Congressional Record, Volume 161 Issue 63 (Wednesday, April 29, 2015)

[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 29, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2623-H2651]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2016

general leave

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 2028, and that I may include
tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Idaho?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 223 and rule

[[Page H2624]]

XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2028.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 2022

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2028) making appropriations for energy and water development and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for
other purposes, with Mr. Collins of Georgia in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for the
first time. The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) and the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is my distinct honor to bring the fiscal year 2016 Energy and
Water bill before you today.
Before I go into the details, I would like to recognize the hard work
of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey on this bill and the
appropriation process. I would also like to thank my ranking member,
Ms. Kaptur. I appreciate her help, and with it, this bill is better
because of it.
The bill provides $35.4 billion for the activities of the Department
of Energy, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and other
agencies under our jurisdiction. This is a $1.2 billion increase from
last year's funding level, and $633 million below the request.
This is a responsible bill that recognizes the importance of
investing in our Nation's infrastructure and national defense. As we do
each year, we worked hard to incorporate priorities and perspectives
from both sides of the aisle.
The administration's proposal to cut programs of the Army Corps of
Engineers by $750 million would have led to economic disruptions in our
ports and waterways as they filled in, and would have left our
communities and businesses vulnerable to flooding.
Instead, this bill recognizes the critical work of the Corps and
provides $5.6 billion for those activities, $865 million above the
request and $142 million more than last year. The bill makes use of all
estimated annual revenues from the inland waterways trust fund, for a
total of $340 million.
The bill takes a strong stand against the administration's regulatory
overreach with regards to the Clean Water Act and includes three
provisions that prohibit changes to the definition of ``fill
material,'' the definition of ``waters of the United States,'' and the
permit requirement for certain agricultural activities.
The nuclear weapons program run by the Department of Energy is funded
at $8.7 billion, which is $526 million more than last year. This
increase will support full funding for the stockpile life extension
programs, and includes an additional $100 million above the request to
address the growing backlog of deferred maintenance and physical
security projects.
The recommendation for Naval Reactors is $1.3 billion, an increase of
$86 million, and includes full funding for the Ohio class replacement
submarine.
This bill makes strong, balanced investments in our energy sector to
ensure that our constituents continue to have reliable, affordable
energy.
Fossil energy, which provided more than 67 percent of our electricity
production in 2014, received $605 million, a $34 million increase above
fiscal year 2015.
Nuclear energy is increased by $23 million above last year. The bill
also includes $40 million more than last year to ensure an electric
grid that is both reliable and resilient now and into the future.
This is a strong bill that will advance our national security
interests and our economy. I urge everyone to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2625]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH290415.001

[[Page H2626]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH290415.002

[[Page H2627]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH290415.003

[[Page H2628]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH290415.004

[[Page H2629]]

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to begin by thanking Chairman Simpson for his bipartisan
approach in preparing this bill. We have a good committee, and we work
together.
I want to thank also our entire staff, Donna Shahbaz and Taunja
Berquam, the Republican and Democratic Clerks, as well as the rest of
the Committee staff: Matt Anderson, Angie Giancarlo, Loraine
Heckenberg, and Perry Yates; and in the personal offices, Sarah Cannon
and Ryan Steyer. Their countless long hours, late nights, and
thoughtful insight are so critical to help us prepare this legislation.
Thirty-seven years ago, President Jimmy Carter, after the first Arab
oil embargo, as gasoline prices exploded and the U.S. fell into deep,
deep recession, championed the creation of a U.S. Department of Energy.
He equated the struggle for America's energy independence as the moral
equivalent of war, and he was right. He set a goal to steer the United
States toward energy independence by 1985.
Today, America still struggles to meet that challenge set out nearly
four decades ago: reducing our imported energy dependence, curbing our
voracious appetite for foreign oil, and growing a diverse domestic
energy portfolio that invests in a self-reliant America and the job
creation here at home that goes with it.
Containing our ballooning consumption topped President Carter's
agenda. But while he successfully reduced consumption during his
Presidency, his successors lost focus. Demand for gasoline increased by
40 percent in the 25 years after he left office, a troubling reality,
as every economic recession since World War II has come on the heels of
a sharp spike in gasoline prices. I have a chart here that so
dramatically shows every time gasoline went over $4 a gallon, America,
in the late seventies, in the early nineties, and then of course in
2008, fell into deep, deep recession.
Our work is important. Under the current administration, partnerships
between the Department of Energy labs and automotive companies have
finally helped level out demand for gasoline with increasing fuel
efficiency.
President Carter also envisioned a new energy horizon for our Nation,
including renewable energy and conservation. Solar electric capacity
currently operating in our country is enough to power more than 3.5
million homes, on average.
Today, 90 percent of homes in our country are insulated. These are
important achievements, milestones for our country, and America must
push onward.
On the critical issue of reducing foreign oil dependence, President
Carter's initiative strikingly reduced imports below the target of 6
million barrels a day, a cut of nearly a third, but imports, again,
after his Presidency, went on the rise in subsequent decades. Vast
energy imports continue to represent the single largest component of
our overall trade deficit.

{time} 2030

I brought a chart down here tonight that shows America has been in
the depths of deficit in trade, but the portion of it that deals with
petroleum is its most significant percentage, and it has been for a
very long time.
That translates into millions and millions of forfeited jobs here at
home. Still at $47 billion last year, crude oil imports were roughly
equal to the next four largest trade deficit categories.
Around the world, the war over energy rages on. Look only to Europe's
compromised position toward Ukraine and, of course, oil-rich but
unstable Iraq. We must position our own Nation to a secure energy
future.
Our bill's priority is to strengthen our Nation's energy foundation.
This bill does responsibly invest in that effort, as well as in our
nuclear security as well as our water infrastructure. But I must ask:
At what cost does our bill do this? Our bill is among the first two to
be considered. There are 10 bills that will follow, and, frankly, they
were raided to pay for ours.
This Republican budget will mean that additional funding for this
bill--1 of 12 appropriation bills on which Congress must act--comes at
the expense of other vital national needs that will be shortchanged as
subsequent appropriation bills are brought forward; in total, 12 of
them.
For example, our bill funds incredible advanced scientific research.
But it does so at the expense of the Health and Human Services bill
that shorts support for our students who will be the next generation of
scientists.
Our bill provides for the Department of Energy labs, whose new
technologies will power our future. But why is the National Institutes
of Health shortchanged in the Health and Human Services, Education
Appropriations bill? Its discoveries will save and improve millions of
lives.
In our bill, nuclear weapons funding will increase by $500 million.
Meanwhile, in the Transportation, Housing bill, crumbling cities will
lose even more resources, elderly housing will remain unfunded, and our
poorest families will continue struggling to put food on the table.
Nuclear nonproliferation and environmental cleanup efforts in our
bill will make our world safer. But on America's streets, police and
fire departments will remain understaffed, insufficiently trained, and
underequipped because the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill
is shorted.
In our bill, there are no new starts for the Army Corps of Engineers
infrastructure, whose $60 billion backlog of unfinished projects is
astounding. But to fund the Corps in our bill, America's roads will be
shortchanged and remain pothole-ridden, the rail lines clogged, with
more bridges on the brink of collapse because the Transportation,
Housing bill has been shortchanged too.
In our bill, the Bureau of Reclamation will continue to help our 17
Western States cope with record drought, yet severe underfunding of the
clean water and drinking water funds in the Department of Interior-EPA
bill will further threaten the fresh water supply of thousands more
communities across our country. No amount of duct tape can fix all the
leaking pipes.
This bill sacrifices the long-term strength of our Nation by raiding
other bills that are essential appropriation responsibilities, but that
is the game plan of the overall Republican budget that has been handed
us. It is not a prescription for an American success story.
The Appropriations Committee's discretionary programs, at only 6.8
percent of our Nation's total economy, or GDP, are too thin a reed on
which to balance our Nation's accounts.
The Ways and Means Committee must put its cards on the table too and
open its vast jurisdiction to scrutiny. Mandatory programs must be put
on the table. And then the preparation of America's budget will have an
engine in which all pistons are firing and engaged.
We want to produce an appropriation bill here tonight, but I find
myself guilty in a way because I know what is being taken from those
other subcommittees so vital to our Nation's future.
Though this Energy and Water bill is respectable, it is only one oar
in the water pushing our ship of state forward. We can't reach our
destination without the other 11 oars in the water too. For that
reason, I urge my colleagues, as we move forward, to consider a ``no''
vote on this measure in hopes that a message will be sent strongly. The
American people deserve all hands on deck and all oars in the water.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Benishek).
Mr. BENISHEK. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 2028 and would like to
take this opportunity to talk about the importance of investing in
American infrastructure.
This legislation provides support for critical national and regional
waterways. The Soo Locks, located in my district, are a critical point
in our Nation's infrastructure. Over 80 million tons of commercial
commodities travel through the Soo Locks each year, including the vast
majority of the iron ore mined in the United States. The value of the
cargo traveling through the Soo Locks represents approximately 3.2
percent of the U.S. gross domestic product each year.
Recently, the Army Corps completed a sensitivity analysis on the Soo
Locks

[[Page H2630]]

and has indicated that they may begin a new benefit-cost ratio in the
future.
This lip service isn't good enough. The impact on our economy, should
there be a failure of the lock, is too great.
The study must be completed, and I am confident that it will show a
need for a replacement lock and construction can get underway.
I urge the Corps to continue to work with Congress in an efficient
and transparent fashion so that we can continue to move this process
forward and get this project going.
Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to inquire of the Chair, how much time do we
have remaining on this side, please?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio has 22 minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Idaho has 26 minutes remaining.
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the full
Appropriations Committee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I thank subcommittee Chairman Simpson, Ranking
Member Kaptur, and full committee Chairman Rogers for their work on
this bill.
The House Republican ``work harder for less'' budget resolution was
opposed by every Member on my side of the aisle in part because it
makes it impossible to provide the funding necessary in the 12
appropriations bills to grow our economy and give hard-working
Americans the opportunity to succeed.
Democrats much preferred the approach taken by the President, calling
for an end to the sequester and more reasonable and realistic budgeting
that could help families afford college, a home, and a secure
retirement.

The proposed funding level for the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy is dismal and would curtail innovation in clean and
renewable energy and make us less competitive. This type of investment
grows our economy and provides opportunity to hard-working Americans.
But under the Republican proposal, funding would be slashed by $266
million compared to the 2015 level.
A number of other areas fall far short of the President's proposal,
including $82.6 million less to modernize and secure the electric grid
and $240 million less for scientific research critical to addressing
long-term energy needs.
These levels are above the current enacted levels; but by failing to
address sequestration, the majority is missing an opportunity to
further invest in critical initiatives that create jobs and make
American families more secure.
Given the difficulty in resolving funding disputes, I am deeply
disappointed that the majority also, once again, needlessly included
controversial policy riders.
An annual appropriations bill is not the place to make sweeping
changes to environmental protection or gun laws.
Despite the fact that it streamlines existing activities to protect
2.8 million ocean industry jobs and $282 billion in GDP generated by
ocean industries in coastal States, the National Ocean Policy would be
blocked. I do not understand how any public good is served by thwarting
efficiency measures that bring together the best ecological, economic,
and stakeholder-driven data.
There are egregious attacks on the Clean Water Act, including locking
in place a state of confusion about the scope of pollution control
programs and sacrificing water quality for small streams and wetlands
that contribute to the drinking water of one in three Americans.
I should not have to remind my majority colleagues that similar
provisions have imperiled this bill in the past. The administration is,
once again, on record with veto threats of nearly identical language,
and leading environmental groups have stated that these and other
riders are bad policies that will put Americans' health and safety at
risk.
I am truly amazed that the majority would willfully go down this path
again. Despite the many shortcomings, there are positive aspects,
particularly the Army Corps of Engineers. In its most recent report
card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the U.S. a D-plus
and estimated that $2.6 trillion in investments are needed by 2020.
I am very grateful that Chairman Simpson included $142 million more
than the current level and $865 million more than the President
requested for the Army Corps.
While a number of priorities in the bill receive sufficient funding,
due to major shortcomings, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Jenkins).
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chair, I was elected to fight for the people of the Third
Congressional District. That is what I am doing, and that is what this
bill does.
As members of the Appropriations Committee, we are using the power of
the purse. This bill provides full funding for key Army Corps of
Engineers projects in my district, nearly $26 million for projects in
southern West Virginia--East Lynn, Summersville, Bluestone, and Beech
Fork lakes--all critically important.
This bill supports the excellent work of the Appalachian Regional
Commission, making a real difference in real people's lives. This bill
actually adds an additional $5 million over last year's funding.
And this bill also says no to funding for the administration's war on
coal, no to expanding the definitions of the ``waters of the U.S.,''
and no to new regulations on fill material.
This is a good bill, and I urge its passage.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the very, very able
gentleman from the State of California (Mr. Honda), a distinguished
member of our subcommittee.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chair, this was my first year serving on the
subcommittee. And I thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur
for their leadership throughout this process, for the collaborative way
they had worked with the members of the subcommittee on this bill.
I support the increases in the bill for the important investigations
and construction accounts of the Army Corps of Engineers, which are
increasingly important for dealing with the effects of climate change
and have been underfunded for too long. I hope we can fully address the
Corps' budgetary needs as this bill moves forward.
I am pleased that the bill includes language I sought to help us
increase access to solar and other renewable energy sources for low-
income families. This inclusiveness is critically important if we are
going to transform to a 21st century energy economy that benefits all
Americans.
I also appreciate the inclusion language supporting development of
new photonics technologies to enable exascale computing breakthroughs.
Funding DOE's Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists
program at the President's request level is essential for programs to
develop K-12 STEM educators, including the Albert Einstein
Distinguished Educator Fellowship, now in its 25th year.

{time} 2045

The funding level in this bill should allow for continued growth of
the Einstein Fellows program, which brings exceptional STEM educators
to Washington for a year to work in Federal agencies and in Congress
helping to shape STEM education programs. There are, however, damaging
cuts to some programs and others funded below the President's budget
request.
These decisions will take us in the wrong direction. We need to boost
the funding levels for renewable energy programs that are our path to a
clean energy future. We also must address the shortfalls in the Science
Laboratories infrastructure funding that will hamper operations at user
facilities such as light sources and science and nanoscience centers
and engineering centers.
I want to voice my disagreement with several of the policy riders in
the bill. We shouldn't be blocking work to clarify the scope of the
Clean Water Act, and we should be fostering collaboration between the
Federal, State, and local agencies and ocean stakeholders about how to
share this vital resource and not hindering it.
I know my chairman was faced with a difficult task, and his approach
to developing this bill has shown these issues, which are important for
our Nation and for our planet, the respect they deserve.

[[Page H2631]]

I look forward to working with Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member
Kaptur, as this bill moves forward, to resolve some of these issues in
a bipartisan fashion so we can send a bill to the President that all of
us can support.
Mr. SIMPSON. It is my pleasure to yield 90 seconds to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Farr), a good friend of mine, for the purpose of
colloquy.
Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, as we continue to cut, squeeze, and trim the Federal
budget, we have a responsibility to ensure that our Federal agencies
operate as efficiently as possible.
I know that we both have examples in our district where multiple
Federal, State, and local agencies overlap in their management
authority, often causing unnecessary bureaucratic red tape, which ends
up costing taxpayers more money while accomplishing less.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with you as we move this bill
forward to improve the transparency and efficiency of Federal agencies.
They need to talk to each other and work together so that our
constituents are not forced to sort through conflicting requirements. I
hope you can help me.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from California for inviting me to
speak on this important matter. I agree that the Energy and Water
Appropriations bill should strive to make our Federal agencies work
more efficiently with each other and work together.
I look forward to working with the gentleman on this issue.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee), a very, very hard-working and passionate member
of our Appropriations Committee.
Ms. LEE. Let me thank our ranking member, first of all, for yielding,
but secondly, for her unwavering leadership on this subcommittee, but
also on each and every issue that we are addressing in this bill and
for her leadership just in general, in terms of making sure that people
who have been marginalized and who really have been victimized by this
terrible recession really have opportunities into the middle class.
Thank you very much, Congresswoman Kaptur.
Let me thank the Chair for including language to recognize the
importance of workplace diversity in the Department of Energy's
National Laboratories and encouraging the Department to develop and
broaden partnerships with minority-serving institutions, including
Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Mr. Chairman, however, I am concerned that not only does this bill
maintain harmful sequester levels for funding, it also continues the
pattern of inserting unnecessary policy riders into spending bills,
including allowing guns to be carried on all Corps of Engineers lands.
These riders are harmful and further complicate the already difficult
appropriations process.
Mr. Chairman, instead of trying to roll back vital environmental
protections, we need to be proactive about preserving our environment
for the next generation. We need to make more investments in clean
energy like solar, wind, and geothermal.
We need to do this to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels that
release harmful, toxic methane and carbon. Pollution and smog must not
be a normal way of life for our children and our children's children.
Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to yield 30 seconds to myself to just thank
the gentlewoman very much for her comments and to say how very much I
enjoyed visiting the Berkeley lab with her out in California and
knowing the work that they are doing not just for California, but for
the whole country.
It has been really a pleasure to work with you and to support that
lab and its activities.
Ms. LEE. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE. I just thank the gentlewoman, first of all, for her visit,
but also for really understanding very deeply what our labs are about
and what they are really conducting not only for my district and for
California, but for the country and for the world in terms of their
research.
I just really want to thank you because the feedback, of course, from
my lab is how smart and how committed you are.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 90 seconds to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), a good friend of mine and
a member of the Appropriations Committee. He is the chairman of the
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee on Appropriations.
Before yielding to Mr. Diaz-Balart from Florida, I would like to
thank the gentleman for all his tireless work on behalf of the
Everglades, truly a remarkable spot. He is a true leader on these
issues, and he continues to restore the Everglades to their natural
state.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I actually came here to thank Chairman
Simpson for putting together this great bill, a responsible bill and,
again, for putting up with me and working with me on issues dealing
with Everglades restoration. I don't have to tell anybody here that is
a national treasure. It is important not only for southern Florida's
drinking water, but also for our economy.
I also want to specifically thank the chairman for his help in the
Herbert Hoover Dike, which is crucial, again, for the folks in that
area.
Again, Mr. Chairman, this is a great bill. Chairman Simpson has a
very difficult task. He has done a spectacular job. Again, thank you,
sir, for working with me on these important issues.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Let me thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Once again,
congratulations on bringing this important bill to the floor.
I wanted to thank you for the chance to really engage and for your
willingness to address an issue of critical importance to the Nation's
innovation and competitiveness, that is the full utilization of the
Department of Energy's radiation light source national user facilities.
Unfortunately, the funding level in this bill for DOE's light source
scientific user facilities would not utilize our Federal investment to
the fullest effect. This would lead to facilities temporarily shutting
down and laying off and furloughing scientific staff.
The fiscal year '15 enacted level for this program was $447 million.
Now, the President has requested $477 million, but the House mark is
$443 million.
My colleagues and I look forward to working with you to address this
issue in conference and with the Senate and to work toward a higher
mark for this account, at least higher than fiscal year '15 and
hopefully closer to the President's budget.
Again, I want to thank you for your leadership and for your
willingness to work with us on this important issue.
Mr. HONDA. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Kaptur, I echo my
colleague's comments and thank you for your collegial leadership of the
subcommittee.
Funding the synchrotron light sources adequately is a competitiveness
issue for the Nation's economic well-being. Companies from my district,
throughout Silicon Valley and around the Nation, utilize these unique,
large-scale scientific facilities to advance next generation
technologies and to grow our Nation's economy.
Other nations are catching up. We must make sure to make the
investments that retain our leadership. Thank you for your willingness
to address this issue.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank you for bringing this important issue to the
subcommittee's attention. I look forward to working with Ranking Member
Kaptur and all of you to support the Nation's light source user
facilities as we move forward into conference.
Ms. KAPTUR. I also appreciate the Members bringing this to our
attention, having visited more than one of these facilities and look
forward to working with the chairman to support this very worthy
activity.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Washington (Mr.

[[Page H2632]]

Newhouse), a new Member of Congress who has been very active and who
has been newly appointed to the Rules Committee for the purpose of a
colloquy.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, Hanford is the Nation's largest and most
complex Department of Energy defense nuclear cleanup site. I have
greatly appreciated your willingness to work with me to ensure funding
for this important effort.
The restoration of funds for cleanup along the Columbia River
Corridor, which is legally required and a priority for the mid-Columbia
region, puts those projects on a very strong path forward.
I also appreciate the funding provided for the Office of River
Protection. As the final bill is developed for fiscal year '16, I would
like to continue working with you to ensure that all of the work that
the Federal Government is legally obligated to do is realized.
I am particularly concerned with ensuring that work is able to
progress on retrieving Hanford's tank waste and preparing to feed an
operational waste treatment plant while providing sufficient resources
to meet near-term regulatory requirements in the tank farms.
Mr. SIMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NEWHOUSE. I yield to the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Washington for his strong advocacy for these important cleanup
activities. I agree they are probably the most important in this
country.
I look forward to working with him to ensure that activities at
Hanford's tank farms and at the waste treatment plant receive the
funding required to move forward safely, efficiently, and in a timely
manner.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with
him, as well as the ranking member from Ohio, in the future.
Ms. KAPTUR. I have no further requests for time, so I yield back the
balance of my time in the interests of moving forward with the bill.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).
Mr. GIBBS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2028, the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2016.
Not only does the underlying bill support funding for critical
infrastructure in our country, but also includes several important
provisions a majority of the Members in this body are concerned with.
Section 105 provides an excellent backstop for ensuring the EPA's
controversial waters of United States rule does not go forward in its
current state. This rule is nothing more than a Federal power grab for
the EPA and it flies in the face of two Supreme Court decisions. The
agencies themselves have admitted to Congress, in multiple hearings,
that the proposed rule has created confusion and uncertainty.
I want to thank the chairman for including this necessary backstop
provision that will help stop this rule from wreaking havoc on farmers,
businesses, families, and the entire regulated community. This rule
could potentially roll back the progress we have made in our Nation's
water quality by instituting burdensome permitting costs and
unnecessary red tape.
Another important provision prohibits the Corps from using funds for
open lake placement of dredge material in Lake Erie, unless the
material is approved under the State water quality certification
program. We all know the benefits of dredging and how vital it is to
the Great Lakes system's ecosystem, businesses, recreation, and
tourism.
We must ensure dredged material is safely repurposed for beneficial
use or placed in a confined disposal facility. If dredged sediment is
placed in Lake Erie now, research shows increased PCB levels in the
fish could cause significant setbacks to the recreational community.
In a time where our Great Lakes' water quality is threatened by algae
and other contaminants, we must ensure we do not add to the problem.
I am also pleased to see my commonsense legislation included in the
underlying bill to grant law-abiding gun owners the ability to exercise
their Second Amendment rights when they are legally camping, hunting,
and fishing on Army Corps property.
I thank Representative Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for
recognizing the importance of these provisions and for putting together
a bill that sets appropriate levels.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) for the purpose of a
colloquy.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Simpson for providing me
time to engage in this colloquy.
Through working with the chairman and others, the House was able to
pass the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act last
year, and the legislation was signed into law.

{time} 2100

This legislation is designed to bring manufacturing in our country to
the next level by increasing global competitiveness and training the
workforce of tomorrow through the establishment of centers throughout
the country.
As some of these centers lie within the purview of the Energy and
Water Appropriations bill, I want to take this opportunity to thank the
chairman for working with me on this issue and to clarify that this
bill we are considering today funds the establishment of at least one
new center that can be coordinated with the Department of Commerce.
With that, I thank the chairman.
Mr. SIMPSON. I appreciate my friend's leadership on the Revitalize
American Manufacturing and Innovation Act and can confirm that this
bill funds the establishment of at least one new center. I look forward
to working with you on these issues in the future and as this bill
moves forward.
Mr. REED. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SIMPSON. With that, Mr. Chairman, I believe we have no more
requests for time on general debate and look forward to moving forward
on the bill.
Like my colleague from Ohio, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment each amendment shall
be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment. No pro
forma amendment shall be in order except that the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective
designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for
the purpose of debate. The chair of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose. Amendments so printed
shall be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2028

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for energy and water
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Corps of Engineers--Civil

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

investigations

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

[[Page H2633]]

surveys and detailed studies, and plans and specifications of
projects prior to construction, $110,000,000, to remain
available until expended.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

Page 3, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

construction

For expenses necessary for the construction of river and
harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection,
aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects
authorized by law; for conducting detailed studies, and plans
and specifications, of such projects (including those
involving participation by States, local governments, or
private groups) authorized or made eligible for selection by
law (but such detailed studies, and plans and specifications,
shall not constitute a commitment of the Government to
construction); $1,631,000,000, to remain available until
expended; of which such sums as are necessary to cover the
Federal share of construction costs for facilities under the
Dredged Material Disposal Facilities program shall be derived
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund as authorized by
Public Law 104-303; and of which such sums as are necessary
to cover one-half of the costs of construction, replacement,
rehabilitation, and expansion of inland waterways projects
shall be derived from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, except
as otherwise specifically provided for in law.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

Page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer another commonsense
amendment that will help reduce the large backlog of important Army
Corps of Engineers' projects by providing additional resources to the
Corps' construction budget.
I applaud the committee for recommending resources for the Corps of
Engineers' construction budget above the President's budget request,
but the recommended level in this bill for construction is still $8.5
million beneath the fiscal year 2015 level.
A devastating drought is currently plaguing the West. CRS estimates
that more than 93 percent of the State of California is experiencing
severe drought. Other scientists have claimed this is the worst drought
for some Western States in more than 100 years and that approximately
60 percent of the West is ``experiencing moderate drought or worse,
affecting 52 million people.''
At a time of historic drought and major water challenges, we
shouldn't be reducing construction dollars for Corps projects that
improve infrastructure for local communities, improve ecosystem
restoration, provide clean water, and expand much-needed water storage.
The committee report on this bill raised some important concerns
about the draconian cuts proposed by this administration to the Corps
of Engineers' construction budget.
From the committee report: ``The construction account would see the
largest dollar reduction ($467,489,000) and largest percentage
reduction (29 percent) . . . As mentioned above, the budget request is
woefully inadequate for meeting the critical water resource
infrastructure needs of this Nation. Numerous continuing studies and
construction projects will be suspended or slowed, leaving many
communities vulnerable to floods and coastal storms longer than
necessary and hindering economic growth and international
competitiveness . . . Once again, the administration's claims to
understand the importance of infrastructure ring hollow when it comes
to water resource infrastructure investments . . . Once again, however,
the committee rejects the low priority placed on infrastructure in the
budget request.''
The committee has provided significant safeguards in the report that
will ensure that the funds transferred by this amendment go to the best
projects, including those that will prevent future flooding and storm
damage, create jobs, and enhance national, regional, or local economic
development.
Support for this amendment is definitive action that we can take to
directly support timely development of critical water projects that
benefit communities throughout the Nation.
I thank the distinguished chair and ranking member.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, even though I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Idaho is recognized
for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. SIMPSON. But I will tell you it is easy to draft amendments and
take money out of the department of the administration--who is not
going to be in support of that--and put it to other things.
I can tell you this committee has worked hard to address the issues.
We know about the drought in California and other places, and we have
done a good job in trying to fund this. If the gentleman wants to do
this in here and take money out of the department of administration and
the committee wants to do it, it is kind of meaningless, but I
understand what the gentleman is trying to do.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Murphy of Florida

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

[[Page H2634]]

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

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chair and
ranking member for their extremely hard work on the underlying bill and
their ongoing commitment to Everglades restoration.
I rise because, at this very moment in my district in Florida, toxic
blue-green algae is threatening the environment in our area. The
amendment I am offering, along with the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Clawson, will enhance the Army Corps' environmental restoration efforts
in south Florida and help put a stop to this vicious cycle once and for
all.
The Everglades watershed stretches as far north as Orlando, where
runoff eventually flows into Lake Okeechobee. Due to rapid development,
the natural flow of water from north to south in the system has been
severely disrupted, and we are inundated with freshwater discharges
that harm our communities to the east and to the west of the lake.
Meanwhile, Florida Bay desperately needs freshwater to restore its
natural ecology. However, moving clean water south to restore the
entire ecosystem is no small feat.
I had the chance to explain to President Obama last week on his first
trip to the Everglades how freshwater discharges are hurting our
community while freshwater is desperately needed in the Florida Bay,
and how critical the Everglades restoration efforts are throughout the
whole system.
Supporting the Corps' ongoing work in the Everglades is key for water
quality in the Caloosahatchee River watershed, which includes Ft. Myers
and Cape Coral, the St. Lucie River watershed in the Treasure Coast and
Palm Beaches that I represent, and throughout Florida.
Right now, a toxic blue-green algae bloom pictured here is
threatening waterways in the most biodiverse estuary in all of North
America. When toxic blooms hit our water, health advisories like this
are posted--right here--warning people do not touch the very water that
is the center of their livelihoods.
Supporting the Corps' Everglades work can help move restoration
projects closer to completion, like the C-44 reservoir in Martin
County, which will help hold water back from further harming the local
population and ecologically fragile areas.
This is not the first time I have come to the House floor to address
this issue. Every year, our communities face this same threat. And to
the people that I represent, it is unsustainable, and it is time to
stop this before lasting damage is done.
I, along with many people committed to protecting our water and our
community, will not rest until the health advisories posted along our
rivers and estuaries disappear once and for all. These aren't just our
precious Everglades in Florida. This ecosystem is America's River of
Grass with no place like it in the world. It must be protected at all
costs.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield the
balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Clawson), who has
been a tireless champion on Everglades restoration.

{time} 2115

Mr. CLAWSON of Florida. Thank you to Representative Murphy for his
great leadership on this issue, and particularly thank you to the
chairman, Mr. Simpson, for his leadership and success in this endeavor.
Mr. Chairman, my first steps towards Congress began one summer day 2
years ago while I was wading in the Gulf of Mexico with my father, who
is in the autumn of his lifetime. Walking beside my dad in knee-deep
depth, the old vet and I couldn't see our own toes because of the dirty
water. Dad looked at me, and he said, ``Son, do something about this.''
The Gulf had been contaminated by the discharge from Lake Okeechobee.
The algae was in full bloom--toxic algae in our Gulf. Two years later,
I humbly stand here and ask you: Please join me. Let's do something
about this.
Clean water is both an environmental issue and a business issue. The
dirty discharges damage our tourism, our economy, our drinking water,
our beaches, our businesses, and our national treasure, the Everglades.
The Federal Government and the State of Florida are already working to
restore the Everglades with a larger freshwater supply, but we can do
more.
I am asking you to help here by voting ``yes'' on this Murphy-Clawson
amendment in order to help expedite projects like the critical South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Herbert Hoover Dike.
Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Murphy).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Duffy

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

Page 3, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000) (increased by $10,000,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to offer this
amendment and to speak in support of a program that is important to my
constituents and to all of those around the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration, also known as
``GLFER,'' is responsible for the planning, design, and construction of
projects to protect and restore the fisheries and aquatic habitat of
the Great Lakes. These projects include the restoration of riverside
and wetland habitats, the construction of fish passages, and improving
spawning and nursery habitats. A critical part of this program is that
it requires a 35 percent cost share from a local sponsor. So it is not
just Federal money. It is local money as well to fund this project.
GLFER is widely supported by those with a stake in the Great Lakes,
including the Great Lakes Commission, the Alliance for the Great Lakes,
the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and the Great Lakes fishing
community.
Al House of Washburn, Wisconsin, one of my constituents and a board
member of the Apostle Islands Sport Fisherman's Association, recently
shared with me the importance of this program. He recounted: ``In
recent discussions with groups in Lake Superior's basin, sport
fishermen are in unanimous agreement that the GLFER program offers
invaluable support to fishery habitat and ecosystem restoration
projects that maintain and restore the health of our Great Lakes.''
This program has broad bipartisan support and the backing of
environmental, industry, and recreational groups. Not often in this
House do we see this kind of support across the spectrum.
It is authorized under WRRDA, similar to other regional restoration
programs in south Florida and the Louisiana coastline, which are funded
by the Army Corps of Engineers in this bill. Unfortunately, for the
past several years, the Corps has chosen to include no funding for this
program in the budget request. This is despite the calls from Congress
to do so. In fact, language in the final funding bill for fiscal year
2015 urged the Corps to ``budget for this aquatic habitat restoration
program in future budget submissions as it is important to the overall
Great Lakes Restoration effort.'' Again, they didn't include it in
their budget.
This amendment is intended to ensure that the Army Corps actually
provides the $10 million necessary for the GLFER program in this fiscal
year. This program should not have to rely on funding from other Great
Lakes programs or wait for the leftovers of the Corps' to fund this
very important project. I would hope that the Corps would follow the
advice of Congress and actually account for this program in next year's
budget request--actually listen to us.
I want to thank Chair Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their
work on this legislation and for their support on this issue. I would
urge my

[[Page H2635]]

colleagues to support our Great Lakes, to support our fish, and to
support this bipartisan effort.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I
am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized
for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my fellow Great Lakes
member that I appreciate his coming down here tonight at this late hour
and representing the interests of the Great Lakes. We need stronger
voices, and you, obviously, are one of those.
I am so glad that you are calling the Corps to task to pay attention
to our region and to all of the improvements that are necessary to deal
with the most vital body of freshwater on the face of the Earth and,
certainly, in our country. I want to thank you very much, Congressman
Duffy, for your proposal. I think that the Corps will hear you. Many of
us want to work with you and to do what we can to help not just this
generation but those that follow in having access to this globally
critical, precious freshwater resource that we call the Great Lakes.
Thank you so very much for coming down this evening.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ms. Kaptur for her support of this
amendment and for all of her work on the Great Lakes.
It is remarkable that we have such a wonderful bipartisan group that
has a wide variety of opinions in this Chamber but that comes together
to support the health and well-being of our Great Lakes and of our
fisheries. Thank you for your support.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

mississippi river and tributaries

For expenses necessary for flood damage reduction projects
and related efforts in the Mississippi River alluvial valley
below Cape Girardeau, Missouri, as authorized by law,
$275,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such sums as are necessary to cover the Federal share of
eligible operation and maintenance costs for inland harbors
shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Crawford

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 4, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $27,000,000)''.
Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $96,000,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
Arkansas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. CRAWFORD. First, let me thank the committee chairman and the
staffs for their hard work in putting this bill together. I know it has
taken a lot of time and the work of a lot of people to get it here
today.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment restores funding for the Mississippi River
and Tributaries Project, which is the largest flood control project in
the world, to its FY15 enacted levels. The MR&T is critical in
preventing widely devastating floods and to ensure this waterway
remains open and able to carry the massive stream of trade that is so
vital to American commerce. The Mississippi River is a thriving
economic thoroughfare in the United States, with billions of tons of
cargo being transported up and down the river each year.
The MR&T has played an integral role in protecting the lower
Mississippi valley from floods and enabling continuous navigation along
the Mississippi River and its tributaries. Since its inception in 1928,
our Nation has received $45 for every dollar invested while preventing
$612 billion in flood damages and protecting 4 million residents of the
lower Mississippi River valley. The success of the project was on
display in 2011, when the system withheld historic flooding that
exceeded the benchmark set by the very 1927 flood which spurred the
creation of the MR&T.
Not only does the MR&T protect lives and property in the lower
Mississippi valley, but it also promotes navigation along the river and
its tributaries, and it helps support a vibrant agriculture economy.
Over 500 million tons of cargo move on the Mississippi River system
each year, saving billions of dollars in domestic transportation costs
and giving U.S. businesses a natural advantage.
At a time when the fiscal environment forces us to carefully evaluate
where every dollar goes, I believe it is prudent to sufficiently fund
projects like those covered under MR&T, which give taxpayers a return
on their investment. I urge the support of this critical project.
I thank the chairman for his consideration, and I look forward to
continuing to work with the committee and the chairman through the
appropriations process on this critical investment in the Midsouth
region.
Mr. Chair, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

operation and maintenance

For expenses necessary for the operation, maintenance, and
care of existing river and harbor, flood and storm damage
reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related
projects authorized by law; providing security for
infrastructure owned or operated by the Corps, including
administrative buildings and laboratories; maintaining harbor
channels provided by a State, municipality, or other public
agency that serve essential navigation needs of general
commerce, where authorized by law; surveying and charting
northern and northwestern lakes and connecting waters;
clearing and straightening channels; and removing
obstructions to navigation, $3,058,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which such sums as are necessary
to cover the Federal share of eligible operation and
maintenance costs for coastal harbors and channels, and for
inland harbors shall be derived from the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund; of which such sums as become available from the
special account for the Corps of Engineers established by the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 shall be derived
from that account for resource protection, research,
interpretation, and maintenance activities related to
resource protection in the areas at which outdoor recreation
is available; and of which such sums as become available from
fees collected under section 217 of Public Law 104-303 shall
be used to cover the cost of operation and maintenance of the
dredged material disposal facilities for which such fees have
been collected: Provided, That 1 percent of the total amount
of funds provided for each of the programs, projects, or
activities funded under this heading shall not be allocated
to a field operating activity prior to the beginning of the
fourth quarter of the fiscal year and shall be available for
use by the Chief of Engineers to fund such emergency
activities as the Chief of Engineers determines to be
necessary and appropriate, and that the Chief of Engineers
shall allocate during the fourth quarter any remaining funds
which have not been used for emergency activities
proportionally in accordance with the amounts provided for
the programs, projects, or activities.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

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

Page 4, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $36,306,000)''.
Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $36,720,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
Michigan and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to offer
an amendment, along with my friend, the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Hahn), to ensure that the Federal Government meets its obligations
to our ports, to our harbors, and, frankly, to the American people.
Just last year, this body overwhelmingly passed the Water Resources
Reform and Development Act, WRRDA,

[[Page H2636]]

by a vote of 412-4. It was later then signed into law by President
Obama. WRRDA includes a glide path to increase harbor maintenance
funding to a level collected through the harbor maintenance tax,
directing Congress this fiscal year to spend 69 percent of all of the
funds collected from the user fee of that harbor maintenance. Now, that
is just 69 percent this year with a 10-year glide path, and we are
pleased that we are going to be able to use all of that funding for its
intended purpose.
While I was hoping to achieve full expenditure for the trust fund
right away, I was willing to compromise on this glide path as a step in
the right direction. Unfortunately, the current version of the Energy
and Water bill falls short of the mark by just over $36 million.
I would like thank the chairman for working with us on a bipartisan
and, I should say, a bicoastal way with my coming from the west side of
Michigan, the west coast of Michigan--and we have got the West Coast of
the country with California--and for finding a bipartisan solution to
hit the target and offset the cost by reducing spending elsewhere.
We can hit this WRRDA target, and we believe that this will ensure
that the 140 federally maintained commercial and recreational ports and
harbors in the Great Lakes will be adequately maintained. These Federal
harbor channels, like Pentwater, White Lake, Ludington, Muskegon,
Holland, and Grand Haven, in my district, are the lifeblood of these
very communities. Let's keep our promise to these communities and to
the taxpayers who support this and allow their ports and harbors to be
engines of economic growth and create jobs for American workers,
farmers, and manufacturers.
Again, thank you for working with us, Mr. Chairman.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I do not
oppose the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Ms. HAHN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague and good friend from Michigan in
offering the Huizenga-Hahn amendment to the Energy and Water
Appropriations bill in order to utilize the harbor maintenance trust
fund at the target set forth in the recently passed Water Resources
Reform and Development Act. As my colleague said, this is a very
important part of what we compromised on in the WRRDA bill.
As a Representative of the Nation's busiest port complex in Los
Angeles, along with Long Beach, and as the cofounder of the Ports
Caucus, along with Ted Poe, I have fought so hard since the first day I
came to Congress to increase the funding for our Nation's ports and to
fully utilize this harbor maintenance trust fund to ensure that the
money that is collected at our ports goes back to our ports.

{time} 2130

After working for months with my colleagues, we reached a plan to
finally put the harbor maintenance trust fund to work and fully utilize
it by 2025, but this bill on the floor today fails to follow the law we
passed just last year with an overwhelming vote of 404-4. This bill is
$36 million behind our targets. For our Nation to remain globally
competitive, we need to fund our port infrastructure.
According to the Army Corps of Engineers, we need to fully fund our
harbor maintenance tax for 5 years to fully dredge our ports. Ports are
crucial across this country. Americans expect to go to Target and have
tennis shoes or toys on its shelves; our farmers need efficient ports
to export our agriculture products, and we cannot let America's
infrastructure crumble. That is unacceptable.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this
amendment because it is critically important that we provide the
necessary funding to ensure that our ports are fully dredged and
properly maintained. The port in Wilmington, North Carolina, plays a
vital role in helping our State's farmers and other businesses export
their goods to foreign markets.
In fact, a recent study showed that Wilmington's port contributes $14
billion toward North Carolina's economy and supports, both directly and
indirectly, nearly 77,000 jobs in our State. Without the proper
funding, our ports will continue to deteriorate, and we risk putting
our farmers and local industry--indeed, America--at a competitive
disadvantage.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of
the Huizenga and Hahn amendment. First, I would like to commend our
Committee on Appropriations' efforts on the increased Army Corps of
Engineers budget on the navigation safety and efficiency.
The committee's work this year, despite very low numbers from the
budget, has been difficult. I would like to thank the chair, ranking
member, and staff for your hard work in working with us.
In Texas, we have serious energy and water infrastructure needs.
Representing a large part of the Port of Houston, our need for
operation and maintenance, as well as construction money, is
significant. I greatly appreciate the committee's efforts to fund our
needs by appropriating more than $32 million for harbor maintenance,
but this amount does not reflect the amount the Port of Houston needs
or the amount of revenue it generates. The Port of Houston is the
second largest port in the country by tonnage. The Port of Houston
ranks number one in foreign tonnage.
For dredging operations alone, the Port of Houston requires more than
$50 million annually. Currently, the Port of Houston has a backlog of
projects with the Corps of Engineers totaling almost $100 million.
The Port of Houston generates significant tax revenue, both for the
State and Federal Government. To meet the challenges and opportunities
of the 21st century, the Port of Houston needs the funding allocated
from the harbor maintenance trust fund.
The Water Resources Reform and Development Act, WRRDA, requires that
69 percent of harbor maintenance trust fund fees be spent on related
activities. While the energy and water appropriators have done great
things with limited resources, this bill shortchanges the Port of
Houston and many other ports across the country.
I support the Huizenga-Hahn amendment. The approximately $37 million
shortfall significantly impacts the ability of the Port of Houston to
receive larger ships, and it is our job to meet these demands.
I ask my colleagues to support the Huizenga and Hahn amendment.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chair, at this time, I yield 1 minute
to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Simpson for putting
the money for the whole E and W bill.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment to ensure that
Congress remains faithful to its obligation to fund important
infrastructure projects. The harbor maintenance trust fund takes in
enough revenue each year to provide the necessary maintenance of our
harbor ports and channels.
However, for years, expenditure of these funds has failed to keep up
with the annual revenues. This amendment would simply keep us on
schedule to hit the harbor maintenance target authorized by law in the
Water Resource Reform and Development Act.
This fund helps the Army Corps of Engineers provide dredging and
maintenance for critical ports and channels throughout the country. In
my district alone, these funds have been used to provide needed
dredging at the Lake Providence Harbor, the Madison Parish Port, and
ensure that the Ouachita and Black Rivers and the J. Bennett Johnston
Waterway remain open to transportation and commerce.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that will keep our
Nation's critical arteries open for business.
Ms. HAHN. Mr. Chairman, I just really want to thank Chairman Simpson
and Ranking Member Kaptur for allowing us to offer this amendment
tonight. I really want to thank my colleague, Mr. Huizenga, for his
incredible

[[Page H2637]]

passion and his ability to move this forward in a way that was
acceptable tonight.
I think our ports and waterways across this country will thank the
gentleman, but more importantly, I really believe that, when our ports
and waterways are strong, this country will be strong, and I thank the
gentleman very much for that.
I urge all my colleagues to support the Huizenga-Hahn amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I, too, want to thank my
colleague, Ms. Hahn, for her work on the Huizenga-Hahn amendment. It
has been a pleasure to work with her over a few years as we have gone
to battle over this issue and for this issue; and ultimately, as she
pointed out, having a port system that is functional, that is usable,
is critical to the economy of our Nation.
I, too, want to thank Chairman Simpson for his work and willingness
to sit down and work through some issues with us. I pledge to the
chairman--and I know Representative Hahn does as well--that, as we are
going through this process, we will continue to refine how the harbor
maintenance trust fund works, and I look forward to having this
amendment be passed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan
and the gentlelady from California for working with us on this.
What a lot of people may not understand is the challenge that
presents us with the harbor maintenance trust fund and the way it is
scored and the way it is counted for. I am one who believes that, if
you have got a problem and you are going to tax people in order to
address that problem, you ought to spend the money that you are
receiving to address the problem.
Instead, what happens is we spend--as I think the gentleman said, 69
percent is the target--we will only spend 69 percent of what came in
this year in the harbor maintenance trust fund on actually dredging the
harbors and so forth. That seems rather silly. I think we ought to be
able to spend it all if we have got a problem. If we are not going to
spend it all, we shouldn't tax it.
The problem is the way we score things and the budget around here is
that we are given an overall cap in the Subcommittee on Energy and
Water Development and Related Agencies of the Committee on
Appropriations. We have to have our total bill come in under that cap.
If we spend more money in the harbor maintenance area, even though we
have that money in a trust fund, then we have to decrease spending in
everything else, such as the other energy portions of the bill or
something like that, so increasing it even more decreases what we can
spend in other needed areas. That is the challenge we face.
What I would like to do is work with all of the supporters of the
harbor maintenance trust fund to find a way that we can address this
issue--it is really an issue created by us--but address this issue so
that the funds that we collect in the harbor maintenance trust fund can
actually go out and do what we expect them to do.
I do appreciate the gentlelady from California and the gentleman from
Michigan and the others that are interested. I should mention the other
gentleman from Louisiana that is not here that has been an advocate for
this for many years and many Congresses, Mr. Boustany. I do thank you
for working on this and working with the committee to try to address
this to see if we can get up to the target.
The other thing is it was said that we didn't reach the target in
this. While it depends on kind of how you look at it, there are, as you
know, other purposes for which the harbor maintenance trust fund is
spent, Saint Lawrence Seaway and also for one of the other accounts in
transportation for border security and stuff.
If you count those in the total spending of WRRDA, it probably does
come close to reaching the target, as long as those committees
appropriate what was requested. I don't know whether they will or not,
but if they do.
I think working in a bipartisan way, we have come up with the best we
can do to address this. I know it is of high importance to all Members
of Congress. I thank the gentlelady and the gentleman for working with
the committee.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Rice of South Carolina

Mr. RICE of South Carolina. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 4, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $4,500,000)''.
Page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $4,500,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from South
Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. RICE of South Carolina. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, so many things we do here in Washington are
nonsensical. Our tax system is not competitive; our immigration system
is not competitive; our regulatory system is not competitive, and our
infrastructure is deteriorating. Our ports are certainly a very, very
critical part of our infrastructure.
When we have a situation where it takes 15-plus years to get
environmental permitting done for the Port Everglades, when we are on
the fourth year of studying the Charleston port--one of the most
efficient ports on the East Coast--and when it has been 10 years since
we have had dredging funds for the small Port of Georgetown in my
district, our infrastructure continues to deteriorate; the country
becomes less competitive, and thousands more American jobs are lost.
With limited funds, it is increasingly difficult for small harbors to
compete with larger projects. Given this competition for scarce funds,
very few small projects make the President's budget and receive
funding.
What my amendment proposes to do, Mr. Chairman, is to remove $4.5
million from the Army Corps' regulatory budget, which the regulatory
division of the Army Corps of Engineers continues to grow and
promulgate more regulations that make our country even less
competitive, such as the expansion of the Clean Water Act that are
currently proposed.
This would take money from that regulatory division and put it into
the operating and maintenance division so that these moneys can be used
to actually make our ports work again.
The bottom line is our harbors are showing, and we need to increase
money to maintenance accounts so that our harbors can compete. In my
district, the Port of Georgetown has not received maintenance dredging
in over a decade. This is a port that handled 1.7 million tons of cargo
in the year 2000. The economy in the area is largely dependent on the
port, and the port is getting more and more shallow each year.
The State of South Carolina has pledged $18 million for port
dredging. The ports authority in South Carolina has pledged $5 million,
and even the Georgetown County voters have passed a referendum that
will apply $6 million to dredge the harbor. Currently, Georgetown is
waiting for the President or the Army Corps of Engineers to realize its
importance and fund the Federal portion of this project.
It is vitally important for the Corps' maintenance account to be
sufficient, which is why my amendment transfers $4.5 million from
regulatory activities to maintaining our harbors.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2145

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. It is my understanding the gentleman is going to
withdraw the amendment after speaking on it.
Mr. RICE of South Carolina. If the chairman is going to oppose my
amendment, I will withdraw it out of respect for the chairman.

[[Page H2638]]

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand the desire and the
need for sufficient funding for harbor maintenance. That was a debate
we just had here on the floor, but this House adopted an amendment from
my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) to meet the annual target set
for the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014. We hit the
target we all agreed to.
Additionally, while I certainly take issue with some of the
regulatory changes this administration is pursuing, the Corps does need
funding for processing permits in a timely manner.
The underlying bill already eliminates funding for the changes to the
waters of the United States. We do not want to slow down other
necessary activities.
For these reasons, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I
certainly understand his concern and his desire with this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman
Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their work on this good piece of
legislation.
Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
The CHAIR. Are there further amendments?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

regulatory program

For expenses necessary for administration of laws
pertaining to regulation of navigable waters and wetlands,
$200,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

Page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $424,000)''.
Page 28, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $424,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment which seeks to ensure
the adequate resources for the Department of Energy's inspector
general's office.
As a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I
am a firm believer in oversight of the Federal Government. The more
sunlight on Federal activity, the more honest and efficient it will be.
I am also a strong proponent of our inspector general community.
Since the Inspector General Act was passed into law, the IG community
has saved taxpayers billions of dollars and has uncovered countless
examples of wrongdoing in the Federal Government.
I just read a GAO investigation report yesterday that found that
loans currently in the Department of Energy portfolio are expected to
cost the taxpayers more than $2.2 billion. The report went on to state
that $807 million of the $2.2 billion is a result of bad loans that
have already defaulted. In fact, five major DOE loans have already
defaulted from the agency's 2014 portfolio.
The report also noted that the cost to the taxpayers from these
flawed DOE loans could even exceed the $2.2 billion estimated figure.
``The final credit subsidy cost of a given loan or loan guarantee will
not be known until the life of the loan is complete . . . Both DOE loan
programs can expose the government and taxpayers to substantial
financial risk if borrowers default.''
Further, this committee noted in the committee report accompanying
this bill: ``The committee is also concerned that the Department is
failing in its responsibility to ensure that DOE contracts with
incurred costs valued at billions of dollars per year are audited in a
timely manner.''
Clearly, there is a lack of oversight and accountability within DOE
that needs to change. It is the responsibility of the DOE inspector
general to report to Congress on these issues so that we can rectify
these problems and ensure taxpayers aren't exposed to another Solyndra.
I applaud the committee for recommending resources above and beyond
last year's enacted levels, but the recommended level is still beneath
the President's budget request.
Let's give the inspector general's office the resources it needs. I
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the passage of
this commonsense amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

formerly utilized sites remedial action program

For expenses necessary to clean up contamination from sites
in the United States resulting from work performed as part of
the Nation's early atomic energy program, $104,000,000, to
remain available until expended.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

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

Page 6, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,500,000)''.
Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $400,000)''.
Page 22, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $22,661,000)''.
Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $34,000,000)''.
Page 24, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $227,000)''.
Page 25, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $32,262,000)''.
Page 25, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $18,000)''.
Page 27, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,000,000)''.
Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,119,000)''.
Page 35, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,632,000)''.
Page 49, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 51, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $23,101,000)''.
Page 57, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $128,920,000)''.

Mr. SIMPSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of
order on the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment continues the effort to
stop or, at least in this case, to freeze appropriations that are made
for agencies whose legal authorizations lapsed many years and even
decades ago.
Ever since 1835, the rules of the House have forbidden spending any
money for purposes unauthorized by current law; yet today, about one-
third of our discretionary spending is for unauthorized programs.
Why is that? Well, it is because the rule against unauthorized
spending cannot be enforced because it is always waived by the
resolutions that bring these bills to the floor.
The bill before us today contains $25 billion in unauthorized
spending for programs that have not been reviewed by the authorizing
committees since as far back as 1980, Jimmy Carter's last year in
office.
I am sure that some--even many--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 many as 35 years ought to warn us
to at least be a little more careful in continuing to fund them.
Rather than review our spending decisions and making tough choices
about spending priorities, Congress simply rubberstamps these programs
out of habit, year after year. 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 require. It simply freezes spending on them at last year's
level.
The cuts contained in this amendment total $129 million, or about
thirty-six one-hundredths of 1 percent of the total spending in this
bill.
This House has a responsibility to examine these programs,
reauthorize the ones that work, and modify or end the

[[Page H2639]]

ones that don't. It has a responsibility, but it has no incentive, as
long as we keep funding them and, worse, increasing the funding that
these programs receive.
In a sense, this is a token. It is a symbol. Reducing this bill by
thirty-six one-hundredths of 1 percent will have no appreciable effect
on the $35.5 million in this appropriation or the $3.8 trillion the
Federal Government plans to spend this year, but I hope that it will
send a subtle but clear message that the Members of this House insist
that the Congress reassert its constitutional responsibility to
authorize Federal spending and to enforce its own rules that prohibit
spending blindly on unauthorized programs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. I have to tell you, in all honesty, I understand what he
is trying to do, and I agree with him in many ways; but, when he says
we have to observe the rules of the House, the rules of the House also
allow for the Rules Committee to write a rule that overrides the rules
of the House. If it is approved by a majority, guess what, that is what
happens. We are following the rules of the House, but he raises a point
that is of concern--and should be.
When I was chairman of the Interior Subcommittee, we tried to defund
the Endangered Species Act and designations of critical habitat because
the Endangered Species Act had not been reauthorized for something like
23 or 26 years.
We lost an amendment on the floor to put the money back into it, but
we were trying to make a point--and I was supported by the chairman of
the Resources Committee--but we were trying to make the point that the
authorizing committees need to get busy and do their job. I fully
believe that.
That was 8 years ago. We still haven't done anything to reauthorize
the Endangered Species Act, and the chairman at that time supported
what we were trying to do. I haven't seen any reauthorization bills
come up.
Now, if you look at what is not authorized in the Federal Government
right now--or where authorizations have expired--I think there is a
reason for an expiration date. It is so that you go in and review the
program and see if the need is still there, can we do it better, do we
need to make changes, is there still a justification for the program.
The problem is the authorizing committees have failed in many
respects in that responsibility. If we were to simply defund everything
where authorizations have expired--I think the Department of State
authorization has expired; I am not sure we want to defund the
Department of State; some people might want to--but there is an awful
lot. I think, in most senior programs, the authorizations have expired,
and you can go through the list.
While the gentleman raises a very valid point and one that I would
like to help work with him on trying to address, the Appropriations
Committee is trying to do our job of oversight. That is why we have
hearings.
Is it the best place to do oversight of the need for the programs? We
do oversight on how the money is spent and so forth, but the
authorizing committees are the best place to look at the programs and
see in their totality if they are still needed or not.
While I sympathize--and I know that is not what the gentleman from
California wants--while I sympathize with what the gentleman is trying
to do--and even agree with what he is trying to do--I have to rise in
opposition to the gentleman's amendment, but I thank him for bringing a
very important subject to this floor.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. I, as well as the chairman, appreciate the gentleman
coming to the floor and pointing out some of the inadequacies of
process here, but I wanted to just state for the record that a couple
of the items that the gentleman targets, I think, would do damage to
the country.
For example, the accounts that deal with cleaning up the cold war
legacy, that means that communities across our country that sacrificed
in the name of the country would have to wait even longer for a
resolution to the contamination that exists.
It is astounding how much there is from coast-to-coast. When you
start looking, you almost want to close the book because there is so
much, and I think that the communities that have been dealing with
these remediation problems over the years would not appreciate the
gentleman's amendment this evening.

{time} 2200

In addition to that, I wanted to say something about ARPA-E, where we
have our advanced energy research going on. You know, the United States
is not energy secure. We are still too vulnerable here at home on many
levels, and ARPA-E provides us with a real global advantage.
I don't think we need to shave anything from ARPA-E because if I look
at some of the competition that is coming at us from China, for
example, it is even coming in very unfair ways, such as hacking into
our intellectual property that any of our private companies hold.
We view ARPA-E as essential to our future, really, with what we are
doing within the global marketplace. So I think the gentleman is very
well-intentioned in trying to have regular order. I wish that it all
worked so perfectly, but I don't think that we should hurt communities
across this country nor the long-term energy interests of the Nation,
because I think that is what would be done if the gentleman's amendment
were to pass.
I just wanted to put that on the Record and rise in opposition, but I
respect the gentleman for coming down here and for trying to perfect
the way that we conduct the affairs of the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I appreciate the gentlelady's kind words.
I would point out that this defunds nothing. All that it does is to
freeze spending of those unauthorized programs at last year's level
until the authorizing committees actually sit down and review them and
revise them and reauthorize them. Nor is anything in the NDAA affected
by this freeze.
I appreciate my friend from Idaho's sympathy, but I would trade it in
a moment for his support. And I would point out that this amendment,
the whole point of this amendment is that authorizing committees have
got to review, reauthorize, revise, or repeal these measures. They have
got to do one of those things.
But why should they, why would they want to go to all of the fuss and
bother of reviewing these programs, taking on entrenched interests,
asking hard questions, making people cranky in the process, when all
they have to do, under our current practice, is sit there, do
absolutely nothing, and the funding, just like the mighty Mississippi,
just keeps rolling along.
We cannot continue down this course responsibly. We have a
responsibility to the American people to do that heavy lifting, to go
through these programs with a fine-tooth comb, to make the revisions
that are necessary according to our own experience and, in the most
important mandate this Congress has been given, to stop wasting
people's money.
This measure is a very small step. To suggest that it is going to
have dire consequences, cutting thirty-six one-hundredths of 1 percent
of the total funds in this bill, is a measure of how out of control our
thinking on spending has gotten.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for this single token, that
we take a stand and at least freeze the unauthorized spending.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman for his comments and for proposing
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.
The CHAIR. The reservation of the point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's

[[Page H2640]]

amendment. I would hate to get the idea, when he says stop wasting
taxpayer money that, just because we are funding these programs that
haven't been reauthorized, we are wasting taxpayer money. We actually
look at these programs very deeply when we do the appropriations
process.
And, in fact, I wouldn't want to suggest to the American people that
we never eliminate any program that authorizations have expired on or
whose need we have deemed has run out. When I was chairman of the
Committee on the Interior, I think we eliminated something like 59
different programs that we no longer needed. So it is not that we sit
here and just continue to fund things, but we do look at the programs,
the need for the programs.
I fully agree with the gentleman about the need to somehow change
this so that the authorizing committees can do their--or will do
their--authorizations work. But the Appropriations Committee holds
probably more hearings than any other committee in this body and looks
at these programs very deeply.
There may be differences about what is necessary and what is
appropriate for funding between Members of this body, but what we come
out with is a bill that we think a majority of the Members of this body
can support.
So I look forward to working with the gentleman from California to
try to address what is a real problem that he brings up, but I would
hope my colleagues would oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. McClintock).

=========================== NOTE ===========================

April 29, 2015, on page H2640, the following appeared: I yield
back the balance of my time. The question is on the amendment

The online version should be corrected to read: I yield back the
balance of my time. The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment

========================= END NOTE =========================

The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The 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:

flood control and coastal emergencies

For expenses necessary to prepare for flood, hurricane, and
other natural disasters and support emergency operations,
repairs, and other activities in response to such disasters
as authorized by law, $34,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

expenses

For expenses necessary for the supervision and general
administration of the civil works program in the headquarters
of the Corps of Engineers and the offices of the Division
Engineers; and for costs of management and operation of the
Humphreys Engineer Center Support Activity, the Institute for
Water Resources, the United States Army Engineer Research and
Development Center, and the United States Army Corps of
Engineers Finance Center allocable to the civil works
program, $180,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2017, of which not to exceed $5,000 may be used for
official reception and representation purposes and only
during the current fiscal year: Provided, That no part of any
other appropriation provided in this title shall be available
to fund the civil works activities of the Office of the Chief
of Engineers or the civil works executive direction and
management activities of the division offices: Provided
further, That any Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
appropriation may be used to fund the supervision and general
administration of emergency operations, repairs, and other
activities in response to any flood, hurricane, or other
natural disaster.

office of the assistant secretary of the army for civil works

For the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works as authorized by 10 U.S.C. 3016(b)(3),
$4,750,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017:
Provided, That not more than 25 percent of such amount may be
obligated or expended until the Assistant Secretary submits
to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress a work plan that allocates at least 95 percent of
the additional funding provided under each heading in this
title (as designated under such heading in the report of the
Committee on Appropriations accompanying this Act) to
specific programs, projects, or activities.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--CORPS OF ENGINEERS--CIVIL

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 101. (a) None of the funds provided in this title
shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or
activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds or personnel for any program, project,
or activity for which funds have been denied or restricted by
this Act;
(4) reduces funds that are directed to be used for a
specific program, project, or activity by this Act;
(5) increases funds for any program, project, or activity
by more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or;
(6) reduces funds for any program, project, or activity by
more than $2,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less.
(b) Subsection (a)(1) shall not apply to any project or
activity authorized under section 205 of the Flood Control
Act of 1948, section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946,
section 208 of the Flood Control Act of 1954, section 107 of
the River and Harbor Act of 1960, section 103 of the River
and Harbor Act of 1962, section 111 of the River and Harbor
Act of 1968, section 1135 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986, section 206 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1996, or section 204 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992.
(c) The Corps of Engineers shall submit reports on a
quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress detailing all the funds reprogrammed
between programs, projects, activities, or categories of
funding. The first quarterly report shall be submitted not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 102. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to award or modify any contract that commits
funds beyond the amounts appropriated for that program,
project, or activity that remain unobligated, except that
such amounts may include any funds that have been made
available through reprogramming pursuant to section 101.
Sec. 103. The Secretary of the Army may transfer to the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service
may accept and expend, up to $4,700,000 of funds provided in
this title under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance'' to
mitigate for fisheries lost due to Corps of Engineers
projects.
Sec. 104. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water
Development for any fiscal year may be used by the Corps of
Engineers to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or
enforce any change to the regulations in effect on October 1,
2012, pertaining to the definitions of the terms ``fill
material'' or ``discharge of fill material'' for the purposes
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.).

Amendment Offered by Mr. Beyer

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

Page 10, beginning on line 10, strike section 104.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Beyer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is very simple. It strikes
section 104 of this bill.
Section 104 would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from updating
regulations pertaining to the definitions of ``fill material'' or
``discharge of fill material'' for the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
When Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act, and for nearly 35
years after its passage, the law kept America's lakes, rivers, and
streams safe from mining pollution, protecting our wildlife and our
drinking water. That is no longer the case today.
My amendment would remove this anti-Clean Water Act rider. Current
and future administrations should have the flexibility to change the
definitions of ``fill material'' or ``discharge of fill material''
should they wish to.
When Congress first enacted the Clean Water Act, the 404 permit
process was supposed to be used for certain construction projects like
bridges and roads where raising the bottom elevation of a water body or
converting an area into dry land was unavoidable.
Under a 2002 rule change, the definition of ``fill material'' was
broadened to include: ``rock, sand, soil, clay, plastics, construction
debris, wood chips, and overburden from mining or other excavation
activities.'' The revised rule also removed regulatory language which
previously excluded ``waste'' discharges from section 404 jurisdiction,
a change that some argue allows the use of 404 permits to authorize
certain discharges that harm the aquatic environment.
The Clean Water Act, section 404(b)(1) guidelines are not well-suited
for evaluating the environmental effects of discharging hazardous
wastes such as mining refuse and similar materials into a water body or
wetland.
In sum, the net effect of the 2002 rule change was to alter the Corps
permit process in ways that Congress never intended. It was not
congressional intent to allow mining refuse and similar material, some
of it hazardous, to qualify

[[Page H2641]]

as ``fill material'' and thereby bypass a more thorough environmental
review and meet Federal pollution standards. Downstream water users
have every right to be concerned that the section 404 process fails to
protect them from the discharge of hazardous substances.
Lower Slate Lake in Alaska is the perfect example. A permit allows
the discharge of toxic wastewater from a gold ore processing mill to go
untreated directly into the lake, despite the fact that the discharge
violates EPA's standards for the mining industry.
Mining waste can contain toxic chemicals known to pose health risks
to humans and aquatic animals, and continuing the practice of dumping
this waste into our Nation's streams and rivers is dangerous and
irresponsible. EPA estimates that 120 miles per year of headwater
streams are buried with the chemical-laden discharge as a result of
surface mining operations under the existing definitions of ``fill.''
Equally important, a 2008 EPA study found evidence that mining
activities can have severe impacts on downstream aquatic life and the
biological conditions of a stream. That same study found that 9 out of
every 10 streams downstream from surface mining operations were
impaired based on assessments of aquatic life.
Mr. Chairman, this provision is a preemptive strike against
protecting our drinking water, and since there is no time limit on the
provision, it would not only block the current Obama administration,
but any future administration from considering changes.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to strike section
104 from this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. It seems like old
times. You just changed your appearance.
Mr. Moran and I, your colleague before you, he and I had this
discussion many, many times on the Clean Water Act and waters of the
United States and fill material and so forth, and it seems like you
just look different than he used to.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The language in
the bill is intended simply to maintain the status quo regarding what
is ``fill material'' for the purposes of the Clean Water Act.
The existing definition was put in place through a rulemaking
initiated by the Clinton administration and finalized by the Bush
administration. The rule aligned the definitions on the books of the
Corps and the EPA, so that both agencies were working with the same
definition.
Changing the definition again, as some have proposed, could
effectively kill mining operations across much of this country. For
that reason, I support the underlying language in the bill. That is why
we put it in the bill, and I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 105. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act making appropriations for Energy and Water
Development for any fiscal year may be used by the Corps of
Engineers to develop, adopt, implement, administer, or
enforce any change to the regulations and guidance in effect
on October 1, 2012, pertaining to the definition of waters
under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), including the provisions of the
rules dated November 13, 1986, and August 25, 1993, relating
to such jurisdiction, and the guidance documents dated
January 15, 2003, and December 2, 2008, relating to such
jurisdiction.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Beyer

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

Page 10, beginning on line 19, strike section 105.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply strike section
105. As it stands, section 105 would prevent the Army Corps of
Engineers from finalizing its proposed regulation clarifying the limits
of Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
This language is not new. I understand we have seen it a number of
times. The difference is that the conversation has since progressed,
and almost everyone agrees that clarity is needed. Calls for the EPA to
issue a rule even came from such notable organizations as the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the
Western Business Roundtable, and the National Association of
Manufacturers.
Prohibiting EPA from finalizing the rule, as section 105 would
direct, would perpetuate this confusion, and there are countless cases
that reiterate this point.
For example, the EPA acknowledged enforcement difficulties in a case
in which storm water from construction sites carried oil, grass,
grease, and other pollutants into tributaries to the San Pedro River,
which is an internationally recognized river ecosystem supporting
diverse wildlife but where the waters in question only flow for part of
the year. The Agency stated that it ``had to discontinue all
enforcement cases in this area because it was so time-consuming and
costly to prove that the Clean Water Act protects these rivers.''
We need to end the confusion and, through a public comment process
and appropriate congressional oversight, allow the administration to
move forward and complete a formal rulemaking.
It also needs to be said that the opponents of the Clean Water rule
have it wrong. The proposed rule respects agriculture and the law by
maintaining all of the existing exemptions for agricultural discharges
and water. It identifies specific types of water bodies to which it
does not apply, areas like artificial lakes and ponds, and many types
of drainage and irrigation ditches. It does not extend Federal
protection to any waters not historically protected under the Clean
Water Act, and it is fully consistent with the law and the decisions of
the Supreme Court.
The administration has a strong, commonsense plan to make clean water
a priority by protecting the sources that feed the drinking water for
more than 117 million Americans.
If Congress blocks this proposal to protect clean water, 20 million
acres of wetlands nationwide will continue to be at risk. Stopping this
proposal will also impact the small businesses and communities that
rely on clean water.
American businesses need to know when the Federal Government has
authority and when it doesn't, and without updated guidance, businesses
will often not know when they need Army Corps of Engineers permits.
This uncertainty could subject them to civil and criminal liability and
will certainly cost them extra money.

{time} 2215

The clean water rule will largely restore but not expand historic
coverage of the Clean Water Act at no direct cost to the public. EPA
estimates that the clean water rule would provide up to $514 million
annually in benefits to the public.
Updating the rules and guidance is essential. We need to allow EPA
and the Corps to do their job and clarify their rules and guidance. If
they fail to do it in accordance with existing law, more lawsuits will
ensue.
Overall, these anti-Clean Water Act riders are part of an effort to
return us to a time when we had no uniform national minimum clean water
standard and States had conflicting policies or no policies at all.
That was a time when rivers were so polluted, they caught fire, and
responsible downstream States suffered the consequences of lax or weak
upstream States' policies.
Today we have cleaner, more drinkable waters precisely because of the
Clean Water Act.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this clean water rider and support our
amendment.

[[Page H2642]]

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 rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. Last spring, the administration proposed a rule that would
greatly expand the Federal jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act to
include waters that were traditionally understood to be under State
jurisdiction.
Let me repeat that. Many people believed that if the waters were not
regulated under the Clean Water Act, they were unregulated. Not true.
They were regulated by the States. And that is where it should remain.
Now, there became a question of, under the Clean Water Act, under
``navigable waters,'' what the heck does that mean? It was very
confusing. Does it mean navigable by a steamship, navigable by a boat,
a canoe, an inner tube? And the Court said, You need to clarify this.
Well, the EPA essentially said, Well, we can clarify that. We will
just control all the waters and take them out of State control.
I think that is a problem, and I can tell you that it is a real
problem for States in the West, particularly.
The administration's proposed rule is inconsistent with two separate
Supreme Court decisions that clearly said the Corps of Engineers and
the Environmental Protection Agency had gone too far in that Federal
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act was not as broad as they had
claimed.
Deciding how water is used should be the responsibility of State and
local officials who are familiar with the people and local issues.
Under the rule provided by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers,
they are saying intermittent streams. Any streams that don't have water
running in them, but maybe a month or two a year, now fall under their
jurisdiction.
And under the connectivity rule, which is what this is--you know, the
hip bone is connected to the leg bone is connected to the knee bone
sort of thing--under the connectivity rule, while they say that this is
not their intent, there is no way that you cannot eventually say that
we are going to control groundwater also--not just surface water but
groundwater also--because it is connected to the surface water also.
So while there may be a desire for clarity on the issue of Federal
jurisdiction, providing clarity does not trump the need to stay within
the limits of the law. The proposed rule would expand Federal
jurisdiction far beyond what was ever intended by the Clean Water Act.
The provision in the Energy and Water bill does not weaken the Clean
Water Act. It stops the administration from expanding Federal
jurisdiction.
For those reasons, I strongly oppose this amendment and urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 106. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to require a permit for the discharge of dredged or
fill material under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.) for the activities identified in
subparagraphs (A) and (C) of section 404(f)(1) of the Act (33
U.S.C. 1344(f)(1)(A), (C)).
Sec. 107. As of the date of enactment of this Act and each
fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary of the Army shall not
promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an
individual from possessing a firearm, including an assembled
or functional firearm, at a water resources development
project covered under section 327.0 of title 36, Code of
Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of
this Act), if--
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from
possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the
law of the State in which the water resources development
project is located.
Sec. 108. No funds in this Act shall be used for an open
lake placement alternative of dredged material, after
evaluating the least costly, environmentally acceptable
manner for the disposal or management of dredged material
originating from Lake Erie or tributaries thereto, unless it
is approved under a State water quality certification
pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1341.

TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Central Utah Project

central utah project completion account

For carrying out activities authorized by the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, $9,874,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $1,000,000 shall be deposited into the
Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Account for use
by the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation
Commission: Provided, That of the amount provided under this
heading, $1,300,000 shall be available until September 30,
2017, for expenses necessary in carrying out related
responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided
further, That for fiscal year 2016, of the amount made
available to the Commission under this Act or any other Act,
the Commission may use an amount not to exceed $1,500,000 for
administrative expenses.

Bureau of Reclamation

The following appropriations shall be expended to execute
authorized functions of the Bureau of Reclamation:

water and related resources

(including transfers of funds)

For management, development, and restoration of water and
related natural resources and for related activities,
including the operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of
reclamation and other facilities, participation in fulfilling
related Federal responsibilities to Native Americans, and
related grants to, and cooperative and other agreements with,
State and local governments, federally recognized Indian
tribes, and others, $948,640,000, to remain available until
expended, of which $22,000 shall be available for transfer to
the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and $5,899,000 shall be
available for transfer to the Lower Colorado River Basin
Development Fund; of which such amounts as may be necessary
may be advanced to the Colorado River Dam Fund: Provided,
That such transfers may be increased or decreased within the
overall appropriation under this heading: Provided further,
That of the total appropriated, the amount for program
activities that can be financed by the Reclamation Fund or
the Bureau of Reclamation special fee account established by
16 U.S.C. 6806 shall be derived from that Fund or account:
Provided further, That funds contributed under 43 U.S.C. 395
are available until expended for the purposes for which the
funds were contributed: Provided further, That funds advanced
under 43 U.S.C. 397a shall be credited to this account and
are available until expended for the same purposes as the
sums appropriated under this heading: Provided further, That
of the amounts provided herein, funds may be used for high-
priority projects which shall be carried out by the Youth
Conservation Corps, as authorized by 16 U.S.C. 1706.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Ruiz

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

Page 13, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I thank Chairman Simpson and
Ranking Member Kaptur for their hard work and collaboration on this
important bill.
I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2028, the Energy and Water
Appropriations Act, that provides additional, critical resources for
the Bureau of Reclamation to undertake projects that address the
historic and severe drought conditions across the West.
Mr. Chairman, one of the worst droughts in modern history is ravaging
our Nation's crops, choking our fragile economic recovery, and placing
our water supply in unprecedented jeopardy.
Last year, more than 60 percent of the contiguous United States
suffered drought conditions, and the West continues to bear the brunt
of this burden. In the Olympic Mountains of northwest Washington State,
the snowpack contained just 7 percent of the average. In California,
the drought is the worst to hit the State since record-keeping started
in 1895. 2013 was the driest year on record, and 2014 was the hottest.
The impacts of this severe drought are harsh and far-reaching,
threatening public health, degrading the environment, increasing the
risk of wildfires, and hampering a wide range of industries.
In 2012, California's agriculture industry contributed over $45
billion to the United States economy. Last year, because of the
drought, hundreds of thousands of acres were left fallow because
sufficient water was unavailable. According to a University of
California

[[Page H2643]]

study, this cost the State $2.2 billion in direct economic output and
the devastating loss of 17,100 seasonal and part-time jobs.
These effects will be felt by Americans across the country. This
year, the price of fruits and vegetables is expected to rise 3 percent,
in part due to the severe drought conditions in California.
Furthermore, continuing to draw down groundwater supplies in
California will have dangerous public health impacts. In rural
communities, where residents rely on wells for drinking water, reduced
groundwater levels result in higher concentrations of contaminants,
including dangerous nitrates and arsenic.
Stagnant pools have also created breeding grounds for mosquitoes. The
California Department of Public Health announced in April that the
State had a record-breaking number of deaths related to the mosquito-
borne West Nile virus in 2014.
In addition to West Nile, the arid conditions could also increase the
number of cases of valley fever, a potentially fatal disease caused by
a fungus called Coccidioides that can grow in the soil and becomes
airborne if the soil dries out. While the majority of people exposed to
the spores do not exhibit symptoms, people who start to develop the
disease can have cough, fever, headache, and, in rare cases, it can
lead to death.
It is time for action at all levels of government to address the
dangerous economic and public health impacts of ignoring this drought.
Back home in the southern California desert, local water agencies are
working to help residents, businesses, and municipalities convert their
lawns and landscaping into water-efficient desert landscapes.
At the Federal level, the Bureau of Reclamation is investing in
public-private partnerships to help improve the delivery of water for
agricultural users, which in turn allows them to invest in more water-
efficient irrigation techniques, such as drip irrigation.
The Bureau can also help communities whose wells have run dry due to
excessive groundwater pumping install relief wells that provide, in
some cases, the only source of freshwater for an entire town. And
through one of the most successful water conservation grant programs,
the WaterSMART program, the Bureau has helped local water agencies,
tribal governments, irrigation districts, and State agencies implement
water conservation techniques that have conserved over 860,000 acre-
feet of water since 2009.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply shift
funding away from taxpayer-subsidized fossil fuel research that
benefits the wealthiest oil companies that can pay for the research
themselves and redirect it toward critical Bureau of Reclamation
activities to address the impacts of this devastating drought and help
mitigate future droughts.
We must put the American economy, our constituents, and the public's
health above politics and Big Oil. I urge my colleagues to come
together to support my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I understand the gentleman seeks to show support for additional
funding for projects that are drought-related in California and other
places, but we must be mindful of the balancing and competing
priorities across this bill.
The gentleman would take $20 million out of the fossil energy
account. As I have said before, fossil fuels--such as coal, oil,
natural gas--provide nearly 85 percent of the energy used by the
Nation's homes and businesses and will continue to provide for the
majority of our energy needs for the foreseeable future.
The bill rejects the administration's proposed reductions to fossil
energy and, instead, funds these programs at $605 million, $34 million
above last year. With this additional funding, the Office of Fossil
Energy will research how heat can more efficiently be converted into
electricity in a cross-cutting effort with nuclear and solar energy
programs, how water can be more efficiently used in power plants, and
how coal can be used to produce electric power through fuel cells.
This amendment would reduce funding for a program that ensures that
we use our Nation's abundant fossil fuel resources as well and as
cleanly as possible. Therefore, I must oppose the amendment and urge
other Members to do so.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, I thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for their
leadership and hard work on this bill.
I urge my colleagues to come together in a bipartisan fashion and
support my amendment to ensure the Bureau dedicates essential resources
towards projects that will help keep American-made food on the table
and prevent a dangerous rise in food prices across the country, again,
just taking money from taxpayer-subsidized research that they can
afford on their own and putting it to combating our drought.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Ruiz).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The 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. Tipton

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

Page 13, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member
Kaptur for their collaborative effort in bringing together this bill.
I appreciate very much Chairman Simpson's support of my floor
amendment last year, reprogramming funds within the Bureau of
Reclamation's water conservancy and delivery fund to advance and
complete ongoing work that would provide efficient delivery of clean
drinking water from an existing multipurpose reclamation project, as
authorized by Congress in 1962.
Mr. Chairman, water is the lifeblood of the Western United States and
is absolutely critical to the vitality of our communities and local
economies.
Today I am offering a simple amendment that will bolster the Bureau
of Reclamation's water and related resources account by $2 million,
allowing the Bureau of Reclamation to proceed with ongoing water supply
delivery projects at a more efficient pace to reach our shared goals in
meeting increased water demands by developing and maximizing clean
water supplies.
In Colorado, as is the case throughout the West, we have similar
needs to move forward with engineering design work on the authorized
features of existing reclamation projects. These projects improve water
supply quality, address water shortage issues, improve conservation
measures, and stabilize water supplies.

{time} 2230

In the Western United States, water is an economic driver. In order
to attract more economic growth, either in business or agriculture,
every industry in the West is dependent upon an ample and safe water
supply.
This amendment will provide Bureau of Reclamation increased funding
to continue with these types of projects while simultaneously improving
public health and protecting the environment. These projects are
critically important during drought years so that water is
appropriately allocated for both municipal and agricultural uses.
The Bureau's budget has been previously used for the California
Central Valley Project, the Washington State Yakima River Basin Water
Enhancement Project, the Arkansas Valley Conduit in Colorado, and the
Lewiston

[[Page H2644]]

Orchards Project in the chairman's home State of Idaho.
It is our hope that this bill gives the Bureau of Reclamation the
resources it needs to advance vital projects that resolve water
shortage issues in the West while enhancing regional development and
promoting job growth.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Buck), the coauthor of this amendment and my colleague.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment from my
colleague from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
Mr. Chairman, we have a history of borrowing for the future in this
country. We have borrowed for fighting wars, for building roads, and
for building space programs. Now, we are borrowing from the future, as
opposed to for the future. We have $18 trillion of debt, and we will
add to that debt this year.
This project was authorized in 1962, and it is required more recently
by the EPA's interpretation of the Clean Water Act. We have 40
communities in southeast Colorado who are in violation of the Clean
Water Act because of naturally occurring elements. This amendment
offers those communities a future.
If we have to incur debt, let it be an investment for our children's
future.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Chairman
Simpson.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the gentlemen from Colorado, both of them, for
offering this amendment and bringing this issue before the committee.
We have no objection with the amendment and would be happy to accept
it.
Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

central valley project restoration fund

For carrying out the programs, projects, plans, habitat
restoration, improvement, and acquisition provisions of the
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, $49,528,000, to be
derived from such sums as may be collected in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund pursuant to sections 3407(d),
3404(c)(3), and 3405(f) of Public Law 102-575, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the Bureau of
Reclamation is directed to assess and collect the full amount
of the additional mitigation and restoration payments
authorized by section 3407(d) of Public Law 102-575: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available under this
heading may be used for the acquisition or leasing of water
for in-stream purposes if the water is already committed to
in-stream purposes by a court adopted decree or order.

california bay-delta restoration

(including transfers of funds)

For carrying out activities authorized by the Water Supply,
Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act, consistent
with plans to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior,
$37,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
such amounts as may be necessary to carry out such activities
may be transferred to appropriate accounts of other
participating Federal agencies to carry out authorized
purposes: Provided, That funds appropriated herein may be
used for the Federal share of the costs of CALFED Program
management: Provided further, That CALFED implementation
shall be carried out in a balanced manner with clear
performance measures demonstrating concurrent progress in
achieving the goals and objectives of the Program.

policy and administration

For expenses necessary for policy, administration, and
related functions in the Office of the Commissioner, the
Denver office, and offices in the five regions of the Bureau
of Reclamation, to remain available until September 30, 2017,
$59,500,000, to be derived from the Reclamation Fund and be
nonreimbursable as provided in 43 U.S.C. 377: Provided, That
not more than 25 percent of such amount may be obligated or
expended until Reclamation complies with congressional and
statutory direction related to Technical Memorandum 8140-CC-
2004-1 (``Corrosion Considerations for Buried Metallic Water
Pipe'') and the associated pipeline reliability study:
Provided further, That no part of any other appropriation in
this Act shall be available for activities or functions
budgeted as policy and administration expenses.

administrative provision

Appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation shall be
available for purchase of not to exceed five passenger motor
vehicles, which are for replacement only.

GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Sec. 201. (a) None of the funds provided in this title
shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that--
(1) creates or initiates a new program, project, or
activity;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted by this Act;
(4) restarts or resumes any program, project or activity
for which funds are not provided in this Act, unless prior
approval is received from the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress;
(5) transfers funds in excess of the following limits--
(A) 15 percent for any program, project or activity for
which $2,000,000 or more is available at the beginning of the
fiscal year; or
(B) $300,000 for any program, project or activity for which
less than $2,000,000 is available at the beginning of the
fiscal year;
(6) transfers more than $500,000 from either the Facilities
Operation, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation category or the
Resources Management and Development category to any program,
project, or activity in the other category; or
(7) transfers, when necessary to discharge legal
obligations of the Bureau of Reclamation, more than
$5,000,000 to provide adequate funds for settled contractor
claims, increased contractor earnings due to accelerated
rates of operations, and real estate deficiency judgments.
(b) Subsection (a)(5) shall not apply to any transfer of
funds within the Facilities Operation, Maintenance, and
Rehabilitation category.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term ``transfer''
means any movement of funds into or out of a program,
project, or activity.
(d) The Bureau of Reclamation shall submit reports on a
quarterly basis to the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress detailing all the funds reprogrammed
between programs, projects, activities, or categories of
funding. The first quarterly report shall be submitted not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 202. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available by this Act may be used to determine the final
point of discharge for the interceptor drain for the San Luis
Unit until development by the Secretary of the Interior and
the State of California of a plan, which shall conform to the
water quality standards of the State of California as
approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, to minimize any detrimental effect of the San Luis
drainage waters.
(b) The costs of the Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program
and the costs of the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program
shall be classified by the Secretary of the Interior as
reimbursable or nonreimbursable and collected until fully
repaid pursuant to the ``Cleanup Program--Alternative
Repayment Plan'' and the ``SJVDP--Alternative Repayment
Plan'' described in the report entitled ``Repayment Report,
Kesterson Reservoir Cleanup Program and San Joaquin Valley
Drainage Program, February 1995'', prepared by the Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Any future
obligations of funds by the United States relating to, or
providing for, drainage service or drainage studies for the
San Luis Unit shall be fully reimbursable by San Luis Unit
beneficiaries of such service or studies pursuant to Federal
reclamation law.
Sec. 203. The Secretary of the Interior, acting through
the Commissioner of Reclamation, shall--
(1) complete the feasibility studies described in clauses
(i)(I) and (ii)(II) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law
108-361 (118 Stat. 1684) and submit such studies to the
appropriate committees of the House of Representatives and
the Senate not later than December 31, 2015;
(2) complete the feasibility studies described in clauses
(i)(II) and (ii)(I) of section 103(d)(1)(A) of Public Law
108-361 and submit such studies to the appropriate committees
of the House of Representatives and the Senate not later than
November 30, 2016;
(3) complete the feasibility study described in section
103(f)(1)(A) of Public Law 108-361 (118 Stat. 1694) and
submit such study to the appropriate committees of the House
of Representatives and the Senate not later than December 31,
2017; and
(4) provide a progress report on the status of the
feasibility studies referred to in paragraphs (1) through (3)
to the appropriate committees of the House of Representatives
and the Senate not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act and each 180 days thereafter until
December 31, 2017, as applicable. The report shall include
timelines for study completion, draft environmental impact
statements, final environmental impact statements, and
Records of Decision.

TITLE III--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ENERGY PROGRAMS

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

For Department of Energy expenses including the purchase,
construction, and acquisition of plant and capital equipment,
and other expenses necessary for energy efficiency and
renewable energy activities in carrying out the purposes of
the Department of Energy Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7101 et
seq.), including the acquisition or condemnation of any real
property or any facility or for plant or facility
acquisition, construction, or expansion, $1,657,774,000, to
remain

[[Page H2645]]

available until expended: Provided, That of such amount,
$150,000,000 shall be available until September 30, 2017, for
program direction.

amendment offered by mr. griffith

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

Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount insert ``reduced
by $50,000,000)''.
Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, over the past 6 years, the policy of the
current administration has been to wage a war on coal that has crippled
the coal industry and left areas like Virginia's Ninth District
economically devastated, and I believe it has put our access to
reliable, affordable electricity in jeopardy.
The onslaught of harmful, burdensome, and unreasonable regulations on
coal-fired power plants is continuing in the President's Clean Power
Plan. States must come up with a plan for CO2 in 13 months
after the final rule is released, which is supposed to be that summer.
That State plan is then to begin by 2020 and completed by 2030.
There are a number of clean coal technologies currently in
development, but according to the testimony from the Department of
Energy, these new technologies are not likely to be ready for prime
time until 2025. That is 9 years after the States have to come up with
a plan and 5 years after the States have to begin implementing that
plan and halfway through the time to come into compliance.
This is not right. If we are to avoid rolling brownouts, coal will
have to continued to be used; but, if we don't take action, it will be
illegal to use coal.
While I fight and will continue to fight more for more reasonable
regulations, we must take action to ensure that we can still use coal,
should the next administration also be unreasonable and anticoal.
Mr. Chairman, to bend the curve of development and bring the new coal
technologies to market, we must spend some money. My amendment will
simply add $50 million for fossil energy research and development from
energy efficiency and renewable energy for the purpose of aiding the
development of these new clean coal technologies so we can continue to
have reliable, affordable energy.
The very least we can do is to make sure that coal-fired power plants
have access to these new technologies in a timely fashion so that they
can meet these extremely burdensome regulations.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the underlying bill provides a 6
percent increase in fossil fuel energy research. However, when
districts like mine are seeing mine after mine shut down and power
plants shut down because of numerous regulations on coal, it is clear
that more needs to be done.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman from
Virginia's amendment. I wanted to point out--perhaps he doesn't have
the full numbers--but the figure that we have, we had a request from
the administration of $560 million, and we actually increased the
administration's request by $45 million to a level of $605 million for
fossil energy research, which is more than we spent in this fiscal year
of 2015. We are spending $571 million this year, so I would say that
the fossil energy accounts have been rather well provided for.
I also want to say to the gentleman that you are taking the funds
from the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account, and that
account is not above last year. It is $266 million below last year.
What is in the account, what remains there, is focused on American
manufacturing--which is important in Virginia--and vehicle technology,
which are really not partisan interests.
My own view is that, if you were to take the amount of funds that you
are proposing out of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
account, you would decimate these programs and further erode
manufacturing which has taken such big hits.
Let me also mention that since 2003, our country has spent $2.3
trillion importing foreign petroleum. This shifts vast amounts of
wealth abroad and squelches thousands upon thousands of jobs in our
country in the energy sector.
I agree with the gentleman that a diverse energy portfolio is
necessary to eliminate our reliance on imported energy, and we need an
``all of the above'' strategy. Our bill provides that in terms of not
just fossil energy, but renewable energies. We should be leading
investment in these technologies across the board and expanding jobs in
our country.
Though I appreciate the gentleman's interest--and I know Virginia has
coal deposits, so does Ohio--but I really feel that the bill that we
have worked out on a bipartisan basis provides very, very well for
fossil energy, certainly better than the Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy accounts fared.
I would oppose the amendment, and I would ask our colleagues to join
us in doing the same.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr.
Simpson), the chairman.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
My colleague's amendment would increase funding for the Fossil Energy
research and development program and decrease the EERE account by the
same amount as an offset.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's concern to protect the
fossil fuel industry against overreach by this administration's Clean
Power Plan proposal.
This amendment would advance research and development in allowing
robust utilization of our abundant natural resources in a safe and
efficient way. Therefore, I support the amendment and urge Members to
do the same.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Using the remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman, I would
have to say that I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, and I
appreciate the chairman's support.
The bottom line is that we are losing thousands of jobs in the
central Appalachian region, and according to the Bristol Herald Courier
in a recent article, 1,000 jobs have been lost in the last year alone
in the coal fields. That is one concern.
We are shutting down this month several coal-powered power plants in
my district, and we are going to have serious problems if we don't do
something. If we are going to continue down this path, we have to help
the industry. We have to help make sure that we are burning the coal in
a clean manner, and this is the way to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Castor

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $266,161,000)''.
Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $355,000,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentlewoman from
Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases the
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account by $266 million, to
simply restore it to last year's levels, with an offset from the fossil
energy account.
My amendment will boost energy efficiency and renewable energy
initiatives across America that have a proven return on investment for
taxpayers.

[[Page H2646]]

This amendment is paid for by reducing--but not by eliminating--
accounts that do not have the same return on investment for taxpayers.
Unless we adopt this amendment, America's commitment to energy
efficiency and renewable energy will be slashed by $266 million below
the 2015 enacted level and over $1 billion below the budget request.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wish that we could meet the budget request this
year, but that doesn't appear possible, but we should at least restore
the money back to last year's levels, which is still a very modest
investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy for America.
Investments in energy efficiency create jobs and help make our
businesses more competitive compared to businesses all across the
globe. In addition, energy efficiency reduces costs for consumers.
Wouldn't that be revolutionary, that we put money back into the pockets
of our neighbors back home?
The amount proposed for energy efficiency and renewable energy in the
Republican bill is so low that America will have to reduce the number
of research, development, and demonstration projects with industry,
with our universities, and in our national labs. America should be a
leader in innovation and technological advancement, but instead, the
Republican bill says America should take a back seat.
Well, Mr. Chairman, America should take a back seat to no one. We are
in the midst of a technological revolution when it comes to energy.
Look at what is happening across our great country. We have an
incredibly diverse energy portfolio and a growing clean energy and
efficiency sector. This is especially important as we tackle the
challenges of the changing climate.
Yet the Republican bill reduces investment in solar energy technology
R&D within the Solar Energy Technologies Office by $81 million, or 35
percent, from last year. That means the Department of Energy's exciting
SunShot Initiative goal of enabling cost-competitive solar electricity
without subsidies by 2020 will be delayed for years.
That is extremely detrimental to the U.S. solar industry and the jobs
it creates that currently employ over 174,000 Americans. It will send
an unfortunate signal to the Chinese and foreign competitors that we
are ceding this clean energy industry to them.
The Republican bill also would result in a significant reduction in
core solar R&D and the national labs, including the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories, necessitating
reductions in force.
The Republican bill will also eliminate support for solar industry
job training for students and military veterans at more than 400
community colleges across 49 States. This network has been a critical
source of trained employees in an industry that is growing and is
expected to grow even more with over 200,000 jobs by the end of 2015.
Finally, the recently piloted Solar Ready Vets program would be at
risk, and the planned expansion from 3 to 10 military bases would be
affected and canceled. Veterans currently make up 10 percent of the
solar industry.

{time} 2245

If we do not unleash American ingenuity now, our neighbors back home
will face increased costs of the changing climate, such as increases in
property insurance, increases in flood insurance, all of this from
extreme weather events, increased property taxes from having to protect
drinking water supplies, and storm water infrastructure. I would say
instead, let's invest in America.
My amendment shifts a little bit, not all, from older technologies
into cutting-edge energy efficiency and clean energy that are so vital
to America's future.
I appreciate Ranking Member Kaptur's vision. She understands that
this is our future. We are talking about American jobs in American
manufacturing. I appreciate her work. And I appreciate Chairman
Simpson's work on the appropriations bill.
I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Castor amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Florida says we
should invest. We are investing. This amendment would increase funding
for energy efficiency and renewable energy by $266 million, restoring
it to last year's level, by using the fossil energy account as an
offset.
This year, funding for EERE is $1.66 billion, $266 million below last
year, and $1.1 billion below the budget request. The recommendation
strategically focuses funding on three main priorities: helping
American manufacturers compete in the global marketplace, supporting
weatherization assistance programs, and supporting basic research into
renewable energy sources. These are all areas with broad bipartisan
support.
The House recommendation for this year was the result of a focused
effort to ensure taxpayer funds are spent on the most advanced research
projects within these priorities. Increasing funding for EERE by
diverting funds from research into fossil energy strikes the wrong
balance when considering the Nation's electricity needs.
Fossil fuel, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, provide the vast
majority of the energy used by the Nation's homes and businesses and
will continue to provide our energy needs for the foreseeable future.
For example, fossil fuels produce nearly 11 times more electricity than
renewable energy fuel sources.
I am not against renewable energy. I think they are an important part
of the mix. They are cute, but they don't provide the majority of
energy that is needed in this country.
This amendment would decimate funding for a program that ensures we
use our Nation's fossil fuel resources as well and as cleanly as
possible. Therefore, I must oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would say that the burgeoning
jobs being created in American manufacturing and energy efficiency and
renewable energy are more than just cute. They are the jobs of the
future in America, a clean energy future.
I urge my colleagues to adopt the Castor amendment: vote for America,
vote for American jobs, and vote for the future.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Lamborn

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

Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $4,000,000) (increased by $4,000,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The purpose of this amendment is to increase the funding for the
U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation program from the current $2 million to
$4 million. This critical program allows companies across the U.S. to
develop cutting-edge technologies with new partners in Israel in order
to advance America's energy goals.
Furthermore, the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperative Agreement facilitates
greater cooperation and sharing of knowledge between American and
Israeli universities on alternative energy. Collaboration between the
American and Israeli private sector and academia will significantly
enhance U.S. efforts to develop alternative technologies and increase
energy efficiency to the benefit of our national security, our economy,
and the environment.
Let me be clear, this is not an aid program, but instead a
cooperative agreement designed to connect the U.S. and Israeli private
sectors in the development of innovative technologies to strengthen our
energy security and independence. Reauthorized in 2014 through 2024,
the cooperative energy program mandate was expanded to

[[Page H2647]]

cover collaborative research and development into renewable
technologies, natural gas, and water--key areas of interest for the
United States.
The program is also designed to leverage matching contributions from
both the Israeli and American private sectors; thus, for every dollar
Congress appropriates, $3 are invested, contributing to our economy in
addition to our energy security. The program has already leveraged over
$27 million in private sector investment. This is an excellent way to
leverage a modest investment into critical energy innovation to the
benefit of both countries.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support this amendment to make a
greater investment in America's and Israel's energy future and to
support an important bilateral energy cooperation agreement with one of
our Nation's closest allies.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Swalwell of California

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

Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $25,500,000)''.
Page 22, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $34,000,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, which I offer along
with Representatives Perlmutter, Welch, Lieu, Tonko, Matsui, and
Connolly, which would cut the increase provided to the fossil Energy
Research and Development account back to its fiscal year 2015 level and
put that money toward the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, also
known as EERE, account.
My amendment presents a question for the Congress this evening: Are
we going to invest in the future of energy or are we going to continue
to look backwards?
We are certainly an all-of-the-above country when it comes to where
we get our energy; however, that does not mean we have to be an all-of-
the-above country when it comes to how we spend our Federal research
dollars.
For decades, we have relied on fossil fuels, fuels that dirty our
environment, that are fundamentally changing our environment, that keep
us dependent on foreign sources of energy and are a finite resource.
Reliance like this is simply not sustainable over the long-term.
Energy that is clean and renewable is where our future lies. To put
this in perspective, this budget proposes to cut the investment in
renewable energy by $266 million from last year, and increase
investments in fossil fuel by $34 million.
My colleagues on the other side often ask: Why can't we run
government like a business? This would be similar to a business cutting
its cell phone, iPhone, laptop, iPad budget and increasing its pager
and landline budget. It is time that we start running government like a
business and making investments in renewable energy because they will
pay off for our future and also for health and jobs that will be
created around them.
Young people understand this choice well. I have the opportunity to
lead a group in the Congress called Future Forum, and we have gone
across the country from New York to Boston to San Francisco talking to
young people about what issues matter to them. And across the country
the issue is always the same: Why can't this Congress be more forward
looking as to where we get our energy?
Millennials know that they are a generation who will be living with
the consequences of the energy choices we make here today. It is their
environment that will be damaged. It is their climate that will be
altered, and their energy choices that will be limited if we fail to
invest in renewable clean sources of energy now.
I know the budget is tight and we have to make difficult choices
about how to allocate scarce resources, and I understand and appreciate
that some of the money supported by the Fossil Energy research and
development account are seeking to improve how we use fossil fuels.
But how can we take limited resources to increase spending in any way
to support fossil fuels and encourage their use over fiscal year 2016
by $34 million while cutting renewable energy by $266 million? This
makes no sense.
Look at what other countries are doing. Germany right now receives 30
percent, 30 percent of its energy from renewable sources. Can we not do
better than Germany? The only way we can is if we invest in the future.
We shouldn't be increasing funding to continue to use energy sources of
the past.
I urge all Members to support my amendment, to undo this increase and
redirect that money towards supporting the energy of the future--
renewable energy.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, it is the same debate we used on the other
amendment, so I could just say repeat the same debate. The fact is we
are investing in what we use: 85 percent of electricity produced in
this country is produced by fossil energies. We invest in that to try
to make it more clean. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. Why would we
walk away from that? We can do it cleaner. We can do it more
efficiently, and that is what we are investing in.
We are still investing in renewable energies. It is not that we are
just ignoring those other things. In fact, we are investing $1.66
billion in those things. Fossil energy that we use much more than we do
renewable energies, only investing $605 million in it.
So our priorities, I believe, in this bill are in the right place.
And while I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, I think it
would unbalance the bill, and I would urge the rejection of his
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Swalwell).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The 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 CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $22,300,000)''.
Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $22,300,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking Chairman Simpson
for working on the bill and being willing to listen to this issue.
This amendment seeks to highlight the fact that the Water Power
Program is vitally important to reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
This bill, the underlying bill, cuts hydropower by over $22 million.
What the amendment I am offering does is restores that funding and
offsets it with Department of Energy administrative costs.
Hydropower is the Nation's most available, reliable, affordable, and
sustainable energy source. Requiring only the power of moving water--
rivers, streams, and ocean waves and tides--hydropower is domestic and
renewable.

[[Page H2648]]

Hydropower is available in every region of the country. A range of
technologies exist or are under development to tap the power of waves,
tides, and river flows. Thousands of megawatts of potential are
available from ocean energy projects from New England to the west coast
and Alaska, and from in-river hydrokinetic projects proposed along the
Mississippi River and others. 2,200 hydropower plants provide America's
most abundant source of clean, renewable electricity.
The United States produces more electricity from hydropower than from
any other renewable electricity source. It accounted for 56 percent of
renewable generation in 2012 and 7 percent of the Nation's overall
electricity generation.
New technology employed at existing hydro sites represents an
opportunity for new sources of power. By installing more efficient
turbines and enhancing performance, existing hydropower infrastructure
can generate even more power, sustainably. Harnessing more of this
energy will create a truly renewable and green energy source.
There are advantages over wind and solar. Hydro has a predictable
year-round output, while solar and wind output can be variable in some
areas and necessitates the use of large battery banks and/or alternate
power sources.

{time} 2300

Even routine, minor maintenance on a windmill can be difficult on the
top of a wind tower, while hydropower provides relatively low
maintenance. Hydropower facilities are quiet and often can be made
unobtrusive, while many people report that considerable noise is
generated by wind power.
Hydropower also faces a comprehensive regulatory approval process. It
involves too many participants, including FERC, the Federal and State
resource agencies, local governments, tribes, NGOs, and the public.
Currently, there are 60,000 megawatts of preliminary permits and
projects awaiting final approval or that are pending before the
Commission in 45 States.
Pennsylvania, where I come from, is in the top 10 for hydropower
potential, and, according to the Department of Energy, of the 80,000
total dams in the United States, 600 have the immediate capability to
produce energy.
This amendment seeks to highlight the lost and underutilized capacity
of abundant, economical, and clean energy right here within our
communities while we irresponsibly spend hard-earned tax dollars on
less viable options.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment from
consideration while simultaneously asking for favorable consideration
on the bipartisan hydro amendment to be offered very shortly.
The 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 CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $9,000,000)''.
Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $9,000,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, 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 a bipartisan amendment that I am
pleased to offer with my colleague from Pennsylvania, Congressman
Perry, and with my colleague from Maine, Congresswoman Pingree.
Mr. Chairman, our amendment would increase funding to the Department
of Energy's Water Power Program by just $9 million, which is a small
price tag that will yield a huge return on investment. This increase is
offset by an equal amount by 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.
The 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, unlike the Sun and wind, do not
stop--is an exciting frontier in the renewable energy sector.
Currently, Oregon State University, the University of Washington, and
the University of Alaska Fairbanks are using Federal funding from the
Water Power Program to support the testing and research activities of
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 the adoption of the bipartisan amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, but I am not opposed
to the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I see the amendment as a reasonable,
bipartisan approach and agreement which has seen favorable
consideration in this House in the past.
As I said just previously, hydropower is the Nation's most available,
reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy source. It seems to me,
while we spend a lot of money, time, and energy on unproven resources,
this is one that has stood the test of time. As a matter of fact, it is
one of the beginning sources of energy not only in the United States
but around the globe, and if we should be spending any of our
resources, this is one that we know. This is one that is in every
community. This is one that is clean. This is one that doesn't create
too much noise for people, and it doesn't hurt fish. All it does is
produce power without doing anything else, so it is hard to argue why
we wouldn't be in support of this amendment and this program.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his
cosponsorship of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, again, this is a modest increase in the Water Power
Program, which supports hydropower technology as well as new and
innovative solutions, like hydrokinetic renewable energy.
I urge the support of this bipartisan amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 21, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 27, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for
the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account by $2 million for
the SuperTruck II program.
The SuperTruck program was initiated by the Department of Energy to
improve freight and heavy-duty vehicle efficiency. The Appropriations
Committee acknowledged the success of the

[[Page H2649]]

SuperTruck I in their committee report, but, unfortunately, it
recommended only $8 million of the requested $40 million for the
SuperTruck II program to further improve the efficiency of these
vehicles. SuperTruck II will continue dramatic improvements in the
freight efficiency of heavy-duty Class 8 long-haul and regional-haul
vehicles through system level improvements. These improvements include
hybridization, more efficient idling, and high efficiency HVAC
technologies.
By increasing the funding for the SuperTruck program by just $2
million, it will allow the Department of Energy to better achieve their
freight efficiency goals. It will be good for the environment. It will
be good for the trucking community. It will be good for America. This
amendment is offset via a decrease in the departmental administration
account.
I would like to thank Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur for
their hard work on the bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''
on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Byrne

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

Page 21, Line 5
In the ``Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy'' account,
after the aggregate dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by
$1,657,774,000)''.
Page 21, Line 6
In the ``Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy'' account,
after the dollar amount relating to program direction, insert
``(reduced by $150,000,000)''.
Page 57, Line 11
In the spending reduction account, after the dollar amount,
insert ``(increased by $1,657,774,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to strike all funding of
the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
program.
This program, under the Department of Energy, allows the government
to invest millions--indeed, over $1 billion--of taxpayer money in high-
risk research and development schemes for green energy projects. The
government should not be in the business of subsidizing the research
and development initiatives of individual companies. Let's be clear.
Competition and innovation have been key aspects of the private
sector's success in our country from day one, and the government should
not take the role of a private investor.
Every business has a bottom line, which is itself a direct incentive
for developing methods for becoming more energy efficient and
innovative. By subsidizing this small sector of the energy economy, we
are essentially allowing the Department of Energy to spend millions of
taxpayer dollars on unconventional energy initiatives and projects that
place taxpayer dollars at risk and that are not likely to produce a
return on investment.
We as a Congress have continuously stated the need for an all-of-the-
above energy strategy, but continued investment into the EERE program
focuses on the small portion of a largely unproductive portion of the
energy sector at the expense of more traditional energy sources, such
as fossil fuels and nuclear, which have a proven, reliable track
record.
I do want to applaud Chairman Simpson and the entire committee for
their work on this bill. I know they face many tough choices when it
comes to preparing these bills, and I do appreciate their hard work.
Ultimately, the American people are sick and tired of a Federal
Government that continues to recklessly spend taxpayer dollars. They
want to see Congress make the tough choices and rein in wasteful
spending. I believe that eliminating funding for the EERE program would
be a step in the right direction. It would be a small step toward
restoring fiscal sanity in Washington. At a time when many Americans
and small businesses continue to struggle, we must focus on reasonable
energy strategies that allow for the most affordable and reliable
energy resources for consumers and businesses alike.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we have now seen amendments to put more
money into the EERE and amendments to take money out of the EERE and
now an amendment to eliminate the EERE.
I have to rise in opposition to this amendment. This bill supports an
all-of-the-above approach to utilize our abundant natural resources and
advance energy in new technologies to increase our energy security. A
part of that approach includes strategic investments in the EERE
accounts.
I agree that there are many activities in this program that could use
a closer and more critical look. That is why this bill focuses funding
on basic technological research and manufacturing advancements in this
account. The bill reduces the EERE by $266 million over last year's
level, but this amendment, I believe, would go too far. I must support
the strategic balance of this bill. Therefore, I must oppose my
colleague's amendment, and I urge others to do the same.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. I appreciate the chairman's yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I first want to invite the gentleman from Alabama to Ohio to see part
of the new energy sector in our country. It is absolutely incredible,
and it does involve high-level research to produce new energy
technologies. I support nuclear, and I support fossil-based research,
but I also support coal and tidal energy and wind and biofuels and
geothermal--all of them--because we need them.
New investment in clean energy in our country in 2013 totaled $36.7
billion. The leading company in solar in our country and, frankly,
globally is a U.S.-born company--born in Ohio--called First Solar. You
mentioned nonproductivity. Their stock is sold on Wall Street. They
benefited early on in that company's life by photovoltaic research
beginning back in the 1970s and 1980s at the U.S. Department of Energy.
It is really incredible to see the future being born, and I am hoping
Alabama can take advantage of that kind of technology.
What concerns me, and one of the reasons I am on my feet at this
point, is that they have competition from China. The first and second
companies in the world that are being subsidized by the Chinese
Government are in tough competition with the U.S.-born company, and we
can't ignore the fact that global venture capital and private equity in
new investment in clean energy increased from $1.4 billion in 2004 to
$4.4 billion in 2013. The question is: Where is that going to be
invested--in our country or someplace else?

{time} 2315

So I would just say that we have made tremendous progress in an all-
of-the-above strategy. Renewable sources now account for 23 percent of
all electricity generation globally. That is amazing progress. We are
learning how to work in conjunction with the Earth.
Who would ever have guessed that ethanol would now consume 10 percent
of what you put in your tank? People said you can't even get to 1
percent. Now they are looking to 15 percent. It is unbelievable what is
happening in these fields.
I appreciate the gentleman wanting to be responsible. I think we are
being responsible in providing an all-of-the-above bill, including new
energy technologies that will help our country in future generations so
we no longer have to be dependent on imported energy, which I view as
our chief strategic vulnerability.
I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to
the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. I rejoice with the gentlewoman from Ohio that there is a
company there that is making money. We should always be about American
companies making money. But if they are making money, they don't need a

[[Page H2650]]

subsidy from the government. I would like you to come to Alabama, where
coal miners are losing their jobs because we have a war on coal in this
country.
We give lip service to all-of-the-above, and then the administration
has a deliberate policy of attacking coal as a means of energy for our
country and putting people out of work. So I would invite you to come
down and see the suffering of our people because of that one-sided
strategy: we are going to attack coal, but we are going to give money
to alternative energy. There is something wrong with that.
So I understand the gentlewoman wants to stand up for a great company
in Ohio--I would love to come see it--because I think an all-of-the-
above strategy is good for America, but we are picking winners and
losers with this money, and the administration is picking losers by
attacking coal as a source of energy and a source of jobs for our
American people. So I would hope that we would care as much about those
coal miners in West Virginia and Kentucky and Alabama.
Ms. KAPTUR. And Ohio.
Mr. BYRNE. And Ohio as we do about these alternative energy programs
that we are subsidizing. No one is subsidizing those coal miners; no
one is subsidizing their families that have lost their means of living,
but we are going to subsidize all these other companies--maybe they are
doing good things, maybe they are not--because we have a lopsided
understanding about how to produce energy in this country.
Let the energy sector go. Let oil and natural gas and coal go. Look
what we have done to the price of oil and the price of gas just over
the last year because they have innovated on their own. They don't need
the government to innovate for them. They need the government to get
out of their way.
If the gentlewoman wants to respond, I would be happy to yield to
her.
Ms. KAPTUR. I just wanted to say Ohio is a major coal-producing
State.
Mr. BYRNE. Then you understand what I am saying.
Ms. KAPTUR. We will have more coal-fired utilities shut down in Ohio
than almost any other State, so I identify with what the gentleman is
saying. Frankly, I think that we, as a country, have to be much more
responsive to our miners and to coal country USA. I represent the
largest coal shipping port on the Great Lakes. I fully appreciate what
you are saying.
I supported that industry from the day I got here. I have supported
research into the clean coal program and continue to do so. I just want
you to know that. We don't disagree on harming any sector. We need them
all.
Mr. BYRNE. Reclaiming my time, I would just say I wish we could put
money into that program like we do into this.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

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

Page 21, lines 5 and 6, after each dollar amount, insert
``(reduced to $0)''.
Page 22, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $691,886,000)''.
Page 22, lines 20 and 21, after each dollar amount, insert
``(reduced to $0)''.
Page 57, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,954,660,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 223, the gentleman from
California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to the
previous one, except this one requires energy companies of all kinds to
fund their own research and development programs rather than continuing
to require taxpayers to subsidize their activity to the tune of almost
$3 billion. It does not affect the funds set aside for nuclear waste
disposal or national defense projects.
For too long we have suffered from the conceit that politicians can
make better energy investments with taxpayer money than investors can
do with their own money. It is this conceit that has produced a long
line of scandals best illustrated by the Solyndra fiasco. This research
doesn't even benefit the common good by placing these discoveries in
the public domain. Any discoveries, although financed by the public,
are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the private companies that receive
these public funds. Public costs, private benefit; this is nothing but
corporate welfare, and that is what these energy subsidies amount to.
My amendment protects taxpayers from being forced to pay the research
and development budgets of these companies. It gets government out of
the energy business and requires all energy companies and all energy
technologies to compete equally on their own merits and with their own
funds.
Last year when we debated similar amendments, we heard of all the
technological breakthroughs financed by the Federal Government, from
railroads to the Internet. We heard promises of future breakthroughs
from this massive expenditure of public funds. I freely recognize that
if you hand over millions of dollars of public subsidies to a private
corporation, perhaps in Ohio, that corporation will do very well. Some
of these dollars might even produce a breakthrough that will then be
owned by that private corporation, and then it will do extremely well.
But what the advocates of these subsidies fail to consider is
Bastiat's dilemma between the seen and the unseen. We see the
politically well-connected company that makes out like a bandit. What
we don't see are the sacrifices that struggling families and small
businesses must make as these taxes are taken away from them. You don't
see small companies struggle by having to compete against their own tax
dollars given to their corporate competitors by a doting friend in
government. Nor do we see the breakthroughs and discoveries that these
dollars might have purchased if they had been made by investors using
their own money, making investments based on the highest economic
return of these dollars.
Politicians using other people's money make investments based on the
highest political return of these dollars. That is the principal
difference between Apple Computer and Solyndra or between FedEx and the
post office. These public subsidies, in effect, take dollars that would
have naturally flowed into the most effective and promising
technologies and divert them into those that are politically favored.
Dollar for dollar, this minimizes our energy potential instead of
maximizing it.
For example, hydraulic fracturing has revolutionized the fossil fuels
industry, and it offers us the very real potential of becoming energy
independent. After the 1973 oil embargo, the Federal Government spent
$1.5 billion on oil and gas production research, much of it on shale
production, and accomplished nothing. The government lost interest.
But private investors renewed research with their own money in the
1990s and began producing the technologies that are used in today's
boom. Public investment failed miserably; private investment succeeded
beyond our wildest dreams. In short, if the technology is promising, it
does not need our help; and if it isn't promising, it doesn't deserve
our help. In either case, we have no business taking from the earnings
of struggling families and small businesses that pay the research and
development budgets of big corporations.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. Hydraulic
fracking has been going on for 40 or 50 years in this country, by the
way.
This year the committee continues its responsibility to reduce
government spending, and we have done that. We have worked tirelessly
to that end. The

[[Page H2651]]

bill already cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by
$266 million below last year's request and $1.1 billion below the
budget request.
The fossil and nuclear energy programs receive targeted increases of
$34 million and $23 million, respectively. The increase to fossil
energy targets advanced research that will increase the efficiency of
power plant turbines and conserve water usage during electricity
generation.
The increase to nuclear energy will support security upgrades for the
Idaho National Laboratory to protect the Nation's nuclear energy
materials and a range of nuclear security programs at the NNSA,
Homeland Security, and other Federal agencies.
Although my colleague asserts the amendment would keep the government
from intervening in the private markets, these applied energy programs
are strategic investments for our energy independence. I appreciate my
colleague's desire to reduce the size of the government. I agree with
him. This amendment goes too far by eliminating the strategic
investments we need to make for our future. I therefore oppose this
amendment and ask my colleagues to oppose it also.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would simply respond to my friend
from Idaho that he is right to point with pride to the fact that the
Committee on Appropriations has reduced EERE spending by 16 percent. He
is certainly on the right track. He is just building a little slowly in
that regard.
We want to help him by doing what is right and restoring to the
private investors the responsibility of using their own money to
research and develop these energy breakthroughs and leave the Federal
Government to doing what it does best, and that is staying out and
letting the private sector succeed.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. McClintock).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The 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:

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, $187,500,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of such
amount, $27,000,000 shall be available until September 30,
2017, for program direction.

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, $936,161,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That of such amount, $80,000,000 shall be
available until September 30, 2017, for program direction
including official reception and representation expenses not
to exceed $10,000.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McClintock) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, 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.
2028) making appropriations for energy and water development and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________