a determination 
     made prior to the date of enactment of this Act) by the 
     Secretary pursuant to section 3112(d)(2)(B) of the USEC 
     Privatization Act (42 U.S.C. 2297h-10(d)(2)(B)), as amended, 
     shall be valid for not more than 2 calendar years subsequent 
     to such determination.
       (b) Not less than 30 days prior to the provision of uranium 
     in any form the Secretary of Energy shall notify the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate of--
       (1) the amount of uranium to be provided;
       (2) an estimate by the Secretary of the gross fair market 
     value of the uranium on the expected date of the provision of 
     the uranium;
       (3) the expected date of the provision of the uranium;
       (4) the recipient of the uranium; and
       (5) the value the Secretary expects to receive in exchange 
     for the uranium, including any adjustments to the gross fair 
     market value of the uranium.
       (c) If on the expected date of provision, the estimated 
     gross fair market value of the uranium hexafluoride (UF6), 
     comprising of uranium and conversion, is more than 10 percent 
     lower than the gross fair market value on the date the most 
     recent determination was signed by the Secretary, the 
     Secretary shall issue a new determination pursuant to section 
     3112(d)(2)(B) of the USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C. 2297h-
     10(d)(2)(B)) before the provision can be processed.
       Sec. 307.  Notwithstanding section 301(c) of this Act, none 
     of the funds made available under the heading ``Department of 
     Energy--Energy Programs--Science'' may be used for a 
     multiyear contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or Other 
     Transaction Agreement of $1,000,000 or less unless the 
     contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or Other Transaction 
     Agreement is funded for the full period of performance as 
     anticipated at the time of award.
       Sec. 308.  In fiscal year 2015 and subsequent fiscal years, 
     the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the congressional 
     defense committees (as defined in U.S.C. 101(a)(16)) a 
     report, on each major warhead refurbishment program that 
     reaches the Phase 6.3 milestone, that provides an analysis of 
     alternatives. Such report shall include--
       (1) a full description of alternatives considered prior to 
     the award of Phase 6.3;
       (2) a comparison of the costs and benefits of each of those 
     alternatives, to include an analysis of trade-offs among 
     cost, schedule, and performance objectives against each 
     alternative considered;
       (3) identification of the cost and risk of critical 
     technology elements associated with each alternative, 
     including technology maturity, integration risk, 
     manufacturing feasibility, and demonstration needs;
       (4) identification of the cost and risk of additional 
     capital asset and infrastructure capabilities required to 
     support production and certification of each alternative;
       (5) a comparative analysis of the risks, costs, and 
     scheduling needs for any military requirement intended to 
     enhance warhead safety, security, or maintainability, 
     including any requirement to consolidate and/or integrate 
     warhead systems or mods as compared to at least one other 
     feasible refurbishment alternative the Nuclear Weapons 
     Council considers appropriate; and
       (6) a life-cycle cost estimate for the alternative selected 
     that details the overall cost, scope, and schedule planning 
     assumptions.
       Sec. 309. (a) Unobligated balances available from prior 
     year appropriations are hereby permanently rescinded from the 
     following accounts of the Department of Energy in the 
     specified amounts:
       (1) ``Energy Programs--Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
     Energy'', $18,111,000.
       (2) ``Energy Programs--Electricity Delivery and Energy 
     Reliability'', $4,809,000.
       (3) ``Energy Programs--Nuclear Energy'', $1,046,000.
       (4) ``Energy Programs--Fossil Energy Research and 
     Development'', $8,243,000.
       (5) ``Energy Programs--Science'', $5,257,000.
       (6) ``Energy Programs--Advanced Research Projects Agency--
     Energy'', $619,000.
       (7) ``Power Marketing Administrations--Construction, 
     Rehabilitation, Operation and Maintenance, Western Area Power 
     Administration'', $1,720,000.
       (b) No amounts may be rescinded by this section from 
     amounts that were designated by the Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to a concurrent resolution on the budget 
     or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985.
       Sec. 310.  From funds made available by this Act for 
     pension plan payments in excess of legal requirements, up to 
     $90,000,000 under ``Weapons Activities'' and up to 
     $30,000,000 under ``Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation'' may be 
     transferred to ``Defense Environmental Cleanup'' to support 
     decontamination and other requirements at the Waste Isolation 
     Pilot Plant.
       Sec. 311. (a) None of the funds made available in this or 
     any prior Act under the heading ``Defense Nuclear 
     Nonproliferation'' may be made available for contracts with, 
     or Federal assistance to, the Russian Federation.
       (b) The Secretary of Energy may waive the prohibition in 
     subsection (a) if the Secretary determines that such activity 
     is in the national security interests of the United States. 
     This waiver authority may not be delegated.
       (c) A waiver under subsection (b) shall not be effective 
     until 30 days after the date on which the Secretary submits 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, in classified form if 
     necessary, a report on the justification for the waiver.
       Sec. 312.  All balances under ``United States Enrichment 
     Corporation Fund'' are hereby permanently rescinded. No 
     amounts may be rescinded from amounts that were designated by 
     the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget or the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       Sec. 313. (a) None of the funds made available by this or 
     any other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water 
     Development for any fiscal year or funds available in the SPR 
     Petroleum Account in this and subsequent fiscal years may be 
     used to carry out a test drawdown and sale or exchange of 
     petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as 
     authorized by section 161(g) of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6241(g)) unless the Secretary of 
     Energy submits to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate not less than 30 full 
     calendar days in advance of such test--
       (1) notification of intent to conduct a test;
       (2) an explanation of why such a test is necessary or what 
     is expected to be learned;
       (3) the amount of crude oil or refined petroleum product to 
     be offered for sale or exchange;
       (4) an estimate of revenues expected from such test; and
       (5) a plan for refilling the Reserve, including whether the 
     acquisition will be of the same or of a different petroleum 
     product.
       (b) None of the funds made available by this or any prior 
     Act or funds available in the SPR Petroleum Account may be 
     used to acquire any petroleum product other than crude oil.
       Sec. 314.  Of the funds authorized by the Secretary of 
     Energy for laboratory directed research and development, no 
     individual program, project, or activity funded by this or 
     any subsequent Energy and Water Development appropriations 
     Act for any fiscal year may be charged more than the 
     statutory maximum authorized for such activities.
       Sec. 315.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Energy to finalize, implement, 
     or enforce the proposed rule entitled ``Standards Ceiling 
     Fans and Ceiling Fan Light Kits'' and identified by 
     regulation identification number 1904-AC87.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                    Appalachian Regional Commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the programs authorized 
     by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, 
     notwithstanding 40 U.S.C. 14704, and for necessary expenses 
     for the Federal Co-Chairman and the Alternate on the 
     Appalachian Regional Commission, for payment of the Federal 
     share of the administrative expenses of the Commission, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles, $80,317,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
     Safety Board in carrying out activities authorized by the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by Public Law 100-456, 
     section 1441, $29,150,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2016.

  The Acting CHAIR. Are there any amendments to that section of the 
bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        Delta Regional Authority

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Delta Regional Authority and 
     to carry out its activities, as authorized by the Delta 
     Regional Authority Act of 2000, notwithstanding sections 
     382C(b)(2), 382F(d), 382M, and 382N of said Act, $12,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                           Denali Commission

       For expenses of the Denali Commission including the 
     purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and capital 
     equipment as necessary and other expenses, $10,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, notwithstanding the 
     limitations contained in section 306(g) of the Denali 
     Commission Act of 1998: Provided, That funds shall be 
     available for construction projects in an amount not to 
     exceed 80 percent of total project cost for distressed 
     communities, as defined by section 307 of the Denali 
     Commission Act of 1998 (division C, title III, Public Law 
     105-277), as amended by section 701 of appendix D, title VII, 
     Public Law 106-113 (113 Stat. 1501A-280), and an amount not 
     to exceed 50 percent for non-distressed communities.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Chabot

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

[[Page H6029]]

  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 51, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  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. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, my amendment eliminates funding for the 
Denali Commission and uses the nearly $10 million in savings to pay 
down our $17.5 trillion national debt. It is a relatively small amount 
in relation to our national debt, but nonetheless, I believe it is a 
step in the right direction.
  For those who don't know, the Denali Commission is one of seven 
regional commissions that help direct Federal funds to State and local 
projects. However, unlike the other commissions, the Denali Commission 
serves only one State, Alaska, making it a little more than an 
unnecessary middleman.
  Many people would argue, including myself, that American taxpayers 
would be better served if Federal funds were distributed directly to 
the State of Alaska or to Alaskan communities.
  After all, State and local governments are more knowledgeable and 
better equipped than the Federal Government to address the needs of 
local communities.
  I am not the only one calling for an end to the 15-year-old Denali 
experiment. Last October, in his semiannual report to Congress, former 
inspector general of the Denali Commission, Mike Marsh, recommended 
that Congress eliminate Denali's funding in order to transition the 
Commission into a locally run and operated entity.
  On Friday, September 27, 2013, The Washington Post ran a front-page 
article, this one here, entitled ``Fire Me,'' in which Mike Marsh, the 
inspector general, requested that Congress fire him and everybody that 
worked with him. He is quoted as saying:
  I have concluded that my agency is a congressional experiment that 
hasn't worked out in practice. I recommend that Congress put its money 
elsewhere.
  That is the inspector general for the Denali Commission.
  Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget and the CBO have 
recommended the elimination of this Commission.
  Additionally, as the former inspector general's report details, the 
projects funded by the Denali Commission are often wasteful and 
shortsighted.
  For example, the Commission has spent millions on microsettlements. 
Records show that the Denali Commission spent $200 million to build 
facilities in 81 locations with a population of less than 250 people.
  These 81 locations have a total population of less than 10,000 
people. At 10,000 people, the Commission spent $57,000 per household. 
Think of that: $57,000 per household.
  For nearly a decade, independent agencies have questioned the need 
for the Denali Commission. Agencies from the CBO to the White House 
have found 29 other programs that are capable of fulfilling the 
Commission's mandate.
  The Republican Study Committee, Citizens Against Government Waste, 
Heritage, Cato, the American Conservative Union, National Taxpayers 
Union, and even President Obama have all targeted the Commission for 
elimination.

                              {time}  2015

  It is time that we heed these recommendations and eliminate funding 
for the Denali Commission once and for all. To do otherwise, I believe, 
would be imprudent and wasteful, especially when faced with a $17.5 
trillion national debt.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as the gentleman said, 
would eliminate the Denali Commission, which is funded at last year's 
level of $10 million in this bill.
  The Denali Commission provides infrastructure and economic 
development activities for some of the country's most rural and 
distressed communities. Regardless of whether it is one State or a 
region, the fact is the State is probably larger than any one of the 
regions that the Commission deals with.
  In a time of economic instability, communities can scarily afford to 
lose the millions of dollars in private investments leveraged by the 
Commission annually. Elimination of the Denali Commission would deprive 
these communities of many essential infrastructure and economic 
development projects. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. With 
all due respect to the gentleman offering this amendment, yes, we are 
one State; but if you took all of the land from the tip of Maine to the 
tip of Florida, from the Mississippi River over, that is part of 
Alaska. That is a big State, not a little State, like Ohio.
  This Commission has work. And I have to say one thing, it is being 
referred to as the ``IG report by Mr. Marshall''--totally incompetent. 
It has been unfounded. His finding was unfounded. In fact, we can't 
find him. We would like to find out where he is. He no longer exists. 
What he said about this Commission is totally inaccurate. It has 
worked. It will work, and we are a rural area.
  What it has done, one thing when it was created was to move the fuel 
tanks away from the waters that EPA said they couldn't be close to. 
These communities could not do that, and the process of the Federal 
Government and the other agencies, it would have taken too long. So we 
moved these fuel tanks across. And yes, it was used for clinics, and 
yes, it has been used for sewer and water. Forty-four of our villages 
don't have water yet, don't have sewage. They carry ``honey buckets.'' 
Why they call them ``honey buckets'' I have no idea.
  But this Commission is to take and provide the proper things for, 
just as your constituents use every day and take for granted. This 
Commission has worked. We want to keep the money, and I want to thank 
the chairman for understanding this. This amendment has been offered 
time and time again. And as he said, this is a very small amount of 
money. That is not what I am arguing. It is money well spent. If we 
don't spend it on this type thing to cut out the middleman, and they 
keep saying there are other agencies. That is not true. Those agencies 
do not function. Most of our agencies today do not function because 
there are too many layers and nothing gets to the constituent, nothing 
gets to solving the problem.
  So I am suggesting, and we have done some work on this. I asked for a 
GAO investigation; I did, to find if this has occurred. It has not been 
reported back to us yet. It will be. In fact, it will show that the 
IG's report is false, and that is one of the things I am looking 
forward to.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. It is time we accept 
the fact that this system works, as the other commissions do, for those 
communities that are less fortunate than the communities in which most 
people live in who are in this body. I come from a rural State. I want 
to serve my rural State, and I am sure the Commission does also.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would say this is not about Alaska. 
Alaska is a tremendous State that I have personally visited. I have not 
had an opportunity to live there, as my colleague has, obviously. But 
this is not about Alaska; this is about duplication in government 
efficiency and how we actually deliver services to these agencies.
  In 2004, President Bush's Office of Management and Budget wrote that 
the Commission's activities were duplicative of other Federal programs 
that address the same needs and provide the same types of assistance.
  In 2009, President Obama's OMB referred to the Denali Commission as 
duplicative, redundant, unnecessary, and stated there was no evidence 
that the Denali Commission's job training programs improve employment 
outcomes for participants.

[[Page H6030]]

  The GAO found the Denali Commission's activities to be duplicative of 
other Federal programs.
  The Congressional Budget Office examined the Denali Commission and 
they said that they failed to find any evidence that they have achieved 
success in these areas in large part due to the overlap of the 
Commission's activities in other Federal programs.
  And in October of 2013, the Office of Inspector General said that the 
Denali Commission was a middleman, that it was an experiment that had 
run its course and argued that these funds could be appropriated and be 
put to better use.
  Put the funds towards Alaska. Put them actually in direct grants 
rather than a program that is a middleman around it. There are ways to 
be able to determine this, but we as a Nation have to find ways to be 
able to eliminate duplication, and this is one of those moments.
  Are we going to listen to the inspector general, the Congressional 
Budget Office, the GAO, two different Presidents' Offices of Management 
and Budget, or will we ignore all of those?
  With that, I encourage us to deal with a transition, continue to take 
care of the needs of rural Alaska but find a more efficient delivery 
system to do that.
  Mr. CHABOT. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHABOT. 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.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  Northern Border Regional Commission

       For necessary expenses of the Northern Border Regional 
     Commission in carrying out activities authorized by subtitle 
     V of title 40, United States Code, $3,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That such amounts shall 
     be available for administrative expenses, notwithstanding 
     section 15751(b) of title 40, United States Code.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Fattah

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

       Page 52, line 4, after the dollar amount insert (increase 
     by 1) (decrease by 1)

  Mr. FATTAH (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
to waive the further reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank you and thank the 
chairman and the ranking member who have done an extraordinary amount 
of work developing this bill, everything from the nonproliferation work 
and the security and modernization of our nuclear weapons enterprise, 
the renewable and nuclear support programs, the energy labs, and their 
support of the Office of Science at DOE. I know the committee has 
worked very hard.
  I rise tonight to offer an amendment which at the conclusion of my 
remarks I will withdraw, but I wanted to take this opportunity to say a 
number of things. One is that I have traveled with the chairman and 
other members of the committee over these many years to many of our 
national energy labs. And in particular, I have focused on the nuclear 
weapons enterprise, but I rise today in support of and wanting to thank 
the chairman and the ranking member for their support for the Energy 
Efficient Buildings Hub in Philadelphia.
  The administration had asked for an appropriation. The committee in 
its work has decided to go well beyond that, and I want to thank the 
chairman publicly. Even though it is in Philadelphia, I don't rise in a 
parochial sense. I also thank you for your support for the other labs. 
The Pittsburgh lab, for instance, is where the work was done that has 
enabled us to tap the Marcellus Shale. These labs are so vitally 
important. The science that is done there has increased our country's 
capacity in terms of energy, and I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Southeast Crescent Regional Commission

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

                     Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission in carrying out 
     the purposes of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the 
     Atomic Energy Act of 1954, including official representation 
     expenses not to exceed $25,000, $1,052,433,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $55,000,000 shall be 
     derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund: Provided, That of the 
     amount appropriated herein, not more than $9,500,000 may be 
     made available for salaries, travel, and other support costs 
     for the Office of the Commission, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2016, of which, notwithstanding section 
     201(a)(2)(c) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 5841(a)(2)(c)), the use and expenditure shall only be 
     approved by a majority vote of the Commission: Provided 
     further, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection 
     services, and other services and collections estimated at 
     $880,155,000 in fiscal year 2015 shall be retained and used 
     for necessary salaries and expenses in this account, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, and shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of revenues 
     received during fiscal year 2015 so as to result in a final 
     fiscal year 2015 appropriation estimated at not more than 
     $172,278,000: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     appropriated under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be for 
     university research and development in areas relevant to 
     their respective organization's mission, and $5,000,000 shall 
     be for a Nuclear Science and Engineering Grant Program that 
     will support multiyear projects that do not align with 
     programmatic missions but are critical to maintaining the 
     discipline of nuclear science and engineering.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, $12,071,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2016: Provided, That revenues from licensing fees, inspection 
     services, and other services and collections estimated at 
     $10,099,000 in fiscal year 2015 shall be retained and be 
     available until September 30, 2016, for necessary salaries 
     and expenses in this account, notwithstanding section 3302 of 
     title 31, United States Code: Provided further, That the sum 
     herein appropriated shall be reduced by the amount of 
     revenues received during fiscal year 2015 so as to result in 
     a final fiscal year 2015 appropriation estimated at not more 
     than $1,972,000: Provided further, That, of the amounts 
     appropriated under this heading, $850,000 shall be for 
     Inspector General services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
     Safety Board, which shall not be available from fee revenues.

                  Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Nuclear Waste Technical 
     Review Board, as authorized by Public Law 100-203, section 
     5051, $3,400,000, to be derived from the Nuclear Waste Fund, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2016.

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

       Sec. 401.  The Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory 
     Commission shall notify the other members of the Commission, 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives, and the Committee 
     on Environment and Public Works of the Senate, not later than 
     1 day after the Chairman begins performing functions under 
     the authority of section 3 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 
     1980, or after a member of the Commission who is delegated 
     emergency functions under subsection (b) of that section 
     begins performing those functions. Such notification shall 
     include an explanation of the circumstances warranting the 
     exercise of such authority. The Chairman shall report to the 
     Committees, not less frequently than once each week, on the 
     actions taken by the Chairman, or a delegated member of the 
     Commission, under such authority, until the authority is 
     relinquished. The Chairman shall notify the Committees not 
     later than 1 day after such authority is relinquished. The 
     Chairman shall submit the report required by section 3(d) of 
     the Reorganization Plan

[[Page H6031]]

     No. 1 of 1980 to the Committees not later than 1 day after it 
     was submitted to the Commission. This section shall be in 
     effect in fiscal year 2015 and each subsequent fiscal year.
       Sec. 402.  The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall comply 
     with the July 5, 2011, version of Chapter VI of its Internal 
     Commission Procedures when responding to Congressional 
     requests for information until those Procedures are changed 
     or waived by a majority of the Commission, in accordance with 
     Commission practice.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 501.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used in any way, directly or indirectly, to influence 
     congressional action on any legislation or appropriation 
     matters pending before Congress, other than to communicate to 
     Members of Congress as described in 18 U.S.C. 1913.
       Sec. 502.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to any corporation 
     that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any 
     Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the 
     awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless the agency 
     has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and 
     has made a determination that this further action is not 
     necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
       Sec. 503.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation 
     that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been 
     assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies 
     have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being 
     paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the 
     authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where 
     the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, 
     unless the agency has considered suspension or debarment of 
     the corporation and has made a determination that this 
     further action is not necessary to protect the interests of 
     the Government.
       Sec. 504. (a) None of the funds made available in title III 
     of this Act may be transferred to any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States Government, except 
     pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer authority provided 
     in this Act or any other appropriations Act for any fiscal 
     year, transfer authority referenced in the report of the 
     Committee on Appropriations accompanying this Act, or any 
     authority whereby a department, agency, or instrumentality of 
     the United States Government may provide goods or services to 
     another department, agency, or instrumentality.
       (b) None of the funds made available for any department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government 
     may be transferred to accounts funded in title III of this 
     Act, except pursuant to a transfer made by or transfer 
     authority provided in this Act or any other appropriations 
     Act for any fiscal year, transfer authority referenced in the 
     report of the Committee on Appropriations accompanying this 
     Act, or any authority whereby a department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States Government may provide 
     goods or services to another department, agency, or 
     instrumentality.
       (c) The head of any relevant department or agency funded in 
     this Act utilizing any transfer authority shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate a semiannual report detailing the transfer 
     authorities, except for any authority whereby a department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government 
     may provide goods or services to another department, agency, 
     or instrumentality, used in the previous 6 months and in the 
     year-to-date. This report shall include the amounts 
     transferred and the purposes for which they were transferred, 
     and shall not replace or modify existing notification 
     requirements for each authority.
       Sec. 505.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of Executive Order No. 12898 of 
     February 11, 1994 (``Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
     Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
     Populations'').
       Sec. 506.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to conduct closure of adjudicatory functions, 
     technical review, or support activities associated with the 
     Yucca Mountain geologic repository license application, or 
     for actions that irrevocably remove the possibility that 
     Yucca Mountain may be a repository option in the future.


                 Amendment No. 14 Offered by Ms. Titus

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

       Page 59, beginning on line 8, strike section 506.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 641, the gentlewoman 
from Nevada and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Nevada.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, we all know the history of the misguided 
Yucca Mountain project, so there is no need to repeat it again. This 
simple amendment that I am going to offer would strike language 
included in the bill which prohibits the DOE from closing Yucca 
Mountain.
  Now we heard earlier this evening from an esteemed colleague on this 
floor that he cares deeply about Nevada, and he went on to say that if 
the latest court mandated study determines Yucca Mountain is not safe 
for 1 million years, he will, indeed, lead the charge to move on to 
another solution. In fact, he called on the chairman of the committee 
to join him in that pledge. Well, I thank him for that, but I would ask 
you, Mr. Chairman, how can that be possible if the provision 
prohibiting closure of Yucca Mountain is left in the bill? Is this 
offer not a sincere one? Is this yet another empty promise to the 
people of Nevada?
  Indeed, if this amendment is not adopted and instead the DOE is 
prohibited from ever closing Yucca Mountain, how can we believe 
anything that is being said or done in relation to this proposed dump 
site?
  I tell you, Mr. Chairman, Nevada is not a wasteland, and I urge 
passage of this amendment that would strike that language prohibiting 
the DOE from ever closing Yucca Mountain regardless of whether it is 
found to be safe or not.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I oppose this amendment. It is an interesting argument 
the gentlelady made. The House has repeatedly had overwhelming votes in 
support of continuing the Yucca Mountain repository.
  The language that would be stricken by this amendment we have been 
carrying for years as a way to keep the will of the House and the 
American people alive. In fact, the votes supporting Yucca Mountain in 
this House have been overwhelming each time that we voted on it.
  I would remind the gentlelady that this doesn't mean that Yucca 
Mountain can never be closed. The comment of the gentleman from 
Illinois would still be true. An appropriation bill is a 1-year 
appropriation bill. That is why we carry this language in each 
appropriation bill.
  We need to wait for the safety review by the NRC to be done to decide 
what we are going to do moving forward, instead of political decisions 
that have been made on Yucca Mountain in the past. And it has been a 
political decision. I think even the gentlelady would agree with that. 
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank the committee for doing again fine work. The 
amendment talked about none of the funds can be used for the NRC's 
work. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the independent agency to 
ensure the safety of the nuclear power industry and the disposition of 
its waste.
  In attacking this and pulling this money out, it is the last attempt 
to say: We are not going to allow the scientific basis and our 
Commission, most appointed by Democratic administrations, to do their 
work.

                              {time}  2030

  We know what they are going to come out with. They are going to say 
it is safe for a million years.
  People need to go visit the great State of Nevada. But I will just 
tell you that it is a great State, and I have been there. There will be 
a time when we need to move forward, and I am pledging, along with the 
chairman, to do what is right by your State.
  Yucca Mountain is just a small portion of the nuclear waste test 
site. You have DOE land; you have Bureau of Land Management land; you 
have military land. It is bigger than most States, and people don't 
understand that until they go out there.
  Seven of your 17 counties at least support--what has been raised by 
the chairman--support the Nuclear Regulatory Commission coming to a 
final conclusion, and you all know that because they have passed a 
county resolution. So to say that everyone from

[[Page H6032]]

the State is opposed, what many folks from the State of Nevada say is 
let's find out the safety of this, let the NRC do its work, and we have 
resolutions from seven of the 17 counties that support that.
  We will eventually get through this. We voted numerous times in this 
Chamber over my many years here. Last year, 335-81, 337-87. The House 
as a body, representing Members from across this great Nation, have 
spoken in support of supporting Federal law. You have the right to come 
down here and try to stop the implementation of law, and I understand 
that and I respect that; but there will be a time when we continue to 
pledge, as this policy moves forward, that we will do everything to do 
what is right for your State in moving and storing and ensuring safety 
for this as the national policy over land enacted by the Federal 
statute in 1982 along with the amendments in 1987.
  I know I have got a lot of support on your side, and we need to get 
closure to this so that we can continue to have, really, an energy 
policy that is diversified. If we move on this climate agenda, how do 
you move on a climate agenda without nuclear power? You just can't. 
Large major generating facilities.
  How do we deal with the World War II nuclear waste without a place to 
safely store, a place like Hanford in Washington State that is a legacy 
site from World War II? Do you know where that should go if the NRC 
concludes it is safe? Under a mountain, in a desert, 90 miles northeast 
of Las Vegas.
  Again, I am not trying to be a jerk. I know it is tough. Eighty-two, 
30 years, $15 billion--we can't walk away from that as an investment of 
this country. If we do, we are not being good public stewards of the 
taxpayers' funds and the ratepayers, which are about 32 States in this 
Union. Thirty-two States have put in money to the Nuclear Waste Fund on 
a promise that the Federal Government would have a site. Your amendment 
would say no, we are just going to walk away again.
  Respectfully, I would ask for the defeat of the Titus amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your great work.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my colleague, I 
believe he is addressing the previous amendment. This amendment simply 
deletes language from the bill that prohibits DOE from closing Yucca 
Mountain.
  I would also remind him of the bipartisan bill that is in the Senate 
that would provide a solution for our nuclear waste problem, which is 
consent-based, bipartisan and consent-based.
  This policy has been a waste of time and money and, indeed, it is bad 
politics, not good science.
  I yield to my colleague, Mr. Horsford.
  Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  First, I want to commend you for your tireless efforts in fighting 
this dangerous storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. From your 
days as a leader as a State legislator to now as a Member of Congress, 
your unwavering commitment to this issue on behalf of the majority will 
of Nevadans who are opposed to dangerous storage of nuclear waste in 
our State--from our Governor, Republican Governor Brian Sandoval; our 
U.S. Senator, Republican Member, U.S. Senator Dean Heller; our majority 
leader, Senator Harry Reid--this is a State issue. The State is opposed 
to the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. There are local 
counties that have different positions, but the State's position has 
been clear for decades that we do not want dangerous nuclear waste 
stored in our State.
  Ultimately, this threatens our State's health and our safety. It 
hurts our State's economy, not just gaming, but other areas. With one 
accident, it could devastate southern Nevada. The stakes are too high 
for our State to gamble with.
  While this is 90 miles away from Las Vegas, we have 40 million 
visitors that come to our community--2 million people that live there 
in southern Nevada. But we are a State that relies on tourism, and that 
industry would be destroyed by any complication with nuclear waste. 
People come to Vegas for the bright lights, not for radioactive glow.
  Our State leaders will continue to fight together, Republicans and 
Democrats, in Nevada to make sure that Yucca Mountain remains scrapped, 
as it should be.
  I want to thank again my colleague, the Representative from District 
One, for her tireless leadership on this issue.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that protects the 
majority will of Nevadans who have consistently opposed the storage of 
dangerous nuclear waste.
  To my colleague from Illinois, I think if you would take the time to 
come and visit our community, talk to the small business owners, to the 
parents who are concerned about the transportation, of what this would 
mean on our highways and our roads, the threat that it could have to 
our schools and our local businesses, then maybe you would understand 
why there is near unanimous agreement that Yucca Mountain and the 
storage of nuclear waste is not right for Nevada.
  Ms. TITUS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Nevada 
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       spending reduction account

       Sec. 507.  The amount by which the applicable allocation of 
     new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of 
     proposed new budget authority is $0.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Holding, 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.

                          ____________________